Mitt vs. the Democrats on Life

34 Responses to “Mitt vs. the Democrats on Life”

1. Mitt vs. the Democrats on Life at Conservative Times--Republican GOP news source. Says:
   June 15th, 2007 at 6:32 am

   [...] post by Justin D. Smith and software by Elliott [...]

2. econ grad stud Says:
   June 15th, 2007 at 6:35 am

   Obama opposed a law that forced doctors to provide medical care to babies born alive despite an attempted abortions.

   http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18647

   Luckily I don’t think Obama’s winning anything. He’s basically a clean, young black Mondale.

3. Jason Says:
   June 15th, 2007 at 7:05 am

   Here in IL people talk about Obama. I tell them that they say “nevermind.” I think it will be the deal breaker for most. You have to remember every member of the US senate opposed it as did NARAL, seeing the as too extreme.

   But as a State Senator Obama thought his was the hottest thing since sliced bread.

4. econ grad stud Says:
   June 15th, 2007 at 7:48 am

   I get my local news from Southern Illinois and I’m always surprised at how they cover Obama. It gets so sappy that even friends that are Democrats make fun of it.

   You’d think his father was Zeus (and not a Kenyan) given how the news covers him.

5. bobl Says:
   June 15th, 2007 at 8:19 am

   Mitt is disgrace to the pro-life movement I would much rather have a constant pro-life person not one that has flip flopped to make it political better for him.

6. KevinP Says:
   June 15th, 2007 at 8:54 am

   bobl #5: “I would much rather have a constant pro-life person”. Then you would have never voted for Ronald Reagan – you certainly cannot vote for Rudy Guiliani or Fred Thompson. And, one more thing, Mitt changed his position politically once and in the right direction – he “flipped” his position – he never went back – that would be a flop – there is no flop.

7. JasonJack Says:
   June 15th, 2007 at 9:35 am

   5–

   Unless Huckabee comes up strong, McCain’s your only choice.

8. Jason Says:
   June 15th, 2007 at 9:57 am

   Bobl,

   I sure hope you aren’t oting for Sam. He was once pro-choice as well.

9. cwpete Says:
   June 15th, 2007 at 11:09 am

   #5 bobl,

   Those here who have read my comments on this site over the past 7 months know that I’m as pro-life as they come. The pro-life issue is very important to me, near the top of my list.

   If I thought for a second that Romney was not-sincere regarding his pro-life position, He would not have supporters like myself.

   Please re-evaluate your opinion on Romney’s pro-life stance.

10. Dskinner Says:
    June 15th, 2007 at 11:33 am

    bobl,

    I volunteer at my local Crisis Pregnancy Center and was president of my medical school’s pro-life group. I support Romney because I have looked at his record and I believe he will be the best leader on life issues because he is eloquent and also because he has sincerely wrestled with the issue like many Americans are currently doing.

    If you won’t ever accept someone who was pro-choice before then you are condemning yourself and the country to being permanently pro-choice. Right now the majority of America isn’t with us on this issue and we will have to win hearts and minds in order to really make a difference on this issue. Who better to convince moderate pro-choicers (like Romney was) to become pro-life? Obviously someone who can relate to how they view the issue.

    I completely respect Brownback for his stance on abortion, but these men are running to be president in the future, not the past. Looking forward Brownback is no better than Romney on life issues and he is much, much worse on many other very important issues.

    By the way, how is Brownback doing in the polls since he endorsed Kennedy-McCain’s amnesty plan for America and Biden’s surrender plan for Iraq?

11. Aron Goldman Says:
    June 15th, 2007 at 12:06 pm

    Mitt Romney: “I am pro-life. I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother. I wish the people of America agreed, and that the laws of our nation could reflect that view.”

    Reading between the lines of this quote from Romney, it sounds like he’s saying:

    ‘I am personally pro-life, but because the American people don’t agree with me, I realize, until they do, my desire to change the laws to comport with my own views will remain wishful thinking.’

    The key word Romney uses in the abovementioned quote is “CHOICE”; an acknowledgement of sorts that he respects that it is a choice to be made; albeit one that he, himself, thinks is wrong and disagrees with.

