Lest anyone think Mitt will consider a switch back on abortion, the Swamp reports:
With tens of thousands of anti-abortion protesters descending on Washington today, another voice is heard from as well:
“In a city of many competing political interests, these marchers have come to speak for only one cause: The goodness of every life, and the rights of the unborn. ”
Mitt Romney.
The Republican former governor of Massachusetts and erstwhile candidate for president who has, as he likes to say, “evolved” on the question of abortion rights. He has settled squarely in the “pro-life” camp, which is where any good Republican contemplating another run for president will reside.
“Thirty-six years ago, those rights (of the unborn) were denied by our highest court, in a decision that also denied the rights of all Americans to resolve the abortion issue through democratic debate and legislation,” Romney said in a statement issued by his PAC – The Free and Strong America PAC – today.
“America owes these marchers a debt of gratitude for their perseverance in a noble cause,” Romney said. “I am honored to count myself as their friend and ally. And because of their dedication and their goodness of heart, I am certain that one day this cause will prevail. “
Romney’s appearance is a solid political move and if he’s planning a 2012 run, this is a picture of the type of thing he’s going to need to do. He’s going to have to establish identification with movement conservatives. The March for Life is key as it’s an opportunity to reach out to Catholic voters who went for McCain thanks to the efforts of Sam Brownback. Of course, one March is just a start.
What about Romney’s potential 2012 opponents? Sarah Palin was in Alaska and Huckabee actually attended his local March for Life in Little Rock this past Sunday.
January 23rd, 2009 at 12:52 am
OOOOH ADAM GRAHAM YOU ALWAYS FOIL ME~~~
January 23rd, 2009 at 1:10 am
I’ll take Romney’s conversion at face value, but we’re going to have some great pro-life candidates in 2012, like Sanford, who have never flipped on the issue. We pro-lifers know who to trust.
January 23rd, 2009 at 1:12 am
I don’t think any one candidate will own the ‘life’ issue. As it stands, abortion ranks as 5th or 6th most important issue with voters in general, it’s not a high priority outside of certain primaries.
However, if Romney shores up his image of Johnny-come-lately on this front, it’ll be one less effective attack for potential primary rivals Palin and Huckabee to use against him. Assuming of course, any of them run at all in the next cycle.
January 23rd, 2009 at 1:19 am
All you have to do is replay all those youtube videos where Romney proclaims his dying support for Roe v. wade and abortion rights. Those won’t go away in 2012. Fairly or not, that will affect pro-life support in a competitive primary.
January 23rd, 2009 at 1:29 am
Someone’s Creed
I am going to choose one issue and use that as a litmus test to determine if I will support a candidate. And even if I believe that candidate has a good shot at improving education, health care, crime and the economy I will still not vote for that candidate.
January 23rd, 2009 at 2:01 am
Someone’s Creed
I am going to choose one issue and use that as a litmus test to determine if I will support a candidate. And even if I believe that candidate has a good shot at improving education, health care, crime and the economy I will still not vote for that candidate.
#5:
Oh yeah, definitely idiot. I think the guy’s issue was something stupid like slavery.
January 23rd, 2009 at 2:20 am
Romney has a 100% pro-life record as governor. If you accepted Reagan’s change of heart, you should be able to accept Romney’s. After all, Reagan even signed an abortion bill.
January 23rd, 2009 at 4:31 am
I’ll never understand the idea that Romney can’t be trusted on pro-life issues because he used to be pro-choice. Isn’t the goal of every good social conservative to get people to see the light and move over to the pro-life side? Shouldn’t Romney be held up as a hero for seeing the error of his ways and moving to the pro-life socon side of the issue? How can a party condemn one of its leaders for switching to the pro-life side yet still expect moderates and liberals to consider changing their minds on this same issue.
January 23rd, 2009 at 5:32 am
Martha M & Alaska Jake, I realize that many social Conservative do not believe his change of heart to be sincere. Ultimately, we cannot prove anyone’s level of sincerity, but I for one tend to take him at his word. Look, I am open to supporting Mr. Romney, but I do not agree with 100% of Romneyism. If and when I am convinced that he is the best option, I will thus put aside my few difference with him, but I do not believe that I differ from him on this important issue.
