porkandcheese,

What specifically are you saying that you don’t buy? Did I say anything that is false?

Dick Cheney supports gay marriage, but he still made a great Vice President and if he had a law degree would probably make a great judge or prosecutor. I would not hold it against anyone for appointing Cheney to a position where he sits over criminal trials. So if you are trying to say that Romney was trying to push a liberal agenda in his appointments, I don’t think you have a case.

Your argument seems to be that, out of 36 appointments, 2 support gay rights. That does not rebut my argument.

Reagan appointed Anthony Kennedy despite clear signs that Kennedy was pro-choice. In MA, where only 12% of registered voters are Republican, Romney didn’t have the pick of a large litter. He looked at who had the best qualifications for the job they would be carrying out.

As for leaving vacancies, you quote the Boston Globe saying that Romney made his decisions in a painstaking process. His decision to not rush through a round of appointments at the end, rather than playing games with appointments, just means he’s thorough. But we already knew that about him.

porkandcheese,

You said, “Out of 36 appointments, he could only find 9 Republicans?”

I already addressed that. Since he didn’t have a Republican litmus test, I don’t understand why you are raising this objection anew rather than explaining what you believe to be wrong with the answer I already gave. I also explained that with only 12.5% of MA registered voters being Republican, the odds of qualified prospects also happening to be Republican is not good. The reason he appointed twice as many Republicans as were represented in the pool of prospects is that for higher court positions he did not look for effective prosecution experience but instead looked for conservative judicial philosophy. And in those cases, he was more likely to find the qualifications among Republicans.

You are also making some new claims here, which I will address.

You said, “I pointed out two were gay activists committed to upholding the gay marriage law Romney has made into a crusade.”

Romney crusaded against gay marriage, not for it. It was imposed by the MA Supreme Judicial Court. I realize that you not trying to be dishonest, but someone has lied to you about what happened.

Romney has consistently opposed gay marriage. When asked in 1994, Romney said: “I line up with Gov. Weld on that … he does not feel at this time that he wishes to extend legalized marriage on a same-sex basis, and I support his position.” When asked again in 2002 if he supported gay marriage, Romney still answered “no.”

You said, “He thought a constitutional amendment was too harsh until gay marriage was on the books.”

No, he supported an amendment to ban gay marriage and civil unions but did not want an amendment to ban all domestic partner benefits for gay people. You are talking about a proposed constitutional amendment concerning gay marriage, House Bill 4840, which was both proposed and shot down prior to Romney becoming governor. Romney’s disagreement with the amendment was not over its clause which banned gay marriage, but over a separate clause, which Romney feared “would outlaw domestic partner benefits for same-sex couples.” The problem with the amendment is that it falsely implied that Massachusetts law itemized “benefits or incidents exclusive to marriage,” which the amendment would have prohibited in non-marital relationships. Without itemization in the law, there was no standard for how the prohibition should be interpreted.

You said, “Technically, there is no law. Romney pushed it through by executive order. ”

When gay marriage came before the MA Supreme Court, Romney fought against the decision which made gay marriage a right. As governor, upholding the oath of office he had sworn, he had to enforce the ruling. Critics fault him for doing that, but critics do not apply that standard to other issues, for instance faulting Pro-Life governors for enabling abortions in their states because of court decisions legalizing abortion.

So if you want to criticize Romney for executing the law as interpreted by the Court, you also have to criticize Rick Perry for executing Roe v Wade even though the Texas legislature never codified it into law. Along with every other governor who has enabled abortion, and that is all of them – even Huckabee. But you wouldn’t claim that Huckabee secretly wanted abortion. And you shouldn’t claim that Romney secretly wanted gay marriage.

You said, “After that was accomplished, as he promised the Log Cabin Republicans, he tried to push through civil unions.”

