What's with the collective delusion of Mitt Romney's supporters that he has a strong, socially-conservative record? This chimera is maintained to maintain another chimera: that his "pro-life" supporters care a whole lot about the abortion issue. Really, how can such people complain the next time a pro-life president nominates a judge to the Supreme Court with shaky pro-life credentials when they are willing to support a presidential candidate with a sterling pro-choice record? If activists and scribes can't have spine on the issue, don't expect politicians to, either.
The Boston Herald published this picture today of Mitt Romney attending a Planned Parenthood event in 1994. Do you know many pro-lifers who attend Planned Parenthood gatherings? Me neither. Sure, it was thirteen years ago. But for more than thirteen years that preceded that photo inopportunity, Romney, at least according to Romney, supported the cause of abortion. Perhaps Romney will flip-flop on that admission too.
Even after Romney's rhetoric shifted on abortion, his actions remained solidly in the pro-abortion camp. Just last year, Romney signed into law a statewide health-care plan that covers abortion. He's against abortion in his speeches, but Mitt Romney is so in favor of abortion in his policies that he signed a law that forces taxpayers to pay for them.
It's important for pro-lifers to embrace people who have had legitimate changes of heart on this issue. Norma McCorvey, the Roe of Roe v. Wade fame, and Dr. Bernard Nathanson, a former abortionist, are two assets to the pro-life cause who once served the abortion cause so effectively. Their actions spoke louder than their words, so pro-lifers took their conversions as acts of good faith. Romney's ostensibly pro-life supporters want other pro-lifers to hear Romney's current words and ignore his past actions. It was a heartening that Romney vetoed a measure seeking to legalize an abortion pill as governor, but his second thoughts on abortion came at the eleventh hour of his governorship. Put another way, Romney lacks credibility with legitimate pro lifers because he changed his mind on the issue at around the time he decided to run for president.
Perhaps Mitt Romney will one day serve the pro-life cause. But today, all Mitt Romney seeks is for pro-lifers to serve him.
Fraud!
This flip flopping in the name of political expediency is depressing. I have to admit, I will avoid the obvious to pick a candidate that I think will be a good leader but it’s a f’king scandal that these guys can’t take a stand on something and stick with it. Across the board, these guys switch positions like they change their underwear when politically advantageous.
If Mitt could run a government the way he can run a business, I believe he would be the best choice. But that’s not the reality with regard to politics. So I think he would be a great manager as President but I’m not convinced his evolving paradigm when it comes to social issues would be a good thing.
Take a look at my opponent Huckabee's family Christmas photo on the Drudge Report. Holy Cow?!!! Can't believe I'm down in the polls to this guy!
His conversion to the pro-life cause is awfully politically expedient, there's no denying that. But I have two handfuls of friends and relatives who have switched to the pro-life side of the spectrum (meaning, they haven't become die-hards, but they are more pro-life than pro-choice) in the last 5 years or so. The main reason I hear from them is the technology that has developed that allows us to see how much a "fetus" can do after even a month in the womb.
So I really don't think Romney should be discredited just because it appears it was politically expedient. There's a non-insignificant chance its 100% legit. But on the other hand, if he truly is a pro-choicer willing to say whatever to get elected, does anyone really think he would serve the pro-choice agenda as President?? He'd be insane to back-track on his promises and he wouldn't even get the GOPnomination should he run for President again.
One question I do have that perhaps some MA residents could shed some light on: if Romney really is a closet lib, why didn't he just run as a Dem for governor?? He'd have alot easier time winning in MA and he could just stick to his "true" beliefs. I mean, he would be a forecful alternative in the Dem primaries if he ran as a Dem with his supposed true liberal beliefs...
He's not a closet lib. You don’t have to scratch too deep to understand that he truly is a conservative. But he is a Republican who can be a political chameleon when it suits his purpose.
He’s a smart guy and will play the game as necessary to win.
I'll add to that that you'd better be a political chameleon to be the GOP Governor of a way left budding young socialist state like Mass.
