Redstate

which is why I'm not worried about a Romney Presidency.

...only an ability to understand the English language.

Romney 1994 U.S. Senate debate: "I believe that abortion should be SAFE AND LEGAL in this country. I have since the time when my Mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years that we should SUSTAIN AND SUPPORT it, and I sustain and support that law and the RIGHT of a woman to make that CHOICE."

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/03/02
romneys_revolving_world

Romney 2002 gubernatorial campaign website: "On Abortion Rights. As Governor, Mitt Romney would protect the current PRO-CHOICE status quo in Massachusetts. No law would change. The choice to have an abortion is a deeply personal one. Women should be FREE TO CHOOSE based on their own beliefs, not the government's."  http://web.archive.org/web/20021218005104/www.romneyhealey.com/issues/

Romney 2002 NARAL/Planned Parenthood candidate survey response: "I respect and will protect a woman's RIGHT TO CHOOSE. This choice is a deeply personal one. Women should be FREE TO CHOOSE based on their own beliefs, not mine and not the government's. The truth is no candidate in the Governor's race in either party would deny women ABORTION RIGHTS."  http://www.pplm.org/Facts/rf_fact/pr_2005_07_14.htm

Thanks for the opportunity to once again post Romney's own words, to the enlightenment of all those who (1) can read English and (2) whose primary interest is the truth and not politically-motivated obfuscation of the truth.

but the 2008 campaign ... is in 2008. Most primary voters don't know anything about the candidates yet (except for McCain and Guiliani, of course). Nobody's spent any money on adds yet. They haven't even held the Iowa caucuses yet. And besides, bloggers are notoriously mercurial.

they were mercenaries. I'm sure they're not getting paid for it. But if you don't think there's a serious coordinated effort here you're not paying attention.

Wow, is this subject line corny or what?

Great thing about Romney is that all of these things which are true in 2006 will remain true in 2008.  True, only the bloggers know who Romney is now, but name recognition will not be a factor for long.

http://afamichigan.redstate.com/story/2005/9/26/13561/9450

Romney was an insistent decade-long cheerleader for Roe v Wade and a woman's "right" to terminate the life of her prenatal child, openly competing with his 2002 Dem opponent for who was MORE supportive of abortion on demand. His sudden "evolution" (read "flip-flop") in July 2005 was transparent pandering.

He was also just barely to the right of Howard Dean on the homosexual issue before calculating that he might ride the marriage issue to national prominence.

Though I respect their zeal, it's amusing to watch Romney's Don Quixotes here on RS tilting at the windmill of trying to hypnotize social conservatives into forgetting Romney's own words and record on everything from supporting abortion on demand to supporting homosexual Scoutmasters.

You really are an excellent craftsman.

Your comment really is full of things that are overstated and are based on just a couple quotes. While you are good at the brokemn record technique you generally fail the test of logic.

That dean fizzled not because the netroots couldn't propel him to the candidacy, but because bubba hump released that letter dean wrote to him about supporting his unilateral action.  It took the wind out from dean's sails since he was running around bashing unilateral action.  After that dean began to sink and they embraced Kerry because he looked electable.

Although Allen supporters have virtually disappeared online, he still appears to have Rush's support.

Although on Hannity, I have to believe Newt being on his show basically every other day has to imply something.  Especially showing up in Iowa together last month.

And from my understanding, I wouldn't really consider any writer for any newspapers a "kingmaker" in presidential politics.  Sure, Yepsen's quote definatly helps Romney, but it's hardly an endorsement.  Remember it's 2006, and the primary season hasn't even started.  Being the most impressive so far has to be taken into perspective.  Sort of being the tallest kid in fourth grade (you very well may turn out to be the tallest in high school, but it's all still in the air.)

will be a huge boon for his campaign come '08.  Just a feeling.

The whales, the uber donors, seem to be lining up behind rudy and allen.

Yepsen is just being hailed as a kingmaker by the romney folks

You forget the ultimate king maker, Rush.  He has practically been endorsing George Allen since december of 2004.  Hannity also jumped the bandwagon some point after that.  

Romney gets third or fourth in that uber blogosphere straw poll that hugh hewitt runs, with allen in 1st and rudy in 2nd, although sometimes it swaps, but romney is usually 4th in that.  

This site tends to heavily favor romney since most of its posters tend to be more moderate in nature, and also the polls here are a tiny sample, often double digit if not barely breaking three digits.

Romney is getting killed in the freerepublic poll, he is 7 out of 10th, and being beat by 'sit it out' with a whopping 3.3%, and most freepers tend to be very active in the primary process. Of course some on here will dismiss them, but thats your loss.