January 23rd, 2009 at 7:33 am
He’s running.
January 23rd, 2009 at 7:52 am
With all the difficulty in this country, esp. economy, I for one see that a man who has proven private sector business success is a must for the White House. Where have our troubles stemmed from? Excessive spending, earmarks and pork, poor transparency, wrong people minding the store and then when confronted lied blatantly and caused the downward spiral of this economy (with the help of Wall Street)..Mitt has integrity, faith, loyalty, honor, and even at it’s worst days during the primaries, rose above the dirty politics and was a gentleman. We need a man who has matured, made mistakes, corrected them and admitted them as well.Change I can honor and believe in for the good of this country….I have met this man, my husband and I had the honor, he is warm, kind, and loves this country. I even hate to in the same sentence mention President Obama, but he had NINE flip-flops in one week. Very amusing to me, all by the press was ignored. I have to say President Obama was the chosen one and the press and media wanted a Democrat. Mitt came very close and when the stats are researched, it is clear Mitt should be carrying the baton into 2012. Petty bigotry, and unfair labels at this point should go by the wayside..We have a Black President, we have made history. Yes, he is my President, but this does not diminish my feelings that Mitt was right for this time and the country missed the boat. However, Mitt is the man, I believe, for conservatives, and has the total package for the future..
January 23rd, 2009 at 9:14 am
It will come as no surprise that I continue to believe Mitt Romney is an extremely qualified candidate for 2012. I honestly believe he has by far the best opportunity to beat ‘The One’. There are some issues that some Republicans are not going to agree with Mitt on. Alex and Mitt will probably never see eye to eye on the issue of gay marriage. Some of you think he has flip flopped on many social issues. That’s simply untrue, but you are of a mindset that no matter what facts you see, you will continue to fight this great man. On subjects like the health care plan in Massachusetts, I believe that many of you have bought into this as if it were some movement towards socialism. Its opposite of that. For you, I sincerely believe if you were to sit down with Mitt for 30 minutes, you would side with Mitt as to that he did what was best in MASSACHUSETTS. He has never advocated that the same exact thing be done in each state, but that they could borrow some ideas that obviously worked, and he has NEVER advocated anything on a national basis regulated or ran by the Federal Government. The main thrust of his plan did two things 1) Required that people who could afford to pay for their own insurance do so (as opposed to them dumping their bills on the state), and 2) worked to bring insurance premiums down to a level more affordable. Both of those were great for us as conservatives.
I know its hard for some of you who fought so hard against Mitt to admit that he really was our best candidate, so you are continuing to look for someone better, rather than accept the fact that perhaps there is no one,. I’m just ask that each of you give Mitt a fair chance in your evaluation process. For those of you who believe in prayer, try praying for guidance (without a foregone conclusion that it can’t be Mitt Romney) God bless you all.
January 23rd, 2009 at 9:34 am
Thank you Illinoisguy for your thought out analysis. There are various diverse reasons why many of us are not in the Romney camp. While, there are various minor issues that I differ with many candidates, perhaps my biggest hang up with Mr. Romney is his Health care. While the economy is not my number one concern, I do care about it and as a new American, I am a little afraid of Socialism and socialize medicine in particular. Luckily my family and I are in good health, but let’s just say that among other things, even though health care is not free, I’m glad that I live in America and not the old country for when ever I do need medical services. Mr. Romney and his camp has put aside some of my fears with regards to health care, but I admit I am still a little afraid (not nearly as afraid as the Democrat plan.)
No, I probably did not give Mr. Romney a fair shake in 2008 (and the months leading up to it) and I am still not convinced that he could have beaten Mr. Obama give the 9/15 circumstances. I realize that just like in 2008, in 2012, I might not be able to get everything I want so I am indeed open to supporting Mr. Romney in 2012 despite not agreeing with Romneyism 100%. Certainly, he is a good candidate and he may in deed be the best, but again time will tell.