    I am rather surprised Romney didn’t raise red flags with pro-lifers regarding his alleged conversion on the abortion issue with this revealing comment made two months ago during one of his “Ask Mitt” townhall meetings:

    “My view is that instead of having a one-size-fits-all pronouncement for the entire nation as we currently have, that each state should be able to make their own choice in this regard . So that if Massachusetts wants to be pro-choice, as undoubtedly it would want to be. It would have the right to be such. But if a state wants to adopt REASONABLE pro-life laws, it should have the right to do that as well.”

    Mitt needs to be asked his definition of “reasonable.” It is not unreasonable to suspect that Romney, as a federalist, supports states’ rights, but feels it is the responsibility of each state to craft “reasonable” abortion laws that, perhaps, permit women to terminate pregnancies through the first trimester, well before a fetus could be viable, or capable of living outside the womb.

    On this subject, I would ask Romney:

    If Roe is overturned and some states ban all abortions, would you consider such pro-life laws to be unreasonable? And if so, why?

12. murphy Says:
    June 15th, 2007 at 1:11 pm

    Aron: Mitt needs to be asked his definition of “reasonable.” It is not unreasonable to suspect that Romney, as a federalist, supports states’ rights, but feels it is the responsibility of each state to craft “reasonable” abortion laws that, perhaps, permit women to terminate pregnancies through the first trimester…

    Wrong.

    Romney: I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother.

13. Aron Goldman Says:
    June 15th, 2007 at 1:56 pm

    murphy,

    Romney, personally, believes “abortion is the wrong CHOICE”, except in the instances he states. It is a tacit acknowledgment on his part that he respects it is a choice to be made; albeit one that he, himself, thinks is wrong and does not agree with.

14. Dskinner Says:
    June 15th, 2007 at 2:01 pm

    Aron,

    Interesting how you quote Mitt’s statement to start and then by the end, your guess of his position totally contradicts the quote you posted. Come on, Romney has issues with pro-lifers, but anytime this subject is brought up it is a loser for Rudy and no amount of wordsmithing on Romney’s quotes is going to change that.

15. murphy Says:
    June 15th, 2007 at 2:03 pm

    Aron,

    I’m trying to understand what you’re getting at, amidst all the hair-splitting and reading between the lines.

    Are you suggesting that Romney is personally pro-life, but pro-choice as far as public policy?

16. murphy Says:
    June 15th, 2007 at 3:03 pm

    Regarding Justin’s original post, here is the transcript of Romney’s planned remarks:

    http://www.mittromney.com/News/Speeches/National_Right_To_Life_Convention_Forum

17. Aron Goldman Says:
    June 15th, 2007 at 4:10 pm

    I am suggesting that, yes, Romney is personally pro-life, but because he is respectful of the fact that a majority of Americans disagree with him, he would be less than comfortable with, upon Roe’s overturning, a state legislature imposing a total ban on abortion (exceptions aside), which I suspect he’d find unreasonable, unless it truly represented the will of the people in a given state.

    Here’s another quote from Romney, this one made in December, that convinces me he believes abortion should remain a choice, to some extent, for all women, but under far stricter guidelines than Roe allows.

    Mitt Romney: “The state of Massachusetts is a pro-choice state and when I campaigned for governor I said that I would not change the law on abortion. But I do believe that the one-size-fits-all, abortion-on-demand-for-all-nine-months decision in Roe v. Wade does not serve the country well and is another example of judges making the law instead of interpreting the Constitution.

    What I would like to see is the Court return the issue to the people to decide…I understand there are people of good faith on both sides of the issue. They should be able to make and advance their case in democratic forums with civility, mutual respect, and confidence that our democratic process is the best place to handle these issues.”

    So, Mitt is against a “one-size-fits-all, abortion-on-demand-for-all-nine-months” policy. Fair enough — he and I happen to be in full agreement there. But, as I’ve said, it is not unreasonable to suspect that Romney feels it is the responsibility of each state to craft “reasonable” abortion laws that, perhaps, permit women to terminate pregnancies through the first trimester, well before a fetus could be viable, or capable of sustaining life outside the womb.

    Would your support for Romney be compromised if you found out Romney shares the same position as Jim Gilmore?

