Skip to comments.Right wants Romney as standard-bearer
Posted on 02/09/2008 1:36:43 PM PST by loreldan
Some 50 stalwarts of the political right privately met with Mitt Romney minutes after he dropped out of the Republican nominating race to discuss the former Massachusetts governor becoming the face of conservatism, as Ronald Reagan became en route to his 1980 election win.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
2 Democrat Governors before Slick Willie Weld, Dukakis and Ed King (Dukakis won in ‘74, lost in ‘78 to King, beat King in ‘82). King was a DINO who later became a Republican. King was the best and most Conservative Governor of MA in the past 50 years.
Very impressive and conservative group supporting Mitt.
Credibility isn’t something that can be bought and sold. No matter how much money or time one has.
What you got with Reagan was not someone who, after writing a book, Abortion: The Conscience of a Nation in 1984, didn't slip back (like Romney did) into pro-abortion words & actions.
All you purists would never have supported Reagan in 1976, or 1980, because of his pro-abortion politics in California.
Oh, did Reagan have a 13-year hand-holding affair with Planned Parenthood like Romney did? (attended Planned Parenthood promo events with his wife's $150 check in hand...enough to pay for 1/2 abortion--in 1994; answered Planned Parenthood's political questionnaire all to PP's liking in 2002 + did same for NARAL & Majority for Choice--even personally sought the one for MFC; then put a PP rep as a permanent oversight rep for RomneyCare board...the latter supposedly after he was "pro-life.")
Did Reagan attempt to obfuscate his previous role like Romney did in 2007?
How could both of the following 2007 statements be true? (a) "As governor, Ive had several pieces of legislation reach my desk, which would have expanded abortion rights in Massachusetts. Each of those I vetoed. Every action Ive taken as the governor that relates to the sanctity of human life, I have stood on the side of life." and (b) 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)
And then, of course, 11 days after saying he was "effectively pro-choice...over the last multiple years" he then announces in the same state: "I am firmly pro-life I was always for life." (Jim Davenport, "Romney Affirms Opposition to Abortion," The Associated Press, 2/9/2007)
"Always for life?" (Does he even know the difference?) Reagan did. The 1984 book proves it. But of course Romney's not done there...even before his "parent...donate" embryos for dissection comments to Couric in December, he told Iowa folks in August:
"I never said I was pro-choice, but my position was effectively pro-choice." (Source: 2007 GOP Iowa Straw Poll debate 8/5/2007)
OK...looking at the 1994 & 2002 campaigns, how could he say he "never said" he was "pro-choice?"
(Signs of a serial liar popping up here...What? Are you now going to call Reagan a "serial liar" to bring him down to Romney's level?)
Oh, but Romney's still not done even for August of '07.
He does his 8/12/07 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...
Oh. So now he wasn't pro-choice just because the other side of him censored him...I never allowed myself to use the word pro-choice... Why the self-censorship? All because of the typical Mormon fallback position the most important things in life are determined by "feelings"--a burning in the bosom: I didn't FEEL I was pro-choice (Oh, yeah, that settles it...so why are YOU arguing with him then...he said he wasn't pro-choice, didn't label himself pro-choice, didn't feel pro-choice...now, why did you say he "changed" again? Changed from what?--Since he wasn't ever "pro-choice?"
But others are intelligent enough to recognize that politicians do change, for a variety and reasons, and become strong advocates for the opposite of positions they once took.
And others are intelligent enough to recognize that politicians do change...and change...and change...and keep changing!
He was pro-abortion in 1994, 2002-2004 & May of 2005...but he "wasn't pro-choice" in a letter-to-the editor in a Utah newspaper in 2001 and made pro-life actions in 2005 SANDWICHED between a pro-abortion comment in 2005...but then back to pro-abortion actions in 2006 with RomneyCare...supposedly "pro-life" in 2007...but then he was "always for life" in early '07 and wasn't ever "pro-choice" in the Summer of '07. [Further documentation available]
And the biggest flip-floppers of 2008 have been McCain and Huckabee. Theyve flipped from major positions...
If we could only get the convo down to Romney's "mere" flip-flops, that would be something in and of itself. The fact is that in addition to his multiple abortion switches, he took three different positions on embryonic stem cell research in 5.5 years; and he took three different positions on forcing businesses to hire alternative sexual minority employees; and he...
Nice recap of Romney’s twists and turns over abortion. He should have just stuck to being pro-choice. It would be more coherent, if nothing else.
