Mitt is really a social conservative Vote for Rudy he's the only one that can beat Hillary
What is wrong with a TRUE conservative showing up and leading the way??
Posted on 02/24/2007 8:54:37 AM PST by sevenbak
The Best Choice Is Also a Good Choice Why social conservatives should support Mitt Romney for president.
By James Bopp Jr.
It would be foolish to imagine that social conservatism can achieve any significant success without a president who strongly supports social conservative positions. The reason for this lies primarily in the president’s power to appoint judges. Social policy in America has been largely shaped by the federal judiciary, which has imposed an unrelenting liberal agenda on a reluctant people. The law, as it concerns the issues of abortion, religious freedom, pornography, gay rights, sexual license, family, and marriage, has been shaped and even determined by judicial fiat. Presidential leadership is vital to reversing these affronts.
There is no doubt that Governor Mitt Romney is running unabashedly as a pro-life and pro-family candidate for president and that he wants Roe v. Wade overturned. But his sincerity is being questioned because, as he has acknowledged, he has changed his mind on these issues. In 1994, in his race against Teddy Kennedy for the U.S. Senate, and in his 2002 race for governor of Massachusetts, Romney was pro-choice on abortion. So it is right to question him about the sincerity of his conversion.
Romney’s conversion was less abrupt than is often portrayed. In his 1994 Senate run, Romney was endorsed by Massachusetts Citizens for Life and kept their endorsement, even though he declared himself to be pro-choice, because he supported parental-consent laws, opposed taxpayer-funded abortion and mandatory abortion coverage under a national health insurance plan, and was against the Freedom of Choice Act, which would have codified Roe v. Wade by federal statute. In 1994, NARAL’s Kate Michelman pronounced him a phony pro-choicer. “Mitt Romney, stop pretending,” she demanded. “We need honesty in our public life, not your campaign of deception to conceal your anti-choice views,” she said. Some conservative Boston newspaper columnists view it similarly. As Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe put it: “Romney’s very public migration rightward over the last few years is . . . intended not to hide his real views but to liberate them. In 1994, Romney struck me as an extraordinarily bright, talented, and decent man — and a political neophyte who fell for the canard that the only way a conservative could win in Massachusetts was by passing for liberal.”
In 2001, Romney said, in a letter to the Salt Lake Tribute, that he believes that “abortion is the wrong choice, but under the law it is a choice people have.” And in the 2002 governor’s race, Romney made clear that “on a personal basis, I don’t favor abortion,” that he opposed lowering the age at which minors could obtain abortions without parental consent to 16, and that he supported a ban on partial-birth abortions, but that, as governor, he would “protect the right of a woman to choose under the law of the country and the laws of the commonwealth.” As one Boston commentator observed, Romney’s “abortion statements sound as much like someone trying to wrestle with the issue as someone trying to weasel his way out of it.”
Romney now says that he was wrong about abortion in those years, that his position has “evolved and deepened” as governor, and that he is “firmly pro-life.”
The evaluation of Romney’s conversion needs to be considered in light of the pro-life movement’s consistent effort over the years to educate, and thereby convert, people to the cause. The pro-life movement has aggressively promoted conversion and has achieved great success in doing so. Today, for the first time since Roe v. Wade, a majority of Americans identify themselves as pro-life, and many of these are converts, some who have even had abortions themselves. Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush, both pro-life presidents, were converts. In 1967, Reagan, as governor of California, signed into law the nation’s most permissive abortion law, and, in 1980, Bush ran as an unabashedly pro-choice candidate. Both were unswerving in their support for the pro-life position as president, and Reagan’s ability and willingness to articulate the pro-life position was invaluable.
Yet how is the sincerity of a conversion to be measured? There are two salient considerations in this regard: first, some defining moment that prompted a change of heart; second, the fact that deeds speak louder than words. Romney’s conversion exhibits both. First, Romney has had a life-changing event. It was when he was governor and researchers were proposing embryonic cloning at Harvard. As he recounts it, one of the researchers said that there “wasn’t a moral issue, because . . . they destroy the embryos at 14 days.” Romney said that “it struck me that we have so cheapened the value of human life in this country through our Roe v. Wade decision that someone could think that there is no moral issue to have racks and racks of living human embryos and then destroying them at 14 days.”