18. Matt Says:
    June 15th, 2007 at 5:02 pm

    Aron,

    Romney has said previously that he’d favor abortion bans except in the case of rape, incest, and the life of the mother. He even said he’d sign South Dakota’s total abortion ban. There’s no good reason to believe he supports the legality of first trimester abortions, nevermind supporting some sort of bizarre constitutional insistence that abortions are protected only during the first trimester.

19. murphy Says:
    June 15th, 2007 at 5:23 pm

    Aron: Would your support for Romney be compromised if you found out Romney shares the same position as Jim Gilmore?

    Dampened, yes. But you’re asking a nonsense hypothetical question that’s completely irrelevant and contrary to the facts of Romney’s position. See Matt’s #18.

20. murphy Says:
    June 15th, 2007 at 5:42 pm

    Aron,

    Honest question. I’m starting to get the feeling that you are willing to take intellectual honesty into a gray area concerning Romney’s record and positions.

    For example, in a previous thread you aired criticisms on Romney over his position on setting public & private benchmarks in Iraq. Yet when pressed for details, it seems like you agree with his position on benchmarks.

    As another example, in this thread we see you doing all sorts of mental gymnastics and hair splitting over the definition of “reasonable”. You make leading suggestions that Romney might favor legalized 1st trimester abortions, and you have completely ignored other statements from Romney’s record.

    Your thoughts?

21. Dskinner Says:
    June 15th, 2007 at 6:54 pm

    I agree with murphy. It seems Aron has taken over for DaveG in letting his support for Rudy color his views of other candidates.

    I’m not saying anyone needs to post positive things about candidates they don’t support. However I am saying all the posts, especially the negative posts should be fair and intellectually honest.

22. SGS Says:
    June 15th, 2007 at 7:20 pm

    Aron, there was a law in South Dakota (or was it North? Sorry Dakotans, I never get those states right) that was voted down by the people because it was deem too unreasonable. The major issue? This law did not permit abortion under any circumstance — not even rape, incent or mother’s life in danger. So, Mitt’s definition of reasonable could means thus. But yes, he does need to clarify what he mean by that, because reasonable is a favorite by-word of every politician; even Kennedy and Obama use it often!

23. Aron Goldman Says:
    June 15th, 2007 at 9:46 pm

    murphy,

    That is a mischaracterization of my position. I vehemently disagree with Romney, who supports the establishment of a private timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.

    Here are my comments regarding Romney and the setting of a private/secret timetable, or benchmarks for withdrawal from Iraq:

    I do not think secret benchmarks to evaluate progress are necessarily a bad idea. However, they must be benchmarks that, if leaked, as they’re bound to be, will pose no danger to our troops in harm’s way. [An example of such a benchmark would be giving Maliki's government until August to sign into law an oil revenue sharing agreement, or risk losing some U.S. reconstruction aid money.]

    There’s obviously nothing wrong with the administration setting goals for themselves. But to publicize information that could only serve to embolden our enemies, and weaken the resolve of the many Sunnis and Shia cautiously coming off the fence is counterproductive. Any substantial withdrawal of US forces from Iraq should be conditions-based, and if the Iraqis were fully capable of governing, defending and sustaining themselves without US forces taking a lead, or even a complementary role in the conduct of operations, I would advocate a drawdown of 50,000 troops over the next year and see if it adversely affects the security situation before recommending scaling back further to the permanent levels that will be necessary to maintain regional stability (~30,000-50,000) for the foreseeable future.

    Where Romney’s position seemingly diverges from my own is his apparent lack of commitment and a disconcerting willingness on his part to accept defeat in Iraq, should the surge not achieve sufficient success in accordance with a US presidential politics timetable.

    On the issue of abortion and Romney’s position, it is Romney’s use of the word “reasonable”, as SGS recognizes, that has this discussion delving into a gray area. If Romney spoke in less ambiguous language, we wouldn’t be having this discussion, trying to decipher what Romney’s definition of “reasonable” could mean.