"He'd be insane to back-track on his promises and he wouldn't even get the GOP nomination should he run for President again."
This is politics; he can backtrack all he wants. Mostly, he would pretend as though he's being forced into compromises and that he's doing the most conservative thing that is viable. This BS line is used very often by all nonconservatives posing as conservatives (see NR over the past 10 years). Also, there is no way the GOP would deny the nomination to their sitting president when there is even a tiny chance that a Democrat would win.
If you really believe he is a conservative, here is a thought experiment. Ask yourself, how would a truly conservative governor respond to a unconstitutional court powergrab mandating "gay marriages"? Now ask yourself, how did Mitt respond?
"He'd be insane to back-track on his promises and he wouldn't even get the GOP nomination should he run for President again."
This is politics; he can backtrack all he wants. Mostly, he would pretend as though he's being forced into compromises and that he's doing the most conservative thing that is viable. This BS line is used very often by all nonconservatives posing as conservatives (see NR over the past 10 years). Also, there is no way the GOP would deny the nomination to their sitting president when there is even a tiny chance that a Democrat would win.
If you really believe he is a conservative, here is a thought experiment. Ask yourself, how would a truly conservative governor respond to a unconstitutional court powergrab mandating "gay marriages"? Now ask yourself, how did Mitt respond?
MRDJ442: Massachusetts politics doesn't follow the Democrats=liberals/Republicans=conservatives paradigm. When I was a kid, Ed King--a pro-life, pro-death penalty, pro-Reagan, pro-tax cuts Democrat--was the governor. A few years later, Bill Weld--the most pro-gay rights and pro-abortion high officeholder in America--was the governor. He was a Republican. When Weld first ran for governor, his opponent was BU president John Silber. Democrat Silber was clearly the "conservative" and Republican Weld was clearly the "liberal." Boston Democrats such as Mayor Ray Flynn, state senate president William Bulger, and city councillor Dapper O'Neil all were quite conservative on social issues.
In neither of Romney's campaigns for statewide office did he run as conservative a campaign as any of the aforementioned Democrats had run. He ran against two liberal Democrats, so clearly he didn't run as the liberal candidate. But he certainly didn't run as a conservative.
Dapper - RIP.
Last of the great Boston pols and way last of the conservative (and sane) Dems.
Appreciate the thoughtful responses I am getting. Clears up some anti-Romney questions I had.
My first choice is Ron Paul, but assuming a miracle doesn't happen, I think I would support Romney, mainly because I love his approach to how he would clean up the waste in government, and that is something I am not worrying about him changing his mind about.
I'm assuming most people in here agree with pretty much all of Ron Paul's platorm. I personally do not; I have some serious issues with his foreign policy views, as well as some of his conspiracy mongering in general, but I would still vote for him because its so necessary to change the conversation on the role of government in people's lives. I feel the same way towards Romney. Even if he's not the social conservative he espouses to be and if he's going to backtrack on some of his promises, he's still going to change the way government is run so much for the better (in my opinion) that it would be worth it to have him as our president. Having an intensely detail saavy president who is used to thinking outside the box cannot be understated.
I guess I do wish some people recognized that, in lieu of certain candidates not having everything they want, they recognize that some things are alot more important than others. Otherwise, there's no way Ron Paul would be getting my support given our disagreements in foreign policy.
Dan,
What you say about Mass. politics is true and you cited a number of good examples of those who occupied or hoped to occupy the corner office to prove the point.
I especially liked Ed King. But, would an Ed King have made it in Massachusetts as a Democrat today? I don't think so. Again, the paradigm for Mass. has changed and having to be left or (as our current top office holder shows) way left seems to be on the political menu today.
That's why I think Romney, understanding how the political landscape had changed, did what he needed to do to get by as a Republican in an almost exclusively Democrat state.
I don't like it, and also don't think it's right, but it seems to be part of the unprincipled politics of expedience that we see regularly now.
