Skip to comments.Murphy: Mitt Faked It in Massachusetts
Posted on 02/13/2012 1:37:44 PM PST by Kaslin
RUSH: Laurie in Danbury, Connecticut, welcome, great to have you on the EIB Network as we head to the phones. Hello.
CALLER: Yeah, hi, Rush. How are you?
RUSH: Good, thank you.
CALLER: First of all, I just want to tell you that you affect my life in so many ways, I can't tell you.
CALLER: I listen to everything you say, and I believe you.
RUSH: Well, sometimes I'm kidding. Not very many, but --
CALLER: I know when you're kidding --
RUSH: Okay, good.
CALLER: -- but I also know when you're telling the truth.
RUSH: Awesome. Thank you very much.
CALLER: I just have a couple of points to make, if I may.
CALLER: Sarah Palin was totally awesome at the CPAC. I've never heard a better speech.
RUSH: We got the sound bites coming up.
CALLER: Okay. I also know that I consider Romney to be the Republican version of Obama. He will say, he will do absolutely anything to get elected. To me, he looks like he's totally desperate. I think he's mean, he's nasty, and he's not a conservative by my definition or by yours. I will never vote for him.
RUSH: I got a piece here, I mentioned Peter Robinson of Ricochet. He has a post at Ricochet: "A Sentence I Wish I Hadn't Read -- On the front page of the New York Times this morning, a long story on Mitt Romney's positions on abortion. In both his unsuccessful 1994 senate race and his successful 2002 gubernatorial race, the Times notes, Romney campaigned as unambiguously pro-choice. Then? 'By 2005, with Mr. Romney eyeing a possible presidential bid, he began to distance himself from his abortion rights platform.' In an article that June in National Review, Romney stated '[m]y political philosophy is pro-life.'
"That same article quoted his top strategist at the time, Mike Murphy, as saying Mr. Romney had been 'a pro-life Mormon faking it as a pro-choice friendly.'" That he's always been pro-life. He just faked being pro-choice once he was in Massachusetts. "'Faking it?' ... Mike was suggesting that Romney intentionally misled the people of Massachusetts." His own guy made the point that you're making, Laurie.
RUSH: Now, I had a caller at the end of the previous hour who basically said that she thinks Romney fakes it, whatever he has to say, whatever. Clearly not a Romney supporter. And I had to run through something pretty quickly here. I'll have to spend a little bit more time with it, because it dovetails with what she said. Peter Robinson at Ricochet.com had a little post.
"On the front page of the New York Times this morning, a long story on Mitt Romney's positions on abortion. In both his unsuccessful 1994 Senate race and his successful 2002 gubernatorial race, the Times notes, Romney campaigned as unambiguously pro-choice. Then? 'By 2005, with Mr. Romney eyeing a possible presidential bid, he began to distance himself from his abortion rights platform.' In an article that June in National Review, Romney stated '[m]y political philosophy is pro-life.'" Now, Mr. Robinson says there's a sentence in this story that he wishes he hadn't read. "Which brings us to the sentence that made me wince: That same article," the June 2005 National Review in which Romney said, "My political philosophy's pro-life."
"That same article quoted his top strategist at the time, Mike Murphy, as saying Mr. Romney had been 'a pro-life Mormon faking it as a pro-choice friendly.'" Now, Mr. Robinson writes, "'Faking it?' As best I can tell, there really is no other way of construing this. Mike was suggesting that Romney intentionally misled the people of Massachusetts." So I just wanted to mention that 'cause it dovetailed with her call, and this is one of his own people saying essentially that Romney told the people of Massachusetts what he thought they needed to hear in order to win an election there. And, in fact, we've heard much the same thing said when defending Romneycare comes up. "Well, remember now, I was a governor of big blue state."