    Matt,

    Romney never said he’d sign South Dakota’s total abortion ban. I am aware, however, that a former spokeswoman of his spoke out of line, saying he would, and was subsequently corrected by Romney’s communications director. Today, Romney’s new-found personal belief is that he is opposed to abortion except in the cases of rape, incest or when the life of the pregnant girl/woman is at risk.

    If Mitt, himself, were to clearly articulate that such a personal position would be policy he’d mandate as governor for all citizens of a given state, instead of engaging in political speak that’s certainly open to interpretation, I will be the first to commend him for such clarity.

24. Dskinner Says:
    June 15th, 2007 at 10:55 pm

    Aron,

    How is questioning Romney’s stance on abortion not disingenuine when Rudy is for tax-payer funded abortions of 14 year old girls who are 8 months pregnant. Or wait, maybe that was his position last month, I’ll have to check and see what his “two pillars” are again.

    Rudy has been so all over the place the past few months that it is ridiculous for you to question Romney who changed once and has been consistent ever since. Rudy believes the Consitution guarantees the right to an abortion, he thinks tax-payers should fund it, (but only at the state level, you’ve got to love that he is a federalist, oh except for the national gun registry he supports) he was for abortion on demand and has never explained his switch, he was for “infanticide” (aka partial birth abortion) and his explanation for his switch is a total lie, he says strict construtionists could uphold Roe, he talks about pro-life justices like that view is a negative and they would have to make up for it in 20 other areas, and oh yeah, he really doesn’t care about the issue except for when he speaks at NARAL Champions of Choice events.

    Rudy is so all over the place on this issue that for a Rudy supporter to criticize anyone on abortion is laughable, reeks of bias, and is completely disingenuine, unless of course you don’t care about the issue but were graciously trying to inform those of us who do care. If you were merely trying to help us poor pro-lifers see the truth then I take it all back.

    Don’t twist Romney’s words and try to infer something that he obviously didn’t imply. Romney’s statement is clear. He favors laws that outlaw abortion with exceptions for rape incest and the life of the mother. When he says “reasonable” he obviously is referring to the exceptions that he just listed, not some imagined exception like oh say the entire first trimester when over 90% of abortions occur. The obvious inference is that a law that outlaws abortions regarding one of those three exceptions may be unreasonable.

    Why don’t you spend more time trying to explain Rudy’s nonsensical position on the issue instead of attacking Romney for things that you imagine he might say if asked the right question.

25. Dskinner Says:
    June 15th, 2007 at 11:08 pm

    As far as Iraq, for some reason I think you believe that regardless of what the Iraqi people do we will be able to impose our will and pacify them. I think it is completely naive to believe that there is no possibility of failure in Iraq. If therefore there is the possibility of failure, shouldn’t we have some sort of plan to deal with it. Romney has never even implied that we should withdraw if the surge doesn’t go well. All he has said is that we shouldn’t plan on staying there for a long period of time because when we went in we told them we would only stay as long as necessary.

    Nobody else has put forth a plan should the report be a poor one, not McCain and certainly not the great warrior Rudy. Why don’t you question how they will respond if the surge report comes back and Petraeus says it isn’t going to work unless I have more troops and more time?

    I am not saying we should withdraw in September if we get a bad report. I am saying that if the Iraqi people, especially the government doesn’t make some real progress it will be impossible for us to have success without at least doubling the force that we have there. General Petraeus has already said ideally he would need more troops and much more time. The Iraqis are going to have to step up or else we will have to change our strategy to one that is much less involved.

    The military is stretched very thin and even people like John McCain recognize that we can’t ask this level of sacrifice from our troops indefinitely. I don’t think September is enough time, but the reality is if things aren’t going well Bush won’t get funding because a significant chunk of the GOP is ready to jump ship.

26. elahamla Says:
    June 15th, 2007 at 11:16 pm

    This is all nuts. I think what’s happening is that those who accuse Romney of regularly changing his positions for political expedience will never be satisfied. If he uses the “wrong” or even different nuance in an impromptu response (such as his Ask Mitt meetings), then instead of clarifying, he is changing. Aron, I think you’re straining at gnats here. Just go back and look at the actual record of Romney’s tenure as governor of Mass. Let the actions speak for themselves instead of trying to read too much into a single word.