January 23rd, 2009 at 10:04 am
The truth is, Romney never stood up to the liberal Democrats in Massachusetts. He compromised with them time and again, and assumed many of their positions on social issues. His excuse? He was governing in a liberal state and had no choice.
If Romney ever got elected President, and faced a liberal Democratic Congress, there’s no reason to assume he wouldn’t follow a similar approach. He would just turn into another George HW Bush, raise taxes, and appoint someone like David Souter to the Supreme Court.
January 23rd, 2009 at 10:13 am
#14, then what is Huckabee’s excuse for his populist governing in Arkansas? He didn’t have to cowtow to dems there.
January 23rd, 2009 at 10:17 am
#15, I make no excuses for Huckabee’s big government philosophy. Although I think Arkansas is still an overwhelming Democratic state when it comes to their state government.
January 23rd, 2009 at 10:20 am
To cast Romney out because he has not been pro-life as long as some others is like saying you don’t accept a convert to Christianity because he/she has not been a Christian all their life. There is not reason behind this argument, only unintelligent prejudice. It is the same attitude of the Pharasees.
I have known converts to the pro-life cause to be somewhat more powerful in their testimony, with a newfound and fresh understanding, than those who have been pro-life for many years. There is always a new energy and enthusiasm that comes with new convictions.
January 23rd, 2009 at 10:23 am
You have a point Spencer, I know many people who converted to my faith who do a much better job at living out their faith than I.
January 23rd, 2009 at 11:17 am
My problem with Romney is not that he converted, but the timing of it. It was very opportunistic, timed exactly with his Presidential run. Then he acted like he was the only “true” conservative in the primary, which I found laughable.
January 23rd, 2009 at 11:35 am
#14
How many times did Romney use vetoes? How can you say he did not stand up to them?
Obviously he had to choose his battles in a liberal state, but I don’t see any argument that he didn’t stand up to them.
January 23rd, 2009 at 11:56 am
“Then he acted like he was the only “true” conservative in the primary, which I found laughable.” Yeah, Romneyism is certainly not the only type of Conservatism.
January 23rd, 2009 at 12:03 pm
Flip –
There you go again. You have your own alternate universe when it comes to Romney. You think if you say it here, it becomes true.
You said Governor Romney assumed many of the democrats positions on social issues in Mass.
Which ones?
January 23rd, 2009 at 1:14 pm
Guys,
We have once again devolved into a lower form of debate over romney. We’re not at 2012 yet are we? Give the man a chance to break down some barriers on this issue. I didn’t trust him on it in 2008, but if he champions the issue in a true and authentic way, than i would give him the benefit of the doubt going into 2012. I differ with him on a few other things however, so i may not support him….but lets give the guy a chance. Mitt Romney more than anything needs to work on not sounding self righteous and smug….though i think that was his campaign staffs fault more than his. I want him to connnect with me, and look me in the eyes, and make me believe in him. Huckabee has that, Romney so far does not. I sure hope he will before 2012, and that huck and romney can make ammends….because we need them both. Not necessarily to run for president.
January 23rd, 2009 at 2:07 pm
Man oh man. I am tired of the pro-lifer wing thinking they have a lock on everything. They don’t. If we did, we would have a pro-life president. We don’t. Obviously their power ran out somewhere along the line.
January 23rd, 2009 at 2:15 pm
Romney may now be sincere is his conversion, but he will never win over the base or Socons.
Romney will not be the nominee in 2012 because he just doesn’t connect with people. He has been the Republican version of Kerry for years.
Romney just doesn’t connect with the ordinary man and America.
January 23rd, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Rafael, that’s your opinion, and you may feel that way yourself, but it’s not based on reality. Romney appealed to enough republicans to come in 2nd and even after he dropped out, he continued to build tremendous support in the party. He was the overwhelming favorite for VP in every poll. The truth is that it IS the base and social cons who like him. Exit polls show he won the conservative vote. McCain won because of open primaries and because of Huck’s dirty tricks in Iowa.