I can't find the hugh hewitt one but heres one ruffini had http://www.patrickruffini.com/july08results.php, i believe its for this month.  You've got romney in third, but thats more than half of what rudy has.

Romney's support on this site tends to be much greater than the blogosphere at large

Romney gets harpooned here regularly?  Not that i've seen.  It seems like half the diaries on here are romney campaign commericals.

You also forget romney's support of gay rights and gays as scout leaders.  Back during the 1994 debate romney was so out there that the majority of the debate was romney saying "Me too" with ted kennedy.    I remember rush ripping him for it back then and in fact bozell's group(before he was with the media center) was so mad they yanked their support of him.

My last post applies to your last post. Feel free to learn something.

but Romney has admitted to having deepened his committment to pro-life principles over the years.  In other words, he has grown as a person and become more pro-life.  So your breathtaking "revelations" about his '94 campaign statements are basically meaningless, as Gov Romney does not hold the same positions now that he did then.

You act as though becoming more pro-life is evidence that he is a liar and a scoundrel ("transparent pandering").  I've seen similar refrains recently: "He's just doing it to win elections"; "why is he converting now when there's an election coming up?"  Well, it could just be me, but he is an elected official and has been involved in politics for 12-13 years now.  Hasn't there always an election coming up?  Do people have to stop growing once they are public figures?

Hopefully, his personal journey will serve as an inspiration to others, and a meaningful opportunity for Mitt to connect with people and inspire them to follow his path.  If we're intent on slamming the door in the face of pro-life converts (as you're doing with Romney), I guess pro-lifers will be a permanent minority.

Romney won the early 2006 Townhall poll with over 150,000 votes before it conveniently disappeared, so maybe his standing among Freepers is the anomaly.

but I think you might be ignoring the possible reality of Romney's conversion (I say possible b/c who knows a man's heart?).  I'm sure it's b/c you, like myself, would like to see a pure pro-lifetrack record.  But ultimately, I'm willing to accept a pro-lifer without, say, Brownback bona fides, if I think he has the capacity to: (a) get elected, (2) display excellent leadership qualities, and (iii) state publicly he wants Roe overturned.

Here's where I think the fact pattern I see differs from the one you see:  

He did the same in 2002.

I do not view his '02 platform, a pledge not to change abortion law in Mass., as "in favor of Roe and abortion on demand."  Given that his opponent was seeking to further liberalize abortion, and that public sentiment and the legislature in Mass would have happily gone along with further liberalization, his "status quo" approach was clearly not pushing for more abortion rights.  

Was his status quo approach pitched to liberals as not impacting their "right to choose"?  I suppose so, based on the Naral / PlannedUnparenthood links you provided.  Romney's position was not perfect in 02, and I wouldn't have approached it the same way.  But then again, I wouldn't have been elected in MA.  

Using myself as a proxy for pro-lifers who support or lean towards Romney: I wouldn't have been able to support him in '94, would have been neutral to suspicious in '02, but am much more comfortable with him now after 4 years of a pro-life governorship and the fact that Romney is going out of his way to speak openly and plainly about his desire to see this country move in a pro-life direction.  Whether you think that Romney's pro-life speechifying is "pandering" or genuine, at least he's talking about it.  We need candidates who are willing to lead on the issue, and change hearts and minds.  Romney, Gingrich and Brownback are the only potential candidates I hear having that discussion right now.  Allen, as recently as a couple months ago, refused to state publicly he wanted to see Roe overturned.  Frist bucked W to support embryonic stem cell research.  Giuliani is a known pro-choicer (as well as known pro-gun control and pro-gay rights).  McCain has voted the pro-life line but ultimately is responsible only to Russert.  Brownback I simply love but I don't think he's electable.  Gingrich is the one guy who I might support instead of Romney, based on how the candidates prioritize their issues once we actually hit the campaign.

maybe you should read this post.

Romney has already signed on 12 (count them, TWELVE) of these major Bush donors.  This group is the largest and most geographically diverse of all [potential candidates], thusfar

That townhall poll allowed people to vote over and over again. You had a lot of people voting for their guy over and over again on the townhall one, talk about accuracy.  Its laughable that there were 150k generic votes to townhall, if you examine townhall's traffic details versus freerepublic's traffic details freerepublic on average beats it, and yet most of their polls max out around 6000-8000.  I remember that townhall poll, allen was beating romney for a while then all of a sudden there was a massive jump in the voting and all of a sudden romney took the lead.  Like i said, real authentic.