27. bjalder26 Says:
    June 15th, 2007 at 11:43 pm

    This garbage about Mitt flip-flopping shows sheer desperation. If you have no arguments against his stances, you have nothing to contribute.

28. murphy Says:
    June 16th, 2007 at 1:26 am

    Aron,

    I don’t have much to add to the comments in #24 – #27 regarding your attacks on Romney’s abortion policy.

    Regarding the benchmarks issue which I brought up, indeed I overlooked the single disagreement between you and Romney. Romney says benchmarks that would tip off adversaries should remain private. You say such benchmarks should never be made in the first place. I completely disagree, but in terms of your position compared to Romney you are correct, calling them equivalent is wrong.

29. Aron Goldman Says:
    June 16th, 2007 at 1:56 am

    Dskinner: “unless of course you don’t care about the issue but were graciously trying to inform those of us who do care. If you were merely trying to help us poor pro-lifers see the truth then I take it all back.”

    Actually, you got it — with the exception, of course, of your sarcastic use of the implied condescending characterization on my part of ‘helping poor pro-lifers’. This, for me, is not about comparing and contrasting the degree of consistency or flip-flopping of Romney and Rudy on the abortion issue. Calling out Giuliani for his recent shifts rightward on PBA, Hyde and parental notification is fully justifiable and a healthy part of the necessary intra-party vetting process. If Romney goes on to win the nomination, if for nothing else, I think we can all agree that it is far preferable to see Mitt’s position on abortion firmly solidified now on an issue on which he’s done a 180 in the past two years out of sheer political opportunism, before the Democrats and an all-too-complicit media exact revenge on Romney for the Republicans’ flip-flopping charges that contributed to John Kerry’s defeat in 2004. Just tonight, Fox News, of all networks, aired a Jon Stewart clip at the end of Special Report in which he was mocking Romney for his ‘How Conveeeenient!’, new-found, devout pro-life beliefs, yelling to Mitt, “Don’t you realize this is all being recorded?”

    Fair or not, Rudy ultimately gets a pass from the press on all abortion-related matters, because at least 95% of the mainstream media share Giuliani’s pro-choice beliefs. And conversely, because 95+ percent of the media are diametrically opposed to the pro-life stance Mitt Romney has adopted, Mitt will never get the respect he deserves.

    By the way, do you not consider both Roberts and Alito strict constructionists, both of whom assert Roe is the settled law of the land, a reaffirmed precedent of the Court, entitled to respect under the principles of stare decisis?

30. Aron Goldman Says:
    June 16th, 2007 at 3:19 am

    Dskinner,

    Failure only occurs upon a premature withdrawal.

    We are going to remain in Iraq indefinitely, not to pacify the Iraqi people, but to prevent Iran from overtaking the south, to deny Al Qaeda the ability to establish a safe haven in Al Anbar, and ensure Iraqi Kurdistan is not invaded by Turkey.

    Until an Iraqi military is fully capable of defending their sovereign territory from the threat of neighboring countries and foreign-based terrorists, our presence there will remain necessary.

    The attempt to unify a multi-ethnic Iraq as a single nation may very well fail. But, accepting that setback would only prolong our stay, as it would be incumbent upon the US to oversee any partitioning of the Churchillean-contrived country; and that is the undesirable alternative “Plan B” in the event the Shia and Sunnis within the Iraqi government can’t bury the hatchet and get on the same page.

    We are going to agree to disagree on the absurd notion that Romney has never even implied that we should begin withdrawing if the surge doesn’t go well.

    It is my understanding that there will be a temporary “second surge” in US troops from 165,000 to 200,000 as new deployments overlap with current forces. They will be used to step up the pressure on insurgents and sectarian forces one last time in the run-up to Christmas.

    Giuliani, just the other day, expressed his support for additional troops if Petraeus requests them, so I’m not sure why, unless I’m in the courtroom, I would ask a question to which I already know the answer.

    In early 2008, I expect US troops will begin to step back from combat operations and concentrate on training the Iraqi army, focusing primarily on Al-Qaeda and guarding Iraq’s borders. It is highly probable that US troop levels will be lowered to 100,000 in time for the 2008 presidential election.

