Posted on 12/29/2007 10:02:01 PM PST by sevenbak
THE FLiP & FLoP SIDE OF MITT
THE PRO-'LIFE'& PRO-ABORTION REVELATION OF MITT ROMNEY
"Verse 1": He said he was “pro-choice” in 1994 & had been since 1970:
"I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time when my Mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years that we should sustain and support it, and I sustain and support that law and the right of a woman to make that choice." (October, 1994 Senatorial debate vs. Ted Kennedy)
"Verse 2": And it came to pass that he said he “didn’t wish to be labeled pro-choice” in a July 12, 2001 letter to a Salt Lake City newspaper.
"Verse 3": And it came to pass that he campaigned hard on being “pro-choice” in 2002:
“I will preserve and protect a woman’s right to choose, and have devoted and am dedicated to honoring my word in that regard… (Nov. 2, 2002)
"Verse 4": And it came to pass that he said he had a pro-life “conversion” after a Nov. 9, 2004 meeting. By May 27, 2005, he’s back to:
"I am absolutely committed to my promise to maintain the status quo with regards to laws relating to abortion and choice." (press conference comment) (So that’s “pro-life?”)
"Verse 5": And it came to pass that he said that he said later in 2005 in a Boston Globe op-ed that’s he’s “pro-life” and the 2 actions he took that year are pro-life—one action taken in February before he told us in May that he was “absolutely committed…regards to laws relating to abortion and choice”—and one after.
"Verse 6": And it came to pass that he said that this “pro-life” governor in April of 2006 signs his "Commonwealth Care" into existence, thereby expanding abortion access for poor women--$50 abortions on sale today via MittCare. He doesn’t veto placing a Planned Parenthood rep on the board oversight of MittCare.
"Verse 7": And it came to pass that he said within two weeks of campaigning in South Carolina in late Jan & early Feb, he makes the following 2 statements—both of which can’t be simultaneously true: Jan. 28, 2007:
“Over the last multiple years, as you know, I have been effectively pro-choice." (Bruce Smith, "Romney Campaigns in SC with Sen. DeMint," The Associated Press, 1/29/07) (OK how could his even later claim that "every action I've taken as the governor that relates to the sanctity of human life..." AND this statement BOTH be true?) Feb. 8, 2007: "I am firmly pro-life… I was always for life." (Jim Davenport, "Romney Affirms Opposition to Abortion," The Associated Press, 2/9/2007)
"Verse 8": And it came to pass that he was asked to size up his changes through the years as an August 2007 interview with Chris Wallace of Fox:
"I never called myself pro-choice. I never allowed myself to use the word pro-choice because I didn't FEEL I was pro-choice. I would protect the law, I said, as it was, but I wasn't pro-choice, and so..."
OK, just even from his own lips, how can he say he...
...“sustains” Roe v. Wade in 1994 (“sustains” is the strongest word possible for a Mormon—see very last lengthy paragraph below—as LDS are asked to sustain ALL their leaders from the LDS “prophet” on down);
...says he is “devoted and…dedicated” to “honoring” his ”word” to “sustain and support” Roe vs. Wade in 2002;
...continue to remain ”committed to my promise” in May of ’05;
...expand abortion services in RomneyCare in ’06 & make Planned Parenthood part of the healthcare “concrete”@ that time…???...
...While simultaneously...
...eschewing the “pro-choice” label in 2001;
...claim that “every action I’ve taken as the governor relates to the sanctity of human life” and looking backward from February, 2007, “I was always for life.”???
Indeed, how can you be? It’s simple. You just don’t “call yourself pro-choice?” And why is that? Because you just don’t “feel pro-choice?” (And we all know for burning-bosom Mormons who determine the truth they base their entire lives upon FEELING is everything!)
