Once the voice of all things Romney on National Review’s “The Corner,” Kathryn Jean has been saying far fewer things about Romney lately and a lot of nice things about Rudy. The latest can be found here:
A friend of mine was at a fundraiser for Rudy Giuliani in Los Angeles last night. His walkaway thought: “[Rudy] might have a tough time in the primary but he will crush in the general.”
Said friend says of last night: “I have to tell you the man is very impressive. When he talks about the war on terror he does so more clearly than anyone I have heard including the President. He doesn’t bash the President ever and this was LA where he could really get away with it.”
Rudy did an immigration bit that was “to the right of everyone else except maybe Tancredo. He talked about immigration in terms of national security. He said we needed to revamp our entire system so that we can get good people. He also said that if the twelve million already here expected to get any type of citizenship they would have to prove that they could read, write, and speak English.”
The fundraiser was sponsored by Bill Simon (who worked with Rudy in the U.S. Attorney’s office). My friend, who is the rare pro-life, Hollywood hawk, left wondering if he could support Rudy if it came to that. “We all know where Rudy is on abortion but my question is what does he think of Judges Roberts and Alito? If he says that he would appoint judges of like mind then I think he can skate on the abortion issue because it does come down to the judges.” It was Hollywood though so no one asked about any social issues.
My emphasis. She then reminds us of this Rudy quote:
“Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito are models of what judges should be in this country.”
Ms. Lopez, from one Catholic to another, you’re welcome in the big Rudy tent anytime!
January 30th, 2007 at 5:12 pm
“Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito are models of what judges should be in this country.”
I believe that this will satisfy the majority of the social conservatives. There will certainly be some dissenters, but it will come down to:
Do you want Rudy or Hillary?
If Rudy wins the nomination, we win the general!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
January 30th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
“Rudy did an immigration bit that was “to the right of everyone else except maybe Tancredo.” – If this holds true I’d put all my chips on Rudy winning. This is the issue that truly gins up the base right now. I don’t see how he could be accused of being a social moderate or liberal when he is on record as saying gay marriage is unacceptable, gun laws are good as they are, and he is to the right on immigration. If being pro-choice and having gay friends makes you a social liberal, conservatism is in a heap of trouble.
Personally, Id rather have someone strong on immigration and be pro-choice than have a president who is pro-life and weak on immigration. Immigration is one thing the president does actively effect while the abortion issue (unfortunately) resides in the realm of the courts.
January 30th, 2007 at 5:58 pm
K-Lo discovered last Saturday that Romney is not Ronald Reagan. A common complaint among people who heard it is that it was not a barnburner. He covered nearly all the bases. It was not so much the content or what he said that disappointed people, but the fact that it wasn’t great oratory.
There is a real danger in this to Romney. One of the things people talk up about him is his ability to communicate conservative values. After six years of George Bush seeming unwillingness to do the hard work of persuading people, they hunger for a communicator. Unfortunately, we just had one of the greatest, Ronald Reagan less than 20 years ago, and a real good one, Bill Clinton only ten years ago. It is inevitible that comparisons and contrasts will be made.
To compound the problem, we tend to only remember the triumphs of Reagan’s and Clinton’s rhetoric. We seldom recall their clunkers which they did have. Not even Lincoln hit a home run all the time, but his less-than-steller speeches are rarely, if ever remembered today.
Romney cannot afford too many of these missed opportunities. He spoke off the cuff, and many felt he rambled because of it. Chalk it up to a first-time national campaign. He’s in the big leagues now. Watch to see if he learns his lesson.
January 30th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
I agree, Romney’s NRI speech was clearly of a lesser quality then his Israeli speech the previous week. Although I disagree that it wasn’t solid oratory. It was simply unfocused, and failed to touch the most significant issue of the day: Iraq. Other then that, I thought it was average oratory for Romney.
January 30th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
I’m a huge fan of assimilating immigrants. Not because I’m an evil Republican who doesn’t like immigrants (cue lightning, thunder, etc), but because we’ve seen what happens when countries fail to assimilate their immigrants. Just look at the social problems in Eurabia for proof of that.
