Romney told NARAL in 2002: You need a moderate like me in D.C. to influence the GOP
Mitt Romney was firm and direct with the abortion rights advocates sitting in his office nine years ago, assuring the group that if elected Massachusetts governor, he would protect the state’s abortion laws.
Then, as the meeting drew to a close, the businessman offered an intriguing suggestion — that he would rise to national prominence in the Republican Party as a victor in a liberal state and could use his influence to soften the GOP’s hard-line opposition to abortion…
“You need someone like me in Washington,” several participants recalled Romney saying that day in September 2002, an apparent reference to his future ambitions…
Melissa Kogut, the NARAL group’s executive director in 2002, recalled Wednesday that as she and other participants in the meeting began to pack their belongings to leave after the 45-minute session, Romney became “emphatic that the Republican Party was not doing themselves a service by being so vehemently anti-choice.”
The abortion rights supporters came away from the meeting pleasantly surprised. Romney declined to label himself “pro-choice” but said he eschewed all labels, including “pro-life.” He told the group that he would “protect and preserve a woman’s right to choose under Massachusetts law” and that he thought any move to overturn the landmark Roe v. Wade decision would be a “serious mistake for our country.”
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: « Previous 1 2
Mitt Romney was firm and direct with the abortion rights advocates sitting in his office nine years ago, assuring the group that if elected Massachusetts governor, he would protect the state’s abortion laws.
Sorry, meant to Bold that for trogs like Atilla
pseudonominus on November 3, 2011 at 10:43 AM
Wow. I’m a “trog” because I very reasonably accept Romney’s word that he’s pro-life? And your reasoning against this is a nine-year old 3rd hand statement from a FREAKING WAPO article? The same WaPo jackasses that have used their formidable firepower to denigrate every other one of our nominees? Yet this is the source you now want to rely on? How convenient for you. Trust me, if this is the worst that the lame stream mediatards can come up with against Romney, then the White House is ours. If his skeletons consist of being third-hand quoted (yep–from NARAL, via the WASHINGTON POST–no ulterior motives there AT ALL…) from liberal idiots on a meeting from 2002, then we are sitting pretty.
But hey, if calling me a trog (whatever the hell that is) helps you feel better about something, and having to rely on the WaPost and NARAL to do so, then you are most welcome.
AttilaTheHun on November 3, 2011 at 11:17 AM
Perry endorses a candidate vs. Romney pandering to Naral directly, trying to convince Naral that he could reason with us terrible Pro-life folks???
Please Swamp-yankee, stop doing mental gymnastics for Mitt. You’ll just get dizzy.
portlandon on November 3, 2011 at 11:17 AM
Jimmy Kimmel ran a parody Romney ad last night that was pretty much spot on:
Romney’s latest ad
Romney: He’s all you got
Ward Cleaver on November 3, 2011 at 11:19 AM
Oh yeah, you gotta get through Kimmel’s set up first.
Ward Cleaver on November 3, 2011 at 11:19 AM
10 years old gossips is all what the fringes have against Mitt Romney?
Falz on November 3, 2011 at 11:24 AM
Actually, that was John “Empty Suit” Kerry, claiming Jewish roots just before the 2004 New York and Florida primaries.
MassVictim on November 3, 2011 at 11:26 AM
That’s pretty ironic considering the 11+ posts about the 12 year old gossip about Cain the past day or so.
DrAllecon on November 3, 2011 at 11:28 AM
All day long, Romney has been consistently pro-life, supporting pro-life candidates for over 5 years.
All you got is regurgitated 10 year old stories.
Perry is the panderer.
In, 2008, three short years ago, he shunned four pro-life candidates to back a NARAL candidate.
swamp_yankee on November 3, 2011 at 11:28 AM
This will not change a single Mittbott’s mind.
29Victor on November 3, 2011 at 11:28 AM
AttilaTheHun on November 3, 2011 at 11:17 AM
your wasting your time… everyone around here would rather be in the echo chamber piling on snarky zingers.
gatorboy on November 3, 2011 at 11:32 AM
And the gossip about Cain comes out of thin air. This, on the other hand, fits right in with statements & speeches Romney has made in the past. Heck, we have a record of his pro-choice stance on YouTube.
29Victor on November 3, 2011 at 11:33 AM
Ooohhh. 5 years. Wow. What a strong conviction Romney has. This has to be the longest time Mitt has held steady on a decision.
