Posted on 03/12/2010 11:23:26 AM PST by Colofornian
Can you imagine trying to argue that Teddy was pro-life just because he said he didn’t “personally” like abortion?
You’d be laughed out of the neighborhood.
I actually remember some of the Rooty Rooters try to make that argument. Had Catholic FReepers lined up behind Rooty the way a lot of Mormons have behind Myth we WOULD have been laughed out of here.
I’m just trying to pull you out of your shell, looking at your posting history I notice that you are one of those cryptic, one sentence drive by guys, like you are doing on this thread. Why not just open up and say something?
I disagree. IMHO, while it matters, name ID is greatly overrated. Prior to the campaign, Clinton didn't have much name ID, yet he won his party's nomination in 1992. Huckabee didn't have much Name ID prior to the 2008 primary, yet he was a serious contender in 2008. Ditto for Romney.
We'll see what happens in 2012. It's way to early to make any definitive predictions, or make any endorsements.
Nevertheless, I suspect someone other than one of the big names we all know about will end up with the nomination. It won't be Romney, Palin or Huckabee.
I have a feeling Romney won't even run, but instead will stay active behind the scenes and back a more viable candidate who shares his vision but lacks his negatives. But we'll see.
Are you aware that abortion allows perps to cover up their incest with victims? Plus it victimizes the victim twice -- subjecting her womb to violent invasive acts
And there was more than one flip. Even trying to look for some continuity in his statements, Romney was...
Pro abortion: up until 2001...
...then he said he "wasn't pro-choice" in a letter to the editor (Summer '01) [flip #1]
Pro abortion 2002-most of 2004 [flip #2 -- a flop backwards]
Supposed pro-life "conversion" late 2004 [flip #3 -- 2nd flip toward "pro-life" stance]
May, 2005-->2006: Maintained statement he was committed to carrying out status quo of abortion in press conference statement + involved the state more in the abortion industry via RomneyCare [flip #4 -- another retro flop]
2007: Yes, "pro-life" on paper but made all kinds of confusing statements in Jan/Feb/Aug/of '07 about his pro-life/pro-abortion track record.
By December 2007: Did Katie Couric interview where he made an extreme pro-life statement in one breath -- only to utter an extreme pro-death position on embryos in the very next sentence! [Can't get much more extreme flip-flopping than to do it in the same paragraph!]
Do you think it's possible for someone to think that owning a slave was wrong, but not for the state to make it illegal?
Yes. It's not an admirable position, nor would I agree with it, but it is a position one can hold. In fact, it was held by a large number of otherwise respectable people prior to the civil war.
What pray tell, is Romney's "vision"?
So you concede Romney's position is basically tantamount to what racist southern whites held at one time...a less than "enlightened" perspective?
Do you also realize that were authorities to remove...
...speeding from being illegal...it wouldn't be very helpful to our culture at-large to think it's wrong...
...and the same could be said about theft, murder, etc.
Being philosophically opposed to something, minus any legal protection, is almost 0% effective -- at least in cultures like ours...
That's not what he said. He just said he did not like the label, even though he supported legalized abortion.
It is odd that he was so concerned with the label, but there is nothing in that letter that is inconsistent with what he was saying before then: he was for legal abortion, but did not wish to be labeled as pro-choice. I agree that's weird, but it's not dishonest.
Pro abortion 2002-most of 2004 [flip #2 -- a flop backwards]
Granted that he was pro-abortion during this period, but no flip, since that hadn't change.
Supposed pro-life "conversion" late 2004 [flip #3 -- 2nd flip toward "pro-life" stance]
Yes, that's a filp.
May, 2005-->2006: Maintained statement he was committed to carrying out status quo of abortion in press conference statement +
No flip there. He was just keeping his campaign promise not to alter the status-quo. Not like it mattered, as there wasn't anything he could do about it.
involved the state more in the abortion industry via RomneyCare [flip #4 -- another retro flop]
The state already subsidized abortion for poor women prior to Romneycare. That's because a state Supreme Court decision fromt he 1970's said it had to. Romeny had no control over this.