A poll at say a freerepublic or a redstate limits you to one vote(granted on freerepublic some non members can be tricky, but it does break it down into members and non member support).  Romneys support on this site is far greater than it is on most other parts of the blogosphere.  Most conservatives i know hear that he was the governor of MA and they ask themselves why would we nominate someone who was able to win in the same state as Ted Kennedy and John Kerry.  No amount of spinning on part of the romney supporters is going to take that apprehension away

but I'm available.  So let me understand: there's a conspiracy of like-minded people pooling efforts to elect candidates that they deem the most capable and ideologically acceptable?  Now there's a juicy scoop for you.

Mind you, I don't know that this is happening at RedState, but it surely must be happening in Romney's various election committee's, right?  So what's the big deal?

Is a Protest Vote.  It is a vote based on those freepers desires to secure the border.  The point was that in the fre republic poll of almost 5000 people romney barely gets 3% and he is beat by "sit it out".  Romney wins polls here, but they are usually single digit number of people voting, romneys support tends to be very exxagerated here.

That they are much friendlier to mccain and rudy than say free republic or other blogs.  You might also toss romney in there, romney over on free republic is dismissed as a flip flopping rino

But if you think the above is such an astounding post, how'd you miss (at least being astounded by) my making the exact same point in several earlier posts?

hair is the key. Hair. Oh yeah, the swimsuit. He looks great in a swimsuit.

Streiff,

How could you give all the ladies here at RedState such false hope with that link of yours?  Not a single swimsuit Mitt photo to be found!

I hope you look for more than hair and bathing suite appeal in a candidate. Those things are not very important. I think a drawl and a good ole boys feel are the real issues.

Me and Mitt talk everyday. Generally he tells me what should be written on Redstate. From here I come up with several different ideas, then I forward them to Mitt. Then Mitty will tell which one he likes, make any needed changes and then has me put my name on the post.

This has worked out very well because I have found it much easier to let Romney do the thinking. I hope when I have been on RS for at least a year I will be able to make informed comments.

Also from this I have become very rich with a controlling interest in Bain Capital. Although I am actually a socialist living in San Fransisco, I think it's great to make lots of money.

That he has more Pioneers on his side now than everybody else. These are big donors and movers and shakers in the Republican party. They aren't getting behind some minor candidate that doesn't have any chance of winning.

And I tend to exaggerate while ranting, but it just sometimes seems like anything pro-Mitt gets reccommended by the same people everytime despite its content (which is normally the same thing over and over again: "No really, we're serious, he's pro-life!")

While the Romney folk are much more credible than the Tancredo '08 folk a while back, it sometimes seems like people try a bit too hard.

Yes, his supporters are doing a good job in keeping this site covered.

I'd not call him a minor candidate with not shot at winning, though.

I started a Romney blog in February, and I've never met Romney or talked to anyone from his campaign. Yes, some of the "For Mitt" alliance has since met Romney, but not before starting their blogs.

It's pure grassroots. Deal with it.

How do

this

this

this and

this

equal anything but a strong conservative?

I know things like facts and actions get in the way of your argument, so sorry about that.

Just remember, what a politician says does not affect lives. What he does in office affects lives. And that is what I judge on. Anyone can say anything.

There's a reason people don't go around saying "Words speak louder than actions."

Well, I think you are in the great illogical minority to believe that a Romney Presidency would be a pro-abortion, pro-gay advocacy administration.  

His time as governor in a hugely liberal state didn't lead to that...quite the contrary.  He fought hard and often successfully for traditional values, marriage, and life issues...and certainly was much more successful at pushing conservative ideals than Brownback or Sanford (who I both adore) would have been in MA. Presidency is not a 'who is the most conservative' contest, but conservatism alone does not make for a great or even good president nowadays.

Since the romney supporters on here will scream proof proof proof here it is(taken from lexis nexis):

Copyright 1994 Boston Herald Inc.  

The Boston Herald

October 27, 1994 Thursday SECOND EDITION

SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 038

LENGTH: 482 words

HEADLINE: Conservative group yanks its support for Mitt

BYLINE: By Joe Battenfeld

BODY:

A national conservative group yesterday attacked Republican U.S. Senate candidate Mitt Romney for espousing a "left-wing agenda" and urged its followers not to support his candidacy.

The group said Romney's nationally televised debate performance against Sen. Edward M. Kennedy showed he is "anti-family" and running away from conservative Republican themes.

"It makes no difference who wins (the Senate race)," said L. Brent Bozell, executive director of the Conservative Victory Committee, a fiercely conservative fund-raising group.

"Romney is not going to be a fighter for a conservative agenda."

The group's attack is not likely to hurt Romney in Massachusetts, where he is trying to appeal to the critical voting group of moderate independents.

Romney adviser Charles Manning last night dismissed Bozell's group as a right-wing organization that has not been involved in Romney's campaign.