In particular, Romney benefited from the lack of real conservative candidates so he could pass for conservative. Had Newt been in the field (or if Thompson had bothered to campaign), Romney would have been luck to achieve double digit support among conservatives. For most conservatives, Romney only because their candidate by default.
“1976 is to 2008
as 1980 is to 2012”
That is the dream scenario of some. It would then follow that one of the candidates who did not win the nomination in 2008, would reappear in 2012 and get the nomination.
To complete this scenario, it would be somebody with a previous successful non-government career, a successful government career, years of writing and speaking teaching the benefits of conservative politics.
It also follows the democrats win the 2008 election, turn out to be inept in the face of foreign acts of terrorism (could quite possibly be Iran, all over again).
Looking at the list of 2008 candidates, tell me who would be that Republican person?
Hey I appreciate your multitude of anti Romney posts, but in the end conservatives will give him a listen if Keene and Weyrich are will to do so. Apparently he is their guy for 2012 at this point.
Hey, if there's one thing I believe in...it's a Free Republic! By all means, GOP folks @ leader & grassroots levels should give every candidate "a listen." I haven't questioned Romney's qualifications to run for POTUS; only his qualities. (BTW, that was the same angle Utah LDS voters took...the Salt Lake Trib this week said the main consideration Utah LDS voters took into was "personal qualities"...so they weighed him on this basis as well--only came to a 180 conclusion. And that's what's great about liberty in a free republic!)
Hey we agree on a couple of things then lol.
Btw, Romney beat McCain in the final CPAC straw poll. Bad news for John McCain.
Are your reading comprehension skills that bad? That email was from Duncan D. Hunter, the SON, running for Congress. SHEESH!!
This is the most uninformed BS I have read in this form
He lived in Mass. Just because he did work in other states doesn't mean anything. You run for office where you live unless your Hillary.
I never claimed Romney was Reagan.
I just asked you to look at Reagan's record. How did that in any way equate Romney with Reagan?
They are going to have to do a little more research on the cloning thing to get another Reagan.
Colofornian: According to your logic, Duncan Hunter is killing babies in California every time he votes to fund Medicaid.
Says so here on Californiaprolife.org
Here is a snippet: you can check yourself: Duncan the baby killer.
Eight other states choose to fund abortions only when the life of the mother is endangered or when the baby has been conceived by rape or incest— several also fund when the baby might be born with handicaps or for other exceptions. (CO, IA, NC, PA, TN, VA, WI, WY)
Eight states pay for abortions by order of their state courts. (California has been so ordered, but subsequently moved into the next category.) (CT, IL, MA, MN, NJ, NM, WV, VT)
Seven states and the District of Columbia fully fund abortions by legislative decision. Since 1990 the California Legislature put California in this group by voting to fund abortion on demand. (AK, CA, HI, MD, NY, OR, WA)
Details to your sweeping statements?
No governor or president could destroy a constitution these days,
not with courts being the ones who are ignoring and destroying constitutions in all too many cases.
There are other stories about how the Mass. Supreme Court
overruled Romneys attempts to take some conservative actions.
Hardly sweeping statements. Unlike your falsehood about the Mass Court overruling Romney,
Romney's sacking of the Mass Constitution has been well covered on FR.
You will find it in the same threads where his imposition
of HillaryCARE=RomneyCARE was discussed.
“What you got with Reagan was not someone who, after writing a book, Abortion: The Conscience of a Nation in 1984, didn’t slip back (like Romney did) into pro-abortion words & actions.”
In 1984?? Heck, Reagan had run for president twice before 1984, and had been a governor for years before. You don’t know what positions he took, or what statements he made beginning in the late 1960s. Here’s one:
“In May 1967, the Therapeutic Abortion Bill began to take shape. It was a measure to allow pregnant women to terminate embryos prejudicial to their “physical or mental health.” Reagan had to admit that he agreed with “the moral principle of self-defense.” If 100,000 California women were desperate enough to undergo illegal abortions every year, he could at least make it safer for some of them.” - Lol, open it up to “mental health” and you’ve opened it up to any and every whim of a woman who just wants to avoid the inconvenience.
Lots of territory you’ve got to cover there from 1967 to 1984. How long did it take Reagan to become pro-life?
You Romney haters really make yourselves look silly smearing Romney for changing positions just as Reagan and umpteen other politicians have done over the years.
And trying spin Reagan’s flip-flops on abortion sounds as silly as trying to spin John Kerry’s flip-flops on Iraq. He was a great president, but he was also human. Not the saint some want to make him out to be.
“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.”