Note this from a Mormon taking issue with Mitt’s past commitment to abortion in a detailed explanation as to why the word "sustain" is so important to Mormons:
”In the LDS context 'sustain' has a very special meaning. Whenever someone in a congregation gets a new responsibility (a calling), their names are presented in our sacrament meeting along with what they are being asked to do. This is usually presented to the congregation by a member of the local leadership as follows: 'Brother Jones has been asked to serve as the 15 and 16 year-old Sunday School teacher. All that can sustain him in this calling please show by the uplifted hand.' At this point members of the congregation who sustain the calling raise their right hand. The leader than says 'any opposed may manifest it', and anyone who opposes the calling may raise their hand. To me this is one of the greatest things about the Mormon experience, that when we are asked to do something in our local congregation, we can look around us and see that the people around us know what we are being asked to do, and are showing a willingness to help and support us. It is an exceptional sense of community, especially considering that at the local and regional levels there is no paid clergy. Since as a rule everyone has some responsibility in the congregation, and those responsibilities change sometimes every 2-3 years, sometimes more frequently, there is a very egalitarian aspect to how local congregations are run. We are also taught that once we sustain someone we should do all we can to help someone in their calling, and not needlessly tear them down.... Everyone in the Church from the highest ranked ecclesiastical official on down, is supported by a sustaining. ...Current president of the Church Gordon B. Hinckley said: “The procedure of sustaining is much more than a ritualistic raising of the hand. It is a commitment to uphold, to support, to assist those who have been selected” -Ensign, May 1995, p. 51 ...We take the same approach to sustaining other things, such as the law of the land. Our 12th Article of Faith says that we are to sustain the law. What does this mean? The best explanation I have found is when past President of the LDS Church David O. McKay said: I>“To sustain the law, therefore, is to refrain from saying or doing anything which will weaken it or make it ineffective” -Conference Report, Apr. 1937, p. 28 When we sustain someone or something, and especially when we make that sustaining an overt public act, we take on very specific responsibilities. Support, strength, assistance even when we might personally disagree with something in the person or thing, are all things required of us in 'sustaining'. When Mitt Romney was an LDS bishop he was in charge of the sustaining process every Sunday. On Sundays he didn't officiate in the process, the process was still done under his very close oversight. The LDS concept of 'sustaining' can't be far from his mind when he makes statements saying he 'sustains' a law..." Source: http://massresistance.blogspot.com/2006/12/mormons-against-romney-analyze-romneys.html
Not too many people are farther to the right on the issues than I and I support Mitt, who is running on a pro-life Reagan conservative platform.
What do you think Mitt's going to do once he wins the presidency? Laugh him self silly because he "fooled" us all and then intiate pro-choice and other Liberal policies?
Exactly! On a few issues Mitt has flipped. We have yet to see him flop. : )
We agree.
Yep, that is what he did in Massachusetts, but he won't even win the nomination.
No, it isn’t. Overall, he governed as a conservative even on abortion.
That is why he provided a seat on the RomneyCare Connector board, allowing a $50.00 copay for abortions.
Don't kid yourself. If Romney gets the nomination, his Mormonism will be front and center. What you have seen is just the opening rounds. In the general election, it will be far more vicious.
Reid's Mormonism is irrelevant. The Democrats would sacrifice one senator to win the White House in a heartbeat, particularly one who already has some ethical stain about him.
Mitt Romney will have a huge chore winning back the 10% or more of evangelicals who claim they won't vote for him in the general election. Without those voters, all the states that Dubya squeaked by in 2004 will be lost by Romney. The Democrats know this and will remind the evangelicals of why they don't want to vote for one of those "weird" Mormons. These arguments will also be effective on secular independents who Romney will have to attract if the evangelical vote abandons him.
I reject the premise that 10% or more Evangelicals will not vote for Romney, particularly in the face of Clinton. But, there will be few. My contention is that Romney’s crossover appeal - stemming mostly from his demonstrable family values - will dwarf that contingent.
On the issues of life, Mitt has made even you believe he flipped, but his own recent interviews prove he was just playing folks like you and me for the hope that he would become truly pro-life. Embracing the notion of parents ‘have a right to donate one or more of their embryo-aged children for dissectiona nd research use is not pro-life, at least not to me. Your mileage may vary
Where is the evidence that Romney has any crossover appeal? Since Romney is generally the weakest of the major Republican candidates against the Democrats in hypothetical matchups, I really question Romney's crossover appeal. Many of the independents are secular and would be put off by Romney's devotion to Mormonism.