There are life long democrats that have been pro-life longer than Mitt Romney.
And as for the story being from 10 years ago, you are the one always harping on Rick Perry being a democrat 22 years ago!
portlandon on November 3, 2011 at 11:37 AM
No, everyone here would like to find a conservative whose word we can trust. And, if they are anything like me, can’t quite comprehend why anyone would trust a word that comes out of Romney’s mouth.
I don’t have any personal animosity toward the guy, but I see him as a GOP Obama. Very well spoken and focused grouped and willing to say whatever he needs to say to get elected.
29Victor on November 3, 2011 at 11:38 AM
Agreed. Call it a “circular-jerk firing squad” inside a snarky echo chamber.
AttilaTheHun on November 3, 2011 at 11:40 AM
we’re all ears – who exactly would that be?
gatorboy on November 3, 2011 at 11:41 AM
I had a list of dream candidates, but they all decided they didn’t want to end up like Palinized or Cainated.
gryphon202 on November 3, 2011 at 11:45 AM
I’ve made similar posts about campaigning for Obama if Romney was nominated. The people who dismiss you and I as nuts are the ones posting that the debt ceiling deal was a painful victory that “changed the debate”. They refuse to recognize that our financial system will collapse without freakishly radical spending cuts. Romney is not interested, much less capable of championing that. If it falls under him, the riots will be against a “corrupt capitalist system” that crashed under Bush, tried to be transformed under Obama, and then burned under Romney. If it falls under Obama, more Obamanomics will be a hard sell.
Nevertheless, I wouldn’t be believed promoting Obama after naming my 9 y/o Rush
elfman on November 3, 2011 at 11:48 AM
I fail to understand why Romney is the only guy who gets crap for going from moderate/liberal positions to conservative ones. I don’t get the venom.
And he is in no way the GOP “Obama”. What a stupid, trite phrase, with no grounding in reality at all. He’s got an extensive track record of unbelievably positive private sector results, a background that has already been thrown open and picked over once already, with no skeletons. (oh wait–there’s this one skeleton of a NARAL douche quoted in the douchetastic Washington Post about a 10 year old position Romney had that has already been renounced, and pretty authentically so…Man I am worried now…) He’s the freaking anti-Obama.
Are there better candidates than Romney for president? Sure, a few. Unfortunately, none of them are running. So by all means lets take down internally the one guy who will stomp Obama in any debate, (policy, procedure, and otherwise) and throw in someone who will lose.
Romney will win. I fail to understand the vitriol consistently thrown against the guy.
AttilaTheHun on November 3, 2011 at 11:48 AM
Yeah. 5 Years. When he began to run for a national Republican office, the time between that and running for a national Republican office again and now. How convenient.
29Victor on November 3, 2011 at 11:56 AM
When it’s destroyed by Obama’s “mandate” of conservative non-participation, more Obamanomics will be a hard sell.
elfman on November 3, 2011 at 11:57 AM
Because after a lifetime of running and governing like a Leftist, he decided in 2007 (in time for the campaign) to suddenly become a conservative.
It’s hard to swallow that he’s serious and there are grave doubts that, if elected, he would actually govern like a conservative.
Of course, he’s leagues better than Obama… but for now, I don’t have to make that choice.
mankai on November 3, 2011 at 11:57 AM
I’d like to see every Mittbot “Robert Bork is Mitt Romney’s judicial advisor” reaction when Romney got in the general and said like hell Robert Bork was ever that. The script writes itself. “Our campaign welcomed his input, but never……!”
Marcus on November 3, 2011 at 11:59 AM
Exactly gatorboy. But Romney supporters here jump on anyone who hints that Mittens may not actually believe everything he’s saying and, worse, not implement it in office.
29Victor on November 3, 2011 at 11:59 AM
Well if we pro-lifers are “the fringes” and kooky and unimportant than I guess Mittens doesn’t want our vote. Cool.
Branch Rickey on November 3, 2011 at 12:03 PM
I guess you could support Perry who recently endorsed NAROL endorsed Rudy, or you could endorse Cain who knows a thing or two about pretty flowers but can’t articulate his position on the subject.
gatorboy on November 3, 2011 at 12:14 PM
Huntsman is a better candidate than Romney.