"This is the type of gimmick that groups like this use to try to get publicity and it's really silly," Manning said. "There isn't anyone, anywhere who could ever say that Mitt Romney is anti-family."

Manning said Bozell's group has not contributed to Romney because he does not accept political action committee money.

Bozell said in an interview that he helped collect more than $ 3,500 in individual donations for Romney over the last few weeks.

He said he now regrets asking his group members to contribute to Romney because the debate "demonstrated very clearly that (Romney) has more in common with liberal Democrats than he does with conservatives."

Bozell's group is one of the most conservative in the country, and has been a constant critic of Kennedy's record in the Senate.

"I'm sorry we ever raised a penny for his campaign," Bozell said in a statement.

Other conservative leaders in Washington also were reportedly upset with Romney for voicing support on Tuesday night for gay rights, abortion rights and forcing employers to release information on their hiring record of women and minorities.

"Any man who runs on quotas for women is not one of us," Bozell said.

Kennedy attempted to link Romney several times during the debate to conservatives such as Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) and accused him of trying to return the country to the policies of the Reagan-Bush administrations.

Romney objected to the characterizations, saying: "I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I'm not trying to return to Reagan-Bush."

Romney has sought throughout the campaign to portray himself as a "Bill Weld Republican" who is is liberal on social issues and conservative on fiscal matters.

One conservative strategist, however, said a Romney victory would hurt Republicans who are attempting to appeal to conservatives in the 1996 election.

"In their minds, if Romney is elected, that's a disaster to the future of the Republican Party," the strategist said.

...only in holding Romney accountable for giving rhetorical aid and comfort to the enemy throughout his pre-presidential campaign career, and doing my best to ensure he's not rewarded with the GOP presidential nomination for doing so.

David Yepsen from the Des Moines Register is not a blogger, he is, in the opinion of many, a kingmaker in Iowa and a wildly respected journalist.

Are much more numerous on other blogs, this one tends to have very few.  If you go over to free republic he has a lot of supporters there, but this site tends to gravitate toward romney.

Hannity has newt on all the time, but i believe on his radio show he always touts a Allen/Guiliani ticket.

....as I write this, the "recommend this diary" button isn't pushed on my account. In other words, I don't just blindly recommend a diary.

When I said there was horizontal coordination I was generally talking about commenting on others blogs, posting people's analysis, etc. Coordination may be too strong of a word, because our interaction is very informal.

I don't think you realize how much the above post has cheapend everything you say.

on this site.  I don't know what you've been reading.  Another main page post from the past couple of days was titled "McCain gives the base the finger (again)", or something like that, IIRC.

can never argue someone rebuttal, they take the time to answer yours, you completely ignore anything they write and keep cut and pasting.

Romney is constantly getting slammed here as well.  However, it isn't that hard to defend Romney.  The guy only has two vulnerable areas, abortion and health care.  He was not always as pro-life as he is now, which opens him up to charges of flip-flopping.  And the jury is still out on the Massachusetts health care package so those discussions can get a bit heated at times.  Of course, if you are truly disperate, you can bring up his religion, but most people here don't bother.

McCain, on the other hand, is an entirely different story.  It doesn't take too much effort to find reasons to not vote for him.  It is a target-rich environment.  He has a long history of thumbing his nose at his party, President, and base.  And the guy won't stop.  Just look at his interview in the lastest Esquire magazine for his latest foot-in-mouth escapade.  He may have the smarts to serve as Commander-in-chief, but does he have the wisdom?  If he doesn't put a curb on his tongue right soon, I think the answer has to be a resounding, "no!"

I sincerely appreciate your objectivity on this issue.  I am a very pro-life person, and prior to my support of Governor Romney I did a lot of deep thought on the subject, but at the end of the day I saw a Pro-Life Governor.  Abortion is a pretty big issue for me when choosing a President, and I don't see myself ever voting for a "pro-choice" candidate.  There are other issues besides abortion this time around that I hold at high importance as well though.  The first and overwhelmingly most important at this point is fiscal discipline.  We can not keep on being the money tree to the people.  While I sympathize with the people of the gulf coast post Katrina, I just do not support the massive Government financial windfall for the area.  What if, after we spend all of this money to "rebuild New Orleans" and another Katrina hits?  This is an area where I think we need to let Mother Nature have her way, and we need to build in areas that are not below sea level.  Also, there has to be a line for congressional pork projects (and this goes for both sides).  We need a leader in this country who's going to say no.  We also need to do something with Health Care, because "universal health care" or not, we are spending a fortune on Health Care for people who don't have it.  I like that Governor Romney has the guts to actually stick his neck out there on this "traditionally Democratic" issue and do something.  I also like the fact that Governor Romney will work with everyone.  With all the polarization going on right now, we need someone who can bring out the best in everyone.  And for all the previous points mentioned above I firmly stand for Romney as our next President of the United States.

