Uh oh: Romney refuses to sign pro-life group’s pledge

posted at 8:38 pm on June 17, 2011 by Allahpundit

Doubling down on RomneyCare, confirming that he believes in climate change, now this. Say this for him: At least he’s not a total pander machine this time around. He just … seems to be in the grip of a political death wish. I can’t even explain this in terms of him wanting to stick by a position he espoused in the past in order to signal to voters that he’s “authentic” and won’t bend on his principles easily. His position, ostensibly, is that he’s pro-life. This makes him look like he’s inching back towards his pro-choice past. Is he in fact pandering to centrists here, with an eye already towards the general election, or what?

Coming soon from Pawlenty, presumably: A nasty tweet ripping Mitt for forever flip-flopping on abortion, followed by a whole lot of stammering at the next debate. Bachmann, however, just might lay him out.

The [Susan B. Anthony List] pledge also states that a candidate will, if elected president, nominate pro-life persons to “relevant Cabinet and Executive Branch positions, in particular the head of National Institutes of Health, the Department of Health & Human Services, and the Department of Justice.” Such a provision, Saul said, would restrict Romney’s ability to choose his Cabinet.

The Romney campaign would not discuss specific appointees. But among the high-profile names that Romney would be barred from picking for Attorney General, for example, would be former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and former Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge, both of whom are pro-choice.

The third of four bullet points in the pledge is to “advance pro-life legislation to permanently end all taxpayer funding of abortion in all domestic and international spending programs, and defund Planned Parenthood and all other contractors and recipients of federal funds with affiliates that perform or fund abortions.”

This provision would negatively impact hospitals by stripping them of federal funding, Saul said. This could include veterans hospitals, she said.

“The pledge calls for legislation to strip taxpayer funding from thousands of health care facilities and hospitals around the country, and strictly limits the choices a President would have to appoint federal officials,” the Romney spokeswoman told HuffPost.

Every other candidate has signed except for Gary Johnson and Herman Cain(!). The part of the pledge dealing with cabinet members is stupid, I think, insofar as it’s something that Romney, as a famously experienced manager, can deal with himself during the appointment process. If he wants to name Giuliani as AG and has concerns about his willingness to enforce abortion laws, press him on it during the job interview. If Rudy has a moral objection, then he’s disqualified; if he doesn’t, let him serve so long as he carries out Romney’s policy preferences. Every president deals with underlings who disagree with some of their policies. The problem isn’t disagreement, it’s being unable to put that disagreement aside and be an effective administrator of the administration’s agenda. I’d bet cash money that Giuliani, rescued from political oblivion with a cabinet post, would happily play ball with a pro-life White House.

As for the other part of the pledge, which would cut off taxpayer money for any abortion provider or its affiliates, a bill in that vein is so unlikely to pass both houses that even the Susan B. Anthony List isn’t taking it seriously. Said one spokesman to HuffPo, “if anybody in Congress ended up introducing a bill that would do that I’m sure it would not get much support at all.” If Romney gets elected and the GOP takes back the Senate, does anyone seriously think the SBA List will expect them to defund veterans hospitals in the name of punishing abortion providers/affiliates? In fact, the Hyde Amendment already forbids taxpayer money for abortion procedures and the latest Defense appropriations bill specifically bans abortions in military base hospitals. Which is to say, I’m not sure why this provision, which is clearly aimed at Planned Parenthood, worries Team Mitt so much unless they’re leery of getting on the wrong side of PP before the election for whatever reason.

I don’t know. Maybe, per his new ad below, he’s counting on all of these issues to be swept away as voters concentrate more on the economy? Or maybe he thinks tea partiers will line up for him if he’s the nominee no matter what he says or does — which, according to Rasmussen’s new poll, might be true! Even a group like FreedomWorks that’s gunning for him in the primary seems increasingly resigned to backing him if he squeaks through. He’s playing a risky game, but he’ll be well positioned against Obama if he can make it to the general.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Its just pathologically obsessive and weird.

swamp_yankee on June 17, 2011 at 11:57 PM

So is your denial that you aren’t a big Palin (and Palin supporter) critic while being a Romney apologist. I could post links to your comments all night, but I assume, you’d explain them away as lies or bing out of context.

Use all the liar accusations you want. Question someone’s intellect, all you want. But it doesn’t change the facts that people do have concerns about Romney creating a State Health care system, (that’s failed beyond belief) as he squares off against Obama and tries to debate the evils of ObamaCare. I’m not sure how you can deny the concerns. And like i said, when it was him against McCain, I supported Romney. I sent him a bunch of money. But I never believed in a million years he was staunch pro-life as I don’t believe it. And only because he has changed his position on the issue, so many times.

I am only saying that all the other candidates, including Palin deserve a fair hearing.

Don’t call me a liar again.

hawkdriver on June 18, 2011 at 12:08 AM

believe it “now”.

hawkdriver on June 18, 2011 at 12:09 AM

Romney disgusts me.

