.... that's where he goes.
I don't think it is a sin to change your mind. In fact, I think we should have more politicians who are able to think for themselves rather than supporting tired policy (and rhetoric) that is ineffective, outdated or downright wrong (ahem- Iraq). However, I want a president who is willing to stand for what he/she believes in and won't change their morals if it is politically expedient. I don't want someone who is the proverbial chaff, blown about by every wind of political doctrine.
So let’s face the facts folks. Mitt has labeled himself a conservative and has done so for a while, that I will grant and that doesn’t bother me. What does bother me is that he is willing to change his views to get elected. Arnold is considered a conservative even though he is all over the map on issues. Sticking to his guns (no pun intended) has only helped his recent popularity. Mitt, on the other hand was someone I would have supported, had he not buckled to political pressure and come up with some stupid story about cloning, that has nothing to do with the issue by the way, to make himself more appealing to the Falwells of America and the conservative right. Here’s what he said during the first debate of this year. Prepare to be stunned and thrilled by this brilliant explanation of why he was suddenly enlightened to the evils of abortion.......(wait for it.....wait for it)
"About two years ago, when we were studying cloning in our state, I said, look, we have gone too far. It's a "brave new world" mentality that Roe v. Wade has given us, and I changed my mind."
Wow. That just could be the worst excuse for selling your morals to a political party that I have ever heard. He succeeded in using a literary allusion and a buzz-phraze in the same sentence but ended up sounding canned and trite. Nice try at a conversion story, Mitt, but, come on! I’m a little disappointed really. He’s a smart, well-spoken guy, couldn’t he come up with something better than cloning and a Brave New World? What happened to the meaningful stories about your parents pro-choice stance, that story about your aunt? Where did that go and what idiot on your campaign team thought up Brave New World? Whoever it was, fire them quick! Pretty soon you’ll have people labeling children’s books Communist Manifestos (Just kidding, it is a pretty odd book).
Was he pro-choice? There is no argument there, he was pro-choice as late as 2002 when he was running for Governor. He filled out a Planned Parenthood questionnaire with the following responses.
Do you support the substance of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade? YES
Do you support state funding of abortion services through Medicaid for low-income women? YES (Can you Rudy? James, didn’t you say you wouldn’t vote for Guliani because of this same reason?)
In 1998 the FDA approved the first packaging of emergency contraception, also known as the "morning after pill." Emergency contraception is a high dose combination of oral contraceptives that if taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex, can safely prevent a pregnancy from occurring. Do you support efforts to increase access to emergency contraception? YES
There are many more quotes from his time in Massachusetts in both of his campaigns where he made his pro-choice perspective quite clear.
Now that we have established that he was pro-choice, for good reasons, reasons that I agree with, I want to explain why that bothers me.
Few members of the church are brave enough to agree with Roe v. Wade even though it is in perfect agreement with the gospel. I feel the same way about abortion that Mitt used to. It is a moral question for me, not one that I am going to change to fit the needs of a candidate. Mitt didn’t have the spine to do the same thing. He gave up a moral stance to get votes. He’s just another slick politician with overdone hair.
No matter how you twist it, the man was pro-life, or at least pretending to be. Either way, he was putting on a show to get votes. Which is just what his advisor, Michael Murphy has admitted.
In 2005 he fessed up and said "he's been a pro-life Mormon faking it as a pro-choice friendly."
What does Mitt stand for? That depends on what will get him elected. Take gay marriage. While I won’t get into the same details as the abortion flop, Mitt did make himself out to in the corner of gays and lesbians. He might not have been forthcoming about what he would/ wouldn’t do but he did want to become governor of Massachusetts and had to convince the voters that he leaned to the left on social issues.
There might be some good reasons to vote for the guy, but none of them have convinced me so far. He might be Mormon, but when you get past all the talk, he’s just another politician who would bend over backwards to serve his party but won’t stand for what he believes if it will hurt him in the polls.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Labels
- Politics (82)
- Mitt (25)
- Barack Obama (8)
- John McCain (8)
- Family (7)
- Caricatures (1)
- McCain (1)
- Sports (1)
Blog Archive
-
▼
2007
(90)
-
▼
May
(9)
- Mitt Romney on Charlie Rosen
- Where the wind blows......
- Is Ignorant Media to Blame for Mitt's Flip-Flopper...
- Condensed Communist Manifesto for Kids
- Minority of a Different Color
- Wealth Confiscation and Redistribution
- Are the Democrats Striving for Socialism..........
- I'm So Stoked About Mitt Romney!
- Romney Wasn't Just at the Debate, He Owned the Deb...
-
▼
May
(9)
Nice Picture (I'm serious)....but geez--I must have really gotten on your nerves.........even your latest sketch of Bush was more flattering.
I'm not surprised you didn't find anything more substantial than his previous stance on abortion. The thing with the cloning quote is this: Mitt has had to retell that story a million times. I will post the video of his explanation in full that came last summer. He's been giving long and eloquent explanations for two years now, so I hope you can understand why he has gotten a little lazy in his responses. For example, now every time someone asks him about Mormonism he simply says "It's not an issue." (see GMA this morning).
