Via Byron York, a preview of a book by Boston journalist Ronald Scott:
According to Scott, Romney revealed that polling from Richard Wirthlin, Ronald Reagan’s former pollster whom Romney had hired for the ’94 campaign, showed it would be impossible for a pro-life candidate to win statewide office in Massachusetts. In light of that, Romney decided to run as a pro-choice candidate, pledging to support Roe v. Wade, while remaining personally pro-life.
And Michele Bachmann chose to go after Newt, who had a 98% pro-life record? The damage that woman did was enormous, and of course we now know why.
Instead we may get a nominee with poll-driven conviction. As of 2005 the polls apparently showed that being pro-life was necessary to run for President as a Republican, so he changed his mind. Let’s hope the polls don’t change.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Mitt “The Beach Sandal” Romney checks this device every morning right after he wakes up. (SFW)
“In light of that, Romney decided to run as a pro-choice candidate” Yep. And Massachusetts Citizens for Life promptly endorsed him for Senate! (more)
I live in MA and keep telling myself: I am still sane. I am still sane.
Clearly, political reality has no place in our party. If our candidates aren’t ideologically pure, then by all means let’s hand the country over to the lefties.
Political reality means changing one’s core conviction based on polls?
Shouldn’t being a representative of the people mean that?
“The People” want to murder their offspring. A pro-life candidate for political office should then 1) not run, 2) keep to his convictions, 3) flip? “The People” also say that gov theft and handouts equals compassion. What should a conservative candidate do? Do your answers to these two questions differ? If so, why?
The people get the kind of candidates they deserve, my answer two both of those questions would be the same, don’t run. I don’t like candidates who stick to the party line no matter what, because that type of rigid, unthinking leadership isn’t leadership at all. I generally don’t vote on policy, I vote for candidates that demonstrate the intellect to evaluate situations and make determinations based on the information before them.
If near-irrifutable evidence came out tomorrow that socialism worked, and everyone benefited from it, I would not want a politician in office who would reject that path on “principle”. I vote for conservative candidates because the evidence weighs considerably in the direction of capitalism. If that wasn’t the case, I would vote the other way.
Abortion, in my view, is a strictly social issue, because no matter which way you choose, someone’s fundamental rights are being abrogated by government mandate. So, a reasonable leader will look to the views of the populous to determine which way the government should go, since a choice must be made.
No personal convictions or even particular qualifications, but whatever it takes to become the president. Because he’s Mitt Romney, leader of humankind, slated in the next life to become a god on his own planet.
Too bad our current president is not poll driven. He rules AGAINST the will of a conservative leaning public.
TARP, illegal immigration, balanced budget, Obamascare, … all actions against the vast majority.
As for Newt’s consistently sterling conservative credentials, let’s not forget his endorsement of Dede Scozzafava way back in 2009, a woman who voted for same-sex marriage, received an award from a Planned Parenthood affiliate in 2008, supported card check legislation, supported federal funding for abortion, supported Obama’s 2009 stimulus package, refused to rule out support for a health care “public option,” and who ultimately dropped out of the race and threw her support to the dem candidate against the real conservative in that NY special election race.
He did it because the conservative candidate was not viable, and had no chance of winning. Gingrich wanted to unite the Republicans behind one of the Republican candidates in the three-way race, rather than see the Democrat win, and he chose the one who could have one had Republicans united behind her. There were more important, bigger picture issues. Semi-good is better than no-good. Standing on all-or-nothing principles instead of accepting the most realistic option is foolhardy.
The conservative candidate (Doug Hoffman) only lost by a margin of 48.3% to 46%. The Newt-endorsed candidate, Scozzafava, was the one who had “no chance of winning”: she actually dropped out of the race just before Election Day because she couldn’t win, tossing her support to the Dem. Clearly, Newt’s gratuitous support for candidate who openly favored federal funding for abortion (among other lefty stances) COST the conservative candidate the seat.
As for your larger point, I agree with you: “Semi-good is better than no-good. Standing on all-or-nothing principles instead of accepting the most realistic option is foolhardy.” That’s why it was better for Romney to run as “effectively pro-choice” and WIN than it was for him or any Republican in Mass.) to run as a staunch pro-lifer and LOSE.
However, the NY Congressional spedcial election in 2009 should not have presented any such dilemma for a “true” conservative like Newt. He didn’t have get involved at all. He didn’t have to endorse anybody. He’s not even from NY. He elected to throw his considerable weight behind the leftist RINO and, in so doing, cost the real conservative the race.
Perhaps Gingrich thought otherwise. In the scheme of things, it’s a relatively minor issue. Why is it being hammered to support Romney as if endorsing a candidate is tantamount to embracing the total of her beliefs.