I’m in favor of a good, healthy dose of immigration. My great-grandparents came over from Italy at the turn of the last century, and I see Latin American immigration as just sort of the present-day version of Ellis Island. We’ve always been the country where people go to start a new and better life and to be free of the entanglements of old. But when there are massive numbers of immigrants all coming from the same region and who all speak the same language, it’s very easy for those immigrants to form their own, insular communities, where they can communicate with one another, which is far easier than learning a new language. But such a dynamic only inhibits both assimilation and the socio-economic advancement of said immigrants.
Thus the liberal policies that encourage bilingual education, etc, just end up keeping America’s newest immigrants down, instead of forcing them to learn English, which would allow them to compete in the broader market.
As such, it pleases me that the Mayor also understands the importance of maintaining a single, primary language here in America, and understands the connection between language and assimilation.
January 30th, 2007 at 6:46 pm
Well…Rudy is for a comprehensive, Bush-like plan on immigration “reform.” That might be the most-sensible position, but we shouldn’t fool ourselves that Rudy believes something else.
January 30th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
Well, I’ll be honest, I don’t see how you can send 12 million people home… That said, we should send the bad apples home, which means we’ll have to do an accounting of the people who are here, which means we will have to offer citizenship as an incentive to get them to come forward. But earned citizenship is my preferred option: learn English, assimilate, be here to contribute to the nation, not to suck dry its welfare state.
I know some conservatives feel this isn’t “fair,” but neither is life.
January 30th, 2007 at 6:54 pm
That said, it does say something about the GOP field that K-Lo’s friend believes this position puts Rudy to the right of Romney, McCain, Brownback, Huckabee, etc, on immigration. None of them have demanded English as a requirement for citizenship. Tanc is still way, way out there on the issue, but Rudy becomes the most conservative of the rest of the pack. Though Duncan Hunter is probably not being factored into the equation here.
January 30th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
Remember, deportation or amnesty is a false dichotomy. If illegal aliens cannot get a job, cannot rent a house, and cannot wire money home, many of them will leave on their own. If you add on the carrot of being able to apply for a guest worker program in your home country, most illegal aliens will have no incentive to try to stay.
Of course, if amnesty passes the Democrat legislature this year, the whole immigration issue will take more of a back seat. In this situation, strong plans for border security will be more important than a candidates opposition to amnesty.
January 30th, 2007 at 7:15 pm
Marksal,
Wrong. Rudy is to the right of McCain, Brownback, Huckabee, and probably Newt on Immigration. I know because I heard him outline his plan in person.
The first thing Rudy proposes is to seal the southern border. Which he’ll probably do by using Compstat technology to organize ground forces, satellites, and unmanned drones. If you are unfamiliar with Compstat, see here.
Secondly, he wants to make sure that every person that is here in America illegally is identified. Everyone has to come forward. If the person has a criminal history, they’re out of here.
Thirdly, every illegal alien would be required to be able to speak, read, and write the English language before achieving any type of legal status.
There would also presumably be a back taxes/penalty requirement as well.
So K-Lo is correct. Rudy is to the right of probably everyone but the Tancredo’s and Hunters on this issue.
January 30th, 2007 at 7:29 pm
Kavon, the position you articulated in #10 is identical to that of Romney’s. What makes that position, then, “to the right of probably everyone but the Tancredo’s and Hunters on this issue”?
January 30th, 2007 at 7:37 pm
Romney’s advocating the use of proven Giuliani methods (Compstat)
?
Sweet! Why not learn from the best?
January 30th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
Kavon,
Saying that Rudy is to the right of McCain, Brownback and Huckabee on immigration is like saying he’s to the right of Hillary Clinton.
Here’s a link in which you might be interested. It provides a balanced conservation with Rudy on his immigration views.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2006/08/rudy_on_immigration.html
January 30th, 2007 at 7:57 pm
Kavon,
O.M.G.
January 30th, 2007 at 8:02 pm
Marksal,
I’ve seen that episode of O’Reilly. What did Rudy say in that interview that contradicts what I wrote?
January 30th, 2007 at 8:28 pm
I’ve always felt that K-Lo’s obsession with Romney was creepy. A definite situation of all blinders all the time. I’m glad she’s coming back down to earth.
January 30th, 2007 at 8:42 pm
DaveG,
From one Catholic to another (as you put it), please allow me to quote from JPII:
Exhibit A
“Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights – for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture – is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with the maximum determination”
Someone who is pro-choice is not defending it with even a minimum of determination. And he cannot be trusted with the office of the Presidency, at least if from the vantage point of one who shares the Holy Father’s concerns. For Rudy to have stated in the past he is pro-choice, and never have repudiated those words, but at the same time say he would nominate justices like Alito and Roberts, is about as empty as empty rhetoric gets.
