Romney Struggles to Define Abortion Stance

Dankdude

Well-Known Member
By Michael D. Shear
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, August 23, 2007;

Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney said this week that as president he would allow individual states to keep abortion legal, two weeks after telling a national television audience that he supports a constitutional amendment to ban the procedure nationwide.

In an interview with a Nevada television station on Tuesday, Romney said Roe. v. Wade should be abolished and vowed to "let states make their own decision in this regard." On Aug. 6, he told ABC's George Stephanopoulos that he supports a human life amendment to the Constitution that would protect the unborn.


"I do support the Republican platform, and I do support that being part of the Republican platform, and I'm pro-life," Romney said in the ABC interview, broadcast days before his victory among conservative Iowa voters in the Ames straw poll.

The two very different statements reflect the challenge for Romney, who has reinvented himself as a champion of the antiabortion movement in recent years and is seeking to become the conservative alternative to former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani in the battle for the Republican presidential nomination.

Critics, including his GOP rivals, have questioned his commitment to the antiabortion cause, contrasting his statements as a pro-abortion-rights governor earlier this decade with his antiabortion rhetoric as a presidential candidate.

As a result, his comments on the subject are parsed carefully, particularly by the other Republican candidates and abortion activists. Jon Ralston, the Las Vegas Sun columnist who interviewed Romney on KLAS television, said he was surprised by the governor's answer.

"I thought that was a perfect example of Mitt Romney trying to thread a needle that's very difficult to thread," Ralston said in an interview yesterday. "I don't see how you can be antiabortion, be in favor of a constitutional amendment and be in favor of states' rights. . . . I don't see how you do it."

Top Romney advisers insisted yesterday that their candidate's statements on abortion this month were consistent with each other. They said Romney supports a two-step process in which states get authority over abortion after Roe v. Wade is overturned, followed eventually by a constitutional amendment that bans most abortions.

James Bopp Jr., a top Romney adviser on the issue and a lawyer who has represented antiabortion organizations for decades, said Romney shares the aspirations of the antiabortion movement while understanding that its goals will not be achieved overnight.

"There's no flip-flopping. There's no contradiction. There's simply step one and step two," said Bopp, who has helped to shape the GOP's official stance on abortion since 1980. "When he says he favors reversal of Roe v. Wade, that's what I want to happen. I pray that will happen. Am I in favor of 14th Amendment protections applying to the unborn? Well, yeah, ultimately."

Abortion has proved a thorny issue for all of the leading Republican candidates for president this year, with each being challenged to reassure doubtful conservatives and confront charges of flip-flopping on an issue of moral conviction.

Giuliani was assailed earlier this year for appearing to waffle on his long-standing support for abortion during the first Republican debate. Giuliani later reaffirmed his desire to keep abortion legal but frequently says he would appoint "strict constructionist" judges to the Supreme Court -- code among many conservatives for wanting to ban abortion.

Abortion opponents have also questioned the views of former senator Fred D. Thompson (R-Tenn.), whose entrance into the presidential contest is expected within weeks. As a lobbyist, Thompson once represented a national abortion rights group, a revelation that stood in sharp contrast with his antiabortion record in Congress.

But none has been as scrutinized as Romney, who has admitted being "effectively pro-choice" as governor of Massachusetts until confronting stem cell legislation midway through his term in office.

In his failed 1994 bid to unseat Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), Romney declared: "I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country." Later, as governor, he vowed to defend the state law protecting abortion rights.

But in an article he penned in the Boston Globe in 2005, he explained his change of heart and declared himself firmly opposed to abortion.

"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," Romney wrote. "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."

That explanation has not satisfied his harshest critics, among them Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), whom Romney trounced in the recent Iowa straw poll. Brownback continues to criticize Romney's abortion position in hopes of winning over antiabortion voters in early-voting states, saying last week that Romney has "moved back and forth over the years, and on a core topic."

Ralston said that Romney's answer to his questions this week left him wondering whether the presidential candidate wants to eventually ban abortions nationwide. He said Romney's explanation is "clever, isn't it?"

"His moral positions conflict, I think, with his states'-rights opinions," Ralston said. "That's why he struggles to come up with an answer."
 

7xstall

Well-Known Member
romney is a classic example of the used car salesman... or the appliance salesman at sears. it's all about the commission check... greed and deception get him off big time, you can see it in his eyes, the lust for power and the lack of conscience...

he truly encapsulates the character of the neo-con ideology to such accuracy that i often wonder if he is even a person.

no matter, even if he is a robot he's still a liar.