Why the premature support for Romney, coupled with repeated specious attacking of Gingrich, for what boils down to pot-kettle stuff? Comparing the two, Gingrich is smarter, more principled, more achieving, with relevant experience and track record on national issues. Who is Mitt, really, but George Romney’s kid who (I’m dead serious) has some kind of leadership sense of entitlement that he has been trying to purchase for years now.
I disagree about it’s being a “minor” issue. The episode, which occurred only two years ago, shows Newt actively inserting himself into an out-of-state congressional race, which was being viewed as something of a test of the strength and viability of the Tea Party insurgency, in order to support the NON-Tea Party candidate, whose openly-stated views clearly should have made her anathema to any true conservative. If he had supported Hoffman instead of opposing him, Hoffman probably wins (he only lost by two points!), and the whole Tea Party movement would have enjoyed continued momentum. Instead, he loses, and the MSM treats the Dem victory in that race as akin to a Waterloo for conservatives.
We’re also talking about it (at least I am) because people are attacking Romney for his supposed crimes against conservatism while failing to acknowledge that, BUT FOR these ideological lapses on his part, he would have lost his run for governor of Mass. I happen to think it’s better for “moderate” Republicans to be in office than for rabidly leftist Dems to be in office. I’m sorry if that offends anyone, but even if one disagrees, let’s at least be consistent: If it’s unforgivable for Romney to place winning above ideological purity, then it’s just as unforgivable for Newt to do exactly the same thing, such as by trying to “unify” the party around Dede Scozzafava way back in 2009.
Okay, fair enough. Looking at the two candidates from another perspective, rather than their relative “wrongs”, what has Romney ever achieved for the benefit of conservative causes or the Republican party — or anyone? What are his pluses? My problem with him is primarily that, except for his money, family and media connects, I can’t identify any qualifications or relevant accomplishments that would warrant supporting him to be president.
bachmann is despicable. she put her personal ambition first and screwed the rest of us possibly sticking is with mitt the weasel
@ janitor: I don’t see the nomination as a reward for past service to the conservative cause. I think the nomination should be given to the candidate who has the overall best chance to be an effective leader and exponent of the conservative philosophy.
I do think a Republican’s getting elected to statewide office in a liberal state like Massachusetts advances the conservative cause to some extent. First, even moderate GOPers tend to be more conservative than Dems, so there’s that. Secondly, it opens up opportunities for other Republicans to be elected. Bill Weld’s election helped usher in Celucci and Romney because people saw that they could have a Republican governor and it wasn’t the end of the world. That probably helped Scott Brown get elected to the Senate.
Finally, I don’t think Romney can simply be dismissed as a talentless nobody who just lucked into success by virtue of being the son of rich guy. There are a lot of children of rich, successful people out there, and very, very few have had the kind of lives and careers as Mitt Romney (obviously). I also don’t think the GOP is so teeming with exceptional conservative candidates that we can afford to categorically rule out of consideration for national office anyone who was born to wealth. Maybe Romney would appear more impressive had he gottent to where he is starting out like Abe Lincoln, for example, but I think we just have to live with that. he’s still a very impressive guy, all in all.
Okay. Why would that be Romney? Without record of relevant achievements, and with so few who rally for him after years of overt and covert campaigning, what factors indicate that this would be Romney?
I understand your points second paragraph, but how do they distinguish Romney from other Republican candidates? Historically, many Republicans have been elected in Massachusetts.
It’s not Romney’s wealth per se that is my issue (albeit I am unsure how it will play versus the community organizer.) I simply do not see any record at all of public service or notable relevant achievement. Not even military service or philanthropy. Nothing. Even the Kennedy boys served their country that way. What has Mitt Romney ever done. I’m still waiting to hear the positives, not the excuses, or the dissing of other candidates.
A big “positive” for Mitt vs. the other GOP candidates is executive experience. One thing Gingrich, Santorum, Bachmann, and Paul all have in common is that they all come from legislative backgrounds. Romney’s whole career has been as an executive, both in business and in government. Gingrich may be a great “ideas” guy and of course he’s articulate as hell, but what has he ever RUN successfully? What reason is there to think that the guy who couldn’t hold his campaign staff together or even get on the Virginia ballot could effectively run the U.S. government? (It’s also a bit disturbing that he was ousted as Speaker.)
Back to Mitt: He’s smart, he’s a proven executive, he speaks well, he’s put forth a thoroughly conservative platform (as have the others for the most part), he’s proven he can win votes from people who AREN’T dyed-in-the-wool conservatives, and he seems to have strong family and religious values. He’s not perfect, by any means, but again I don’t see anyone running on the GOP side with a better combination of “positives.”