No, Romney said he opposed civil unions but “would look to protect already established rights and extend basic civil rights to domestic partnerships.” Critics who fail to distinguish legally between a “domestic partnership” and a “civil union” have falsely characterized Romney’s statement as a support of civil unions while neglecting his answer about civil unions in that same questionnaire. A domestic partnership is just two people in a relationship.

The only instance in which Romney considered civil unions was as a possible downgrade from same-sex marriage as imposed by the state high court. At the time, Romney stated he would prefer to not have either one but felt it was a necessary compromise in order to prohibit gay marriage, which redefines family. In Romney’s exact words, “If the question is: “Do you support gay marriage or civil unions?” I’d say neither; if they said you have to have one or the other, that Massachusetts is going to have one or the other, then I’d rather have civil unions than gay marriage.”

I know my responses are pretty long, so please don’t feel obligated to respond to everything. I just wanted to make sure I addressed the issues in a comprehensive way.

freentn,

Romney did veto a number of provisions in the health care bill, but the legislature overrode them.

I’ll say more on health care later, as soon as Red State lets me post a diary entry. I just signed up here, do you know how long it takes? I did already request a diary.

Thank you

was directed to Rightwingmom52, but if freentn wants to discuss it I would like that as well

Take your time

I wrote an article going over the abortion issue thoroughly, but it’s a response to critics who have been very critical of Romney, so the article I wrote is strongly worded in parts. It’s at whyromney if you are interested in reading the whole thing, but I’ll quote part:

When a particularly dear and close relative of Mitt Romney died from an illegal abortion in the 1960?s, Romney gained a perspective most of us don?t have. Years later he would gain an even broader perspective, but losing her was not a ruse for future political gain. It was a personal tragedy.

The question at that point was not whether abortion was wrong, but whether the laws against abortion were effective. Just as we don?t have power to stop a woman in another country from having an abortion, our government didn?t have power to stop Mitt Romney?s close relative from having hers. Romney undoubtedly asked himself what he could have done if he had known. And calling the police to have her arrested probably didn?t seem as effective as putting his arm around her, letting her cry and open up and telling her what a wonderful mother she was going to make.

In the several decades that followed, Romney never called himself ?pro-choice,? and did not consider himself ?pro-choice,? even though that label would have helped him while running for office in liberal Massachusetts. Romney was opposed to abortion. He differed ideologically with the pro-choice movement, but he acknowledges that his position had the same legal effect as the pro-choice position.

Serving as Governor of Massachusetts, a bill came to Romney?s desk concerning embryonic stem cell research. Looking into it, Romney saw embryos being created for the purpose of being casually and coldly destroyed. His idealistic notion of changing hearts and minds was dashed as he realized that strategy alone was a lost cause.

Romney realized government involvement was necessary. He understood how essential it is to overturn Roe v Wade and thereby restore to the separate states their rightful say on abortion, just as states have power to determine their own laws regarding murder. It is true Romney did not initially focus on a human life amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which is generally considered a long-shot, but when asked about it said he would support one. Thus, Romney?s pro-life vision expanded incrementally toward more and more government intervention on abortion. In other words, he developed his own position a step at a time rather than repeating talking points from a list of what a pro-lifer is ?supposed? to believe.

We see this for instance with how he tackles the tough question of what to do when embryos created for fertility treatments are not all used for pregnancy. When the embryos are not adopted and implanted into a woman, they perish. Romney believes that in such cases the parents should have the option of donating the stem cells for life-saving research, similar to parents who remove children from life-support donating their organs to help other children. Some of us believe the embryos should be artificially kept alive indefinitely (by being frozen) but we understand Romney?s intention is to make the most of a practical situation.

That is Romney?s pro-life conversion. Romney did not have as far to shift as some previous converts, such as Ronald Reagan, but what we see here is a logically traceable evolution of Romney?s abortion position. Thus we can see evidence of an authentic conversion to a conventional pro-life ideology, summed up best by what Romney expressed in a 2005 Boston Globe OP-ED:

“You can’t be a prolife governor in a prochoice state without understanding that there are heartfelt and thoughtful arguments on both sides of the question. Many women considering abortions face terrible pressures, hurts, and fears; we should come to their aid with all the resourcefulness and empathy we can offer. At the same time, the starting point should be the innocence and vulnerability of the child waiting to be born.”