Romney is the frontrunner and history is on his side. And, he has exactly nothing in common with Kerry other than they are both from Mass and can speak French. They are diametric opposites otherwise.
January 23rd, 2009 at 2:39 pm
“If we did, we would have a pro-life president.” We also have a Socialistic Copper-head as a President.
“Romney just doesn’t connect with the ordinary man and America.” That was true in 2008, let’s see if things shift over the next few years.
January 23rd, 2009 at 2:41 pm
“they are both from Mass and can speak French.” Shhhhhhhhhhh, don’t say that kind of stuff, haha.
January 23rd, 2009 at 3:27 pm
OHIO – true that.
January 23rd, 2009 at 3:45 pm
Adam – Sarah Palin wasn’t just “in Alaska”, as you condescending put it. In fact, she was delivering her annual State of the State address – in which she called for upholding the culture of life, among many other issues.
January 23rd, 2009 at 3:57 pm
Martha M – ‘true that’ What kind of talk is that? lol
January 23rd, 2009 at 3:59 pm
If he runs,I hope he considers his poor wife who is battling progressive MS and cancer.
Her immune system must be very weakened.
January 23rd, 2009 at 3:59 pm
Flip, you are fast replacing AdamG as the most dishonest poster on the site. Martha challenged you. Just try with a smidgeon of honesty to answer it. Romney loved to veto, and did it all the time for a multitude of conservative causes.
January 23rd, 2009 at 4:15 pm
I understand that you don’t always agree with Adam G, Illinoisguy, but I for one do not see him as dishonest.
January 23rd, 2009 at 4:38 pm
Mitt Romney made over 800 line item vetoes during his Governor tenure. Show me a Governor who vetoed that many in 4 years time. He also vetoed things like the morning after pill in mid year 2005. Every single time that Mitt Romney had a chance to stand up for LIFE, he came down on the side of LIFE. I wish people on here would just get that through their thick heads. And this idiotic stuff about him being for civil unions and/or gay marriage is completely false and unfounded…but you see it here all the time, expecially be certain people.
January 23rd, 2009 at 4:44 pm
#32
I would venture a guess that this is the only thing that will stop Romney from running. And if there is any thought that Ann will have health issues should Mitt run again I am sure that Mitt will put her first and foremost, because that relationship is clearly the most important in his life.
the man is the picture of family, so I think I can allay your fears that he will put all the rest of us above Ann.
January 23rd, 2009 at 5:43 pm
I find it amazing when you state hard facts showing ROmney to be very conservative, the threads suddenly stop. They just wait to make stupid statements on another thread.
January 23rd, 2009 at 6:42 pm
The 2012 election will be about the economy. Intellectual conservatives will dominate by necessity (Romney, Jindal, Whitman, etc).
January 23rd, 2009 at 8:33 pm
C’mon, Romney used to be rabidly pro-choice, and even supported RU-486 at one point. He didn’t change his mind on the issue until his late fifties, when he started dreaming of the White House.
He’s a big supporter of gay rights, and supported gays in the military. He opposed the boy scouts on its refusal to appoint gay scoutmasters. His judicial appointments were hardly conservative. He’s a big gun control enthusiast — waiting periods, banning assault weapons, the whole deal. And don’t forget his socialist Romneycare legislation with all its mandates, which is probably his biggest accomplishment as governor.
Romney CHOSE to ran in liberal Mass., he could have run in Utah or even Michigan, and run a more conservative administration. He chose not to do that.
Romney’s not a bad man, but I can’t support someone with such a left-wing record. Haven’t we learned our lesson by nominating the McCains, the Doles, the Bushes?
January 23rd, 2009 at 8:35 pm
Indeed, just think what the Romney Stimulus package would be like instead of the Obama/Congressional Pork Non-Stimulus package! What a waste of 4 years…
January 23rd, 2009 at 8:55 pm
Flip Dixon you have a very narrow scope on reality. Take off the Huck goggles and see things for what they really are and not what you so desperately want them to be.
