Posted on 12/21/2007 9:58:28 AM PST by Josh Painter
“I’m committed to promoting the culture of life. Like Ronald Reagan, and Henry Hyde, and others who became pro-life, I had this issue wrong in the past.” - Mitt Romney
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MmY1MTQyMTk0Yjk2ZDNmZmVmNmNkNjY4ODExMGM5NWE
“It’s exactly what Ronald Reagan did. As governor, he was adamantly pro-choice. He became pro-life as he experienced life.”
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,293017,00.html
But, the most disingenuous claim Romney has made, and one that can be assessed for its truth, is his claim that he has grown in his abortion position just like Ronald Reagan did when Reagan was first confronted with the issue while Governor of California in 1967. Romney told Chris Wallace that as governor Reagan was “adamantly pro-choice,” and that Reagan “became pro-life as he experienced life,” and presumably as his governorship evolved.
Romney’s claim, however, is just patently false. Reagan’s most able biographer, Lou Cannon, has documented* that in contravention to Romney’s claim that Reagan was “adamantly pro-choice” Governor Reagan had never really given the abortion issue much thought before he took office. Cannon demonstrates that when Reagan was first confronted with abortion in 1967 he was unusually indecisive and had a difficult time deciding what he should do with a liberal abortion bill winding its way through the state house in Sacramento.
Cannon documents that after the abortion bill passed the California Senate, Reagan was asked by reporters during a press conference about his stance on the bill. When asked if he would sign the bill, Reagan answered, “I haven’t had time to really sit down and marshal my thoughts on that.” Such a reply certainly does not reveal an “adamant” position on the issue, as Romney claims Reagan held. Further, such indecision was not in any way a hallmark of the Reagan mode of operation.
In fact, Cannon writes that in 1968, the year after the bill passed, Reagan said that “those were awful weeks,” and that he would never have signed the bill if he had “been a more experienced governor.”
In light of the evidence it cannot be said that Reagan was ever an “adamant” pro-abortion supporter who later “grew” into an anti-abortion advocate. For Romney to invoke the spirit of Ronald Reagan in this way is a disgraceful attempt to co-opt the reputation of the most famous and successful politician of his age and an icon of the conservative movement to the aid of a candidate floundering on an issue. Mitt Romney’s abortion problem bears no resemblance at all to Ronald Reagan’s views “grown” or not.
Much can be said of Romney and his abortion problem. You can take him at his word that he “grew” into a more staunch pro-lifer or not. But one thing is absolutely sure; Mitt Romney is not like Ronald Reagan in any way, shape, manner or form.
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/huston/070820
If I were watching a 10,000 person march, and MLK was in the march, and I saw my father in the march, I would say “I saw my father marching with MLK. If someone actually was confused by that, they might ask “was he actually standing next to MLK”, and I would say “no, he was in the same march”.
But if it turned out that MLK wasn’t IN that march, I would be incorrect. However, if I thought MLK was in the march, and I said “I saw my father marching with MLK”, my use of the word “saw” wouldn’t mean I should have KNOWN MLK wasn’t in the march.
Now, let’s look at the conspiracy theory. In 1967, Mitt Romney, knowing in 2007 he would run for President, somehow tricked Broder into writing a book which said his father marched with MLK. He then went silent about it until 1978, when he told a reporter that his dad and him marched with MLK.
He then went silent again, until the appointed time, but turing those years he decided that putting himself in the story wouldn’t fly, so he went to just having his father marching, while he was watching.
And knowing it was a lie, he used it in a speech on faith and religion, knowing that someone could check the records and find out it was a lie.
It takes a leap of faith to believe any of that. It is perfectly rational to believe that Romney had come to believe his father marched in a march with King, that he used the story because it illustrated how his father was with King in the civil rights struggle, and in fact conveyed a message that was entirely truthful.
“everybody” is a figurative term, regarding those people who had an interest in the subject. In fact, the claim was made twice, and nobody has presented a SINGLE article, contemporary or otherwise, that refuted those two claims until this month.
But I think I’ve made my argument, and you’ve made yours, and I’ve got nothing to add.
We went through a similar argument a couple of months ago about Fred’s work for an abortion client, and whether what Fred said about it was literally correct or not. I applied the same principle to that as I do here, and gave him a pass, just as I gave him a pass on his obfuscation about the Terri Shaivo case.
His father was involved in those times then. Very involved. There was no need for embellishment be it purposeful or not.
If only that was the only time.