The most common claim made by critics is that Mitt Romney allowed for inexpensive ($50) abortion co-pays in his health care plan. However, blaming the co-pay on Romney is a bit like blaming the founding father?s for Roe v Wade, since the Constitution created the Supreme Court. The truth is, the bill Romney signed does not say anything about abortion but creates an independent agency called the ?Connector? which sets the co-pay amount.

Moreover, two MA court decisions require state programs to cover abortion. Some critics claim that the court decisions were not legally binding, since the decisions were not codified into law. However, this attempted criticism could be applied as easily to Roe v Wade itself, as many states have not codified it into law, yet adhere to it, understanding that even though it could be called a “mere? declaratory opinion it sets precedent under Stare Decisis. In other words, the actual “judgment” of Roe v Wade was technically only about one plaintiff and one defendant, but the “opinion” is understood to have sweeping ramifications in all similar cases. Critics also claim that the term “medically necessary abortions” used in the court decisions only applies to abortions where the life of the mother is in jeopardy. Again, this is incorrect. “Medically necessary” is widely interpreted to mean treatment provided for any non-cosmetic, non-recreational reason. It applies to pain, and therefore applies to any pregnant woman seeking an abortion, since women are naturally pained or expected to become pained physically or psychologically as a result of a pregnancy.

In addition to having their facts wrong, critics are missing the point. Abortion in Massachusetts has declined since the health care bill passed. Between 1991 and 2005 U.S. abortion rates had steadily declined, according to a comprehensive study by the Guttmacher Institute(6). But that trend has changed. Between 2005 and the most recent available figures (2008), the U.S. abortion rate rose from 19.4 to 19.6 abortions per 1,000 women (aged 15-44). However, Massachusetts is bucking the national trend. In 2005, Massachusetts had a rate of 19.9. In 2006, Romney signed his health care bill. In 2007, the Massachusetts abortion rate dropped to 19.0. In 2008, the Massachusetts abortion rate further dropped to 18.3.

Being pro-life is about saving unborn children, not saving money. A full priced abortion (about 500 dollars) is not a financial deterrent to abortion, because a much more costly full-priced delivery is by far a bigger financial deterrent to giving live birth. The trade-off Romney got for allowing the Connector to set co-pay amounts is the ability to assure pregnant women that their pre-natal care, their delivery costs and the future health care needs of their children are all safely taken care of because they are insured. Therefore, they no longer have a financial deterrent to bringing their child into the world. And Romney?s strategy has worked.

If you read the response I posted above, I referred to two court decisions in MA which require coverage of abortion.

Most insurance plans cover abortion, and Romney couldn’t have forced private insurance companies to stop covering it. And he couldn’t stop medicaid from covering it because of the court decisions, so he could not have had an abortion prohibition in the bill.

But as I explain above, abortions have declined in MA under Romneycare, in contrast to the rising national trend. Romney offered women an incentive to have live birth as opposed to abortion, by helping provide insurance. Without insurance, the huge cost of birth and child expenses is a deterrent.

If cost is the issue for a woman, the price of birth is a greater deterrent than the price of abortion. Romney reduced abortions.

aesthete,

In the future, will you try to be polite? I’d like to discuss this in a civil way. Thank you. I apologize for taking so long to respond. I had other obligations to tend to, but I hope we can discuss this to the point of resolution.

You wrote, “First of all, you?re kidding yourself if you think that abortion was not discussed in the context of a large, expansive healthcare reform. It certainly was discussed when ObamaCare?s deliberations were ongoing”

There’s no federal Supreme Court ruling that says either medicaid or medicare has to cover abortion. So there was room for debate. In MA, it was moot because the Supreme Judicial Court had ruled twice that the state had to cover abortion. I have seen nothing to suggest that abortion was the subject of any significant discussion. If you want to believe otherwise, I respect your personal discretion but you won’t be able to use it to attack Mitt unless you have solid facts to back up your conjecture.