    The Democrats will NOT cut off funding. As foolish as they appear at times, they are not so politically inept that they would do anything that could render the result of 2008’s election, Nixon-McGovern revisited.

    Why do you think Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Joe Biden all answered the ‘what would you do in your first 100 days in office’ question by saying, ‘If President Bush has not ended the war in Iraq, to bring our troops home.’?

31. Dskinner Says:
    June 16th, 2007 at 10:43 am

    Aron,

    I think it is incredible naive to think that the Democrats won’t hit Rudy for flip flopping just because they agree with him. This is politics, of course they will run negative ads designed to keep social conservative voters home.

    I think all of us really appreciate the fact that you are doing the noble duty of vetting all the candidates except for your own even though he has by far the most negatives and the most potential to be attacked in a general election. Republius would be happy someone one is taking his spot, though his job as the “vetter” of the site was to vet everyone but FDT.

    What makes you think Roberts and Alito would vote to uphold Roe? Why on earth would everyone in the abortion debate be so pumped up about who gets to replace Stevens and Ginsburg if they didn’t believe that there were already 4 votes to overturn Roe? A large part of the reason Bush is praised for his judges by the right is because everyone on both sides assumes Roberts and Alito will vote to overturn Roe.

    On Iraq, apparently your selective hearing has caused you to miss the fact that every time Romney brings up Iraq he says the exact same thing you do about the consequences of failure. You are overreaching by trying to paint Romney as a dove. If what you say had any credibility then the MSM and McCain would pick up on it as the biggest flip-flop of all and that would be the issue instead of abortion.

    I will be shocked if the Dems don’t vote to cut off funding. They got killed by their base over the last vote and many Republicans have strongly implied they will only support the surge if it is successful, otherwise they won’t be able to get re-elected. The fact is Bush is unable, (with regard to both capability and credibility) to make the case for another new strategy after this one. If there is any negative news the Dems will jump all over it and then more than just Harry Reid will be saying we lost.

    There are no more troops. We are streched to the max right now. Petraeus can ask to increae the forces more, but we just can’t do it. Also, my question was if the surge fails what would Rudy do, not what would he say if Petraeus wants more troops. Also my understanding is that this is the highest we will get as far as numbers of troops over there.

    What people don’t realize (perhaps you are included in this group) is that Petraeus has already implied that the sort of counter-insurgency strategy he wants to employ takes years to work, even if you have a large force, which we do not. Even if things are going well we can only keep the troop levels this high for a short time. That is why everything depends on the Iraqis and the war will be won or lost based on their failure to step up and take control.

32. Aron Goldman Says:
    June 16th, 2007 at 12:59 pm

    Dskinner,

    Color me naive, but I fail to understand how Democrats running negative ads, pointing out that Rudy now opposes the PBA procedure and federal funding of abortions, and supports parental notification, how that would contribute to successfully alienating social conservative voters, especially when contrasted against the positions shared by Hillary, Obama and Edwards.

    Rudy having, by far, the MOST negatives? That would be breaking news. Quite the contrary, every poll reflects Giuliani has, among likely GOP primary voters, the highest net favorables amongst the Republican candidates, and by a Secretariat-like margin. And his overwhelming support from independents and moderate/conservative Democrats more than offsets the loss of single-issue voters who would sooner stay home in protest than vote for a pro-choice Republican.

    You ridiculed Rudy for saying ’strict constructionists could uphold Roe.’ It is factually correct that a strict constructionist could very well defer to reaffirmed precedent on Roe despite personal opposition to abortion and the original 1973 ruling.

    Now, with that said, to answer your question, Roberts and Alito are unquestionably more receptive to overturning Roe v. Wade than Breyer, Souter, Ginsberg, Stevens and even Kennedy, despite his support for upholding the congressional ban on the PBA procedure.

    As for the assumptions by those on the far right, well, you know what they say about people who assume.

    I suspect the average pro-life social conservative is unaware that in the recent Supreme Court PBA ruling, Thomas wrote a separate opinion, saying “the Court’s abortion jurisprudence, including Roe v. Wade, has no basis in the Constitution.”

    While Scalia joined Thomas in that opinion, notably, Roberts and Alito did not.