Look, folks, as you know, I've not endorsed anybody, and I've not chosen anybody. I've not expressed a preference here. This is a microcosm of why. I don't want to endorse early, have stuff come up that you can't defend or you have to make some flimsy excuse for. So as far as I'm concerned it's just an information item, and the only reason I'm even spending any time on it is because Romney's own consultant is the author of the sentence. The 2005 National Review article quoted Mike Murphy, top strategerist at the time, saying Romney had been a "pro-life Mormon faking it as a pro-choice friendly." That's in quotes. A pro-life Mormon faked it as a pro-choice friendly.
So he’s a liar. Yeah. We know. Now he’s faking it as a Conservative.
Can not stand Romney. I’m not about to vote for a Mormon theocracy headed by a liar beholden to Salt Lake via Temple blood oaths.
Romney’s faked it in the other 49 states as well.
p.s. Santorum sucks ass too; I hope we have a draft/brokered convention.
Romney speaking as a conservative is like me speaking as a Mexican. I might be able to say some words, but that doesn’t mean I have any idea what they mean.
That's an outright lie. Romney did several abortion-friendly things while he was governor. Not just said them, but did them.
He included subsidized abortions in Romneycare, as something every woman had a right to. And he appointed several flaming leftist abortionist judges to state courts. And when he designed the Board of Directors of Romneycare, he put the head of Planned Parenthood of Massachusetts on it, Ex Officio. So, Planned Parenthood always has an inside governing influence on Romneycare, and it doesn't even need to send lobbyists around to do it.
Not to mention Romney's role in establishing gay marriage in Massachusetts.
Don’t you mean the other 56? hehehehehe
That “faking it” card is a tough one to play. You can never come right out and say it, because you are admitting you are a liar. It does more harm than good. Even if an operative is the one saying it.
So all you can do is “wink” it and hope the ones that count catch your wink. That’s not easy and prone to failure.
I was expecting the “I was just faking in a liberal community” excuse but am still surprised at just how blunt they came out with it. It means he lied to get the job and didn’t do anything to stop what he was philosophically against - meaning it was not based on core principles or strong driven “help his community” agenda. IOW, he took the job for the power.
Which is how I see his presidential bid. What do people with all the money they want crave next: Power. Power for the sake of power. And that is not the kind of mindset we want behind our president motivating his actions.
What it actually means is he’ll do or say anything to get elected.
Tired to those sorts.
His positions are all fake and his top people admit it??
BUMP and I saw someone mention he had a role in bringing a childrens gay rights group to schools called Youthpride. or something.
He’s a fake conservative pure and simple
I don’t know which side he’s faking. I don’t care to find out. The bottom line is that I don’t trust Mitt Romney.
He's our Potemkin Candidate.
Hey wait a minute, Romney didn’t say he was in 57 States
I’ve actually come to this same conclusion in recent months. He’s not liberal...he shifted leftward to get elected in MA. He also is not conservative. He shifted far right in 2008 and inched back toward the middle in 2009-2012. He’s somewhere in the middle. I am no fan of mushy moderates, so this is in no way a supportive message. I just think he is a milquetoast moderate guy...no real vision or agenda to do anything spectacular...just an ambitious guy willing to do whatever it takes to get to the oval office.
-- snip --CALLER: Okay. I also know that I consider Romney to be the Republican version of Obama. He will say, he will do absolutely anything to get elected. To me, he looks like he's totally desperate. I think he's mean, he's nasty, and he's not a conservative by my definition or by yours. I will never vote for him.
ROTFLOL. Those are great!
And whom is the father of all lies?
Right. Looks to me like the second lie is the true lie, now being floated to try and pull the wool over conservative eyes. But the problem is, once you reveal you can engage in the big lie, for years at a time, what’s left to trust?
Another odd thing here. If this “faking it” gambit really is an intentional play to become competitive in the prolife demographic, it reveals a complete dis connect with what conservatism is. A postmodern, with no commitment to true truth, would have no problem with an expedient lie. But conservatism is grounded, if nothing else, on a belief in absolute truth, which is why conservative politicians are asked to pay for their lies, but no such rule applies to the left. True conservatives instinctively know this, but a faker might not, and might actually believe that conservatives would accept the use of an expedient lie. Your mistake, Bishop.