If he is nominated, there will be a 3rd party challenge. I will be the first to donate to whomever take up the mantle.

Norwegian on June 18, 2011 at 12:11 AM

Romney is all like, “Hey why not abortion? I mean AGW is gonna kill ‘em anyway”.

esnap on June 18, 2011 at 12:12 AM

hawkdriver on June 18, 2011 at 12:08 AM

Link my comments all night, do it. There was that one global warming thread, with page after page of people lying about Romney’s cap and trade stance. I made one comment on a weeks old post stating that Pawlenty and Palin and other are all on record supporting global warming at one point.

That is the basis for your whole whole Palin tirade and re-directing this thread on some far-flung trajectory. Like you’re doing right now, going off on some new direction about health care. Just hijacking threads, making things up, and going off on wold tangents.

swamp_yankee on June 18, 2011 at 12:15 AM

I sure hope this finally ends the stupid meme that Michelle Bachman is trying to get a VP slot with Mitt.

Knucklehead on June 17, 2011 at 8:44 PM

If, as AP put it, Bachmann “lays him out” on the issue, sure. But I have a feeling Rollins and Co. will still be intent on targeting Palin, not Romney. Let’s see.

pseudoforce on June 18, 2011 at 12:16 AM

hawkdriver on June 17, 2011 at 11:47 PM

I am not a Romney fan. I believe he will be the nominee and I’m preparing myself for the day I am puking all over the voting booth when I have to pull the lever for him.

As for the rest of that, it is an indictment on my person and I have no use for it because it has no bearing on the candidates. And exactly who am I swaying to my view? The MSM is doing more than I am doing and they have been doing it since 2008. I feel her political career was over the day she resigned and that is when she lost my support for any elected office in the future. (unless she is the GOP nominee)

Now if all my explanation does is lead you to want to indict me again, don’t bother. It wont sway me to your argument and it leads me to want to ignore you.

csdeven on June 18, 2011 at 12:20 AM

swamp_yankee on June 18, 2011 at 12:15 AM

csdeven on June 18, 2011 at 12:20 AM

You’re both unbelievable. I’m not against anything you’re for. I’m not against Romney. I’m not hijacking threads. I “for” beating Obama. You guys seem to be in that boat too..

Unless of course it’s Sarah Palin that might run against him.

I can certainly link to a lot of threads where you both do everything you can in the way of comments to make sure Palin is always painted in the worst light. Swamp_yankee, I only said you make concessions in Romney’s positions. Unless you like Mass State Health Care, you have to admit, people will have concerns to his ability to get rid of ObamaCare. I didn’t say he couldn’t, I … just … said … that … people will have concerns. Like you two have concerns with Palin.

I’m going to bed.

hawkdriver on June 18, 2011 at 12:29 AM

“I’m” for…

hawkdriver on June 18, 2011 at 12:31 AM

hawkdriver on June 18, 2011 at 12:29 AM

You’re both unbelievable. I’m not against anything you’re for.

I can certainly link to a lot of threads where you both do everything you can in the way of comments to make sure Palin is always painted in the worst light.

Show the comments that “always” paint Palin in the “worst light”. You jump in a thread and make these accusations. I was talking about Romney and the pro-life pledge. Next thing I know, you are stalking me about a single comment I made two weeks ago and making all these untrue accusations.

swamp_yankee on June 18, 2011 at 12:35 AM

stalking?

Grow up.

hawkdriver on June 18, 2011 at 12:39 AM

Meh. This is an unnecessarily provocative pledge and is not in the least bit constructive, and I say that as a religiously pro-life voter. The proponents of the pledge have created a problem where none needed exist.

It’s stupid.

Jaibones on June 18, 2011 at 12:42 AM

Accusations, or a good offense, completely deflects answering any honest comment about Romney’s positions, yes? Or saying anyone who make comment about one of yours is a “stalker”, yes?

Is that easier than admitting voters on our side have a right to be concerned about Romney’s position on abortion or AGW?

Swamp_yankee, you certainly do have a flair for the drama.

STALKER! lol

hawkdriver on June 18, 2011 at 12:45 AM

I’m going to bed.

hawkdriver on June 18, 2011 at 12:29 AM

L8R.

csdeven on June 18, 2011 at 12:47 AM

hawkdriver on June 18, 2011 at 12:45 AM

Still changing the topic, going off on tangents, huh?

Re-read the thread. I didn’t direct anything to you. You jumped in and stated that I hold Palin to “such rigid” standards, out of nowhere. Then, you write paragraphs about an old global warming thread, and continue on some Palin diatribe. None of it relevant to the topic or what I wrote, and most of it taken out of context.

All the meanwhile, I’m talking about Romney and this pledge.