January 23rd, 2009 at 9:07 pm
Flip, even a broken clock is right twice a day. You entire post is false.
He was never rabidly pro-choice. He was only pro-choice in that he was conflicted about the role of government due to a relative dying of a botched abortion, and later when he ran for gov, told Mass that he would not try to change abortion laws as governor. In reality, he has a spotlessly pro-life record as governor. You know this.
He supports gay rights in that he doesn’t support discrimination against gay people. He has never been for gay marriage, and admitted he was wrong on don’t ask don’t tell, but he’s absolutely right on allowing gay people to serve in the military.
By necessity, his judicial appointments were drawn from democrats/liberals. Mass – hello. He based his decision on whether or not they had a record of being tough on crime – a totally conservative notion.
He’s not and has never been a big gun control enthusiast. Flat out lie here. The assault weapons ban he signed in Mass was a joint effort with the NRA who called it a “net gain” for gun rights. It was primarily to give cops a fair shot against thugs – another conservative notion.
Romneycare is not socialist. It is private, holds people accountable for their own care and reduced the cost of private insurance, and the incidence of free ER visits by 40% so far.
Why would Romney run in Michigan or Utah? HE DIDN’T LIVE THERE. Mass is his home. It’s where he raised his family. It’s where he still lives. He ran a conservative administration there where he received high marks from social conservative leaders in the state. He balanced the budget without raising taxes. He fixed their budget woes and turned the state around – yet another conservative notion.
He has no left-wing record.
Flip, your claims are flat out nonsense. You can’t make it true by simply repeating it over and over. It’s obvious that you oppose Romney for reasons you won’t admit. Hmmm, I wonder what they could be.
January 23rd, 2009 at 9:15 pm
Martha M, there is nothing in my post that is factually inaccurate. You simply spin the facts in a way that put Romney in the best possible light. It’s not working, especially with the conservative base.
Romney was not even residing in Massachusetts when he ran for governor — he had been living in Utah for 3 years, and declared it his primary residency. That’s why the Democrats challenged his residency when he ran in 2002. He could have easily run for statewide office in utah if he wanted to, as a pro-life republican.
You seem to imply I dislike Romney because he’s Mormon, which is pretty much the tactic of Romney’s supporters on this board when they run out of substantive arguments. I have no problems with a Mormon President — let’s just have a conservative one, shall we?
January 23rd, 2009 at 10:31 pm
Actually Flip, its all either distorted or flat out lies. If you are so predisposed to lies, I would appreciate it if you’d take them away from this site.
January 24th, 2009 at 12:29 am
Unfortunately for the Romney Kool-Aid drinkers, I’m telling the truth.
I’m not an “anyone but Romney” person, but he’s not a true conservative. This will become evident in 2012, even if he pours another $50 million of his own money into a run.
January 24th, 2009 at 1:23 am
He was so “rabidly pro-choice” that in the 1994 senate race (Romney’s first political campaign, when he was as moderate as he ever got) his opponent Kennedy claimed he wasn’t pro-choice at all and referred to him as “Multiple Choice Mitt” because he was sort of in the middle on the issue. Doesn’t sound so rabid to me.
January 24th, 2009 at 10:05 am
Flip, if you need to lie to oppose Romney, it does leave me curious as to your true reason.
(Are you Huck? hehe.)
There’s no way anyone can make the case that Romney is a social liberal. You say it in practically every post, but you have no evidence. His record speask for itself.
Romney was the most conservative candidate in 08. That’s why talk radio was unanimous in their support, (except for Medved). That’s why he won the conservative voters in every state before he dropped out. If he were a leftist/social liberal as you say, that would not have happened.
January 24th, 2009 at 11:43 am
Romney has a socially liberal record for a Republican on all the key issues — abortion, gay rights and guns. All you have to do is look at his own words and positions.
He’s pro-life now, and I take his word for it. I would vote for him over a pro-abortion Democrat. But if he’s running against a Republican with a sterling record on abortion, there’s simply no competition.