You wrote, “Your last point is conjecture, unless you can provide quotes from Romney to that effect.”

Partly. It’s a fact, not conjecture, that cost is a disincentive to live birth. Romney removed that disincentive, and abortions decreased. The argument against Romney is that he believed the plan would actually incentivize abortion but he passed it despite believing that. That is the conjecture.

Moreover, that conjecture is not supported by the evidence which shows that the plan did not incentivize abortion. So the premise of the attack against Romney is false. To continue using the attack against Romney, you would have to conjecture that Romney “must have” believed it even though it’s not true, and that the idea that he actually had a grasp on the true facts is implausible. Despite the fact that he says in his book, “fixing health care begins with fixing incentives.”

The attack also does not bear out with the approach Romney takes to solving problems. He explains in his book, “We would add data–a lot of data, so much, in fact, that I wasn’t comfortable until I had been fully immersed in it.” he also tells the story of a single mom he personally knew who had cancer in remission and couldn’t find work because “employers didn’t want someone with her health costs in their insurance pool … as governor, I was in a position to do something about it.” So he understood the burden this mom was carrying by not having insurance, and thus understood the concern a woman would have about bringing a child into the world without insurance. And that’s exactly what your argument claims that he did not understand.

And bringing a child into the world without being able to provide for that child’s needs may very well be the same concern his relative had before she died from an illegal abortion. I think Mitt understands it better than most.

You wrote, “Considering that his plan sets almost *every* co-pay to a ridiculously low amount, I doubt very much that this was part of Romney?s master plan.”

I don’t know what you mean. A woman with no insurance would owe money. That’s a deterrent, a disincentive. It’s not about lowering the co-pay, it’s about lowering the total health care cost burden she faces for giving birth and caring for her child.

You wrote, “Romney gets bupkus from me”

That’s fine, but your accusation against him is still invalid.

Hi Rightwingmom52, it’s good to hear from you!

I want you to know that I enjoyed the response from aesthete, however I disagree with you on the civility of saying “That’s bull.” When someone puts that as their headline, they are setting the tone for their entire post, especially when their first line says “you’re kidding yourself.” I wanted to make sure that everything I said wasn’t going to be insulted but rather responded to with reason.

Thanks for the tip on the diary. I think it’s 24 hours before they let you post, but they apparently have a different rule for diaries now.

You said, “How do you grow into the pro life position over that much time? Is it just 10% baby? 30%?”

I think the answer is that even when people agree that an unborn child is a person, there are still difficult questions and factors to consider, just as there are with other laws relating to killing people. Romney considered himself personally pro-life the whole time, but he struggled with the role of government. There is no single pro-life answer.

For instance, should a woman who has an abortion be charged with murder and sent to prison/executed? Not even Rick Santorum thinks that. But does that mean Rick Santorum doesn’t think it’s a baby? How would you react if someone said you don’t really think it’s a baby if you don’t want the mother to spend her life in prison?

So, what is the “pro-life position?” The question is not just about recognizing unborn life. It’s about the best way to protect that unborn life. And here’s the problem Romney faced. If we prosecute people who perform abortion, that drives abortion underground like alcohol during prohibition. The logistics of trying to stop abortion are nearly impossible because the victim has no record of ever existing – and unfortunately miscarriage is very common so even if someone knows that a woman was pregnant it’s very difficult to prove an abortion took place and even more difficult to then track down whoever performed the abortion. So Mitt thought the solution would be changing hearts and minds and that it would be easier to do that without an underground abortion industry.

