Posted under Mitt Romney & Pro-Life
I ran across an ad for this website, Republicans Against Romney, on Facebook.
It’s criticism of Romney is heavily focused on the pro-life issue. The group is sponsored by American Right to Life which describes itself as “on the personhood wing of the pro-life movement.”
DENVER, Aug. 28, 2012 — “Mitt Romney is the architect of Obamacare,” said Jefferson George, the president of American Right To Life Action, a conservative 527 group. “Romney has already implemented what Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton only dream of: homosexual marriage, tax-funded abortion on demand by health care reform with the individual mandate, robbing religious freedom from pro-life hospitals. The list is long. If anyone believed the ‘lesser of two evils’ con, they’d have to vote for Obama.”
RedPhillips on 10 Oct 2012 at 10:21 pm #
“If anyone believed the ‘lesser of two evils’ con, they’d have to vote for Obama.”
I have no intention of voting for Romney, but I actually think this kind of rhetoric is unhelpfully over the top and diminishes their credibility. There is simply no way that Obama is the lesser of two evils on the abortion issue (or social issues in general) compared to the current iteration of Romney. Everyone knows he was a Massachusetts RINO and everyone knows he flip-flopped. Pointing out the stuff from his past record is essentially just repeating over and over again that he used to be a Massachusetts RINO. The issue is whether you believe his conversion is sincere and/or whether you believe he will govern right even if it wasn’t due to political considerations.
RedPhillips on 10 Oct 2012 at 10:41 pm #
Again, I have no intention of voting for Romney, but whenever I see something like this I always ask myself who is behind it. The wedsite doesn’t mention any alternative parties as far as I saw. But since I’m sure they are not counseling a vote for Obama, I take it for granted they want people to vote third party or less likely not vote.
A quick scan of the website reveals that the “Founding President” of American RTL was Brian Rohrbough who was Alan Keyes’ running mate in 2008.
I actually thought the site had a Keyesesque feel even before I saw that.
Kirt Higdon on 10 Oct 2012 at 11:34 pm #
I don’t see how anyone could contend that Obama is a lesser evil on the abortion issue but only by the tiniest margin is he a greater one. And this is not just a question of pointing out Romney’s past record, although I’ll always take a politician’s past record over his rhetoric as indicative of his present position. But in fact, just the day before yesterday the Mittster changed back to his previous Massachusetts position on abortion. What a shock – NOT! Romney’s transformation into the white Obama over the last week or so has paid off big in terms of his surge in the polls. I’ve also read that it has been orchestrated by his wife and oldest son taking over the leadership of his campaign behind the scenes. Like George Wallace used to say – “not a dime’s worth of difference” – and that was back when a dime was still worth something.
Weaver on 11 Oct 2012 at 12:20 am #
Romney isn’t as bad as McCain was. I’ll probably vote Miller, but I might vote Romney.
Savrola on 11 Oct 2012 at 1:10 am #
Voting is for senior citizens, so I probably won’t bother to, but as I’ve said before, there’s a strong case for Obama being the more conservative candidate.
roho on 11 Oct 2012 at 1:23 am #
Voting in America is much like screaming for your favorite wrestler at a Pro Wrestling Match?(All for entertainment.)…….Our Facsist Duopoly does not even compare to the MULTIPLE PARTIES of European Parlimentary options…….But, nothing gave me hope more than a BLACK UPS DRIVER, that delivered packages to my job this week, and stated that “Ross Perot” should have been elected, and FEMA was an abomination!…….(I nearly fainted?)
Maybe there is hope?
Feltan on 11 Oct 2012 at 3:27 am #
For me, the function of this site is to counter what I often hear: Romney is a conservative.
Red, you take it for granted that Romney is a RINO — I can tell you that just about every Republican/conservative I meet is stunned when I say that Romney makes most RINO’s look conservative. They fear Obama so much they are blinded to the actual record of the person they are supporting.
The right complains that the press/media never investigated Obama and gave him a pass in the last election. They did. And, they are doing the same thing for Romney right now.
The site’s rhetoric is a bit over the top for my taste, but it makes the case in spades that Romney is a first class phoney. I just wish the site did it with more class.
Regards,
Feltan
JDP on 11 Oct 2012 at 4:15 am #
Romney “implemented” same-sex marriage in the same way Obama would’ve “implemented” an Obamacare repeal if the Supreme Court had struck it down — that is, he didn’t. or rather, it wasn’t his decision.
on abortion, i can’t read the man’s mind obviously but i get the sense that that is one change of heart that is genuine from what i’ve read about it. in any case, what matters is the appointment of anti-”Roe” justices to the Court, as other than the funding side/a currently-impossible-to-pass Constitutional amendment nothing can be done legislatively at this point. as long as conservatives hold Romney’s feet to the fire if he pulls a Harriet Miers, i’m not really concerned there…although, Bush may turn out to have been 1 for 2 if a “Roe”-related case comes up and Roberts cops out and appeals to stare decisis.
finally obviously Romney will repeal the HHS mandate if he’s elected, that’s not even a move that would be “controversial” except for the feminist diehards in Obama’s base, and why would Romney care about their shrieking over it?
Weaver on 11 Oct 2012 at 4:36 am #
If the US hits some budgetary disaster, Romney’s better suited to handle it. Obama is as inept as Dubya.
Romney is slightly better than Obama on immigration.
Abortion and same-sex marriage are going to happen, and they aren’t as significant as other things. The federal government can legalise such things, but normal people aren’t going to be part of that society anyway.
