The EFM Feature
iStock_000009986487XSmall

So why the condescension towards Gov. Romney?  We delve into Rick Santorum’s pro-choice past here.  Spread the word.


Comments and Discussion

Evangelicals for Mitt provides comments as a way to engage in a public and respectiful discussion about articles and issues. Any comment may be removed by the editors for violating common decency or tempting flames.

18 Responses to Santorum in ’95: “I Was Basically Pro-Choice All My Life, Until I Ran For Congress”

  1. Larry says:

    OK, though Rick is not my first choice it appears that as he positioned himself for his first run he began to examine the issue of abortion. In so doing the obvious choice was an essentially pro-life choice. Good. Very good.

    Romney’s choice? When choosing to run for the Senate he chose abortion. When running for governor several years later he again chose abortion.

    Am I missing something here?

    • Jon says:

      Hi Larry,

      I left you a reply on the “Someone Like Newt” post.

      Romney’s pro-life conversion, if that’s what you’d like to call it, happened when he was already Governor. Ever since then he has been rock solid on it. I think that Nancy’s point in this post is that Santorum is being a bit hypocritical in his criticisms of Romney on the pro-life issue.

    • Hunibuni2 says:

      Larry, Are U missing something?—————Just the FACTS< MAN!!Romney was NEVER for Abortion. Santorum or any other "Social issue candiaate, cannot hold a candle to Mitt Rommey. Want Obama and his socialism for 4 more?
      Ole Santy or Nooty are for U.

      • Larry says:

        Jon, ah … I see, Romney’s positions were “nuanced” … say, that’s a favorite word of Obama’s. His takeaway is not merely convenient, it’s illogical. Mitt, great family man, deeply committed Mormon (who was in fact a leader in his church) found the issue impenetrable? How is that such a man could not, at first
        glance, recognize the obvious?

        This has not been an obscure moral issue. Indeed, it has been a defining issue for decades. The idea that this choice was anything less than political opportunism is laughable. That of course doesn’t stop Romney apologists from spinning wild theories. Rather like straining on a gnat and swallowing a camel, eh? Again and again we find Romney lying about his record, his positions and his opponents. It’s difficult to offer so much deception, with such frequency and not find yourself, at last, struggling in the avalanche of lies you broadcast so generously.

        That simple dynamic, more than any other, is what finds Mitt now falling farther and farther behind. The rank and file have largely stopped contributing to his campaign (or have you heard). His burn rate is now outstripping his income at an alarming rate. Of course, Mitt will simply write himself a check if necessary … though now, I think that no amount of money can stem the tide of dislike for his candidacy that is so apparent.

        BTW, I found the video accurate, cogent and all too believable.

    • Jon says:

      Oops… Here let me try that again.

      Here is an interesting analysis of that piece… http://race42012.com/2012/02/22/romneys-abortion-transformation-examined/ It is a long read, but I think the conclusions are valid. There is at least room for benefit of the doubt.

      In this post, the author makes an important observation. “Saletan’s portrayal of Romney’s story about his conversion is unflinchingly negative…” My point is that we must consider the source. Slate has a very liberal bias and is not likely to offer a positive analysis of a conservative candidate.

        • Jon says:

          That’s a valid point. My point is that the Slate thing was more of an analysis of a, yes, rather complex and confusing issue. Huffington Post, as much as I dislike it, has sources of their own, which seem pretty credible. I am not contesting conversions here. The issue is that Santorum is questioning Romney on something that he himself (Santorum) did.

          Oh well. Perhaps we all hear what we want to hear, eh?

          Also, there is no need to include the sarcastic “Oh my…”. I am not interested in oneupmanship (is that a word?). I am interested in discussion.

          • Larry says:

            Fair enough … I had concluded long before the video that Mitt plays fast and loose with the truth. What I found particularly absurd , however, was the insistence on Miit’s exemplary faith coupled with his irreproachable conservatism … and yet he was adamantly pro-abortion. To suggest his position was evolving, though, is to ignore the body of evidence which reveals a decidedly calculated effort in positioning and to hell with Life.

            His leap from a pro-abortion position to pro-life corresponds precisely with his decision to run for the presidency. In evolutionary terms he leapt from amino acid to homo erectus in a single bound. I find that sort of self absorption repugnant and disqualifying on so many levels. Abortion is a make or break issue for me … and millions more.

            Worse, it only comports with so many more duplicitous acts and words. As I’ve written previously, I voted for Mitt in 2008 ignorantly. It was fool hardy and, frankly, inexcusable to step into a voting booth knowing so little about a candidate. Obviously, I took more seriously my responsibilities as a voter during this election cycle. The results have telling.

            I cannot regard a man who thinks so little of his fellow citizens as to lie so frequently, so brazenly and contemptuously as anything but a liability to our party and nation.

  2. Matt says:

    Larry: You said in reference to Mitt’s change from pro-choice to pro-life: “The idea that this choice was anything less than political opportunism is laughable.”

    Now, let me try: In response to your assertion, “I voted for Mitt in 2008 ignorantly. It was fool hardy and, frankly, inexcusable to step into a voting booth knowing so little about a candidate. Obviously, I took more seriously my responsibilities as a voter during this election cycle. The results have telling. ”

    Larry, I say BS. You mean to tell me that a man like yourself who seems to ooze w/ knowledge and information couldn’t learn what a fraud Mitt was in 2008? Google did exist in 2008 you know. I see it as a convenient way to make your whole anti-Mitt rhetoric more believable, and I find the story, well, laughable.

    • Larry says:

      Yes, Matt … did you read my reason. You’re temperament seems quite suited to Team Romney … ad hominem is a way of life here. Facts and truth are deeply feared for the damage they can do to Mitt Mythology. You’ve learned well …

  3. Matt says:

    One more: “I cannot regard a man who thinks so little of his fellow citizens as to lie so frequently, so brazenly and contemptuously as anything but a liability to our party and nation.”

    Name one lie Larry. Please provide links too.

    • Larry says:

      Matt, I’ve listed them previously. I stated earlier that I will no longer provide such a service to people who are perfectly capable of conducting their own research and thinking through their findings objectively. You clearly have no interest in discovering the truth … you prefer not only ignorance, but ignorantly accusing others of lying because it intrudes upon your fantasy.

      The information exists in abundance … you could ferret out the facts in only a few hours if you were so inclined. If you’ve a nose for BS though, may I recommend a mask … as you sort through the Mitt Mythology your going to encounter steaming load after steaming load.

  4. Matt in Idaho says:

    Last-word Larry: “but ignorantly accusing others of lying because it intrudes upon your fantasy.”

    Wow, Larry, that describes you to a T. Go ahead, you c an have the last word. It’s all your’s.
    p.s. will you hold your nose this time around and vote for Mitt? I hear they provide masks at the voting booths. :)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>