Exhibit B
[See http://proecclesia.blogspot.com/2006/10/catholics-in-public-square-by-bishop.html
From our current Holy Father, a list of several issues that are “not negotiable” for Catholics in political life, because they involve matters that are intrinsically evil. In an address to European politicians on March 30, 2006, Pope Benedict XVI stated:
” Recognition and promotion of the natural structure of the family as a union between a man and a woman based on marriage and its defense from attempts to make it juridically equivalent to radically different forms of union which in reality harm it and contribute to its destabilization, obscuring its particular character and its irreplaceable social role”
You know, “attempt to make it juridically equivalent” like civil unions for homosexuals, which Rudy has openly supported.
From one Catholic to another.
January 30th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
Fredo,
As Kavon has noted a number of times, theological debates are not a part of this blog.
I evoked my own (admittedly less than orthodox) Catholicism sort of half in jest, thinking it was a clever device considering K-Lo’s own very outspoken Catholicism. It was meant as sort of an inside joke for those who read NRO as frequently as I do, which is probably enough to be unhealthy.
Sorry if you understood that to be an invite to theological debate. I will be more prudent in the future.
January 30th, 2007 at 8:59 pm
DaveG,
Where personal moral conviction intersects with Presidential campaigns, I take it to be a political debate.
But as this is not my blog, I will stand down if you feel I’ve violated the groundrules.
January 30th, 2007 at 9:06 pm
I think your trackback dealie may not be working.
A Flap trackback: http://flapsblog.com/?p=4273
January 30th, 2007 at 9:06 pm
Fredo,
Hey, I don’t care if you shout to the rafters why your faith leads you not to support Rudy. I’m just not going to participate in that debate.
Kavon can weigh in with the official R4′08 Ground Rules for Talking About Religion if he wants to. They were largely in response to the “Romney and Mormonism” threads, which led to numerous threadjackings of the “Are Mormons real Christians” variety.
January 30th, 2007 at 9:09 pm
As for immigration, neither Rudy nor my candidate of choice (Romney) has adequately answered what is, in my mind, the key question:
Will those who have broken the law by coming here illegally be forced to cease reaping the benefits of their lawbreaking, by repatriating home before being offered legal status, as both the Pence and Kyl/Cornyn plans required?
Mitt has pointed to the right answers by saying that we’re opening the flood gates to unskilled workers while forcing PhD recepients on education visas to repatriate. Giuliani’s comments above strike a similar tone. But I want specifics on this issue. It’s one of the areas in which the next president will determine US demographics (and hence the electorate) for decades to come.
January 30th, 2007 at 10:14 pm
Kavon, this stuff:
GIULIANI: They don’t commit crimes. They don’t – well, we made sure that their children were allowed to go to school for which we were criticized. But if I didn’t do that, I would end up with children on the streets. If I had just said well, illegal immigrants can’t have their children in school. And we tried to make their lives reasonable.
O’REILLY: How about city services?
GIULIANI: It would have been.
O’REILLY: Did you give them city money?
GIULIANI: Sure, we did. If they were necessary services.
January 30th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
Context, people. Context!
GIULIANI: The Immigration and Naturalization Service would only deport 1,500 to 2,000 a year. So I said to myself I have 398,000 illegal immigrants because the federal government is not going to do anything about this. It can’t. So I had to figure out how do I deal with it so that I regularize them, so that I.
O’REILLY: So how did you do that?
(Insert Marksal’s cleverly excerpted portion here)
And later:
GIULIANI: But you’ve got to take a practical approach to it. There are 12 million illegals in this country. We got to stop illegals from coming in. And a tremendous amount of money should be put into the physical security that’s needed to do that. People and technology. At the same time, you’ve got this tremendous number of people who are below the table. As long as you don’t know who they are, as long as you can’t get them to come forward, you can’t identify them, you can’t photograph them, you have to figure out who they are, then you have a dangerous situation.
January 30th, 2007 at 10:23 pm
As I’ve posted before, I lived in NY both before and during Rudy’s mayoral tenure, so I can attest to how fantastic and yes–conservative–he was as mayor.
But I still support Romney for President. Why?
