If McCain Picks Romney, He Will Be Picking a Pro-Abortion, Fiscal Liberal
Those is the GOP establishment political and media elite including Karl Rove, the Bushies, Tony Perkins, Gary Bauer, James Bopp, Jay Sekulow, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Hugh Hewitt, Bill Bennett, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, NRO, Human Events, and the Weekly Standard, among others have been diligently advancing the argument that McCain needs to shore up the GOP base by selecting Mitt Romney as his running mate because Romney is both “pro-life” and “fiscally conservative.”
And when McCain does select Romney as his running mate on August 29th as I have predicted for a long time that he will, the pseudo-conservatives at Fox News and National Review will be praising McCain for picking a “solidly pro-life fiscal conservative like Mitt Romney.” I can hear it now. Trust me, this is what you will be hearing ad nauseam 10 days from now.
The truth is, however, as I and a handfull of others have been reporting for well over a year, that Willard Mitt Romney is neither pro-life nor fiscally conservative.
Romney is not pro-life: While Romney and his supporters claim that he used to be “pro-choice” and had a “pro-life conversion” following a conversation with an anonymous Harvard researcher, the truth is that as governor of Massachusetts, Romney established abortion with a 50 dollar co-pay as a “healthcare benefit” (AFTER HIS PRO-LIFE “CONVERSION”) in his healthcare plan he signed into law that he called his “signature achievement” that was endorsed by Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton and Planned Parenthood.
Romney also appointed a Planned Parenthood representative to sit on his healthcare advisory board with no pro-life member (AFTER HIS SUPPOSED “PRO-LIFE CONVERSION.”)
And, like Senator McCain who believes individual states can violate the unalienable right to life as guaranteed in the Declaration and Constitution, Mitt Romney opposes the central plank of the GOP since 1976, a federal protection of life amendment and believes that abortion is a “states rights issues.” How can you be “pro-life” and believe that states have a right to kill babies if the majority vote to make it “legal?”
Romney is a fiscal liberal. Governor Romney opposed the Bush tax cuts which earned him praise from uber-liberal Barney Frank. He raised taxes by over $800 million dollars which has devastated the Massachusetts economy. And, on his way out the door, Romney installed a quasi-socialist healthcare plan into law that has been an abysmal failure according to the Boston Globe, Cato Institute, and Wall St. Journal.
Romney opposed the Bush Tax Cuts, raised taxes and fees by almost a billion dollars, and instituted a liberal “universal” healthcare plan which was endorsed by Hillary, Teddy K, and Planned Parenthood and Ann Coulter is calling him “manifestly our best candidate?” Mitt has achieved what neither Hillary nor Barack nor any other liberal Democrat has been able to merely in instituting a “universal” healthcare plan that subsidizes abortion at 50 bucks a pop. And he is somehow a “fiscal conservative?”
The GOP elites claim Romney is a “pro-life fiscal conservative.”
Romney’s record demonstrates that he is the exact opposite–that he is pro-abortion and a fiscal liberal.
In other words Willard Mitt Romney is Hillary Clinton in a Ronald Reagan costume.
Buyer Beware!
For more on Romney’s far left wing record go here
Update: Tom Blumer of Bizzyblog.com has this outstanding piece entitled “Romney, Russia, Georgia, and Iran: The Last Straw”
August 21st, 2008 at 7:16 am
Your note-perfect Captain Ahab impersonation (w/ Romney as Moby Dick) aside, I never got the impression Romney was a darling of the GOP establishment.
Larger question– how much does VP pick matter (to voters? obviously, like him or not, Cheney ended up making quite a difference once in office)? Clinton/Gore in 1992 seems to put the lie to the idea that you need to balance the ticket, geographically or ideologically.
August 21st, 2008 at 8:50 am
[...] This is a potential mistake of epic proportions, even above the already-good reasons not to select Romney discussed here. [...]
August 21st, 2008 at 11:12 am
You are one sad pathetic little man.
August 21st, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Please take my advice. Be truthful and not manipulative. We have a country to save. Mitt Romney is not America’s liberal, Obama is!
“Apparently some Evangelical pastors won’t cease their whisperings to the press. We get it. They are promoting Huckabee over Romney for the vice-presidency. It matters not how their opinions could dissuade voters from McCain.
If President Bush was practically tarred and feathered by progressive Democrats for his Christian beliefs, how might an outspoken and often comical character like Michael Huckabee be perceived if he became the VP nominee? Only naivete would facilitate one believing that the media would allow Huckabee’s verbal blunders to go unnoticed. They embraced him once, but if he were to play a pivotal role as McCain’s running mate, the gloves would come off.” http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/jon/080820
August 21st, 2008 at 1:49 pm
You wouldn’t know a true conservative if one stared you in the face. Your probably a Huckabee punk.
August 21st, 2008 at 1:51 pm
The above named people pushing for Romney ….Are the same people that are destroying the GOP……Instead of being left wing nuts they are right wing nuts…
August 21st, 2008 at 2:10 pm
This whole article is full of deception, lies and false statements.
I made an exhaustive research into many of your misrepresentations of his actual record and positions because people like you continue to distort the truth about Governor Romney.
http://denny.wordpress.com/2008/03/29/debunking-the-slander-deception-and-false-charges-against-gov-romneys-positions/
You people disgust me because you will NOT report the truth, but rather inject your own biases and prejudices into the debate, just like the liberals do!