Don't count on Romney attracting evangelical votes because Clinton is the opponent. Clinton might not be the nominee. Also, evangelicals know that we have already survived eight years of Clintonian secularism. The difference between Romney and Clinton on a lot of issues isn't that great despite Mitt's claims to be a conservative. His flip-flopping and general softness on a lot of issues won't be reassuring to evangelicals. Finally, a lot of evangelicals are far more threatened by Mitt's Mormonism than they are Clinton's secularism.
~”Where is the evidence that Romney has any crossover appeal?”~
It’s an assertion. I don’t need evidence to back up my opinion. I may as well ask you where your evidence is that Romney doesn’t have any crossover appeal. Your hypothetical matchup data isn’t evidence.
~”Since Romney is generally the weakest of the major Republican candidates against the Democrats in hypothetical matchups...”~
You think any of that polling data actually matters right now? It doesn’t matter who the nominee is, given the current political climate, anybody we nominate will have an uphill path. Romney -has- proven that he’s able to gain and hold support as people get to know him - despite Huckabee’s surge, Romney has been basically flat. The same thing will happen in the general if he’s nominated. He’ll market himself and his qualifications, and people will line up behind him, just like they have in the early states.
~”His flip-flopping and general softness on a lot of issues won’t be reassuring to evangelicals.”~
Then why are so many evangelicals evidently so excited about Mike Huckabee? If you want softness on issues, there you have it. The social conservatives are on their way to dominating the conservative coalition - and they could care less what other conservative values they stomp on along the way. If Huckabee wins in Iowa, they will have their way, and the consequences will be severe.
The fact is, people all across the political spectrum value the family. Romney will draw people to him by his staunch defense of it and his sterling example.
I don't agree with Mitt's or President Bush's or LE's position re: assault weapons. Just as I don't agree with he or the President Bush's position on stem cell research, which I think should be banned, period.
But I wouldn't call any of them anti-second amendment or pro-abortion, just because their views are not as far to the right as mine. In fact, I'd say they were both pro-second amendment and pro-life. And I much prefer their views to the truly Liberal views of Hillary, Obama or Guiliani on those two, as well as other issues.
It amazes me that some believe because someone might not be as conservative as they on an issue, that makes that person a Liberal on the issue. Some of us are capable of distinguishing between those conservatives who are less conservative on an issue than we ourselves may be and those who truly hold a Liberal opinion on an issue.
Governor Romney was presented with legislation concerning life issues on several occasions from the 85% majority Democrat Legislature in Massachusetts. In every instance he took the pro-life position by vetoing bills or lobbying for the pro-life approach, including the following actions:
He vetoed the bill providing state funding for human embryonic stem cell research (Theo Emery, "Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney Vetoes Stem Cell Bill," The Associated Press, 5/27/2005) He vetoed a bill that provided for the "morning after pill" without a prescription because it is an abortifacient and would have been available to minors without parental notification and consent (Governor Mitt Romney, Op-Ed, "Why I Vetoed Contraception Bill," The Boston Globe, 7/26/2005)
He pledged to veto any bill that would expand access to RU-486, the abortion pill (Hugh Hewitt, "Interview with Governor Romney," The Hugh Hewitt Show, 7/27/2005)
He vetoed legislation which would have redefined Massachusetts longstanding definition of the beginning of human life from fertilization to implantation (Governor Mitt Romney, Letter To The Massachusetts State Senate And House Of Representatives, 5/12/2005)
He supported parental notification laws and opposed efforts to weaken parental involvement (John McElhenny, "O'Brien And Romney Spar In Last Debate Before Election," The Associated Press, 10/29/2002)
He fought to promote abstinence education in public school classrooms with a program offered by faith-based Boston group Healthy Futures to middle school students. Gov. Romney's administration was the first in Massachusetts to use federal abstinence education funds for classroom programs. (Office of Gov. Mitt Romney, "Romney Announces Award of Abstinence Education Contract," Press Release, 4/20/2006)
“LOL. I would hope there isn’t a lot of open campaigning in Churches, I know Mormons are very strict in keeping aloof from mixing any politics and religion. It’s a big time no no.
Anyone in Iowa here know if any of the churches have been campaigning for Huckabee, or if they plan to use the church buses to take parishioners to the polls on Thursday? Only 1 Sunday left... ;-)”
IMHO, that’s the ONLY reason for Huckabee’s surge in Iowa.
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.