The first reason is a pro-Romney one: I think his business experience and acumen would help produce innovative solutions to complex governmental/political problems.
But the second has to do with Rudy: His marital history. Am I the only person who posts here who believes that Donna Hanover or someone connected to her will attempt to destroy Rudy once he gets the GOP nomination, thus handing the Presidency to Hillary or whomever? Even the currently acknowledged stuff about Rudy and Hanover, including his parading his then-mistress and now wife around the city, is awful and will get widely publicized once he were to get the GOP nomination. And I suspect it’s just the tip of the iceberg of what Hanover or whomever will reveal about Rudy. It’s going to get out there, the media will eat it up, women voters will desert Rudy in droves and the Democrat will win. You just watch.
January 30th, 2007 at 10:26 pm
DaveG,
Kavon asked for the specific parts of what Rudy said that contradicted a tough stance on immigration, so I obliged him. Initially, I just posted the link to the entire interview.
January 30th, 2007 at 10:57 pm
Marksal. . .I was wondering about Donna Hanover and whether or not she’d creep up once the Rudy campaign got underway. I hope she doesn’t, if for no other reason than they have a child together. She’d only be spiting her own son by tearing down Rudy. Maybe they hate each other that much, I don’t know. But I’d hate to see that happen to their son. The more I think about it, I don’t recall any ex-wives of candidates (in recent history at least) causing problems for the candidate. Ex-mistresses, on the other hand. . .
January 30th, 2007 at 11:01 pm
Fredo and all “Social Conservatives” that refuse to vote for him because of his abortion view:
Judges interpret the law and the United State Constitution. When a man states he would appoint judges like Scalia, Alito, and Roberts, it means he would apply a strict interpretation of our Constitution regardless of his personal views on any issue. That is far from empty rhetoric.
7 of the 9 judges on the Supreme Court have been appointed by Republicans, 3 of which were appointed by Reagan. A Republican has been President for over half of the time since Roe v. Wade. During the last 6 years, Republicans have controlled every branch of the government. When are hardcore social conservatives going to wake up and realize that the real lip service comes from the so called “compassionate conservatives” that dangle the carrot of pro-life simply to get elected.
Example As Governor of Texas, Bush opposed the same exact position he took in the Schiavo case. That is empty rhetoric!
I give Rudy so much credit for refusing to change his views when all of the talking heads of the Republican Party told him he had to in order to win.
January 30th, 2007 at 11:18 pm
But Mike B, Rudy has had three wives and has dressed in drag! He would look like a complete liar if he had a public change of heart on social issues.
However, I think Rudy gets a bad rap on social issues. He has always showed respect for religious people, for example, and he made New York a much more family-friendly place.
January 30th, 2007 at 11:24 pm
He who has not sinned shall cast the first stone.
I don’t care. I want someone to look Putin in the eye and see the KGB, not his “soul.” I want someone that can stand up to the leader to Iran, not someone that plays nice eating grits to get votes in South Carolina. How relevant are 3 divorces in relation to a dirty bomb going off in a major city? SERIOUSLY
January 30th, 2007 at 11:34 pm
Mike B,
I agree that Rudy would be great as President, but he has to get elected first! Without his scandalous marital history, he’d be a fantastic nominee. But it makes him too risky for my taste.
Anyway, I’m still not sure he is going to run. He knows his relationship history better than anyone else, and he’s smart enough to know most or all of it (and even some make-believe stuff) will become public knowledge. Bill Clinton didn’t care, but that’s because he’s a shameless xxxxxxx.
January 30th, 2007 at 11:34 pm
MikeB,
I appreciate the federalist argument. But your point that “judges interpret the constitution” does not support your conclusion. When the Supreme Court found “penumbras and eminations” that allowed for killing inconvenient children, they did not merely “interpret the constitution”. They sought to continue a social revolution that was already in progress, and give it legal refuge. While I appreciate the fact that the federal government may rightly punt on the abortion issue by turning it back to the states (and this would, indeed, be a real improvement), we need a conservative leader who will go a step beyond that.
Real leadership will take advantage of the office of the Presidency to win hearts and minds for life. Reagan did the same in convincing people that prosperity and self-determination would be improved by shrinking government: an idea that ran counter to prevailing wisdom at the time. I am still hopeful for a 2008 GOP candidate who can effectively communicate the pro-life position to the American public.
