Won’t work on him though, the establishment is in overdrive trying to rehabilitate.
Jan
10
10:41
PM
Woodroe Raynor
That’s fair. I wasn’t always pro-life, it wouldn’t be fair to expect it of him.
Jan
11
1:04
AM
Woodroe Raynor
Granted, he is Al Gore-like in his “I’ll say anything to get elected” attitude, but remember that Reagan signed a massive liberalization of California’s abortion laws as governor.
Reagan had been a union president himself and holding many “Democrat” views would later be an asset to understanding (for him, personally) why those views were… premature, later in life. This can be a huge asset to Romney too. The question I would encourage people to think about: has his pro-choice stunt made him wiser on this issue?
Jan
11
9:44
AM
Bob_Cornelius
No…His pro-choice stunt makes him an opportunist. I have taken to calling Romney the “Hillary of the Right”. Run to right when it’s politically convenient, run to the left when it’s politically convenient. Man, his legs must get tired from all of that pandering.
Gov. Richardson here in NM is much the same. Bloggers in this part of the world have even dubbed Richardson the “pander-bear”.
I’ve also come to the conclusion that we will not have a perfect conservative candidate for President. That said, we need to find the best of what we have to offer.
Jan
11
7:18
PM
RyanThompson
Joseph, I think we are seeing what you mentioned out of Romney already. He admitted he is wiser now than 13 years ago.
Alex, more to the point, what the pro-life movement needs in a president is a person who first and foremost will appoint textualists or originalists to the Supreme Court. The $64,000 question, as I’ve said before is: what about the judges?
That’s why, in my view, the goal for pro-lifers it to keep Giuliani from the White House because not only does he want abortion on demand, he has a history of supporting judicial activism. (Furthermore, a pro-abortion Republican nominee would usher in a new wave of pro-abortion mindless Republicans who endorse whatever views the Republican candidate happens to support.)
McCain showed disdain for the Constitution’s text by restricting free speech through McCain-Feingold, but at least that law was enacted by the representatives of the people. McCain has a pro-life voting record, but he hardly seems like one who would want to fight for a solid judicial nominee.
Whatever his past, Romney appears to be the most steadfastly pro-Constitution, pro-life candidate among the three.
Obviously Sam Brownback, Tommy Thompson, and Fred Keating have better pro-life records than Romney, but I’ll leave a debate about electability–a debate that would surely include Romney–for another day.
Jan
12
5:41
PM
Griffin Emerson
Mit led the fight for traditional marrage, correction mit lost the fight for traditional marrage.
10
PM
Won’t work on him though, the establishment is in overdrive trying to rehabilitate.
10
PM
That’s fair. I wasn’t always pro-life, it wouldn’t be fair to expect it of him.
11
AM
Granted, he is Al Gore-like in his “I’ll say anything to get elected” attitude, but remember that Reagan signed a massive liberalization of California’s abortion laws as governor.
11
AM
Mitt Romney says his views have changed on abortion. We’re looking for the next President, not the next spokesperson for Right to Life.
11
AM
Reagan had been a union president himself and holding many “Democrat” views would later be an asset to understanding (for him, personally) why those views were… premature, later in life. This can be a huge asset to Romney too. The question I would encourage people to think about: has his pro-choice stunt made him wiser on this issue?
11
AM
No…His pro-choice stunt makes him an opportunist. I have taken to calling Romney the “Hillary of the Right”. Run to right when it’s politically convenient, run to the left when it’s politically convenient. Man, his legs must get tired from all of that pandering.
Gov. Richardson here in NM is much the same. Bloggers in this part of the world have even dubbed Richardson the “pander-bear”.
I’ve also come to the conclusion that we will not have a perfect conservative candidate for President. That said, we need to find the best of what we have to offer.
11
PM
Joseph, I think we are seeing what you mentioned out of Romney already. He admitted he is wiser now than 13 years ago.
11
PM
A response to Alex:
Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, agrees: “When people ask how we can support such a switch, I ask if they ever question Teddy Kennedy’s or John Kerry’s switches from pro-life to pro-choice.”
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTUxMTViMDAxZGNhYjQ0NjA0ODBlZjRhMWVmOGIwNWU=
11
PM
Alex, more to the point, what the pro-life movement needs in a president is a person who first and foremost will appoint textualists or originalists to the Supreme Court. The $64,000 question, as I’ve said before is: what about the judges?
That’s why, in my view, the goal for pro-lifers it to keep Giuliani from the White House because not only does he want abortion on demand, he has a history of supporting judicial activism. (Furthermore, a pro-abortion Republican nominee would usher in a new wave of pro-abortion mindless Republicans who endorse whatever views the Republican candidate happens to support.)
McCain showed disdain for the Constitution’s text by restricting free speech through McCain-Feingold, but at least that law was enacted by the representatives of the people. McCain has a pro-life voting record, but he hardly seems like one who would want to fight for a solid judicial nominee.
Whatever his past, Romney appears to be the most steadfastly pro-Constitution, pro-life candidate among the three.
Obviously Sam Brownback, Tommy Thompson, and Fred Keating have better pro-life records than Romney, but I’ll leave a debate about electability–a debate that would surely include Romney–for another day.
12
PM
Mit led the fight for traditional marrage, correction mit lost the fight for traditional marrage.