.
 

medicineman

New Member
romney is a classic example of the used car salesman... or the appliance salesman at sears. it's all about the commission check... greed and deception get him off big time, you can see it in his eyes, the lust for power and the lack of conscience...

he truly encapsulates the character of the neo-con ideology to such accuracy that i often wonder if he is even a person.

no matter, even if he is a robot he's still a liar.





.
My God, 7X, what planet are you from. What kind of pot are you smokin, talk about a flip-flopper, one minute you are castigating the left and the next the right. I've come down with you on several issues but others, you are a mile away. I guess you don't know where you stand. Pick a position and hold out.
 

7xstall

Well-Known Member
yeah, welcome to thinking for myself instead of regurgitating all of the party lines that don't really add up. it's also known as having principals. try it sometime. you'll realize that there isn't a perfect party, that left is only left sometimes and right is only right sometimes. you're a victim of the old skool media and the only cure is to stop watching tv. :mrgreen:





.
 

medicineman

New Member
yeah, welcome to thinking for myself instead of regurgitating all of the party lines that don't really add up. it's also known as having principals. try it sometime. you'll realize that there isn't a perfect party, that left is only left sometimes and right is only right sometimes. you're a victim of the old skool media and the only cure is to stop watching tv. :mrgreen:





.
Wow, and miss Bill Maher, Keith Olberman and Lou Dobbs, not a chance,~LOL~. You pretty much spout the Christian rights position but like all of the hypocrites, you take a path unlike Christ and promote war and killing, so don't get all high and mighty with me. Untill you can walk on water, (a feat I've already performed) stop with the I'm better than thou bullshit. I haven't the inclination to share my experience with such a hypocrite, but it is true,~LOL~.
 

7xstall

Well-Known Member
i was in that thread, med... the walk on water thing.

if you ever read my posts on war you'll find that i believe war should be avoided. you'll also find that i think when it is chosen it has to be quick and decisive using overwhelming force with clear objectives and solid strategy.

i don't advocate occupations or political wars but i do believe in defense and being proactive. war means that there has been a major failure in our basic policies, it's not something good.





.
 

medicineman

New Member
i was in that thread, med... the walk on water thing.

if you ever read my posts on war you'll find that i believe war should be avoided. you'll also find that i think when it is chosen it has to be quick and decisive using overwhelming force with clear objectives and solid strategy.

i don't advocate occupations or political wars but i do believe in defense and being proactive. war means that there has been a major failure in our basic policies, it's not something good.





.
I think that is the crux of this conversation. When do you choose war. Look we were attacked by 19 radical muslim Jihadists, mostly from Saudi Arabia, tell me why we are in Iraq and Afganistan, not the company line, but some of that independent thinking you are so proud of.
 

7xstall

Well-Known Member
you chose war when the other option is your own death, that's the criteria i happen to have. i was not for the cat herding mission in Iraq when it started, and though i do believe the president was mislead by an industrial component of our government (which is both left and right, btw.) i don't think we need to be there.

Afg was an appropriate target because of the isolation of the enemy. easy to go in there and devastate the enemy with no collateral...





.
 

medicineman

New Member
you chose war when the other option is your own death, that's the criteria i happen to have. i was not for the cat herding mission in Iraq when it started, and though i do believe the president was mislead by an industrial component of our government (which is both left and right, btw.) i don't think we need to be there.

Afg was an appropriate target because of the isolation of the enemy. easy to go in there and devastate the enemy with no collateral...





.
Tell me why we let Bin Laden get away in tora bora. Is there some political significance to that, like Bush and the Bin Laden Family being so tight. Read Molly Ivins, Bushwhacked.
 

Dankdude

Well-Known Member
you chose war when the other option is your own death, that's the criteria i happen to have. i was not for the cat herding mission in Iraq when it started, and though i do believe the president was mislead by an industrial component of our government (which is both left and right, btw.) i don't think we need to be there.

Afg was an appropriate target because of the isolation of the enemy. easy to go in there and devastate the enemy with no collateral...
.
The President had an agenda to fulfill, he wasn't fooled, he knew that there wasn't anything there all along. He figured that we could go in there, take out Saddam, exploit the Iraqi people's oil and get out... With all the money he had behind him to get elected as he had, someone had to get paid back. Hence all the tax cuts for the rich, no bid contracts for Haliburton ect.
 