It is easy for others to judge Mitt, and to this day people mistakenly think he used to be pro-choice. He was never pro-choice. It would have been easy to call himself pro-choice in MA, and it would have helped him politically in 1994. But he refused to, because he disagreed with the pro-choice movement. Mitt was wrong to think that changing hearts and minds would work, but when he realized that he had made a mistake he saw the light. And what proves that it was authentic is the fact that he didn’t suddenly grab a list of things pro-lifers are supposed to say, but he explored everything on an individual basis.

Again, I realize it is easy to judge Mitt. But the people judging Mitt are not looking at themselves in the mirror. For instance, the group “American Right To Life” has the word “America” in it’s title. Does it not realize that the vast majority of unborn children are not in America? I could accuse them of saying, “if you live outside America, then you can kill the baby.”

Those of us who are pro-life believe protecting unborn children is a legitimate role of federal and state government. However, the pro-life responsibility of government only applies to a small fraction of unborn children: those living in our country. No conservatives, including those in the current crop of GOP candidates, advocate declaring war on other nations to save unborn children. Not even to save those unborn children in our own neighboring nations, Canada and Mexico, both of which we could easily invade. The quick observer might ask: if slavery merited war, why does abortion not? Indeed, while our Constitution requires us to respect Supreme Court decisions such as Roe, it does not require us to respect other nations. It places no limits on our potential reasons for declaring war. We may very well have an easier time changing abortion laws in various other countries than passing a human life amendment in our own.

So they attack Mitt yet when it comes to fighting for the vast majority of unborn children, these ?true? pro-lifers are content with unceremonious and ineffective attempts at winning hearts and minds. They may be ?personally? pro-life but with respect to most pregnant women, their position is ?effectively? pro-choice.

He who is without sin, let him cast the first stone at Mitt Romney?s change from personally pro-life (?effectively pro-choice?) to more ?conventionally? pro-life.

Perhaps Romney?s critics might justify their own ?globally pro-choice” position by calling it a practical necessity. Perhaps they might not feel it is our government?s business to tell women around the world what to do. Okay, that?s fine. But don?t turn around and criticize Mitt Romney for likewise grappling with the role of government.

You said, “Another poster cited that Romney didn?t want to be labeled either pro choice or pro life. That?s a cop out.”

I hope what I have written above, and on whyromney, will cause you to reconsider that. Please read it carefully and prayerfully. Try to see where Mitt was coming from.

You said, “Seems to me that Romney claimed to be pro life, yet he governed otherwise.”

But he did govern pro-life. He vetoed every piece of anti-life legislation that came to his desk. And he didn’t do anything against life. In MA, that’s the best anyone could do.

You said, “I?d hardly equate donating embryonic stem cells that come from destroying life to that of parents who remove children from life-support donating their organs to help other children.”

But removing a child from life support is also destroying life. A single cell doesn’t have a brain or a heart or any organs but we agree that single cell is a person. So how can anyone say that a living human child is not a person too? It’s difficult to sort through these issues, so I think it’s in order to give Mitt a little room too.

As far as marriage, Mitt has always opposed gay marriage, has always opposed civil unions and always supported DOMA. He also supports an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman. But I would be more than happy to talk about that as well if you have concerns.

All I ask is this. I realize you are like a juror and the prosecution has been saying a lot of things and you are only now hearing the defense. I ask that you give the defense a fair hearing. As you see hole after hole in the prosecution’s story, you’ll start to see that there really is a lot more to the story.

I really hope to hear from you again,

Ryan

I will probably only have a chance to check in once a day, so take your time.

Porkandcheese,

You aren’t participating in a discussion, you are spamming with quotes. Spam is not as good as pork and cheese

Worse, your spam quotes do not change the argument I presented. They just take out of context a number of facts I had put in context.

Porkandcheese,

You said, “He said over and over that he was pro-choice.”

No. He always refused that label but said his position was “effectively” pro-choice. The only exception was in a 2007 debate. With other candidates talking over him he left out the word “effectively.”

You said, “This is not spam, because it was in direct response to your post.”

