Mitt Romney: For Or Against Abortion?
Posted on January 11, 2007
Was it political opportunism then or now? Or has Mitt Romney’s views ‘evolved’ as he says? Take a look at these two videos side by side. The first one is from 1994 when he ran against Teddy Kennedy.
Allah Pundit suggests comparing the video above to this quote from an editorial published in 2005:
I am pro-life. I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother. I wish the people of America agreed, and that the laws of our nation could reflect that view. But while the nation remains so divided over abortion, I believe that the states, through the democratic process, should determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate.
States rights guy? If so, I agree. Now, here is his response given to Dr. Helen about the video above.
So, has his views on abortion evolved? Regardless, as Allah Pundit notes, with the current contenders he is up against he still has the best record on social issues.
Even if Romney’s lying now, he’s still the most authentic social con in the race.
When you take a look at the other serious contenders, especially McCain, Romney definitely has the best record on social issues. Add this to his pro-victory views in the War on Terror, and Romney is my pick so far. And yes…the man does know his new media.
» Filed Under Abortion, Interview, News, Politics As Usual, Video
Trackback URL
Comments
12 Responses to “Mitt Romney: For Or Against Abortion?”
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
I already endorsed Romney myself http://www.scottallan.com/2007/01/mitt-romney-for-president.html
I do believe he has always been pro-life. He understands that the Constitution was wrongly interpreted and should allow this to be a state’s right, but he also respects the law as it currently stands. Until the law changes, he has a duty to uphold it.
The more you hear Mitt, the more you’ll like him.
I can accept an evolving point of view on abortion — after all, I believe the fellow who signed the law legalizing abortion in California was named RONALD REAGAN. He got better on the issue, too.
Here is what Romney says. I take him at his word:
“Governor Romney: “Well, I just got a look at the excerpts from my debate against Ted Kennedy in 1994. It reminded me of why I ran against him in the first place. Someone had to give him a run for his money.
“Now, it also shows what 13 years will do. I’m grayer. I’m a little heavier. And I hope I’ve grown a bit wiser as well.
“Of course, I was wrong on some issues back then. I’m not embarrassed to admit that. I think most of us learn with experience. I know I certainly have.
“If you want to know where I stand by the way, you don’t just have to listen to my words, you can go to look at my record as governor. Frankly, in the bluest of states. Facing the most liberal media in the country. I’ve led the fight to preserve traditional marriage. I’ve taken every legal step I could conceive of, to prevent same sex marriage.
“I have also taken action to protect the sanctity of life. I vetoed bills that authorized embryo farming, therapeutic cloning, Plan B emergency contraception, and of course a redefinition of when life was going to begin as well.
“I’ve also fought for family. I’ve promoted abstinence education in the schools.
“I fought for English immersion in our schools and school choice. And of course as you’d expect from a Republican, I’ve held the line on taxes and I’ve worked to re-instate the death penalty.
“And I’m proud that at the same time, I’ve fought discrimination. I believe every American deserves equal opportunity.
“Now, that’s my record. And maybe that’s why people on the other side are dredging up 13 year old history and attacking me now.”
And again I say, any time the American people have the choice of voting for the ‘lesser of 2 evils’, all we’re gonna get is something that is STILL evil..
Vote Conservative, live Conservative, BE Conservative…
Romney isn’t…
I’m not sure I see the problem with Mitt changing his position on a few social issues and I disagree with the premise that Romney changed his views for purely political reasons. Romney’s views have changed (although not so recently as some claim), and he readily admits that in his response to the YouTube clip. Unlike some flip-floppers who refuse to admit that they have changed positions with some ridiculously convoluted explanation, Romney is clear and concise about why he has changed over time.
Reagan, Kennedy, and even Lincoln made major policy changes during their political careers as well. When you are a private citizen you have the luxury of taking any stand you wish without regard for the policy impact that it will have on the nation. As a Governor Romney saw how a few social issues are eroding our moral fabric, so he evolved his position – good for him – welcome to the RIGHT side of the issue Mitt!
The question is really did Romney stick to his campaign promises as Governor (YES), did he follow through effectively as an Olympic organizer (YES), and did he distinguish himself as an executive at Bain (YES). He was one of the most fastidious politicians in recent history to make sure that he followed through on all of his campaign promises. The fact that Romney now believes that his positions 12 years ago have evolved has little bearing on his qualifications for President.