"You assume that anything he does as a governor he would do as the POTUS. Different issues and different values."

That's Romney's biggest problem: "different values," depending on which office he's running for.

"You seem to think that everything that is 'gay friendly' is diametrically opposed to social conservatism."

Duh.

"I almost get the feeling you are using code words."

Please cite what you believe to be "code words," and I'll do my best to help you understand them.

"If you would like to provide links and context then maybe we can start a real dialogue."

You can search the dozens of posts -- at least it seems like that many, to me and to those who accuse me of being repetitive -- in which I did provide links.

Um, isn't the point to politics getting your candidates message out?  

You've got that right!

I know this sounds corny, but I've recommended very few diaries (I can definitely count them on one hand).  I don't know, nothng seems to merit my "recommendation" very much.  My goal is more to read and comment than to recommend.

...with which you continue to have a problem.

If you read above, I said I'm "not interested in arguments."

Somehow, in your less than precise interpretation of the English language, that morphed into your (false) assertion that I said I don't "care about evidence to the contrary."

To the contrary of what?

Romney said he supported Roe.  He said he supported "safe and legal" abortions since 1970.  He said he thought open homosexuals should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts.  He endorses Kennedy's federal "gay rights" legislation.  And he was endorsed by the pro-abort Majority for Choice PAC and the homosexual Log Cabin PAC.

These are indisputable facts.  There is no "evidence to the contrary."  You cannot produce "evidence" to the contrary of truth.

How one of you writes a Romney diary, and then the rest of the pack, half of them with Romney in their account info, reccommends it so it becomes the most reccommended diary despite whatever it contains.

I was actually just thinking about writing a diary titled "Romney is awesome, and has been pro-life since birth" and talk about how the Chicago Bulls will be nasty next year to see it get reccommended to number one.

Of course there is horizontal organization, no one implied any vertical.

Why worry with those good looks at your helm?

Hmmm.  "minor presidential candidate with no chance of winning the nomination"???

Romney is:

Right on the issues.  

Charismatic/telegenic.

Great fundraiser with tons of financial connections.

A D.C. Outsider.

Very intelligent and articulate

Good-looking.

Tenacious and decisive.

Building a great team.

Strong grassroots support already.

Polls well given poor name recognition (straw polls better than phone polls at this point.)

A Governor.

I think a lot of people WANT him to be "a minor presidential candidate with no chance of winning the nomination" . . . but that's becoming more and more an opinion of delusion or ignorance.

Political insiders here in Iowa all have Romney tagged as the one to beat now (and these are NOT Romney people).

http://krustykonservative.blogspot.com/2006/07/krustys-six-pack.html

http://caucuscooler.blogspot.com/

David Yepsen from the Des Moines Register . . .

http://iowansforromney.blogspot.com/2006/07/yepsen-in-iowas-des-moines-regi
ster-so.html

Romney seems to win every poll  here.  Granted, the typical redstater is more active than the typical primary voter...but once you take name recognition out of the equation, Romney's the whole package.

Yepsen's got a good finger on the Iowa vibe, where Romney's in the best shape right now of anyone in the GOP '08 crowd.  

If you aren't interested dont read it. Since I don't have time to read everything posted on RS I just read things that hold my attenion. I suppose most do the same.

I think there are alot of points addressed in this diary that have been subject to alot of debate on this site.

the National Journal doesn't decide who the nominee is. GOP primary voters do that, and they won't vote for a centrist republican from the Bay State. Listen, I don't dislike the man, and I'm sure that in Massachusetts he's the best republican that could be elected. But if he were the GOP nominee he'd split the base. Not going to happen.

...end of the month? :-)

Leverkuhn, you're right on the mark with "one heck of an internet campaign"!  

Especially since he's managed to figure out how to run an internet campaign without hiring people, paying people, or even meeting the people who are chatting about him!

Atleast that's been my perception of the pro-Romney crowd here at RedState...any of you pro-Romney folks getting a dime out of this?  

This is a ridiculous assertion.  Governor Romney is ranked #2 by Hotline of the National Journal.  He is by no means a minor presidential candidate that has no chance of winning the nomination.  He stands a great chance of winning the nomination.  David Yepsen of The Des Moines Register commented last week the Romney's been the most IMPRESSIVE (emphasis mine) Republican.  He has strong executive leadership experience in not only the Government sector but the private one as well.  Keep watching!

