Unfortunately, they will also have very little body….

PowWow on September 5, 2007 at 5:56 PM

Thank you.

The bottom line is that Romney will say whatever to please his audience. He’s so pro-life he endorsed RU-486, and is committed (his word) to keeping abortion legal. This is the rhetoric of a flip-flopper, not a pro-lifer.

I did not “ignore” everything else, I don’t have time to address it all.

From what I gather you think all abortions should be illegal always. The American people are not with you on that, and they certainly are not on that page in Massachusetts. In order to change the law you need a legislature that will legislate. A little reality is in order here.

The bottom line is that Roe needs to be overturned so the States can decide.

As for RU486, I don’t know that much about it except that it can be dangerous. I’m not sure that calling it an “abortion” drug is really an accurate characterization when taken as a “morning after” pill but I would need to do more research.

Of all this issues facing this Country, it is not on the top of my list.

Goodnight.

Thanks, wouldn’t want to use it without proper credit or permission, you know.

;-} Heh. That’s good. Can I use that sometime? jdawg on September 5, 2007 at 6:30 PM

But of course.

Fred’s gonna make the next four months fun instead of a perfunctory exercise in banal politicking.

Not exactly shocking news, of course: More details–and Mit Romney’s immediate broadside volley–at Hot Air…….

I. Cry.

Also, I guess you think pro-lifers should agree that RU-486 is a good thing – Romney does. Or do you choose to ignore that, also?

Now you’re stretching. What is there to say he can’t work to change the laws???? And he said he believed it should be legal, and he supported choice. Let’s face it, the man is pro-life when it suits him, and pro-choice when it suits him.

I like how you just totally ignored everything else I posted. Especially the part where he said he was “committed” to keeping abortion legal. Yeah, some pro-life position. Up is now down. Got it.

Um, you need to work a little on your parsing skills. For instance the last quote you chose here

jdawg on September 5, 2007 at 7:31 PM

“However, as governor of the commonwealth, I will protect a woman’s right to choose under the laws of the country and the commonwealth. That’s the same position I’ve had for many years.”

So would you have him break the laws as Governor? He is saying he will follow the law.

Moreover, when you use the quote about the family friend you ignore the fact that he believes it should be legal in cases of rape, incest and the life of the mother.

I don’t have time to argue every little point with you, but it’s clear that you are very, very rigid and there is no viable (no pun intended) candidate who will satisfy you.

By the way, you are wrong about classifying Reagan’s issue as “Communism” as if other issues like taxes and his take on social issues didn’t matter.

“However, as governor of the commonwealth, I will protect a woman’s right to choose under the laws of the country and the commonwealth. That’s the same position I’ve had for many years.”

Source: Erik Arvidson, Lowell Sun Mar 20, 2002

2002, not ten years ago. Apparently, not evolved enough…

Romney disclosed that he became committed to legalized abortion after a relative died during an illegal abortion. The disclosure came after Romney, who said he is personally opposed to abortion, was asked to reconcile his beliefs with his political support for abortion rights. “It is since that time that my family will not force our beliefs on that matter,” He said the abortion made him see “that regardless of one’s beliefs about choice, you would hope it would be safe and legal.”
Source: Joe Battenfeld in Boston Herald Oct 26, 1994

Funny, I always thought Romney said his view evolved over time, but clearly this 1994 quote is much more applicable than anything from say, 10 years afterward.

This is the kicker:

Romney disclosed that he became committed to legalized abortion after a relative died during an illegal abortion.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Governor/Mitt_Romney_Abortion.htm

You can say, Reagan, Reagan, all you want – A pro-lifer would not say he/she was committed to keeping abortion legal.

Yes, let’s:

He said he now describes himself as “firmly pro-life,” despite citing his tolerance for abortion rights during his 2002 gubernatorial campaign, after researching the embryonic stem cell issue.

He seems to change positions pretty much whenever there’s an election coming up.

However: Has kept campaign promise not to tamper with state abortion laws.
Said in 1994: “I had a dear, close family relative that was very close to me who passed away from an illegal abortion. We will not force our beliefs on others. And you will not see me wavering on that.”

Sorry, but if he was the staunch pro-lifer some claim him to be he wouldn’t be using left-wing rhetoric to stay in office or get elected. He should have done what he could to change the law – parental involvement, third term abortions, anything?

his comments in recent months have fueled speculation among critics that Romney is hardening his opposition to abortion and other sensitive social issues to gain support from GOP conservatives.

That’s exactly what it looks like – in a word, pandering to the base.

Endorsed legalization of RU-486, the abortion-inducing drug.

A pro-lifer would not do this. Period.

“However, as governor of the commonwealth, I will protect a woman’s right to choose under the laws of the country and the commonwealth. That’s the same position I’ve had for many years.”

Pete Wilson did this too. And no one bought it. this is the rhetoric of a RINO who wants it both ways. And I’m just not buying it. He may be personally pro-life, but his record looks like someone who wants it both ways.

Buy Danish on September 5, 2007 at 6:34 PM

I assume you know that Reagan began as a Democrat, do you not?

I am very aware of Ronals Reagans’ history. His big issue was communism, which put him at odds with the liberals. It’s quite a stretch to compare Romney to Reagan.

I’m curious, if not Romney, who do you support?

I haven’t made up my mind, completely. If Fred gets his act together, I’ll support him, although I do like Huckabee, Hunter and Tancredo. Unfortunately, I doubt the latter three have a snowballs chance. If it comes down to Rudy McRomney, I may take a pass and just vote R to keep Hitlery out.

Sorry for going so long here.

Check out what Michael Reagan has to say about his father, and Romney (and even Guiliani’s) conservative credentials in a piece entitled, Casting the First Litmus Stone.

Sorry, crossed post. I am only comparing Romney to Reagan on abortion, and in the general sense of someone who moved to the right.

I assume you know that Reagan began as a Democrat, do you not?

I’m curious, if not Romney, who do you support?

Let’s parse this one entry, shall we?

Opposes Roe v Wade, but won’t tamper with abortion laws

How could he have changed abortion laws in Massachusetts?

Believes that abortion should be banned in all cases except rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother.

Your problem with that is….?

Vetoed an emergency contraception bill in July 2005.

I thought you liked that.

Said in 1994: “I had a dear, close family relative that was very close to me who passed away from an illegal abortion. We will not force our beliefs on others. And you will not see me wavering on that.”

He still does not believe in forcing his beliefs on others. He wants Roe v. Wade to be overturned and let the States decide which is quite the opposite of forcing your beliefs on others, like the Supremes did with Roe.

snark-o-mania

;-} Heh. That’s good. Can I use that sometime?

It’s a bit of a stretch to compare Romney to Reagan. Besides, I looked at a link that came from the wiki article you provided, so should that question the wiki article itself? What about the other links I quoted from – again, provided by the wiki page you provided? Are all these other pages incorrect as well? And if they are, then what does that say about the wiki article you provided?

The now defunct American Spectator?

Did you not think Ronald Reagan was conservative enough for you?