What are talking about now AGW, I cant keep up. Every comment just goes off in some wild new direction.

swamp_yankee on June 18, 2011 at 12:52 AM

Romneycare lost my vote when he was not The Voice leading the defense against ObaMaocare. He should have been screaming it from the rafters.

Slowburn on June 18, 2011 at 12:57 AM

Mittson Romneyfeller.

HalJordan on June 18, 2011 at 1:00 AM

Romney’s support is a mile wide but an inch deep. One big crack in the ice, or enough small ones, and he will go under.

HalJordan on June 18, 2011 at 1:02 AM

http://www.daveweinbaum.com/061611.html

HalJordan on June 18, 2011 at 1:04 AM

swamp_yankee on June 18, 2011 at 12:52 AM

WTF?

First, you make sure you post a list of who can and can’t address your comments on Hot Air. I always kind of thought that was the point of open forum. My bad.

I “know” you didn’t direct anything at me. I commented about one of your comments first. You got me. Oh .. my .. God. You did. You got me. I admit I addressed you first. Please excuse my ignorance to the fact, you need an invitation, I guess, to address “your” comments.

I did say you hold Palin to rigid standards. I’ll stand by it. You also give Mitt a pass on a lot of issues. Excuse me for not rigidly adhering to the exact Abortion issue of the thread (must be some more swamp_yankee thread rules).

My point was that you give him a pass on most issues some people will have problems with. The point also is regardless about whether or not you think I can stay on topic, you never answer any of the concerns to begin with. A-freaking-gin. I basically support Mitt. I honestly think right now, regardless of the meandering polls, he’s probably the front-runner. But he has changed his position on abortion. I, like jaibones commented, think it would be foolish at this point for him to sign any pledge. But I still question his pro-life stance. Okay? It’s a concern. Like people have concerns about Palin. I just don’t call Romney supporters names or insult them.

Are you getting any of this?

hawkdriver on June 18, 2011 at 1:12 AM

You speak to my heart Janny! I’ll never give up this fight either. When all those around us who call themselves “Conservatives”; say the life of a baby is not so important when there are more serious issues like fiscal conservatism, I’ll continue to concede that I’ll owe my allegence to a tenet of belief rather than a political party.

hawkdriver on June 17, 2011 at 11:08 PM

Thank you, hawkdriver. I have a 16 year old kid playing video games right now, who wouldn’t be here, if his mother hadn’t chosen life, and chosen to allow us to adopt him and give him a good home. I think of all the childless couples, and all of the other children that could have been placed in good homes, if their mother had only chosen life.

I have been pro-life for as long as I have understood what abortion was. I will never waver on abortion. Not ever.

JannyMae on June 18, 2011 at 1:37 AM

Anti-Second Amendment. Pro single payer. Pro Amnesty. Now can’t even find his voice re abortions. Sounds like Snowe and Collins.

pat on June 18, 2011 at 2:38 AM

Meh. This is an unnecessarily provocative pledge and is not in the least bit constructive, and I say that as a religiously pro-life voter. The proponents of the pledge have created a problem where none needed exist.

It’s stupid.

Jaibones on June 18, 2011 at 12:42 AM

Yep. Pledges often do that.

a capella on June 18, 2011 at 2:53 AM

The proponents of the pledge have created a problem where none needed exist. It’s stupid.
Jaibones on June 18, 2011 at 12:42 AM

Yep. Pledges often do that.
a capella on June 18, 2011 at 2:53 AM

A fart and a gesundheit!

Thanks but NO THANKS! The meme being foisted off here is that its OK to poke holes in unborn skulls and snip the brain stem, at least untill we get our fiscal house in order.

If the RINO SOB Technocrati can’t pledge that babykillers and babykilling won’t be a part of his Admin, he earns NO SUPPORT from Conservatives of any stripe!

This deadly habit of submission to the GOP expediency position of “go along to get along”, such that the Leftist agenda advances 2-steps, while we mark-time and pat ourselves on the shoulder, for being so acommodating MUST END – NOW!

The war to recapture the dignity of the Republic will continue long after 2012! However we must begin this fight for the future with honor, and a committment to protecting the most defenceless and helpless citizens, the unborn.

“Let’s Roll”

On Watch on June 18, 2011 at 4:07 AM

I voted for McCain in the last election. I disagreed with him on about everything, considered him more moderate Democrat than Republican, but know McCain is a genuine patriot, brave and decent, a man who loves his country as much as I do, and certainly better than the alternative. So I voted for him.

But Romney? People–the political punditry, blogs, talking heads, polls of the moment–keep telling me Romney is the inevitable winner in the primaries. He’s a colossal fundraising machine with a superb organization, an able communicator, and most importantly, electable, with broad public appeal and so on. I’m sure Karl Rove loves him like a brother.

I refuse to accept Mitt Romney, true believer in AGW and now all-but-undeclared proponent of abortion, is the unbeatable GOP primary candidate. He looks like a president plucked from central casting in Hollywood, sure, but there’s no there there.