Ann Marie Curling

PR@electromneyin2008.com

www.electromneyin2008.com

For a minor presidential candidate with no chance of winning the nomination, Mitt Romney has one heck of an internet campaign.

and I'm already sick and tired of the campaign commercial diaries on RS.  I'll bet before it's over we're bribing Erick to delete them.

Great look at Romney's stance on abortion policy from all the angles.  I find an argument that presents all the facts far more persuasive than one that uses blinders.  Recommended!

I can assure you that there is no "serious" coordination with Mitt Romney or any organization.  

There is horizontal coordination between bloggers, but no vertical coordination. Sorry to burst your bubble.

He's winning internet polls, eh? At this website, where his supporters obviously have spent a lot of time and effort getting out his message?

Since I've only been a constant reader and poster here for going on a year, you're overwhelming two month experience is greatly appreciated...

I think there are alot of points addressed in this diary that have been subject to alot of debate on this site.

Is exactly the point. In fact I would say debated to death but that my opinion.

As to your time constraints or what holds your attention I couldn't be more disinterested.  

Have a great day!

True, there's lots of Romney supporters here.  But why is that?  Is it because people are ignorant of the politics of other possible '08 nominees?  Or is it because Romney's right on the issues?

I'm not saying he's a shoe-in, but when I look around it's lots of good vibes for Romney.  Definitely not a minor candidate with slim chances of winning.

It's good to see me finally get the credit I deserve.

Steve,

For what it's worth, I tend to look at the substance of what someone says before I look at their registration date.  But I've only been here for a pitiful few months, so what do I know?  

Cheers!

Allen never said something as egregious as this(during the debates)(its in the article i posted)

Romney objected to the characterizations, saying: "I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I'm not trying to return to Reagan-Bush."

I dont know how romney or his supporters defend this, but i'm sure they'll find a way to spin it.  

Point for Christians:  Mormons are excommunicated for practicing abortion as birth control. Exceptions are cases of rape, incest or critical health to the mother.  But it is, of course, up to the individual in those cases.  Romney is a devout Mormon and subscribes to the sanctity of life no matter how the baby was conceived.

I like this blog.  The Net will eventually put someone in the White House as it extends national reach and creates loyal evangelists by the hour. WIRED pegged Howard Dean as he raised $40m and millions of supporters. Yeaaahahahhharrg!

According to his own testimony, he's favored abortion on demand since 1970.  That would be at age 23.

He insistently argued in favor of Roe and abortion on demand in 1994.  That was at age 47.

He did the same in 2002.  Age 55.

And gave no indication of any shift in his pro-abortion on demand views until July 2005, ever so conveniently timed and postured for a presidential campaign.

But no, I don't want to slam the door in the face of a sincere pro-life convert who finally discovered his core convictions at 58.

So to apply Reagan's maxim -- trust, but verify -- I will support Mitt for president when he's been consistently pro-life as long as he was consistently pro-abortion on demand.

...is a politician willing to (1) say one thing and do another, and (2) flip-flop on core values depending on which race he's posturing for.

You apparently think it's a virtue that on some issues, Romney was willing to "fake" his convictions (as his own political consultant characterized it).

Human Events, the conservative newsweekly described by Ronald Reagan as his favorite publication, listed Romney #8 on its list of "Top Ten RINOs."

Plenty of folks besides me who aren't drinking the Kool-Aid.

Romney would have campaigned on the claim that HE would be more effective than Hillary in advancing "gay rights"...

... I just want to point out you biggest error.

"Judging the future by looking to past behavior (and yes, speaking is also a behavior) is eminently logical; in fact, failing to do so is illogical."

There are several fallacies that deal with determine the future from the past, so your assertion is wrong.

Next you assume that anything he does as a governor he would do as the POTUS. Different issues and different values. In essence this would be a demographics fallacy and a federalism fallacy.

Finally, what is your deal with "gay issues"? You seem to think that everything that is "gay friendly" is diametrically opposed to social conservatism. I almost get the feeling you are using code words, it's getting freaky.

Also by not touching on your bulleted point, I'm not admitting they are true. If you would like to provide links and context then maybe we can start a real dialogue.

"I think you are in the great illogical minority to believe that a Romney Presidency would be a pro-abortion, pro-gay advocacy administration."

Judging the future by looking to past behavior (and yes, speaking is also a behavior) is eminently logical; in fact, failing to do so is illogical.

1.  Romney favored abortion on demand for decades.  One year ago this month, he dramatically flip-flopped on the issue.  I don't conclude from that that a Romney presidency would be pro-abortion.  I conclude that a guy who for a decade gave rhetorical aid and comfort to the abortion-on-demand crowd is not to be trusted, and certainly should not be rewarded with the GOP nomination for president.  (Of course, enforcing some degree of accountability for Romney's decade of rhetorical service to NARAL will force him in return to disavow his earlier stand all the more forcefully and repeatedly, thus locking him all the more securely into his newly-enlightened convictions.)
   