This was not a trivial matter for Romney and his family. As he told the New York Times at the time, “My wife has MS and we would love for there to be a cure for her disease and for the diseases of others. But there is an ethical boundary that should not be crossed.”
And Romney, as governor, acted on these convictions. He vetoed an embryonic cloning bill; he vetoed a bill that would allow the “morning after pill” to be acquired without a prescription on the grounds that it is an abortifacient; he vetoed legislation which would have redefined Massachusetts longstanding definition of the beginning of human life from fertilization to implantation; and he fought to promote abstinence education in the classroom. One should not underestimate the tremendous political price that Governor Romney paid in Massachusetts for these acts. Both conviction and courage are necessary for effective pro-life leadership, and Romney, in office, displayed both.
These actions as governor have lead leaders of the most important social conservative groups in Massachusetts, including Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Massachusetts Family Institute, and the Knights of Columbus, to observe that, while previous comments by Romney “are, taken by themselves, obviously worrisome to social conservatives including ourselves, they do not dovetail with the actions of Governor Romney from 2003 until now — and those actions positively and demonstrably impacted the social climate of Massachusetts.” They conclude that Romney “demonstrated his solid social conservative credentials by undertaking” these actions, and has therefore “proven that he shares our values, as well as our determination to protect them.”
Many social conservatives do not share Romney’s Mormon faith, but his faith should be viewed by social conservatives as a good sign, not as a matter of concern. The Mormon religion, while having tenets that Christians do not share, is profoundly conservative in its support for life, family, and marriage. Thus, Romney’s religion reinforces, rather than conflicts with, his conversion. All people of faith believe that the best public officials are those with God, not man, at the center of their lives.
It cannot be forgotten, however, that this is also a political question, a matter of practical choices. And what are these choices? Senator John McCain and Mayor Rudy Giuliani are the other leading candidates for the Republican nomination. Barring the unlikely emergence of some conservative alternative in the next few months, the choice will be between Giuliani, McCain, and Romney. While both Giuliani and McCain would be vastly superior to any of the prospective Democrats, there are serious questions about the policy positions of both, and not just on social conservative issues.
Giuliani is simply not a social conservative. He is pro-choice, pro-partial birth abortion, and pro-special rights for homosexuals. He is also pro-gun control. Senator McCain opposes the federal marriage amendment, supports embryonic stem-cell research, and was a ringleader of the Gang-of-14 compromise that made it easier for Democrats to block President Bush’s judicial nominees. Also, he is the principal sponsor of the McCain-Feingold bill, which imposes severe limits on the participation of citizens groups and political parties in our representative democracy.
It is unlikely that there will be any social conservative in this race to rival Giuliani and McCain other than Governor Romney. And Romney’s record on other conservative issues is impressive as well. He has demonstrated his administrative ability in successfully managing a variety of organizations in the private (his venture-capital firm), the nonprofit (Salt Lake City Olympics), and the public (as governor) arenas. Romney’s views on economic and foreign affairs are thoroughly conservative, his ability to effect them is enviable, and, just as importantly, his skill at articulating them is superb.
Whatever one thinks about Romney’s conversion, and I believe it is sincere, the fact remains that Romney opposes public funds for embryo-destructive research that McCain and Giuliani support. Romney has fought for a federal marriage amendment and McCain and Giuliani oppose one. There is the simple question of whether social conservatives want someone who is currently on their side or someone who currently opposes them.
— James Bopp Jr. is a lawyer who focuses on nonprofit corporate and tax law, on campaign finance and election law, and on life issues. He most recently joined the Romney Presidential campaign as a special adviser on life issues, an unpaid position.
Jan 30, 2007; Governor Mitt Romney Announces Support of James Bopp, Jr.
Positioned right of McCain and without the dendril plaque. Yeah he's looking okay right here.
(I'll care in a year or so)
Is this the same Mitt Romney as the Mitt Romney, former governor, Mass., who recently garnered 12 percent of the republican poll for president?
THis spineless rino goes which ever way the wind is blowing. I will not vote for him.
>>>Woo Hoo!!! Only two more years of this presidential campaign cr*p...
No shiite.
Romney is nothing but bad news.
Are you married?
"There is no doubt that Governor Mitt Romney is running unabashedly as a pro-life and pro-family candidate for president"
There's no doubt he's running as one, but there's plenty of doubt as to whether he actually is one, given his many past pronouncements while governor of Massachusetts.