I want to see what Bachmann is made of. I want to see her do what Pawlenty, for example, seems unable to do: go after Romney and nail him to the wall, make it clear she’s not angling for the VP slot on a Romney/Bachmann ticket, make it so acrimonious with him that she burns that particular bridge to the ground. Right now, this country badly needs a leader who will take a stand on first principles. Romney, who seemingly holds whatever principles his advisers tell him will sell, would not be that leader.

troyriser_gopftw on June 18, 2011 at 4:21 AM

Why would a Presidential candidate sign such a pledge? This one, or the “no taxes” one, or whatever other ones various groups may devise?

A leader doesn’t unilaterally and preemptively reduce his options.

If I were the candidate (and NO, I will not run) I would reply to the request to sign any of these pledges by saying: “Have you listened to me at all? Then you know what I stand for already, do you think I’m lying? If I’d lie about it, wouldn’t I also lie by signing your stupid paper? If you don’t trust me and my judgment, vote for someone else, by all means. But take your little form, fold it five ways, and stick it where the sun don’t shine!”

But Romney does seem to be running to the middle already. I think it’s premature, he isn’t so strong as he may believe yet. But I understand it. Those of you who would not vote for Romney over Obama just must hate America so much that you would desert her to her enemies because you didn’t get your way.

My grandkids used to be like that. Then they turned three.

I’ll vote for Harold Stassen’s Mummified Corpse if it wins the nomination. And so will anyone else with at least a handful of functioning brain cells.

Adjoran on June 18, 2011 at 5:13 AM

Romney wouldn’t be my choice for candidate but this is a smart move by him. If he signs this pledge then the Presidential debates are going to be all about ‘social conservatives making America am Iran style theocracy’
If he stays away from making large overtures of social conservatism and stays focused on the economy and economics there is nothing to grill him on other than the economy. That is a winning formula all day long. 9.1%+ unemployment is a yoke that will be too heavy to bear for Obama. If you make it easy for him to give him other issues to distract the voting public from he has a chance.
Romney is wise to worry about any social conservative agendas until he is president.
That said, I hope Bachmann wins it all with VP Marco Rubio.

MannyT-vA on June 18, 2011 at 5:39 AM

Good point, MannyT. I never considered that.

I am staunchly pro-life, but I believe that joining organizations and signing petitions really boxes one in. For example, I am very sympathetic to the Tea Party’s main cause, but refuse to accept the label of TP member, as you would inevitably be associated with any other views that any other TP member might possess.

That being said, I would hope that Mr. Romney make it abundantly clear that abortions are not an acceptable means of birth control.

oakland on June 18, 2011 at 6:28 AM

They need to have Obama on a dirt bike motoring over the poor people on the ground, use country western music in the background and a graphic about ‘Coming right now, Americans of every race including Indian and Chinese Americans….’

JimP on June 18, 2011 at 6:49 AM

Romney is a yellow belly. He needs to be a man and take a stand for what he believes in. This guy has no shot at the nomination.

wheelgun on June 18, 2011 at 7:10 AM

I have been saying from the beginning, Romney is a RINO, he is just not what we need in the White House.

old war horse on June 18, 2011 at 7:19 AM

Abortion will never again be illegal in the United States. Get over it….Anything else is a personal pipe dream that loses elections. Let the flames begin………

adamsmith on June 18, 2011 at 7:24 AM

Sadly, if Romney gets the nomination, conservatives with be left with the same terrible choice they had the last time around! Romney’s stand os several subjects should cause conservatives to run to the Tea Party candidates in droves!

GFW on June 18, 2011 at 7:29 AM

i’m shocked you come to his defense when he would support placing babykillers on his cabinet.
unseen on June 17, 2011 at 9:37 PM

Romney should be free to appoint, say, Rudy Guiliani as Attorney General and not be hindered by a pledge which is so broad it covers areas like the D.O.J. But only a fracking idiot like you would refer to Rudy as a “baby killer”. He is neither an abortionist nor a female who could have had an abortion (but you are a thread killer, that’s for sure).

Buy Danish on June 18, 2011 at 7:33 AM

Mittens need to just run as a democrat. Which is what he is.

dogsoldier on June 18, 2011 at 8:13 AM

: Mitt Romney once said, “Let Detroit go bankrupt.” But instead, the auto industry recovered after receiving a government loan. UAW President Bob King tells Ed Schultz why Romney has no chance of winning the Michigan primary-
==========================================================
http://uawcap.youritproz.com/?p=830
canopfor on June 17, 2011 at 9:07 PM

What point are you trying to make here?

Pishposh, why should he have I think this just shows arrogance on Romney’s part. He wants to be DEEMED to be the nominee. bother with the nuisance of an actual primary election process?
karenhasfreedom on June 17, 2011 at 9:15 PM

This is just idiotic blathering on your part. You know what I think? I think that people who demand that candidates sign pledges like this are like Stalinists.