2007: Yes, "pro-life" on paper but made all kinds of confusing statements in Jan/Feb/Aug/of '07 about his pro-life/pro-abortion track record.
They're only confusing if you rip pieces of them out of context.
It's really not that complicated. Let's take it again real slow. Prior to 2004, Romney was personally opposed to abortion, but did not think the state should make it illegal. Because he was personally opposed, he was uncomfortable with the "pro-choice" label, even though that's what his position was. I suspect his conscience was bothering him. In 2004 he had a change of heart with regard to abortion, and he became prolife.
He's still for embryonic stem cell research, though, which again, he has always been clear about.
By December 2007: Did Katie Couric interview where he made an extreme pro-life statement in one breath -- only to utter an extreme pro-death position on embryos in the very next sentence! [Can't get much more extreme flip-flopping than to do it in the same paragraph!]
Abortion and embryonic stem cell research are not the same issue. It's possible to be pro-life with respect to abortion, but not pro-life with respect to embryonic stem cells. You may disagree with that position, as do I, but it can be a coherent, interally consistent position.
Change the "is" to a "was" in that sentence, and yes, I agree with it.
And I get tired of people that are holier-than-thou because they’ve been pro-life longer than I have,” he said then.
______________________________________________
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Romney is a hater...
He’s Anti-Nana...
He’s a Nana Basher...
That's not what he said. He just said he did not like the label, even though he supported legalized abortion.
OK, words have meanings. Meanings are interpreted by readers. No matter what you may now "read into" the tea leaves as to parsings 9 years later, he in fact said: "'I do not wish to be labeled pro-choice'"...
A typical Utah reader reading that would have likely concluded an avoidance of pro-abortion politics by Romney; now whether his intention was to convey deception in that statement, I'm not the one attributing motive. I'm simply saying, "Here's what the common reader would have taken away from that July letter-to-the editor."
he was for legal abortion, but did not wish to be labeled as pro-choice. I agree that's weird, but it's not dishonest.
Yes it is dishonest. It's outright refusal to acknowledge as the phrase goes, "in calling a spade is a spade" -- in matching the external realities to your expressed worldview. I could ask you why you never reported a hypothetical slave that you knew for years that your neighbor had. And you might say to me, "well, I was for legal slavery, but I never wanted to be labeled as pro-choice on slavery. I agree that's weird, but it's not dishonest." (Yeah, tell that to that "slave")
When the Romney campaign statement by Sept. 1, 2002 was using the word "choose" -- for him to now claim that "choice" wasn't in his vocabulary back then is an insult to our intelligence: "Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not the government's." (Romney campaign statement, Deseret News, Sept. 1, 2002)
Re: May, 2005 statement: No flip there. He was just keeping his campaign promise not to alter the status-quo.
Wait a minute. Let's put you in this situation: You're expressly pro-abortion. You meet with Dr. Douglas Melton from the Harvard Stem Cell Institute on a November day. Suddenly in one single revelatory moment you are by your own words "hit...very hard that we had so cheapened the value of human life in a Roe v. Wade environment that it was important to stand for the dignity of human life." (Time Mag, March 9, 2007)
You become "pro-life." 6.5 months later, you then say: "I am absolutely committed to my promise to maintain the status quo with regards to laws relating to abortion and choice." What good is a so-called "pro-life conversion" if you continue your previous pro-abortion promise to go on for the next few years -- just so that your covenant with the Bay State abortion-keepers would be honored???
The state already subsidized abortion for poor women prior to Romneycare. That's because a state Supreme Court decision fromt he 1970's said it had to. Romeny had no control over this.
Per Commonwealth Care Benefits , the income cut-off eligibility levels are: 1-person household (about $32,500); 2-person: $43,716; 3-person -- about $55,000; 4-person - about $66,000.
On dozens of posts over the past three years, I've haven't tried to hold Romney accountable for all 7% of the uninsured in MA now covered by RomneyCare (the 7% figure was my "guestimate" from over 2 years ago).
