So is Mitt a real conservative or not? The furor continues over Mitt Romney’s apparent change of heart on social conservative issues: abortion, gay rights, etc. Kathryn Jean Lopez at National Review Online writes that many of the few conservatives in Massachusetts, those who would have seen Romney up close the past four years, have already written him off, going for Sen. Sam Brownback instead. Yet there are few prominent pro-lifers, in the major pro-life groups—who praise Romney as being a big help during his time as governor.
The question is whether Romney was doing everything he could do or just making a show of it considering that the Legislature would oppose him at every turn any way. In other words, there was little political cost in minimally satisfying the pro-life, pro-family crowd without truly going to the mat for them. (Although it doesn’t do the Brownback supporters any good to be even tangentially related to a certain Catholic blogger whose rantings have teetered on the edge of unhinged.)
Meanwhile, a video from Romney’s 1994 Senatorial campaign against Ted Kennedy has surfaced in which he proudly proclaims himself to be pro-abortion, pro-gay rights. Of course, Kennedy is no great shakes either so Romney was simply triangulating. The conservatives had no choice of candidate and so Romney appealed to the liberals. Cold political calculus?
Change of heart
Technorati Tags:abortion, campaign, election, homosexuality, Massachusetts, president, Romney, same-sex marriage
The reason I doubt Romney’s sincerity on this issue, is that his Church hasn’t taken the most definitive of stands on it. In Mormon teaching, abortion is undesirable and even condemned somewhat, but not opposed officially in terms of it’s legality. They DO have the caveat that a woman can undergo an abortion if the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, in which case she is only to do so after much prayer, fasting and counseling from her Bishop. Of course, we pro lifers (real pro lifers) know that if a child is a child, it doesn’t matter how he or she was concieved, all that matters is that abortion is the unjust and brutal murder of that child. And this brings us to the real crux and failing of the Mormon position on this issue: The Mormon Church when talking about abortion, in addition to paying lip service to how abhorrent it is, also says that there is no official “revelation” on when the soul enters the body after conception and before birth. Apparently it happens some time, but they’re not sure when. For years, we have always thought of Mormons as being staunchly with us on this issue, but now we are seeing exactly why the teaching is as vague as it truly is: To give some wiggle room to one of their own over one of the most divisive political issues in American history in his pursuit of the highest office in the land, and even in the world. I would not vote for this man, no matter who he was running against.
Many of the few conservatives
I like that!
ON YOUR LAST POINT…
I think Massresistance may be right, here. Romney would have been better off not ordering licenses, and standing up to the court. THAT was his job, regardless of what anyone with a large pocketbook, or a large university post, may say.
His job was to jump on the other side of the see-saw and create a balance of power when one branch oversteps its authority. Instead, the bully court jumped on one end, and we little-ones (the many of the few) went flying off the other end. We looked to our elected “psuedo-conservative” big brother to protect us, but he stood by and watched as the playground bully knocked us around.
Now, I believe MassResistance to be WAY OUT THERE on many thing, but here, I think they have it nailed.
It is too early to form decided opinions yet on many of the potential Republican candidates. But it certainly seems as if the 2008 election will be quite a ride for all Americans, and much more interesting than the 2000 Global Warming versus the Texas Rangers; or the 2004 election with that other guy from Massachusetts who should have been tried for treason along with his corpulent senior partner in the Senate.
It seems to me that one has to make distinctions between those like Mitt whose hearts are in the right place in opposing judicially mandated same sex “marriage”, even if they are sort of wishy washy in practice when faced with a decision of whether or not to enforce a judicial ruling, and those who really support same sex marriage, like most of the wonderful legislators of our Commonwealth and other liberal politicians, even if, like Hilary Clinton or John Kerry, they might at times triangulate and say some insincere words in defense of traditional marriage. I think to blame Mitt Romney rather than Supreme Judicial Court and liberal politicians for same sex marriage is silly and paints with a broad brush. Politics is always the art of the possible and requires compromises from time to time. And there are policy reasons for the executive to feel they have to enforce a judicial decision, even if it is wrong. It has to do with preserving the constitutionally mandated balance of power. The executive cannot simply decide which judicial decisions they want to enforce. The proper checks on judicial power come from electing people who over time will appoint judges who believe in legislative restraint, or impeaching judges if there is actual wrongdoing. And Romney did bring the lawsuit that shamed the legislators into voting on the Constitutional amendment at the recent constitutional convention. He should get some credit for that. For him to be slimed as someone to be blamed for same sex marriage just seems unfair and ridiculous. For many extremists, the perfect is the enemy of the good. I feel the same way about a lot of purists on the right, like Michael Savage, who save their sharpest venom for conservatives who maybe stray from their views 5% of the time, rather than fight thte good fight against liberals, with whom they may disagree with 95% of the time. In fact, we may have such purists to thank for the Democrats’ being in office today at both state and federal levels, which is hardly great news on either the same sex “marriage” or the abortion front.
Charles, Romney had nothing to do with that lawsuit (which was a brilliant move, BTW).
I quote,
source
Did you watch the video from 1994?
Romney is a nice (slick) “Main Street Republican”. He is no social conservative.
For all of Romney’s talk about opposing same-sex marriage and being pro-life, his actions are indeed as described by Mass Resistance and Deal Hudson at the Morley Institute
http://www.morleyinstitute.org/documents.php?doctype=1&doctypename;=‘The Window’&docstyle=168
http://www.morleyinstitute.org/documents.php?doctype=1&doctypename;=‘The Window’&docstyle=170
http://www.morleyinstitute.org/documents.php?doctype=1&doctypename;=‘The Window’&docstyle=172
Romney’s also been paying-off conservative organizations in the past year so they will say nice things about him, (e.g. Federalist Society, Heritage Foundation, Mass Citizens for Life).
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/08/28/romneys_listed_as_big_givers_to_charity/?page=full
He’ll say whatever he needs to in order to get elected, and then he’ll govern like a moderate/liberal. I wouldn’t trust him.
Re: the rape and incest issue, the numbers are few compared to the number of daily abortions. If there were no legal abortions except for instances of rape and incest, wouldn’t that be a giant leap in the right direction? But would the courts have to decide, then, if rape or incest had actually occurred? By that time, the baby would be born! Hmmm…that compromise might not be so bad in reality, although it is wrong in principle.