January 30th, 2007 at 11:48 pm
Reagan supported abortion legislation as the Governor of California when he actually had an impact on abortion. I’ll give you his failed Bork nomination, but he did not even put up a fight to get him confirmed. He left it to Meese and Bolton. He gave us mistakes on the Court that we still are dealing with today.
With all due respect, I doubt your white knight is coming anytime soon. That is my point, all of the Republican politicians that effectively communicate the pro-life position do so because they know people like you want it so badly that you will vote them based on that. Look what 6 years of Republican leadership full of that has got us. No balanced budget, declining dollar, open borders, no guts to do what’s necessary to win the war, and most importantly no change in abortion policy.
I’ll agree to the status quo on abortion policy if those other problems are resolved. I guess we have to agree to disagree for now. I appreciate your debate.
January 31st, 2007 at 2:12 am
1. From one Catholic to another: the only thing that would enrage me more than a pro-abortion Catholic Democrat running for president is a pro-abortion Catholic REPUBLICAN running for president. What a slap in the face. Plus, putting (some of) the Catholic bishops in the position of having to refuse Communion to a Republican presidential nominee would ultimately be an embarassment both to the Republican Party and to the Catholic Church.
2. Does anyone actually think that Rudy could be a two-term president? Even if his celebrity status survives the campaign ads and the public rehashing of the many skeletons in his closet, there is no way that it could survive four years of an actual Giuliani administration. As New Yorkers know well, Rudy is an abrasive administrator, and he is very good at making enemies and causing controversy. Even if Rudy were to be elected in ‘08 (a big “if”), I do not see, under any circumstances, how he gets reelected in 2012. From a purely pragmatic point of view, we should at least pick somebody who has a realistic shot at reelection.
January 31st, 2007 at 3:30 am
Fredo, the last time religion and politics dictated the Republican nomination…. we got Bush II.
I’m not going to watch another primary get hijacked by a bunch of bible belting extremists.
Sure religion, and the preservation of the religious right, is important. But at the expense of great
men, such as McCain and Giuliani, no way. I think the Republicans ought to be more mindful of the moderates/
fiscally responsible portion of the party for a change.
January 31st, 2007 at 3:30 am
Fredo, the last time religion and politics dictated the Republican nomination…. we got Bush II.
I’m not going to watch another primary get hijacked by a bunch of bible belting extremists.
Sure religion, and the preservation of the religious right, is important. But at the expense of great
men, such as McCain and Giuliani, no way. I think the Republicans ought to be more mindful of the moderates/
fiscally responsible portion of the party for a change.
January 31st, 2007 at 6:30 am
Frank
I would think the opposite to be true. One only has to look at the results of the two winning elections Rudy had in NY when he ran for mayor. He won the first time, served four years where his reputation became well known to everyone who didn’t know him the first time around, then won reelection with an even larger margin in an overwhelmingly Democratic city. If the party and the country accept his faults and they still vote him into higher office in 2008, personal baggage and all, why would they turn on him in 2012 the next time he ran? His second campaign would simply be a referendum on his first term, not a rehashing and re-evaluation of his (by then) already known personal misgivings. If the voters are “better off than they were four years ago,” he wins. If things take a turn for the worse, he’s out.
January 31st, 2007 at 9:30 am
Frank:
It’s not embarrassing for priests to be too friendly with young boys though?
Did you know in South Carolina it’s illegal to buy a non-food item before 1 pm on Sundays? It may be 11 am but I’m pretty sure it’s 1pm. It’s ILLEGAL to buy a camera (fill in blank) in South Carolina at 10 am on Sunday. Yeah, those people should determine our next nominee.
January 31st, 2007 at 9:58 am
Umm… so where’s all the outrage that Rudy is flip-flopping on illegal immigration now??? If this had been a Romney piece, I bet it would have been completely different tone.
Rudy came out in full support of President Bush’s immigration plan when it was in the Senate – which is one of the several reasons I decided I would not be voting for him. Now, all of a sudden, he’s to the right of everyone except Tank? C’mon…
Romney’s answer to the immigration question in the CQ interview was solid: #1: secure the border. #2: require employment verification. #3: make immigrants learn English and provide skills or education we need in this country. Overall: Immigration must be a help, not a hindrance, to this country.
Why look any further than that? Rudy has, it seems, flip-flopped on this issue hard core.
January 31st, 2007 at 10:29 am
How about worrying about winning the 2008 election before we start worrying about winning the 2012 reelection? Go Rudy.