It was spam, because you did not apply it to the content of my post. Rather than addressing the substance of my arguments, you cut-and-pasted something indirectly related to it. That’s not participating in a discussion. If you disagree with something I wrote, a response to the content would consist of explaining what you disagree with and why.

You said, “I am quoting him verbatim.”

Let’s look at the item at the top of your list.

“1994: Romney backed federal funding of abortion and the codification of Roe v. Wade. ?Romney supports a federal health care plan option that includes abortion services, would vote for a law codifying the 1972 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion and backs federal funding for abortions as long as states can decide if they want the money, [a spokesman] said.? (Ed Hayward, ?Anti-Abortion Group Endorses Romney Bid,? Boston Herald, 9/8/94)”

Not only does this not include anything Romney said, it also is falsely attributed to a “spokesman.” Charles Manning was an advisor, and identified as such in the article. An advisor explains what they think to a candidate. A spokesperson tries to explain what a candidate thinks, to other people.

The article also quoted Manning as stating that Romney was pro-choice, which directly contradicts what Romney himself said. The article quotes someone else telling us Romney “said he’s privately pro-life,” and trying to use that against him. And another person in the article is quoted as saying, “Mitt Romney is not pro-choice” and, again, trying to use that against Mitt.

If you do indeed have a verbatim quote from Romney which you think is relevant to an argument I have presented, I would be happy to discuss it. Just give me the quote and the argument I’ve made which you think the quote contradicts.

Romney has said he would support a human life amendment to the U.S. Constitution. He thinks the best strategy at this point however is overturning Roe v Wade, since the amendment would be difficult to pass.

Years ago, Romney was only personally pro-life but did not believe it was the role of government to make the decision. Since 2005, he has been conventionally pro-life.

Repeating false claims after you’ve already been corrected won’t help you. If you have a quote from Romney, then by all means share it.

I suspect such a quote would clarify the statements made by his adviser. Who, incidentally, was not his spokesperson. I explained the difference in a prior comment.

I would assume you are interested in Romney’s actual position, taken completely in context. As am I. Unfortunately, we don’t have access to the type of direct statement from him which would allow us to judge his position fairly. We don’t know exactly what Romney said or what he said it in response to. But we do have a quote from the Boston Herald on Oct. 10, 1994 which indicates that the quote you offered is indeed out of context.

The Herald says, “Romney has said he would support the Freedom of Choice Act with two qualifications: as long as it did not go beyond codifying Roe v. Wade and as long as it leaves it to states to decide on using federal funds for abortion.”

That’s only the writer’s description, but it indicates that whatever Mitt did say was evidently in the context of placing limits on how far he was willing to go. Which is consistent with all the arguments I’ve presented. Your quote left the impression that Mitt was trying to push abortion, when in fact it appears he was setting boundaries. This only demonstrates his ideological disagreement with the pro-choice movement, which is why he refused to be called pro-choice.

Taking Mitt out of context is not new for his opponents. For instance, the famous clip of him addressing abortion in ’94 during a debate with Kennedy is shown with the first part of the question cut off. The full question was: Mr. Romney, you personally oppose abortion and as a church leader have advised women not to have an abortion. Given that, how could you in good conscience support a law that enables women to have an abortion, and even lets the Government pay for it? If abortion is morally wrong, aren’t you responsible for discouraging it?”

That of course puts his entire statement which follows in the context I have explained. He was not pro-choice and refused to be called pro-choice, even though it would have helped him in the ’94 election in liberal MA.

And what he said in the video does not contradict anything I’ve said.

And don’t worry, I wansn’t trying to get you to put him at the top, I was just hoping to show that even though his struggle with the issue has been unorthodox, it was authentic. He lived his life in the private sector and never dealt professionally with anything relating to abortion until he was governor. At that point, he surrounded himself with research and realized that he was wrong. And like I said before, he didn’t just grab a list of things pro-lifers are supposed to say, but he grew into it.