2.  On the homosexual marriage issue, Romney opposed the earliest versions of a state Marriage Protection Amendment and went through several variations before finally supporting the amendment currently before the Leg.

As to the rest of the homosexual agenda, Romney has had no such flip-flops and has not disavowed his previous positions.  So, based on Romney's past record, unless he issues new statements of sudden reversals, we can reasonably expect that in the unlikely event of a Romney presidency:

• Romney would support a Marriage Protection Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
• Romney would have campaigned on the claim that we would be more effective than Hillary in advancing "gay rights," as he claimed in his 1994 campaign against Kennedy.
• Romney would continue to endorse and sign into law (if it ever passed Congress) Ted Kennedy's federal "gay rights" legislation, the state version of which forced Catholic Charities to either (a) process homosexual adoptions in violation of Catholic doctrine, or (2) abandon the social service of processing adoptions altogether.
• Romney would endorse creating new taxpayer-funded spousal benefits for the homosexual partners of federal government employees, as he did for state employees.
• Romney would appoint homsexual activists to the federal bench, as he did in Massachusetts.
• As honorary national chairman of the Boy Scouts of America, Romney would continue to disagree with (and thus undermine) the BSA's ban on homosexual Scoutmasters as proper role models for young boys, as he publicly did in 1994, drawing a rare public rebuke from the BSA.
• Romney would issue statements congratulating homosexual activists on their celebration of "gay pride," as he did when running for governor of Massachusetts.

"The classic GGMich arguement is to attempt to define somebody by statements made BEFORE they were ever in public office..."

It's simply amazing that Tide and others take such great offense when Romney is defined BY QUOTING HIS OWN WORDS.  Why should it make a difference WHEN he said what he said?  He's the one who said what he said, defining himself.

"The greatest is how Romney says something in '94, is not involved in politics for 8 years, but somehow has a 'decade long' support of something."

Actually, I've been letting Romney off easy with that "decade long" thing.

According to Romney's own words -- I know, it upsets you when I use his own words -- he supported abortion on demand for 35 years, so that's three and a half decades.

He argued in favor of Roe v. Wade and abortion on demand in his 1994 campaign, again in his 2002 campaign, and never gave any indication of any change in his views until suddenly announcing an "evolution" in his position in July 2005.

And according to his own words, he favored legal abortion on demand -- i.e., a woman's "right" to terminate her prenatal child's life -- "since the time when my Mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate."

1970-2005.  35 years.

"I didn't watch much of the Salt Lake City olympics, but don't remember the abortion theme."

But you might remember his breaking tradition by refusing to allow the Boy Scouts to participate in the Olympics in uniform, as they had in previous Olympics, while ensuring homosexual activists were invited.  http://www.888webtoday.com/bresnahan6.html

"Romney has been governor for over three and a half years now.  Where is the MA Gay Scoutmaster Act of '04?"

Side-splitting, Tide, but of course irrelevant. Mitt didn't need to introduce the Gay Scoutmaster Act to tell social conservatives he doesn't share our worldview.  All he had to do was say that he disagrees with the Scouts policy, for which they publicly rebuked him.

"I really don't care what a person says to democrats to get elected in a blue state."

Pretty sad when, in order to support a particular politician, you're forced to say you don't care if he...what?  Lies?  Misrepresents?  Says anything just to get elected?

That sounds like his political consultant Michael Murphy's assessment when he said Romney "is a pro-life Mormon who's been faking it as a pro-choice friendly" governor.

I'm confident I'm not the only social conservative who refuses to support politicians that "fake" their supposedly core convictions...

...who do care what a candidate says, and will to the best of our ability and judgment, support only those candidates whose words match his actions.

You poor Romney folks have to pick one or the other.

In several recent polls, Mitt has polled in the top four.

He's gotten kudos for his organizational structure that is letting him raise money on a national basis in ways that are illegal for Frist, McCain, and any other federal office holder.

He's a governor.  One of two on the GOP side (Huckabee) and while you don't have to be a governor or other executive (like VP), you have to go back to Kennedy to find a winner who hadn't been.

Conservative Republicans are looking for a candidate and assuming that they can get past the "Morman question" (which I have though I'm a very conservative evangelical Christian), then Mitt is probably their guy.

I dont recall you ever saying so clearly that you don't care about evidence to the contrary. I mean the fact that you are so willing to  acknowledge that you are out of lines, can't argue and willing to be broken record even when proven wrong just will always be a little surprising.