Hare to believe, but there it is.
didymus on November 3, 2011 at 12:14 PM
Again I ask–WHEN did we start trashing guys on our side who actually BECAME pro-life?? Or carping about the time frame involved? In 99% of the cases, it is the other way around (Gore, Gephardt, Jesse J, etc.. who go from pro-life to pro choice). Here’s a guy who comes our way publically, in 2004, and we get up in his grill about TAKING HIS PRO-LIFE VIEWS PUBLIC. Even when he was a so-called “pro-choice” politician, his actions, both in his private life (LDS lay clergy) and politician (stem-cell research) were decidedly pro-life.
If that’s a negative, then you guys are stretching.
Trust me–if Romney “flops” back to being pro-choice, I’ll lead the charge with pitchforks. But I see nothing to make that assumption.
AttilaTheHun on November 3, 2011 at 12:30 PM
Romney is completely and utterly unacceptable. I will not vote for him in 2012 if he is the nominee. I’d rather have 4 more years with Obama than Romney. Case closed.
Norwegian on November 3, 2011 at 12:36 PM
Wow, the Mittbots are spinning like tops this morning! Mittens: “Who are you going to believe? Me or your lying ears?”
Bill C on November 3, 2011 at 12:39 PM
Who is more conservative? 1988 Al Gore or 2004 Mitt Romney?
Bill C on November 3, 2011 at 12:41 PM
Seriously, this is only going in the headlines? Or is there a more lengthy post on the way later?
Lawdawg86 on November 3, 2011 at 12:43 PM
This is known as the Cuomo dodge originated by Mario Cuomo to account for the fact that he was a pro-choice Catholic politician. Sorry, you can’t be pro-life in private and “protect the right of women to chose” in public. We aren’t going to fall for that any more.
Bill C on November 3, 2011 at 12:45 PM
Or we can vote for the guy who said this. Which Mitt Romney is going to take office in 2013?
Yeah, I don’t know either.
Bill C on November 3, 2011 at 12:47 PM
Isn’t it funny that all you can do is mock someone for their position rather than defend your candidate for their multiple positions?
You’re nothing but a GOP loyalist that apparently couldn’t give a damn about ideology, unless it’s coming from someone who says things you don’t like to hear. Grow up.
MadisonConservative on November 3, 2011 at 12:56 PM
And Romney supporters don’t understand why others don’t/can’t support him? /s
Palin is out, Cain may be damaged and the rest are not in contention. It looks like HA is going to be a battleground between the Romney & Perry supporters. I imagine many on the Left are feeling a little better about their chances in 2012.
katiejane on November 3, 2011 at 12:59 PM
I like to deal with reality. Of the current field, only Romney is equipped to tackle the Obama machine and win. He’s tested, went through all the mormon crap 4 years ago, and has absolutely dominated the field in every debate he’s been in. He’ll murder teleprompter-loving Bambi in the presidential debates in a way that no one except perhaps Cain could (and I like Cain, but looking at his campaign organization and strategy–he’s not going to be it…).
IF Paul Ryan gets in, I’ll back him in a heartbeat. But until then, Romney’s the guy. And my support doesn’t make me a “mittbot”, but a freaking realist who actually WANTS to get rid of Obama and his sick, marxist regime.
I’m sorry if quite a few of you would huff and moan and take your ball home from the playground and would rather endure another 4 years of the disastrous Kenyan leninist. Boo-freaking-hoo. I don’t think the rest of the country should have to suffer because your panties are in a bunch over whether or not Romney conservative bonafides meet your discriminating expectations. Yeah, those same expectations that have no problems overlooking the inherent weaknesses in other candidates.
Quit whining, pull your pants up, wipe away the sniffles, and agree to support the nominee that will take out Obama. If that turns out to be Perry, Cain, Buchanan, Paul, WHOEVER, I know I’ll support them. You all apparently won’t if its Romney. And that is pathetic.
AttilaTheHun on November 3, 2011 at 1:37 PM
The reality is that he wasn’t even equipped to tackle the McCain machine and win.
elfman on November 3, 2011 at 1:49 PM
Oh noes! Perry supported Rudy! Oh noes!!1!1!!
That’s JUST like telling NARAL you are bedfellows?
Got it. Romney doesn’t want my vote. Got it.
Branch Rickey on November 3, 2011 at 2:13 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2