What’s next? Demanding that all women in any [fill in the blank] administration hand over their medical records to prove they haven’t had abortions or, if one is a Catholic, used birth control? Where does it end? One can support both defunding Planned Parenthood and overturning Roe V. Wade and still be opposed to this thought-police pledge.

I don’t see this as a flip flop on his stance on abortion. I actually agree with what Mitt is saying (and I am pro-life). Why would it matter what your Sec of Transportation position on abortion?
ramrants on June 17, 2011 at 9:16 PM

But, but, he might advocate high speed rails to abortion clinics!/

They wouldn’t BE potential Dem candidates unless they agreed with all the things you listed.
Talon on June 17, 2011 at 9:45 PM

That is FALSE. Clinton supported the Defense of Marriage Act. Obama ran on a platform opposed to gay marriage. If they had been forced to sign a pledge like that the likelihood of, say, gay marriage becoming federal law would actually increase, not decrease, thanks to the inflexibility of such an approach.

wasn’t talking about you. i’ll give you kudos you have always stated up front you were a Mitt supporter. it the others I was talking about…
unseen on June 17, 2011 at 9:54 PM

To be clear: I don’t know who I will vote for yet. But I will defend candidates whose positions on issues are distorted. Trying to conflate Mitt’s opposition to signing this awful pledge into being pro-abortion is preposterous. Suggesting that makes him or his supporters “baby-killers” is despicable.

…Instead, my impression is he has treated this whole issue as toxic overall, rather than just perhaps saying, while I don’t agree with this part of it, I endorse these other parts of it. he didn’t do that.
karenhasfreedom on June 17, 2011 at 10:00 PM

That is FALSE. Is it too much to ask that you actually read the links that are provided in these threads and view the facts objectively instead of relying on knee-jerk, emotional reactions borne out of ignorance?

If he doesn’t defund Planned parenthood because he is pro-choice or lacks enough character too fight the prochoice crowd can he really call himself a fiscal conservative?
unseen on June 17, 2011 at 11:14 PM

See above^^^^^^

Buy Danish on June 18, 2011 at 8:22 AM

Oh my God.

This “pledge” should be anathema to any TRUE CONSERVATIVE. To allow the evangelical rump of the GOP to issue diktats like this smacks of bolshevism if you ask me. Moreover, since this country is hanging by a thread at the edge of the cliff, economically and constitutionally, demands that candidates sign pledges dictating their future political decisions in all matters is ANTI-CONSTITUTIONAL, and ANTI-AMERICAN! It is a direct violation of our “democratic-republic” form of government.

What is wrong with Republicans? Don’t they realize they undermine the party with these “social issues” demands? Republicans are pro-life; they needn’t sign pledges to prove it, in such an in-your-face manner to the American public, who are SUFFERING enormously under this administration!

As the nation goes over the cliff in a suicidal freefall, we in the GOP can be SO VERY PROUD that the last words out of our mouths are, “I signed the pledge!”

SHUT UP! This is the stupidest pledge imaginable, and ROMNEY was right to refuse to sign it, as was Herman Cain. I just wish Romney would defend his decision, instead of pandering and waffling about it! And, I’m DISGUSTED AT RON PAUL, who tossed out every value he’s ever held and branded himself a complete HYPOCRITE by shamefully capitulating to totalitarian tactics like this “pledge.”

mountainaires on June 18, 2011 at 8:24 AM

This is a bit off topic…..Get ready for a great clip from the Fox and Friends show this morning. Huckabigot was on and said all candidates for president should resign from the office they hold before running. This way the other candidates aren’t paying the salary of their rivals. Apparently he was pretty 8utt broke that McCain was being paid as a US senator while poor Huckabigot was scraping the bottom of the barrel to provide for his family. He specifically praised Pawlenty, Cain, and Santorum for running for president while trying to put food on the table and pay their health insurance without jobs. Noticeably missing from that praise? Yep, the guy who was excoriated for pointing out that he was actually unemployed….Mitt Romney.

Hahahaha!! Come on Ed, that will generate some great comments!

csdeven on June 18, 2011 at 8:51 AM

Mitt has always been a pro-abort.

Here he demands to be considered as pro abort as his Leftist Democrat rival:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_w9pquznG4

wraithby on June 18, 2011 at 9:10 AM

@mountainaires: Romney fudges everything, so why does he bother alienating so many people? I think it goes more to personality than ideology. He’s a company man where someone like McCain – ostensibly a fellow centrist – is a prima donna. McCain is a contrarian out to spite his detractors. Romney moves in a blue chip milieu in which centrist ideas are adopted as a matter of course to minimize the very conflict someone like McCain relishes. For Romney, the conservative base might as well inhabit another planet. He didn’t reject the pledge for the sake of an abstraction, but precisely because among his set abstractions interfere with doing business.

Seth Halpern on June 18, 2011 at 9:40 AM

Good ad.