I look forward to your snappy comeback.

pretty good evidence otherwise. I don't know why your getting defensive about it. Although I find some of the "Hug Mitt" diaries deceptive, it's hard to argue that Republican bloggers can't promote a republican candidate on a republican site.

However, if you insist on denying that there is coordination going on here, I'd be more than willing to furnish evidence to the contrary. Watch for a forthcoming diary.

the point of politics is bringing about real change in society. Candidates, and their messages, are a means to that end.

I guess that's what rubs me raw about the huge Romney campaign going on here. The 2008 election is light years away. We still have a mid-term election to get through, and we also have a chance to pass some important legislation in what remains of the Bush Administration. The purpose of blogs, as I understand them, is to push issues and ideas first, and candidates second. The Romney folks seem to be focusing their efforts on helping him win a contest in 2008 without regard for what happens until then.

I love how the classic GGMich arguement is to attempt to define somebody by statements made BEFORE they were ever in public office, rather the examining one's actual record in office.  The greatest is how Romney says something in '94, is not involved in politics for 8 years, but somehow has a "decade long" support of something.  I didn't watch much of the Salt Lake City olympics, but don't remember the abortion theme.  I don't recall Bain Capitol investing in planned parenthood franchises.

So Romney has been governor for over three and a half years now.  Where is the MA Gay Scoutmaster Act of '04?  Surely it passed, and I just didn't notice.  Since to read your posts, when Mitt Romney wakes up in the morning, he sets about how he can best spend the new day to advance gay scoutmasters and abortions, right?

I'm sorry GG, I know you're passionate about the cause of life, as am I, but this is a prime example of why actions speak louder then words.  I really don't care what a person says to democrats to get elected in a blue state, what I care about is what happens once in office, which in this case is literally the best possible case for Mass in terms of restricting abortions.

Add this:

I did mention to Nathan he should post this article on Redstate because I thought it was interesting to hear the perspective on someone who is very active in the pro-life movement.

Also add this:

This was the first time I ever emailed or talked to anyone about posting a diary on Red State.

Also add this:

I have never even emailed or talked to any other Romney person about Redstate except the one incident listed at top. There were a couple times were Redstate has been mentioned in passing but that's it.

I still say if you are tired Romney, just ignore the posts.

Do you have proof of this?

Well, yes, it's to bring about change.  But, the message is that change.  Talking about how to better society at large and I believe that Romney can do that.  

And who holds the bible as to what you can do with a blog?  I've never seen any such rulebook, nor should there be.  If people want to read what Romney has to say, or how he stands on the issues then they should be able to.  They should be limited by what you or I or anyone else has to say.

Sure the election is over two years away, but Romney has name recognition issues.  And the only way of countering that is to get his name out early and often.  So that's what we're doing.

What posts are you reading?

Right now I support Romney- not that I'm not willing to consider other candidates, but right now he appears to me to be the best of the bunch.

1. I don't blindly recomend any Romney diary.  I read them all, and then recomend the ones I think are either well written or present something new.  When a flood of Romney diary hit on the same day, or on the same story, I try to recommend only one, at most two.
   
2. I recommend alot of other diaries on other topics, I am not a one trick pony.  For example, I often reccomend diaries discussing other candidates.  Probably not as often as Romney, but that's probably because Romney has so many diaries written about him (pro and con).  I think I've seen more anti-Romney diaries than anti-McCain diaries, and that is saying something.

So true!  Just think, we've got 2 years and 4 months left to go!

Maybe Romney threads should be spoken of in the same breath as the abortion debate threads that show-up here occasionally...  the Abortion threads are still more massive, but Romeny has the advantage of numbers.

On a more serious note, the drumbeat for Romney will face it's first serious test when the rest of the candidates get their campaigns going.  Will Romney win? I'd still give odds to McCain, but Romney will certainly be a major candidate.  

I'd say he might play an Edwards to McCain's Kerry, but that is unfair to McCain.  As aggravating as McCain is- he is nothing like Kerry.

Tancredo is leading the Freeper poll, IIRC.

Does anyone honestly think Tom Tancredo will get the nomination? Honestly?

Since I started one of the first Romney state blogs, and I've never talked to anyone affiliated with Romney, Commonwealth PAC, etc. even though I have tried, I can't wait to hear details on the grand conspiracy.  

you can't do what you like. I don't run anything. I am saying it rubs me raw, and for good reasons.

I can see where you are coming from.

When is it defensive to clear up a misconception?

As I mentioned earlier, there is a nominal amount of contact between different bloggers. Most of it comes in the form of comments and cross-links between the different pro-Romney sites.

With that said, I would LOVE to see your supposed evidence of any "serious" coordination. I strongly encourage you to post that diary.