There is a pattern of obfuscation. And you know what is sad?
Most of the things never needed to be embellished and people like me would have had a lot more respect for him if he would just straight talk. But he doesnt. And that will be the thing that causes his downfall...if not for the nomination but when the Dems get ahold of him in the general.
Like I said, if you think we are bad here..just wait.
George Allen knows he’s part jewish.
But he didn’t know that last year. People learn things.
As to the rest of your statement, I’m tired of the gnats and the half-truths they buzz around with.
Charles, it takes a leap of faith the believe anything Romney says. I know you’ve decided on him as your guy, but the fact is, he has a pattern of making false or misleading statements.
It doesn’t really matter what Broder wrote... actually, if it does, it’s more damning to Romney because he’s relying on a third-party account as part of his own “personal memory” that he’s speaking from.
In the past, he completely lied about the subject, inserting himself as well as his father into the image. He no longer stands by that story, but uses a watered-down version where his memory of seeing it happen (when it never did) is still the defining event of the story.
So, even if he has managed to delude himself that it’s actually true, and therefore not technically a lie but rather a fantasy, there’s still no reason for anyone to give him the benefit of the doubt on the subject, because has has lied about the same thing in the past, and he includes similar embellishments in other “personal” anecdotes.
I don't see this as habitual lying. It should be easily seen as a simple mistake.
So you are another person who thinks my daughter lied 4 times on her spanish test.
How many times have you been wrong, I mean lied?
If I were a fred supporter, I’d be combing his statements for the past 30 years, because if you believe that Fred has never said something that was later shown to be false, you are delusional.
In fact, you might start with his changing statements about Terri Shaivo. And then his little comment about the Human Life Amendment (made on Russert’s show). Of course, those are just the past three months, I can’t imagine what you’ll find if you look back a couple of decades.
I sure hope he didn’t say anything false back in 1978. All his supporters here at FR will leave him.
BTW, I’m not going to do this, because I apply the same principle to all the candidates.
Strawman -- and you're better than that, Charles.
Your daughter did not intentionally make four incorrect answers in order to deceive her teacher. (If she did, she was indeed being less than honest.)
There is no foundation, based on what we know of Romney, to accept that he is making an innocent mistake. And false analogies are almost as bad as the false moral equivalences that the more rabid Romney supporters constantly trot out. Please don't become one of them.
Because you know he hasn't been out there making up unnecessary "details" to embellish his own life story.
*Sigh* I guess you can strike my previous post, Charles. You already have slipped into the "false moral equivalence" mode of the typical Mittwit. And so I write you off for good...
I’m not a Romney supporter, but I think FR ought to create a “What the Boston Globe says about Romney” hotlink for daily updates.
Eyewitness testimony is notoriously bad. People's memories rarely match what actually happened with accuracy.
If you think about what makes a "memory", you'll realise how silly it is to even EXPECT that how you "remember" something 30 years later will match how it really happened.
Heck, ask 5 people about something they all just did together yesterday, and already you'll find discrepancies in the stories. Ask them 10 years later, and you'll think they are decribing different events.
When Allen was being accused of using the "N-word" last year, they'd bring some nice old lady out to say "He said it at this party I was at, in the living room", and then someone would say "I was in the living room, and he never said it", and someone else would say "we were in the dining room, not the living room".
I am no dude!
Ya we all do but I am not in Mitts pressure cooker 24/7 even down to his faith and underware.
I wounder what kind of underware others are wearing and do they change them daily!
Before this campaign is over some might have to change them twice a day!:)
“I support and recognize the need for more liberal abortion rights while affirming the legal and medical measures need to protect the unborn and pregnant woman.” - Elenor Romney
If you are going to link threads, I suggest you read at least a few comments first so you don't look silly.
BTW, I'll just remind all you Thompson people again -- no matter how many enemies you make on FR, it isn't going to get more people to support your candidate. It isn't going to magically get those signatures you all didn't collect for him, or raise the money you all didn't give to him.
Apparently you are late to the thread and didn't read the article. Mitt mentioned it in 1978. Another mitt-basher mythology busted.
Romney said they supported him, and they ran a phone bank for him which is support.
I sent Fred Thompson money, and he sent me a nice note thanking me for supporting him. If he went on TV and said “Charles supported me”, I wouldn’t call him a liar, even though I have not endorsed him.
His “endorsement” remark was about his action AS governor, where he worked with them to make an acceptable AWB law.
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.