I fail to recognize how ROE VS WADE can be acceptable in the gospel. I'm sorry Josh......but the bottom line is this--is a fetus human life? 'Cause if so, we are killing (not just aborting) a living person. I understand if you think actual human life doesn't start until the baby leaves the womb.....I really can--but I doubt I will every buy into that thinking.
Hopefully someday I will get you to admit that the flip-flopper status has at least been inflated regarding Mitt Romney.
As always, a fantastic rebuttle. However, it is still amazing to me that no matter the evidence proving the record and stance of Mitt, the libs still can't see it. The gay marriage thing is way off base. He only said that he supported the rights of all individuals, not the condoning of their marrying. Once again, only hearing what you want to hear.
It is pretty presumptive to think that "every wind of political doctrine" has been what Mitt has taken on. As far as I can tell the only semi-legitimate argument you have is with abortion. Heaven forbid a man changes his mind with good reason.
Roe v. Wade can't be in parallel with the gospel. It is about the right to live. It sounds as if this debate continues to be about death. Odd that most Democrats focus on the worst case scenerio of death. As far as I can tell it is usually never about the life of the child, but when is death acceptable. And for a party principally against the death penalty, anyone else see the irony here.
It's pretty cool actually. Before we came here, someone proposed sending us down here with without the ability to make decisions for ourselves. We call him Satan. He thought that not having the right to make our own decisions was a pretty nifty idea. I disagree.
The basic principle of god-given rights is that God gave them to us and government should never take them away. The womens right to choose, no matter how difficult it can be for us to accept, falls under the umbrella of individual rights that must be protected. Otherwise, we are allowing the government to mandate that which god has given us to decide.
Bottom line: Opposing abortion except for instances of rape, incest, and when the life of the mother is is in peril is not pro-life. That stance (maybe you've heard it before?) is pro-choice. It is in fact leaving the option for mothers to confer with the doctor (and God) to choose when an abortion should be performed. You guys can't see it but the churches stance is more pro-choice than anything else.
Is abortion used as a contraceptive? Yes. Is that destroying human life? In my opinion, it is and whoever does so will have to answer for it. But I will fight for the that right to be preserved in this country because it is what is right.
Abolishing Roe v. Wade isn't a rightious cause. It's taking away our agency.
I liked the man, still do actually, but he has the same greasy quality that most politicians do. I thought he was different and liked what he stood for because I agreed with it.
Not any more.
You're wrong on your definition of pro-life.....sorry. You're just flat out wrong.
Wikipedia:
"After more than forty years of debate, the abortion issue remains one of the broader and more controversial societal issues. A broad spectrum of positions exists on this issue, from those who advocate abortion-on-demand on the one end (100% pro-choice), to those who oppose every form of abortion on the other (100% pro-life). Between these two there are a considerable range of positions. Some oppose abortion, but are content to work at reducing the number of abortions through prevention of unwanted pregnancies, a task they accomplish through targeted sex education and/or increased availability of contraception. Current legislation in United States Congress, the Pregnant Women Support Act, seeks to reduce the abortion rate in the U.S. without making any procedure illegal and without overturning Roe v. Wade. There are also some who support legal abortion within the first two trimesters but oppose late-term abortions. Some oppose most abortions but make exception for cases where if the woman's life is in serious risk. In this category, some likewise make an exception for severe fetal deformities. Others make exceptions when the pregnancy was not caused by consensual sexual activity or may violate social taboos, as in cases of rape and incest. Some allow for all these exceptions, but stop short of abortion-on-demand."
I maybe only 95% pro-life, but I'm still a pro-lifer, because I, like many other pro-lifers, have regarded the health of the mother to be a consideration in whether or not she should have the right to terminate the life of her pre-born baby.
Josh, for real man, how do you know Mitt wasn't sincere in his change of mind?
You may consider yourself as pro-life as you want to but keep in mind, not everyone else will look at you the same way. Especially in light of the revisions to the handbook of instructions that allows for an abortion in many circumstances.
I'm not advocating it. It's ugly, horrible and never a good choice. All I am saying is we have to preserve Roe v. Wade for the above instances.
Like a formerly wise man once said, it "should be safe and legal in this country". If not, we are forcing an awful fate on women who are already victims. I would be open to changing the rules on abortion, but not getting rid of it. I think it is overused and needs revisiting. But anyone who says it should be done away with is simply wrong.
I'm struggling a little bit with what should be legal in a free society and what shouldn't (not talking about abortion). You see, we have laws for a reason. I'm glad it is illegal to kill and steal for example. It's interesting--laws are based on (gasp)morals.....so I'm not exactly sure why people get on my case when I think we should have laws against some immoral behavior. I've been putting a lot of thought lately in the way I have been viewing freedom.
It is a hard question, legislating morals. We do it sometimes and not others. I don't think there is one place to draw the line.
But it does make things like abortion hot topics for debate.
Also, you are right on when you say that I am on one edge of the pro-choice side. Definately more conservative in my very liberal views :)