Gingrich has owned businesses, and also worked in the private sector, and thus has “executive experience” too. The phrase applies whenever a person has been in charge of carrying out a plan of action, working with other people, and making decisions.
I tend to think “executive experience” is being a bit overblown, vaguely alluding to something (what?) that Romney allegedly has accomplished. But we don’t actually know what Romney did as a business executive, what decisions he personally made, what ideas he personally had or carried to fruition, or what he was responsible for other than helping to facilitate start-up capital for Bain, with a group of buddies. Was he the capital partner, or the working partner. He won’t now disclose his various business interests (and possible conflicts of interest), many of which avoid SEC registration, off-shore, and so forth. As far as Romney’s “executive experience” in office as a governor, the question would be: what did he actually accomplish.
Maybe you can enlighten me, but I’m not aware that Gingrich ever owned or ran a business whose essential purpose wasn’t to somehow cash in on Gingrich’s own notoriety as a political figure (e.g., consulting, writing books, etc.). IOW, it was basically ancillary to his main career, which was being a politician. Romney was a business executive as his main professional pursuit for a lot of years before getting into politics. Romney’s didn’t cash in on his name, he cashed in on his abilities as an business executive.
I don’t think executive experience is “overblown” at all. The presidency is obviously a huge executive responsibility. There are plenty of people who, although they may be smart and have great ideas on what needs to be done, simply don’t have the executive skills to achieve results.
I would assume that a primary purpose of Gingrich’s private businesses were to make money. Everyone who starts a business is “cashing in” on his talents, education, prior experience, or other assets (such as, in Romney’s case, his father’s money and connections.)
We still do not know what Romney actually did on a day-to-day basis as a supposed executive.
Britney Spears owns a restaurant in New York City. She put up the money. Would it be fair to consider her a restaurant executive?
On pro-life/pro-choice… It’s like two people standing in St. Louis. One wants to go to New York, the other to Los Angeles. There can be no compromise.
You can, however, change your core principles. Romney did. To improve his chances for election, Romney decided to decide that killing babies is bad after all.
The question is, how shall I regard any of Romney’s other stated principles and positions? With trust? Really?
The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. Romney has demonstrated he will change any principle, any position, to maintain political viability.
As for Romney not requiring a positive resume for conservatism, he’s *running* on it. He’s Mitt Romney, Conservative Governor and Consummate Businessman. Any requests for examples or evidence of Romney’s conservative politics come in response to his own claims they exist. Well, we’re ready to hear them, been begging for them.
What makes Romney a conservative? Why go moderate when conservative candidates are available? Don’t bother with the electability or inevitability thing – already exposed as something easier said than proved, in fact, as something that’s been repeated about Romney ad nauseum by the GOP establishment from the beginning.
What makes Romney a conservative?
I wonder how Bachmann is going to meld her tea party connections with her establishment connections (such as they are). In case she hasn’t noticed, these two factions are at war with each other. But this is really a no brainer. She will pick the one that does her the most good, dumping the other without a qualm. When this bid for VP doesn’t pan out, she will go back to being the champion of the tea party movement. Hopefully, Thoms Wolfe was right: “You Can’t Go Home Again”.
“What makes Romney a conservative?”
Well, he did say he was one. That’s the only proof I have seen. There sure is no proof from his actions or even in his speeches.
So, lacking conviction, integrity and steadfastness in a candidate is now considered a GOOD thing?
People are searching for reasons to explain Romney’s flip-flopping nature. It’s because the man has NO integrity or character. The man’s public persona is nothing but a pastiche of campaign talking points, carefully choreographed family pictures, and soundbites of self-made success, but it’s all artificial. Romney, like far too many people, at his core has an insatiable appetite for political power and prestige, and his utter lack of principles will be tolerated only if people choose to do so. Romney’s failings are hiding in plain sight for those willing to look.
The Wade vs Roe decision had world wide ramifications. It is rare that a SCOTUS decision carries over internationally but this one did.
Iirc many nations followed this judgement & abortions became legal .It certainly jumped the shark .
Today the issue is almost only argued as in discrimination of female feotus & “The War on Femals” esp in India & china. But these countries will suffer the consequences of gender imbalance. If abortions were equal boy & girl then not much interest
If you are interested – the medical procedure for early terminations & corrective “cleaning out the plumbing ” are identical. Cetainly in Australia they are given the same procedure number therefor no one really knows whohad what or what was who.
And yes -its publicly funded although hospitals & staff eg Catholic need not provide these services.
Hope this helps .
[…] to insiders in DC. It is okay for Romney to have an abortion stand that blows in the wind, but as William Jacobson states, Bachmann nearly destroyed Newt for his less than pure, 98% anti-abortion rating. Why is no one […]