Too bad it came from Romney…*blech*

Grace_is_sufficient on June 18, 2011 at 9:42 AM

mountainaires on June 18, 2011 at 8:24 AM

To your entire comment, to your entire thought process; screw you. Your distain for people of faith in your own party sounds worse than your distain for the opposition. This crap of asking evangelicals to forget all their social issues but still fall right in line to vote the way you want them to is no different than the way liberals threat monorities.

We can beat Obama and still pursue our core issues. We can be social and fiscal conservatives. Because in the end, my tenet beliefs are more important to me than your bank account. And I’ll tell you what, when you guys dismiss us in your comments like so much trash, I care about your bank accounts even less.

hawkdriver on June 18, 2011 at 9:44 AM

“minorities”

hawkdriver on June 18, 2011 at 9:52 AM

hawkdriver on June 18, 2011 at 9:44 AM

He does have a point about “Bolshevik” and “Totalitarian” tactics, however inartfully expressed.

This litmus test/pledge wrongly assumes that anyone who is “pro-choice” (or whatever word one wishes to use) is both incapable of following the law AND incapable of following the agenda of the President he/she serves.

Ironically, this assumes that everyone else is as rigid in their thinking and inflexible in their actions as the S.B.A. group.

Pledges like this can set dangerous precedents (as well as having potentially unintended consequences). Used by the other side, Alito might not be serving on the Supreme Court because he’s a Catholic and according to rigid thinkers it is assumes/presumes that a Catholic cannot enforce existing law. It’s already been discussed how Guiliani would not qualify as A.G. under the SBA’s rules. We rightly call out Democrats for using religious litmus tests and conservatives should be consistent here.

Buy Danish on June 18, 2011 at 10:04 AM

More evidence that Mitt Romneycare is running in the wrong party.

As for this

Or maybe he thinks tea partiers will line up for him if he’s the nominee no matter what he says or does — which, according to Rasmussen’s new poll, might be true! Even a group like FreedomWorks that’s gunning for him in the primary seems increasingly resigned to backing him if he squeaks through.

all I can say is, if the Tea Party supports Romney, it is officially dead.

james23 on June 18, 2011 at 10:30 AM

Buy Danish on June 18, 2011 at 10:04 AM

And I’ve said as much.

I, like jaibones commented, think it would be foolish at this point for him to sign any pledge…

hawkdriver on June 18, 2011 at 1:12 AM

It does not change the fact his comment was aimed not just at the point of the pledge, but to bash on evangelicals to boot. I’ve had it with this premise that progressive Republicans do not have a social issue agenda of their own. And while Conservatives are asked to hold their idealism to themselves for the greater good of beating Obama, progressives in the Republican party are busily pushing their own issues.

hawkdriver on June 18, 2011 at 10:30 AM

hawkdriver on June 18, 2011 at 10:30 AM

I don’t see it as bashing Evangelicals for their beliefs. I see it as bashing their tactics.

Buy Danish on June 18, 2011 at 10:57 AM

Politically speaking, it’s bad enough that Mitts is a Mormon. But to be seen as a backsliding Mormon, I dunno, I gotta think that’s even worse…again, understand me, I mean politically speaking.

Knott Buyinit on June 18, 2011 at 10:58 AM

Knott Buyinit on June 18, 2011 at 10:58 AM

Huckabee, is that you?

Buy Danish on June 18, 2011 at 11:00 AM

hawkdriver on June 18, 2011 at 10:30 AM

I don’t see it as bashing Evangelicals for their beliefs. I see it as bashing their tactics.

Buy Danish on June 18, 2011 at 10:57 AM

Maybe I got confused when he referred to us as the evangelical “rump” of the Republican Party. I guess there’s a compliment in there somewhere.

hawkdriver on June 18, 2011 at 11:02 AM

Here we go again . . . . All this insistence on ‘purity’ tests and ‘moral’ issues is going to guarantee Obama wins in 2012. Get a grip and FOCUS: Repeat after me, “It’s the economy, stupid!” We’ve no time to start running off in different directions – social issues should be decided at the State level, period! Keep it out of the general election or we’ll be repeat losers.

Bob in VA on June 18, 2011 at 11:05 AM

He needs to be a man and take a stand for what he believes in. This guy has no shot at the nomination.

wheelgun on June 18, 2011 at 7:10 AM

Are you kidding? He’s just the ticket for the GOP in its present state.

pseudoforce on June 18, 2011 at 11:19 AM

I’ve had it with this premise that progressive Republicans do not have a social issue agenda of their own. And while Conservatives are asked to hold their idealism to themselves for the greater good of beating Obama, progressives in the Republican party are busily pushing their own issues.

hawkdriver on June 18, 2011 at 10:30 AM

Hear, hear.

pseudoforce on June 18, 2011 at 11:26 AM

Knott Buyinit on June 18, 2011 at 10:58 AM

Mentioning a persons religion as a political liability comes off as bigoted. Is that your intention? Because there is no religious test for office. It’s in the constitution. That despicable religious bigot Huckabigot did that same thing last cycle. He mentioned the tenets of Romneys faith as a way to denigrate him with closed minded Christian bigots. Thankfully the rational Christians weren’t fool by it.

csdeven on June 18, 2011 at 11:28 AM

Go figure. Wrongney does something right at last, and he’ll still get reamed a new one. He should just drop out now; going national would just see him shredded even worse.