When folks pointed out that MA was under court order to fund low-income women Medicaid eligible, I didn't contend that. What I did contend was the over 4% of the MA population who earn above Medicaid level. Romney himself said in the late '07 campaign debates that almost 1/4th of the MA uninsured earned $75,000 or more. That's almost 2% of the female pop in MA. But then from other figures I extrapolated that another over 2% earn above Medicaid & below $75,000.
As I said two years ago: I think it is "unreasonable" to hold Romney accountable for the court order in MA aimed at low-income women. But they were less than 40% of the uninsured in MA. Therefore, the crit of $50 abortion subsidies in MA still holds.
As for you Curiosity, what were you conceding on a January 2008 FR thread? ...Romney had to make a compromise and make abortion a little cheaper for a small segment of the low-income female population. Given that it's very unlikely to result in more abortions, I don't think it's so terrible. (Thread page: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1960405/posts?q=1&;page=151)
I think you misfigured on your calculations...I think it has effected over 2% of the MA female population...so your spin that "Romney had no control over that" is just that -- spin. The Supreme Court didn't address that group between medicaid and those caps for Commonwealth Care, now did it? [You also didn't acknowledge that some RomneyCare sections could have been vetoed -- such as putting a permanent Planned Parenthood rep as part of Commonwealth Care]
Abortion and embryonic stem cell research are not the same issue. It's possible to be pro-life with respect to abortion, but not pro-life with respect to embryonic stem cells.
You know, I'd actually at least take the time to ponder this contention were it not for one simple thing: That "stem cell research" was the very foundation & basis for Romney's so-called "conversion" to begin with!!! (What? Do you take all readers for fools?) I mean, this statement might be understandable if people had some gradual conversion to "pro-life" principles & it just look an awfully long time for them to get around for a more consistent application. The problem is that you somehow think we are naive over the very impetus of what turned off Romney about pro-abortion realities to begin with!!!!!
As I said over two years ago -- in bold-faced then, too: EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH WAS SUPPOSED TO BE HIS GENESIS TO BECOMING 'PRO-LIFE?'
You may disagree with that position, as do I, but it can be a coherent, interally consistent position.
You actually think the following paragraph Romney uttered to Couric is "coherent"??? But if a PARENT [Hint, Mr. Curiosity, anybody describing the parent of an embryo as a "parent" "gets it" & comprehends & is expressing a "pro-life" perspective] decides they would want to DONATE one of those embryos for purposes of RESEARCH, in my view, that's acceptable. It should not be made against the law."
The problem, Curiosity, isn't that Romney was supposedly "slow" in applying pro-life expressions to embryos! NOOO!!! That's the first thing he did upon the utter "revelation" of pro-abortion realities! And he was still doing it over three years later even in a statement or two to Katie Couric. The problem was he THEN turned around and uttered an INcoherent, 100% inconsistent pro-abortion statement that "parents" could further do. HE recognized them as parents!!! What? Curiosity. You think that people who recognize that embryos have "parents" is some kind of "pro-abortion thinkage?" (Well, you thunk wrong)
There he conceded embryos and their "parent[s]"!!!
There he conceded frozen surplus embryos are "adopt[able]"!!!
Bottom-line: It's the position that an "adoptable" being can be destroyed that is utterly ludicrous, Curiosity; a curious adjective that I now apply to you for even try your advocacy hand at defending it!!! You have sunk to the lowest shame-faced levels trying your hand at defending this!!!
Woody Allen’s movie character, “Zelig”, appears to be Mitt’s mentor and idol. Shall we call him “MittZelig”?
I like your tagline
His vision is to see himself in the White House I don’t think he has thought it out beyond that point.
Between his lies about why he’s flip-flopped twice on abortion in order to play to whatever base he’s trying to impress at the moment and Romneycare, the man should be finished politically.
I detest him. But it looks like the pub leadership is bound and determined to ram him down our throats.
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.