Most of the professed outrage surrounding Romney’s policy changes have come not from the right, but from the left, looking to knock a strong candidate out of the box. Republicans believe that a person can change course when they see that they were wrong, we don’t want ideologues or beauty contest winners — we want people who have experience outside of the D.C. and can look at tough issue analytically not politically. We want someone who can work with the Democrats, and above all we want someone who has proven that they can get things done!
I didn’t say he changed his views for political reasons George. I asked the question.
The accusation by some (not this article) that Mitt Romney is a “flip-flopper” is impossible! In order to be one, you must “flop”. From 1994 until 2002 and after, he evolved and flipped, just like he admits. Ronald Reagan also did the flip. Most people can appreciate a good flip.
Contrast that to John Kerry the original flip-flopper. Goes into the military and receives awards. Comes home and publicly throws away ribbons. Runs for Commander-in-chief. Now, that is what a flip-flopper is.
Hello Jay:
long time no talk…
We feel that Mitt will be a great CIC for the simple reason of him not being a “one issue wonder.”
Too many of the posible candidates are just that, stuck on one issue.
Mitt has exemplified conservative views in his personal life, so it has reflected in his political life.
As a republican he feels that people have the right to govern themselves, and he did not tamper with that choice that the Massachusettes voters had decided about abortion.
His personal views are different from the popular opinion in the state of Mass.
http://capitol3republican.blogspot.com/2006/12/more-about-mitt-58.html
Also his stance on life issues has found a balance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney#Stem_cell_research
We love when someone can learn. Mitt has done exactly that.
His epiphany came long before the decision to run for President.
Thank you for the opportunity to post on this topic.
Hope to hear more from you in the future.
God Bless
T&T Capitol 3
Forget the fact that he is a phony, he’s not qualified. He served one term as governor of a small liberal state. His resume is weak at best.
He’s old enough to have served in Vietnam. What’s the story there?
Chris,
Qualified? Please show me a executive running for GOP nomination more qualified than Romney.
McCain? He has run a senate office that is smaller than most small businesses. He has a great foreign policy argument, but what has he managed in an executive form? There’s a reason most Senators do not get elected President.
Giuliani? He’s run the largest city in the U.S. which has 8.1 million population verses Massachusetts’ 6.3 million population. He definitely has executive experience at a mayoral level. But he has several poor executive decisions that haunt him, including the recent recommendation of Bernard Kerik which was an embarrassment to the President. Not to mention his personal life and social views are insurmountable to many in the GOP. How many affairs and marriages can one man have? He makes Clinton look tame.
Brownback? He has the same executive experience that McCain has, a small Senator’s staff. He does have social issues down, but lacks the organization and support to raise the money it will take to beat Hillary.
Huckabee? Surprisingly, Huckabee has the most time as executive out of the bunch. Arkansas has a 2.6 million population though and Huckabee hasn’t had to deal with the ground breaking issues Romney has (Fighting gay marriage and passing health care reform). When Mike was governing Arkansas, Romney was governing Bain Consulting and on the board at other large companies. Huckabee like Brownback has good social issues, but very small organizations and fundraising capabilities.
It’s a well rounded field, but I fail to see many with more successful executive management skills than Romney.
Chris,
On the Vietnam question Romney was around 20 during his father’s run at president. Romney was available for the draft and at the age of 19 as he had not been drafted, he decided to volunteer 2.5 years as a Mormon missionary in France. This was the expected actions of a 19 year old in the religion he was raised in. He learned French and lived among the people of France preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Had he been drafted he would’ve gone.
Never mind abortion or death for that matter. A new kind of Life Insurance exists for our troops…. So, soldier, if your tour is extended, I suggest that you view the blog below and submit the form included to your headquarters. Of course, Bush et al (Romney) would forbid the proposal, But why should it NOT be possible? Why allow those sitting behind a desk to send men and women to sacrificial deaths in wars without asking them to help provide a “rebirth” for those they cause to die? I suggest a Manhattan-like project by government to make cloning safe for humans. It surely is going to happen, and it should happen sooner rather than later. No one deserves to be cloned more than the soldier who gives his/her life, while the executive giving the orders cowers in the background. For more information, visit http://cloningforpeace.blogspot.com/