Romney was the most conservative candidate by default in 2008 — his main competition was McCain and Huckabee, both of whom finished ahead of him in the delegate count. I don’t think Limbaugh ever formally supported him, and Limbaugh expressed a LOT of dissatisfaction with all the Republicans in the 2008 primary. If he runs against a Sanford or even a Palin, I think we all know who the conservative talk show people will get behind.
I would probably prefer Romney to Palin or even Huckabee (although I like Huckabee’s principled position on the bailout), but I’m just hoping for someone better.
January 24th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
Flip, as you may or may not know, we took a poll for who this site favored for the Republican nominee a few days after the election. Of the 77 people who voted, 43 people voted for Mitt Romney as first place. Second place was Huckabee with 9. Your man Sanford got 1 vote, so you alone could have doubled his number. And, guess what? It wasn’t the moderates or liberals who voted for Romney,; it was the most conservative of the contributors on here. So, you are amongst a relative few who don’t believe Mitt Romney is a true conservative. You may want to do some soul searching to see why you are in such a minority position. Maybe you’re smarter? Nah! I don’t think that’s it.
January 24th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Flip, Romney has a sterling record on abortion, so I guess you’ll vote for him! Just ask the conservative leaders in Mass, and look at his actual RECORD. I’ll admit he did have past rhetoric from 14 years ago that was not pro-life. Did you vote for Reagan? As governor, he signed an abortion law. But Romney was a true pro-life governor.
BTW – You keep saying he has a socially liberal record on guns, life, and gay rights. But where’s the proof? When you look at his record, there’s no way to conclude that.
And yes, Rush did formally support Romney. It was Romney and Fred for a while, and even before Fred dropped out, Rush was leaning Romney.
January 24th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
Flip,
Romney governed as a SoCon right down the line. Everybody who knows his record knows this, so you must be trying to fool the people who don’t know his record. On this site, there aren’t many of them left, because the facts have been given time and time again. I recommend a lower-IQ site.
January 24th, 2009 at 6:47 pm
#49, there are a lot of good people on this site, but a poll taken right after the election doesn’t mean anything. I’m sure a poll right after 2004 on the Democratic side would have put Clinton as the nominee.
#50, Romney is on record supporting the assault weapons ban and waiting periods and all that. The NRA opposed these things. He didn’t even join the NRA until 2006 or so.
#51, feel free to post specifics about Romney’s record that indicate he’s such a great conservative. Your post has no substance to it. His record looks pretty moderate-to-liberal to me, especially the big government Romneycare reforms, and his big fee increases to balance the state budget.
January 24th, 2009 at 11:20 pm
corep, if Mitt had placed Ann FIRST for the last two years, her immune system would have been much stronger (as strong as it possibly could be, with ms!)
The campaigning wore her down,wore her down, and cancer invaded her.
He should have known, because both Ann’s parents died of cancer.
So don’t tell anyone Mitt placed her first.
January 24th, 2009 at 11:33 pm
Flip, Flip, Flip.
The NRA worked with Mass on the assault weapons ban. They called it a “net gain” for gun rights. David Keene, NRA VP and soon to be pres endorsed Romney.
Romney does not have a 2nd amendment problem. At all.
January 24th, 2009 at 11:41 pm
sad,
She doesn’t have cancer. I did read that the campaign was hard on her, and she struggled.
Maybe they both believed that the campaign was the right thing to do. Who are you to judge their decisions?
I find it hard to believe that Mitt is an insensitive and self-centered husband as you seem to think.
January 25th, 2009 at 7:27 am
“Who are you to judge their decisions?” Absolutely true! Why can’t we say the same when it comes to the Palin Family?
January 25th, 2009 at 11:07 pm
#53, I’ve no fan of Romney, but I would never accuse him of endangering his wife or hurting his family.
Let’s just focus on Romney’s flip-flops and liberal record, and stop it there. He deserves to lose on the merits, and should not be personally attacked.
January 26th, 2009 at 5:25 am
I agree with you Flip, whether we are Pro, Con or in between, let’s focus on Mr. Romney, Not Mrs. Romney. Well said, Flip.