Sure, and they’ll try, but they can’t paint him as a flip flopper, only a flipper. He doesn’t go back and forth like Kerry did. Just forth.
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 didnt 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 womans 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, hes 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 thats pro-life?)
"Verse 5": And it came to pass that he said that he said later in 2005 in a Boston Globe op-ed thats hes pro-life and the 2 actions he took that year are pro-lifeone action taken in February before he told us in May that he was absolutely committed regards to laws relating to abortion and choiceand 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 doesnt 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 statementsboth of which cant 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 Mormonsee very last lengthy paragraph belowas 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 Ive 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? Its simple. You just dont call yourself pro-choice? And why is that? Because you just dont 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 Mitts 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
Exactly! On a few issues Mitt has flipped. We have yet to see him flop. : )