How about you judge for yourself.
Yes
I could have guessed your tagline simply by reading your comment
Nothing contrary to that statment. His personal views, and views politically in a state that could not, and would not not change are different.
His actual record as governor: He vetoed an embryonic cloning bill; he vetoed a bill that would allow the “morning after pill” to be acquired without a prescription on the grounds that it is an abortifacient; he vetoed legislation which would have redefined Massachusetts longstanding definition of the beginning of human life from fertilization to implantation; and he fought to promote abstinence education in the classroom.
"As one Boston commentator observed, Romney’s “abortion statements sound as much like someone trying to wrestle with the issue as someone trying to weasel his way out of it.”
There is a better way to live with our fellowman and still keep our convictions.
I think Romney and Giuliani both have problems as pro-life candidates. Whom do we believe, Romney, who seems to trim his views according to voter polls, or Giuliani, who is honest but so far has refused to commit himself to a pro-life stance?
For the moment, I'm suspending judgment.
Bopp naturally wants a reliable pro-life candidate, and so do I. But I'm not yet ready to commit myself to either of them.
Nor will I commit to Duncan Hunter, who seems to be the best of the conservatives, until I see whether he has any chance of winning. At some point, it will be time to vote, in the primaries and the election. That's when those of us not yet ready to endorse and work for a candidate will need to decide, and persuade our friends to do the best possible.
Oh, really? Well, just what is that record?
The writer states Giuliani is anti-RKBA and pro-gay without saying that Romney breaks the other way on these issues.
Has Romney signed a "shall-issue" pistol-licensure bill? Vetoed a gun-grab? Vetoed other Million Moms/Handgun Control/VPC legislative initiatives? Interposed his office in attempts to sue firearms manufacturers for criminal abuse of firearms?
And we know about all the support that has just gushed from Romney's office and fax machine for social moderates and conservatives who are trying to reverse the atrocity committed by the lesbian-coddling Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in imposing, by judicial fiat, homosexual "marriage" on the people of Massachusetts -- thus enabling gay lawyers to commence their long-awaited Article IV assault on the institution of marriage in federal court. An assault that has heretofore been frustrated by the utter nonexistence of homosexual "marriage" in any State of the Union, until Massachusetts's SJC deliberately enabled the gay lobby to sue the other 49 States in federal court.
Massachusetts gave the entire institution of marriage away on Mitt Romney's watch. How does that make him not "pro-special rights for gays"?
The only things on Romney's record that say "conservative" to me are his membership in the Mormon Church and his bachelor's degree from Brigham Young. Everything else I see says "Harvard Law" and "Bay State Liberal". Yuck! Ptui!
It's unbelievable how stupid the author and others believe 'we' are considering this POS. He's no better than Clinton, and both are only fooling idiots with their current 'positioning' on any given subject, IMO.
Well said. It's far out, but I posted this because I don't think Romney's getting a fair shake from the freeper community this early out. A simple look at his myriad of high rolling conservative endorsements (like James Bopp Jr.) who are in the know, so to speak, is enlightening.
Time will be the great qualifier, that's for sure!
Mitt is really a social conservative Vote for Rudy he's the only one that can beat Hillary
What is wrong with a TRUE conservative showing up and leading the way??
So far it's Hunter, Brownback or Huckabee for me. Romney is my least favorite, and that's saying a lot when McCain is in the mix.
This is a great article. Thanks for the post.
Those were the same words Bush used when he was running but when he got a chance to nominate the right Judges for Suspreme Court Bush did that!
As Governor Romney had NO authority over the "womens right issue" one way or the other we got to use our brains much better then the "sound bite voters"!
Did not Romney say "Please do not label me pro anything?"
Personally Romney believed in the sanctity of Life, but the voters are all caught up in buzz words and as Governor Romney had no say in what the US Suspreme Coruts do!
The media is good at confusing the issue!
Just how did Romney implement Gay Marraige when he is against same-sex Marriage?
Did he write the Bill etc?
Do you know what a Social Conservative is?
I don't think the Freeper community is in a very good mood about the presidential race at the moment. And I can't say that I blame them.
Hopefully people will refrain from burning any bridges.