    Was that a case of hoodwinking on the part of the two newest additions to the Court, in an attempt to facilitate the confirmation of another pro-life justice upon Stevens’ retirement? Perhaps. Perhaps not.

    As for Iraq, why would the mainstream media challenge Romney for his opposition to a long-term presence in Iraq, when that is the precise position they uniformly and fiercely advocate? The media would sooner commend Romney for his willingness to withdraw than to label him as soft, or a flip-flopper on the war.

    RINOs in the Senate and the House who are up for reelection next year may well demand a token withdrawal of troops to appease their constituencies as the price to extend funding for the war, but I’m more than willing to make a Randolph-Mortimer $1 bet with you that the troops in Iraq remain funded through Inauguration Day, 2009.

    Based on Rudy’s recent comment:

    “Leadership is about sometimes doing the things you know are right, and then it’s your job to educate the public, as opposed to just…taking a CNN…or Bloomberg…or a Fox poll and let that run the country…If Abraham Lincoln were driven by polls, he’d have pulled out of the Civil War in 1863″

    I have little doubt a President Giuliani would fulfill Petraeus’ request, and give the general the troops he felt were necessary to succeed.

    Now, let’s contrast Rudy’s resolve with a quote from Romney just yesterday in which he said:

    “Our foreign policy should be one which unifies America.”

    Does that make him a dove? Not quite. But a politician whose actions are predicated in populism not principle? Absolutely.

    You are correct in that it is imperative that the Iraqis must demonstrate the capacity and will to work together and be self-sustaining without our prodding if the nation is to remain even loosely unified. And you rightfully point out that it will likely take another 5 years’ patience for Petraeus’ counterinsurgency to to effectively succeed. I suspect we will need to train and equip approximately a half million Iraqi forces in total before they will be positioned to assume responsibility for their own country. This task will take through the next president’s first term to complete.

33. Aron Goldman Says:
    June 16th, 2007 at 2:14 pm

    Romney: Since Mass. won’t let people vote against gay marriage, we need a federal amendment

    http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Romney_wants_marriage_amendment_0615.html

    Mitt Romney objected, saying “they could either take the decision away from the people or they could give the decision to the people, and the state legislature of Massachusetts decided to not allow the people to vote on the definition of marriage. I think it’s unfortunate.”

    Romney’s proposed answer to this refusal to allow “the people” to choose was that “we need to have a Federal marriage amendment … because states like Massachusetts will take the course they did.”

    This position by Romney backs up my contention that “he would be less than comfortable with, upon Roe’s overturning, a state legislature imposing a total ban on abortion (exceptions aside), which I suspect he’d find unreasonable, unless it truly represented the will of the people in a given state.”

    New questions for Mitt…

    “If Roe were to be overturned, and the South Dakota state legislature were to pass a bill banning all abortions with exceptions for cases involving rape, incest and the life of a pregnant girl/woman, would you oppose such legislation as it would be an unfortunate act on the part of the state legislature to take the decision away from the people, not allowing them to vote on whether women should have the choice to terminate a pregnancy at any point?”

    “If, upon Roe’s overturning, polls in Kansas demonstrated a majority of the people in that state supported to preserve the option of abortion, but only through the first trimester, and the state legislature circumvented the will of the people, banning all abortions with the noted exceptions you support — remaining consistent with your belief in why we need to have a Federal marriage amendment — why would you not equally argue that this is why ‘we need to have a Federal abortion amendment because states like Kansas will take the course they did.’?

34. Dskinner Says:
    June 16th, 2007 at 4:52 pm

    Quit making a fool of yourself with the gotcha politics. You are so in the tank for Rudy that you have lost all perspective and credibility.

    I very much disagree with much of what you have said, but I have neither the time nor the patience to continually sort out the mess you make by trying to find something negative in every single Romney statement.

    You should focus your time and energy on Rudy Giuliani because I believe that sometime in the near future he will need all the positive news he can get. Guns, immigration abortion and gay marriage all all issues where Rudy is out of step with the base and right now much of the base doesn’t know it yet. You can rest assured that sometimem soon people will start to point that out and Thompson and probably Romney will be the beneficiaries of that.