Also, I hope when you hear a statement attributed to Mitt or see a clip of him saying something that doesn’t sound right, I hope you will remember that his critics routinely take him out of context. I used this example with porkandcheese:

Taking Mitt out of context is not new for his opponents. For instance, the famous clip of him addressing abortion in ?94 during a debate with Kennedy is shown with the first part of the question cut off. The full question was: Mr. Romney, you personally oppose abortion and as a church leader have advised women not to have an abortion. Given that, how could you in good conscience support a law that enables women to have an abortion, and even lets the Government pay for it? If abortion is morally wrong, aren?t you responsible for discouraging it??

And just a few recent examples, from the campaign (I don’t blame Rick Perry personally for these, but they are from his campaign):

1: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/perrys-phony-attack-ad-on-changes-to-romneys-book/2011/09/26/gIQAR4JA0K_blog.html

2: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/perrys-phony-ad-on-mitt-romney-part-2/2011/09/27/gIQAwcwp1K_blog.html

3: http://factcheck.org/2011/09/revising-romneys-revision/

My own personal website is whyromney.com, please check it against any claims like the gay marriage attack which is totally false.

And recently, I wrote an “Open Letter To RedState” that you can find here:
http://intorightfield.com/romney-myths-red-state/ I’m waiting to post it here but they aren’t giving me diary privileges. Do you know anyone who would be able to post it in my behalf so I can discuss it at length with the RedState community?

It’s been a treat discussing Mitt with you. I think we’re winding up but I hope you’ve gain additional insights into my man Mitt.

Sincerely,

Ryan Larsen

I likewise appreciate the tone you have used with me, thank you.

Just a couple additional thoughts on the issues you raised in your last comment.

First, remember that Ronald Reagan was pro-choice before he became pro-life. Reagan signed a law to allow abortion in California.

With respect to Ann Romney’s donation to Planned Parenthood, please remember that was 1994, before the internet. It was back when people relied on what the media chose to report. Planned Parenthood put out propaganda claiming that their mission was to help educate and counsel pregnant women. They downplayed the abortions they performed. Those who were active in the pro-life movement knew better, but many good people did not.

A comparison for today might be “Race for the Cure.” Many people donate and run for race for the cure, without knowing that a large chunk of that goes directly to Planned Parenthood. So, if you have donated to Race for the Cure, you have donated to Planned Parenthood. Just like Ann Romney.

As far as whether Mitt’s position helped save unborn babies, I do indeed believe he thought his position offered the best hope for working with pregnant women to save their unborn children. That’s because in his personal experience as an LDS Bishop, he counseled women against having abortions, apparently successfully. But if abortion had been illegal, they might never have come to him and may instead have sought abortion in a shady, dangerous underground world that’s nearly impossible for the government to control. Romney made known in his ’94 campaign that he was against abortion. However, he supported Roe and therefore did not feel comfortable calling himself “pro-life” but instead called himself “personally pro-life.”

To be fair and accurate, I believe everything he said needs to be viewed through that lens.

freentn,

You make a good point about the 92 election. However, Bush was the incumbent. This time, Obama is the incumbent and the focus on the tea party side will be voting Obama out. I think tea partiers will be smart enough to not split the vote.

freentn,

You’re dealing with two scenarios which would have to play out, first that Obama won’t run again, and second that tea partiers won’t be intelligent enough to avoid splitting the vote.

Unfortunately, there aren’t any polls on Hillary. There are however polls on Obama, and Romney does very well against him in those polls.

The polls break down independent voters, and Romney does the best against Obama, which bodes well for Romney against Hillary.

All we can say is Romney does well in the general election polls that exist. Anything else is speculation. I don’t share the intuition that Romney wouldn’t do well, I think he would. But either way, it’s just speculation.

Those kind of polls are usually kept internal for the use of the campaign. But a good poll costs money, and when it comes to a scenario the public hasn’t considered, the polls would probably be unreliable. So I would guess none of the campaigns have done those types of polls.

freentn, that is great to hear! And thank you for your participation in this thread as well.