JDP on 11 Oct 2012 at 6:31 am #
i agree that SSM seems fairly inevitable at this point (although i hate that word) but, while maybe it’s wishful thinking, i don’t view the repeal of “Roe” as a lost cause. i know there’s skepticism that the Republican establishment doesn’t care about getting rid of it because of the potential backlash + they won’t be able to exploit it as a campaign issue anymore, but the Court already came close to overturning it in the early ’90s. 20 years ago, but still, a new conservative justice or two could mean a lot. and abortion-happy states like my lovely home of California could still set it’s own “Roe”-like rules, we just wouldn’t have the Supreme Court forcing it on everybody.
of course, even with a more conservative Court this may depend on Roberts not deciding to be a small-c “reasonable” conservative squish.
Kirt Higdon on 11 Oct 2012 at 10:44 am #
The last time the Supremes revisited Roe was in the 1992 Casey decision and Roe was upheld by a 6 to 3 vote, not my idea of close. Furthermore 5 of the 6 pro-Roe votes were Republicans. In the original Roe case 5 of the 7 pro-Roe votes were Republicans and only one of these (Blackmun) voted in both cases. This long list of Republican pro-abortion Supremes sort of belies the notion that abortion may be abolished by Republican Supreme appointees.
Matt Weber on 11 Oct 2012 at 1:50 pm #
But then anti-abortion has only been a Republican thing for about 25 years. And what other choice do anti-aborts have? the Democrats are never going to give any help, and the only way at this point is an amendment or a ruling. I wish the states would just say the hell with Roe and make their own abortion laws–if enough of them did it they could probably get away with it.
JDP on 12 Oct 2012 at 6:25 am #
Casey was 5-4 yeah?
“This long list of Republican pro-abortion Supremes sort of belies the notion that abortion may be abolished by Republican Supreme appointees.”
yes and no. i basically agree with what Matt Weber, even if pro-lifers end up “duped” and get another Souter it’s not as though they have much other options within the two-party system at this point. of course if something like did happen pro-lifers would have every reason to ditch the GOP, not to the Democratic Party obviously, but because it’d be obvious they aren’t serious.
again i can’t say i’m 100% on what Roberts will do if it comes up, but despite the Obamacare ruling (and i realize that is a big “despite”) i’d say that him and Alito are on balance more conservative than a Souter or a Sandra Day O’Connor. i suspect Romney will continue that trend, even though obviously if the Democrats detect a possible fifth anti-”Roe” it’s gonna be a fight to the death.
Kirt Higdon on 12 Oct 2012 at 10:53 am #
My error. Casey was 5-4 on whether or not Roe should be struck down, according to Wikipedia. Only White, Scalia, Thomas, and Renquist were anti-Roe. Blackmun, Kennedy, O’Connor, Stevens, and Souter voted to uphold. In other words, Republican appointees provided 100% of the votes to uphold the original decision which had been written by a Republican and voted in by mostly Republican justices. White, the only Democrat on the court, voted against Roe in Casey as he voted against Roe in the original decision.
JDP on 12 Oct 2012 at 8:56 pm #
well like Matt Weber alluded to, pro-life Democrats used to exist + the GOP didn’t take a definite pro-life position until Reagan (not to let him off the hook for O’Connor, although i am not knowledgeable about what exactly he knew regarding her positions.) so while i try not to be over-optimistic i do think circumstances have changed some.
Kirt Higdon on 12 Oct 2012 at 9:35 pm #
Reagan appointed not only O’Connor but also Kennedy. He also signed into law California’s liberal abortion law which made California a Mecca for abortion tourism years before Roe v. Wade. The Republican party had been fishing for pro-life votes even before Reagan’s nomination – in 1972 (pre-Roe) labelling the Democrats the party of “acid, amnesty, and abortion”, although it was the big state Republican governors Reagan and Rockefeller who were leading the way on abortion. But people fell for Reagan’s supposed change of heart in 1980 only to be blind-sided by his judicial appointments. I was one of those people – mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. But at least I learned my lesson, unlike most of the pro-life voters. I don’t return, Charlie Brown like, to the Republicans every single election for more abuse and betrayal.
Karen on 13 Oct 2012 at 8:26 pm #
Do conservatives not run because no one would actually vote for one? Do most Americans really like the state?
Savrola on 13 Oct 2012 at 11:00 pm #
Most Americans are employed by the state, my dear.
JDP on 14 Oct 2012 at 7:50 am #
Kirk — point taken. might just be cuz i’m younger and am over-optimistic, i just think the GOP seems more reliable on appointing pro-life justices these days. Rockefeller Republicans for example seem pretty much extinct, and in my view the post-1980 and pre-1980 GOP are two different beasts on these issues, even taking into account Reagan’s naivety with specific judges (he regretted the signing of that CA law so i’m inclined to think he did not appoint Kennedy and O’Connor knowing their positions on this, not to make excuses but still. contrast with Bush-41 who i think there is some evidence knew about Souter’s position through Sununu)
Kirt Higdon on 14 Oct 2012 at 12:04 pm #
Rockefeller Republicans pretty much extinct? The GOP has just nominated one as its presidential candidate. Romney, like Rockefeller, is a member of the oligarchy as distinct from being a mere tool. Also, like Rockefeller, he is the former liberal governor of a northeastern state, although Romney governed somewhat to the left of Rockefeller. Of course, these days no one will admit to being a Rockfeller Republican and every Republican claims to be a conservative. That’s why you need to go by the record, not the rhetoric.
Feltan on 14 Oct 2012 at 11:31 pm #
Kirt,
While I totally agee with your last sentence, I have to note that Romney governed not only to the left of Rockefeller — but probably to the left of Karl Marx.
Regards,
Feltan