7xstall

Well-Known Member
how am i supposed to know, there are so many stories and conspiracies it will take at least one lifetime to get rid of the chaff and have some idea what really went down there.

the clear ties of the families is a fact that doesn't cement an opinion one way or the other.

you could take the stand that he was envious of not being let into the inner circle and therefore lashed out at the US. you could also say that he is genuinely religious and finds the relationship to be unclean so he lashed out. he was using the last of his soon to be burned bridges when he supposedly got the medical airlift to UAE...

there's another perspective to all the stories and it's so obfuscated right now that no one really knows but him and the people on the ground.









.
 

7xstall

Well-Known Member
The President had an agenda to fulfill, he wasn't fooled, he knew that there wasn't anything there all along. He figured that we could go in there, take out Saddam, exploit the Iraqi people's oil and get out... With all the money he had behind him to get elected as he had, someone had to get paid back. Hence all the tax cuts for the rich, no bid contracts for Haliburton ect.



why not make an executive order to drill in alaska? i mean, war, for oil?












.
 

Dankdude

Well-Known Member
I'm with you as far as drilling in ANWR, the purposed site is rather small in comparison to the rest of the refuge.
The Environmental impact isn't what the Environmentalist say it will be, they were wrong about what the Alaska Pipeline would do to the Caribou Populations. Since the building of the Alaska Pipeline the populations have increased exponentially because they hang around the pipeline for warmth.
 

medicineman

New Member
As far as the Bin Laden thing: Looking at it from his viewpoint, Something I try to do before condemning anyone, His guys struck at the financial center of the USA and the Military center and was headed for the head of the beast, Bush. The civilians were collateral damage as our pentagon likes to say. How else could he have caused so much havoc. I believe it was a well thought out plan, and one that would have to have had some inside help. Actually the 3000+ deaths caused by the attacks were a drop in the bucket compared to all the civilians we have killed accross the planet. The thing is, those #s are never discussed here in the motherland, they treat us like mushrooms. Now, don't go calling me a traitor for truth telling, I love my country, just hate the government.
 

suicidesamurai

Well-Known Member
As far as the Bin Laden thing: Looking at it from his viewpoint, Something I try to do before condemning anyone, His guys struck at the financial center of the USA and the Military center and was headed for the head of the beast, Bush. The civilians were collateral damage as our pentagon likes to say. How else could he have caused so much havoc. I believe it was a well thought out plan, and one that would have to have had some inside help. Actually the 3000+ deaths caused by the attacks were a drop in the bucket compared to all the civilians we have killed accross the planet. The thing is, those #s are never discussed here in the motherland, they treat us like mushrooms. Now, don't go calling me a traitor for truth telling, I love my country, just hate the government.
Collateral damage is civilians that are killed on accident or have to be killed in order to kill certain targets. They were aiming to kill as many civilians as possible, so the victims were not collateral damage, they were the intended victims.
 

medicineman

New Member
Collateral damage is civilians that are killed on accident or have to be killed in order to kill certain targets. They were aiming to kill as many civilians as possible, so the victims were not collateral damage, they were the intended victims.
Maybe the actual participants were doing this, Jihad and all, but the plan was to cripple the financial center, a success, and to lay waste to the military headquarters, A failure, and to cut off the head of the beast, Bush, a failure also. As far as the inside part, what would be a better opening for the neo-cons to go on a war profiteering jaunt. Us peons will never know the truth, just like the kennedy assasination.
 

heywhatsthatsmell

Well-Known Member
I think america is a bullshit country run by a bunch of fucking christians no matter what party there in. the laws are directly related to the beliefs of christians as they make up the majority of our country. By the laws being made in that fashion it completely goes against everything our country stands for. I believe different things than christians and my beliefs are being shit on by our government. the freedoms of americans stop when christians say so when they think something is wrong. Its fucking bullshit.
 

suicidesamurai

Well-Known Member
Maybe the actual participants were doing this, Jihad and all, but the plan was to cripple the financial center, a success, and to lay waste to the military headquarters, A failure, and to cut off the head of the beast, Bush, a failure also. As far as the inside part, what would be a better opening for the neo-cons to go on a war profiteering jaunt. Us peons will never know the truth, just like the kennedy assasination.
bin Laden isn't an idiot. He knows he can't cripple our economy or military. It was simply an act of terror, trying to kill as many people as possible and to instill fear in the populace.
 
Top