August 21st, 2008 at 2:13 pm
That address didn’t work, but this one should.
http://777denny.wordpress.com/2008/03/29/debunking-the-slander-deception-and-false-charges-against-gov-romneys-positions/
August 21st, 2008 at 2:41 pm
This article is so full of holes and deceptions. Thanks to Denny for pointing out where to go to find the truth. This author is probably working for Huckabee. Obviously an axe to grind. Romney is so much more educated and well rounded in experience than Huckabee. Huckabee is still stuck on religious bigotry. Romney is not going to engage him in that debate because he’s too busy trying to get McCain elected, as he should be. If Huckabee were smart, he would quietly fade away into the background for all the good he’s doing for conservative republicans. Obama is so short on experience and long on accusations and wind. How could any freshman senator with literally no experience putting together meaningful legislation or seeing how any committees work in the U.S. Senate, think that he deserves the highest chair in the land. The presumptive arrogance of the man amazes me. Most of his one term as senator has been spent on the campaign trail. He’s more irresponsible with his senate seat than Nancy Pelosi. Obama doesn’t show up in the senate most of the time, and when he’s there, he doesn’t vote. Obama is totally useless in Washington. Over 90% of blacks in this country are voting for him though. Am I supposed to think that this is for his experience? Obama has to show me something more than his mouth. So far I think it’s appropriate that he represents The Windy City!
August 21st, 2008 at 2:55 pm
Ah, the sheep who worship at the feet of the liberal wolf, “The Mittster!” Funny that by perpetuating the lie that the Mittster is [even remotely] conservative after you have ostensibly looked at his record, you people are BIG TIME guilty of the very thing you accuse this post’s author of doing (Rom 2:1).
Sheep, sheep, sheep, sheep, sheep, sheep….
Be sure to write baaaaaaack!
August 21st, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Regardless of how anyone feels about McCain or any of the potential veep choices (Romney, Pawlenty, Lieberman, whomever)– the real question is this: Who is the lesser of the two evils? Obama or McCain? I’ll vote for McCain no matter what simply because Obama scare the living crap out of me.
August 21st, 2008 at 7:23 pm
You will vote for McCain over the alternative, even if the individual selected for V.P. l is Romney? The alternative does not have the questionable Russian and Chinese entanglements Romney has.
The seriousness of the Russian question is a grave one and can be a fatal blow to the American democratic system. The Republican VP is of the greatest importance, due to McCain’s age and the possibility of McCain being a one term president. With the Russian bear beginning to stir and move, it is critical not to have someone in office that is indebted to them for his family’s wealth.
August 21st, 2008 at 7:36 pm
I have often been confused about whether or not Romney has “core values” or not. I did my own investigation. I found that his originally submitted health care plan did not include abortion care. The state law and the courts stated that it was not legal in Massachusetts to offer state health care and not include abortion. To overturn the state law would have gone on for years and then a lot of people would have been without health care. That doesn’t mean he is pro-abortion. It just means his hands were tied! He did offer other alternatives to abortion. As far as the Bush’s tax cuts. Bush cut taxes, but run up a debt that is horrendous. I’m not an economist, but even I can tell that’s just plain silly. Eventually that all has to be paid off. Yes, Romney raised taxes, but he also had a surplus at the end of his governorship. I would prefer Rommey to be the GOP VP because I think he has the smarts to deal with the slowing (putting it nicely) economy. And as for his religion - look up the Mormon website — this religion is pro-life and supports strongly a constitutional ammendment stating that marriage is between a man and a woman! So I think he has social conservative values! Ask Californians!
August 22nd, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Mrs. S., with all due respect, that’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard. Then why doesn’t every state pay for everyone’s abortions? And since this was a new program, there would have been no case law to substantiate the findings you mentioned. Plus, Mitt touts this as “his program,” if that’s the case, given there were no prior precedents, then he could have written it as he sees fit.
You’re either giving him too much credit or trying to perpetuate the myth that he is good on social issues.
If you could send me the links to the [solid] case law, statute and/or legislation that required him to offers $50 abortions, I’d be grateful and the first to say “I was wrong.”
August 22nd, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Mrs. S! I was wrong. Perhaps the court decision you cited was the MSJC’s 1981 opinion that that the state constitution required payment for abortion services for medicaid eligible women. (Moe v Secretary of Admin & Findance, 1981) which was re-affirmed in 1997 in (Planned ParenthoodLeague fo Massachusetts v. Attorney General, 1997).
Here’s the problem:
Both were only declaratory OPINIONS. Where the court can interpret the law in specific cases, they cannot make law. Only the legislature can do that (”seperate but equal”). The MA Courts have no power to create, suspend, or alter law. In short, these opinions were just that…opinions.
The legislature never created a law (which would have been the enforcement mechanism the “opinions” needed) to required a government subsidized healthcare plan to cover abortions. As such, Romney’s bill was the first that included this provision. If you know of such a statute from the legislature, perhaps you could provide that link.
In addition, did you know that Romney used his line-item veto authority to strike down eight sections of the bill that he found objectionable, including the expansion of dental benefits to Medicaid recipients?
All that, but couldn’t strike a guaranteed Planned Parenthood’s representative on his his advisory board (with no pro-life appointee btw) and did nothing to prohibit tax payer funded abortions in his plan. The choice was his and he did nothing. (”Romney’s Health Care Veotes,” Associated Press, 4/12/06).
He cried the same story about Goodridge (”the courts made me do it), and we all know what that paved the way for…
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iZl2uw2yTnV4K44E6PweHvdOQ8EAD92MLQFO0
If you would like a good read on how the founders viewed the judiciary (and their thoughts that it should be the weakest of the 3 branches, please read Federalist #78).
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa78.htm
Sixth paragraph reads:
Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.
August 27th, 2008 at 8:29 am
http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/john-mccain/22038/why-mccain-should-not-pick-romney-for-vice-president-guest-voice/
You are right. The above is a good argument on why Romney would be a very bad pick for McCain.
November 6th, 2008 at 12:41 am
Ochumet easy! Already all, pancakes, know about it except me