Those who are working for Duncan Hunter have my admiration. I don't think he can make it this time around, but if he can, more power to him, and it can't hurt for him to become better known and build toward the future. And naturally he and his supporters should hope he can make it.
I think Tancredo is hopeless, and so is Newt. I like both of them, but they just aren't politically feasible, and never will be.
Tancredo is too much of a one noter, which is great for consciousness raising but not so good for a presidential candidate. He will serve his country best by continuing to push for border control and the rule of law.
Newt did great things, but frankly he is weak on the social issues and toward the end of his political career he buckled under and compromised himself irrecoverably. And I don't just mean his divorce problems. I mean he went off the rails politically from that promising beginning. In his latest position statement he doesn't even raise the life issue.
I'm not getting drawn into anything with you - just keep defending your mormonism and leave me out of it.
What about fiscal conservatives and libertarian leaning conservatives? Any suggestions for us?
I don't know what my faith has to do with asking you a question on Socail Conservatism means!
Do you think because I have a faith I don't have say in this election any more than you do?
There's not much further to say. That's the sum total of everything I need to know about him. But come Nov. 2008, I'll be voting the R.
No way. I am tired of being railroaded by those that want to push off the old reliable rinos to us.
If one has no say in some issues I keep asking how did Romeny support gay marriage when he is against Same Sex marrage?
No one has answered!
Romney had no control over the legislator nor the Mass Suspreme courts!
"What about fiscal conservatives and libertarian leaning conservatives? Any suggestions for us?"
Ron Paul is a candidate. I've long admired the man, who to my knowledge has never abandoned his Constitutional originalist beliefs. His presidential aspirations appear completely doomed, however, first and foremost by his votes on the Iraq war and the troop surge. He opposed both on Constitutional grounds. A politician who adheres so closely to original intent scares people. It shows just how far we've strayed. So, there's your candidate. He doesn't stand a chance, but perhaps his candidacy will provide a bully pulpit of sorts, to aid the libertarian wing of the Republican Party.
I heard ya all taking and repeating gossip yet none will say how Romney was able to promote or to stop that desision for same sex marriage!
Well one person tell me how this was done since you all seem so sure?
Don't expect it, it's allready happened. En Masse
All things even otherwise, I'd take the former. Imagine Congress passes gay marriage laws or partial birth measures? You want the guy who promised or the guy who didnt?
At the end of the day, I'd still vote for the Pubbie who can beat Hitlery (and at least pretends to be a conservative of some certainty ), but that hasnt been completely revealed yet.
I think what seems plain watch the video is that Romney was standing on a long-standing pro-choice record in 2002. Given the amount time between when I posted the comment and posted the reply I doubt you watched it.
I've seen it. It's been posted dozens of times. Still doesn't change his record.
Yeah, his record smells of "road to Des Moines" conversion.
LOL. He must have heard the Voice of God and told not to kick against the pricks.
Now he just has to change his name from Mitt to Britt.
Well that wasn't much of an answer from you!
This thing was set in motion before he was elected and even I would not fall on my sword where it is futitle unless I had some option which as far as I could see there was not.
The citizens have been voting in those kinds of people as far back as I can remember.
Romney had a reality check of what he could do in other areas and he did try to employ a few things to stop it but the deck was stock in other area by the previous govenors including Governor Paul Cellucci.
Nice try at least you tried to explain it!
I have read all of the goings on all along this thing was in motion in the mid 90's and as far as I can see Cellucci dotted the i's and cross the t's before Romney took office!
I will add more on next post!
I am on their e mail list this is the latest report since I can't link Family Leader I will link to the article They Won’t Know What Hit Them The software mogul Tim Gill has a mission: Stop the Rick Santorums of tomorrow before they get started. How a network of gay political donors is stealthily fighting sexual discrimination and reshaping American politics
Yet Romney SUPPORTS embryonic stem cell research. He only says he's against federal funding and cloning, to hide the fact that he holds no respect for the intrinsic value of the human embryo.
James Bopp is either ignorant of his candidate's position, or he has decided to join in the deception.
The court legislated from the bench, he claimed his hands were tied, end of story. You can excuse it all you desire, I can't.
Well than explain futher this is not the end of story if it is legislated how would that be Romney doings?
No one give clear direct evidence only innuendo either spell it out or stop gossiping?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.