Frankly, it was all over for him when he didn’t distance himself from the Democrat disaster they pinned on him as “Romneycare”.

Uncle Sams Nephew on June 18, 2011 at 11:59 AM

A Palin thread, a Perry thread, and a Romney thread… It’s like blogapalooza around here.

bitsy on June 18, 2011 at 11:59 AM

He should just drop out now; going national would just see him shredded even worse.

Uncle Sams Nephew on June 18, 2011 at 11:59 AM

He raised $10 million in one day, has decent approval numbers, and leads the pack in the polls. What benchmark should he use to drop out?

csdeven on June 18, 2011 at 12:04 PM

He’s playing a risky game, but he’ll be well positioned against Obama if he can make it to the general.

Um, what?

Well-positioned?

On what?

Government-run healthcare? *bzzzzzt*

Man-caused global warming & cap-n-trade? *bzzzzzt*

etc.

There are so many huge topics on which Obama is vulnerable, and Mitt takes several right off the top of the list because there’s no daylight between Mitt and Obama – NONE.

Mitt will be a disaster.

Midas on June 18, 2011 at 12:07 PM

There are so many huge topics on which Obama is vulnerable, and Mitt takes several right off the top of the list because there’s no daylight between Mitt and Obama – NONE.

Mitt will be a disaster.

Midas on June 18, 2011 at 12:07 PM

Yeah, I’m thinking that skin tone and tax policy may be the only way to tell them apart on a debate stage.

pseudoforce on June 18, 2011 at 12:11 PM

csdeven on June 18, 2011 at 12:04 PM

Midas answered your questions before I could.

Uncle Sams Nephew on June 18, 2011 at 12:13 PM

Romney is RINO scum. He will never get my vote.

SurferDoc on June 18, 2011 at 12:13 PM

Midas answered your questions before I could.

Uncle Sams Nephew on June 18, 2011 at 12:13 PM

He didn’t respond to my question.

csdeven on June 18, 2011 at 12:47 PM

Mitt can’t sign a pledge, he might have to change his mind again and sure doesnt want it in writing. After all we know he is pro abortion, believes in the fraud that is climate change. Americans have to be able to do better than this rino.
If he is the candidate, I will just stay home like the last time. When there isn’t a dimes worth of difference in the two candidates why take the time to vote.

pwb on June 18, 2011 at 12:57 PM

pwb on June 18, 2011 at 12:57 PM

I respect your adherence to your values. I don’t get bent over it because you are such a miniscule minority, your non participation wont make one bit of difference.

csdeven on June 18, 2011 at 1:01 PM

Maybe I got confused when he referred to us as the evangelical “rump” of the Republican Party. I guess there’s a compliment in there somewhere.
hawkdriver on June 18, 2011 at 11:02 AM

O.K., you’re right, I missed that. That being said, and irrespective of his comments, I do think that the tactics used by some Social Cons are very heavy handed and counterproductive – this pledge being an example.

Buy Danish on June 18, 2011 at 1:04 PM

Romney IS RINO scum.

truer words were never spoken

Roy Rogers on June 18, 2011 at 1:14 PM

Romney responds with Pro-Life Pledge of his own.

Buy Danish on June 18, 2011 at 1:21 PM

Romney just took this issue off the table for his opponents in the primary. Nice move.

csdeven on June 18, 2011 at 1:29 PM

Romney isn’t going to be the nominee…

Palin 2012!

CCRWM on June 18, 2011 at 1:53 PM

Romney responds with Pro-Life Pledge of his own.

Buy Danish on June 18, 2011 at 1:21 PM

Moves like a RINO

Roy Rogers on June 18, 2011 at 2:03 PM

O.K., you’re right, I missed that. That being said, and irrespective of his comments, I do think that the tactics used by some Social Cons are very heavy handed and counterproductive – this pledge being an example.

Buy Danish on June 18, 2011 at 1:04 PM

The heavy handed tactics of the progressive wing of the Republican Party should fair no better. But it’s there.

hawkdriver on June 18, 2011 at 2:08 PM

Romney just took this issue off the table for his opponents in the primary. Nice move.

csdeven on June 18, 2011 at 1:29 PM

So, he doesn’t make you want to vomit anymore?