January 31st, 2007 at 10:50 am
Saying that Rudy’s a Catholic is laughable.
January 31st, 2007 at 10:57 am
Can we get off the religion thing? I’m sorry I brought it up. It was a joke.
January 31st, 2007 at 1:10 pm
Look what 6 years of Republican leadership full of that has got us. No balanced budget, declining dollar, open borders, no guts to do what’s necessary to win the war, and most importantly no change in abortion policy.
Mike B, I’m respectfully disagreeing. To imply that the abortion policy landscape over the last 6 years has not improved is ignoring two great young SCOTUS appointees, as well as the numerous pro-life bills and measures that Bush has signed.
With respect to the budget & borders, you’re right on the mark. That’s why I’m backing a pro-life president who will get something done on those two fronts. No doubt you are aware of Romney’s record here?
January 31st, 2007 at 1:14 pm
Real leadership will take advantage of the office of the Presidency to win hearts and minds for life.
Fredo, you really said it all here. I couldn’t agree more. I am not satisfied with the thought of a president who will appoint constructionist judges and who will simultaneously offer pro-abortion leadership on the most barbaric public policy possible.
People, the overturning of RvW does not signal an end to the abortion debate.
January 31st, 2007 at 2:13 pm
murphy, amen and amen to that, brother.
I have long argued, and will argue again, that the President has much more to do with abortion than simply appoint judges. To say that is all it comes down to is to willingly dismiss the power of the President as a visionary and a communicator.
The President is the head of a movement – in our case, the conservative movement. That’s why fewer people consider themselves conservatives after Bush’s 6 years in office – because he was, at least in the last 2-3 years, a horrible leader of the conservative movement.
The President has the ability to frame and control debate, to push policies, to use political capital, to utilize a bully pulpit, and to charismatically vision cast to the country. To think Giuliani would do any of these things for an issue that he so vehemently opposes personally is simply ludicrous. The best we could hope for out of a Giuliani presidency is a few decent judges. That’s baby steps forward compared to what a true leader on the issue could do.
January 31st, 2007 at 5:20 pm
Murphy:
I respectfully disagree your analysis about Alito & Roberts. They have not been on the court long enough to know they will rule. We will not know enough about them for another 3-5 years. Supreme Court justices tend to go more left as time progresses with my hero, Scalia, being the biggest exception of the current group.
Honest question: What separates Romney from all of the other past leaders who proclaimed to be pro-life? He has actually been on the record less than 5 years ago as being pro-choice. To me, he seems just another politician that knows he can get some votes by claiming to be pro-life. I am not am familiar with his complete record as some of you might be.
January 31st, 2007 at 11:45 pm
Mike B,
Regarding past presidents following through on their SCOTUS rhetoric, I think they largely have. There were a lot of “conservative” judges nominated, and some of the “moderate” ones replaced liberal justices before them. As for Alito and Roberts, I’m very confident that they’re on “our team”…but you’re right, we’ll have to wait and see.
At some level, you are going to have to trust one of the candidates’ rhetoric. Personally, I completely trust McCain to sign every pro-life piece of legislation that comes across his desk. But would he nominate judges for a pro-life cause which he’s admitted to not having his heart in, or his beloved CFR? I’m fairly sure Giuliani would appoint constructionists, though his past praise of Ginsburg gives me pause. But he’d also be a champion for PBA and removing the pro-life plank from the GOP platform. I trust Romney on his calls for the overturning of RvW, and I trust his pro-life record on legislation. Have you read Romney’s piece on why he vetoed the abortion pill? That’s the kind of leader the pro-life movement could use.
February 1st, 2007 at 8:44 am
I have not read it. Can you send a link?
February 1st, 2007 at 11:28 am
Rudy will pander to anyone to get elected.
February 1st, 2007 at 12:39 pm
Mike B, here you go champ.
http://www.boston.com/yourlife/health/women/articles/2005/07/26/why_i_vetoed_contraception_bill/
I think this demonstrates why Romney could be a very effective “Communicator in CHief” on the abortion issue. He defines his beliefs clearly, yet he doesn’t come out swinging against the pro-abortion side of the isle. It’s this kind of rhetoric that persuades people why they should value the sanctity of life. Reagan communicated this effectively being from the wrong side of the issue, and I think Romney can as well.