Romnista Zealot!

hawkdriver on June 18, 2011 at 2:09 PM

I have little difficulty with this move. (other than marginalizing the SBA List when he could have made a stronger statement affirming its ideals even while refusing to sign it.)

rwenger43 on June 18, 2011 at 2:52 PM

The heavy handed tactics of the progressive wing of the Republican Party should fair no better. But it’s there.
hawkdriver on June 18, 2011 at 2:08 PM

Can you provide some specific examples? Demands that pledges be signed?

Buy Danish on June 18, 2011 at 3:23 PM

Moves like a RINO
Roy Rogers on June 18, 2011 at 2:03 PM

Blah blah blah. You remind me of DUMBO.

Buy Danish on June 18, 2011 at 3:24 PM

If, as Romney believes, fiscal matters truly are all-important and trump everything else in the voter’s minds, it shouldn’t matter one way or another where any candidate stands on social issues.

Knott Buyinit on June 18, 2011 at 4:27 PM

If, as Romney believes, fiscal matters truly are all-important and trump everything else in the voter’s minds, it shouldn’t matter one way or another where any candidate stands on social issues.
Knott Buyinit on June 18, 2011 at 4:27 PM

Oh please! I don’t know that he “believes” that to begin with. Obviously fiscal issues are first and foremost in most voters minds right now, but that does not mean that other issues don’t matter to voters, or more importantly, to him. Obviously ethical and moral issues matter to Romney. Just because he doesn’t sign a fracking pledge which could have unintended consequences does not mean he has abandoned his positions on social issues.

Buy Danish on June 18, 2011 at 5:08 PM

So, he doesn’t make you want to vomit anymore?

Romnista Zealot!

hawkdriver on June 18, 2011 at 2:09 PM

So this where you want to go with this?

tsk, tsk, tsk.

csdeven on June 18, 2011 at 6:00 PM

Jennifer Rubin: An Abortion Pledge Mess

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/an-abortion-pledge-mess/2011/03/29/AGesgYaH_blog.html?wprss=right-turn

Romney-haters need to relax.

nickj116 on June 18, 2011 at 8:40 PM

nickj116 on June 18, 2011 at 8:40 PM<

Thanks! I couldn’t have said it better:

The lesson of this may be to avoid pledges. They tend to be nothing but trouble, both in the primary and general election. They aren’t drafted, as we certainly saw in this case, with legislative precision. It is never quite clear if the point is really to “get” one candidate, and we have no way of knowing whether pledge crafters are communicating with only certain campaigns. The pledges have consequences the drafters never imagined. (Again, we saw that here.) Moreover, they detract from the central premise of a campaign: to select a candidate whose views and judgment voters trust. There’s no pledge for that. Making candidates hop each time a special-interest group squawks hardly makes the contenders seem presidential.

Ding. Ding. Ding.

CC: Jim DeMint

Buy Danish on June 18, 2011 at 9:52 PM

Red State, which is no fan of Mitt Romney, has concluded that Mitt Romney and Herman Cain did the right thing in not signing the document.

Conservative Samizdat on June 18, 2011 at 11:20 PM

Making candidates hop each time a special-interest group squawks hardly makes the contenders seem presidential.

Excellent. Very well put.

Mitt Romney refuses to sign a pledge to alienate a majority of American voters. What a shock.

This is a national election, not a CPAC one.

Moesart on June 18, 2011 at 11:34 PM

Pledges are a way to make unacceptable candidates appear to be acceptable. They grant the candidate unearned credibility on a subject that has no basis in reality. They give credibility to those who push the pledge, as if they have any credibility of picking candidates that will factually convert to being beneficial to a cause.

Endorsements based on a candidates long term views and particularly actual actions are where we should look for leaders on your particular issues. George Herbert Walker Bush Sr. “Read my lips, no new taxes” pledge should pretty much put the value of these things to rest. Once in office, a politician will do what comes naturally to them.

astonerii on June 19, 2011 at 12:00 AM

Just off hand I would say that the pledge in question is utterly incompatible with both the Constitution and the push towards smaller government. For once Romney did the right thing. Whether he did it for the right reasons or not is up for question.

{^_^}

herself on June 19, 2011 at 1:39 AM

“In Utah he was anti-choice.
In Mass he was pro-choice
…Mitt Rommny is Multiple Choice”

To paraphrase:
Flip Flop Fly don’t care if I lie
just let the babies die~~~
women surely won’t mind,
with a parental plan to choose,
just an empty pair of baby shoes~~~

300,000 + planned parenthood abortions in a year! At that rate we’ll be able to import many more immigrants to replace the castoff American citizens sent to their early graves in burn bags! Smell it yet Mitt?!

“Let’s Roll”

On Watch on June 19, 2011 at 2:35 AM

What benchmark should he use to drop out?

csdeven on June 18, 2011 at 12:04 PM

Um, the benchmark that there’s precious little difference between him and Obummer? Or do you think America really is dumb enough to not notice? (it’s possible I suppose)

Uncle Sams Nephew on June 21, 2011 at 6:43 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3