Captain's Quarters -

The truth is that Romney is a panderer who will say whatever he thinks will win over his current audience. As a liberal, I'm not fond of any of the Republican candidates but this guy is so plastic and phoney I think they turn off his battery at night and store him in a garage.

I have a couple of formatting errors I'll correct shortly in the piece. My apologies.

t

Ed,

I'm pro-choice and think Roe v. Wade was wrong in going too far. IMO the Constitution should block states from prohibiting abortion only in very limited circumstances - the mother's health, rape and incest. Beyond that the states should choose.

I support Giuliani and hope he takes this position - Paris is worth a mass. It is defensible legally and, again IMO, Roe vs. Wade is where the Supreme Court went off the rails into judicial activism.

And keep in mind that putting this decision back in state legislatures where it belongs will hammer the religious right like it hasn't been hammered since 1933. The public is very pro-choice when that is really threatened. This was proved with the recalls of so many South Dakota legislators on that issue.

Having an untouchable federal constitutional rule that abortion for rape, incest and the health of the mother would help the religious right because so many of them oppose abortion even then, and so destroy their cause. With those three off the table they can argue at state level for prohibiting abortion in all other circumstances without antagonizing the public and sounding like loons.

I don't think it is internally inconsistent to believe that Roe v Wade should be overturned and to support a constitutional amendment.

Regardless of the viability of any amendment, favoring a contitutional amendment is consistent with a position that abortion is fundamentally wrong and should be abolished. OTOH, supporting the demise of Roe v Wade is consistent with a constructionist view of constitutional law.

I would like to see Roe v Wade overturned. I support a constitutional amendment banning abortion. The first might very well happen. The second probably never will.

But... but... FEDERALISM! It is the constitution that enumerates the inalienable rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. That, in itself, should be sufficient to protect the unborn, but as it is not, I favor an amendment to make the point inescapable. I don't oppose Roe v Wade because of federalism. I oppose it because it is a case of SCOTUS activism. No court should be legislating stuff out of thin air. The EFFECT of overturning it will force the issue back to the states... I agree. However, are you saying you're in favor of overturning Roe v Wade only because it should be a state decision? Really? So abortion is fine as long as the states are making that call? I genuinely hope Romney doesn't take that position.

There used to be a day when conservatives were fans of federalism (and concomitantly, limited government), regardless of the consequences, and there wasn't much to be confused about.

If Romney supports the Constitutional amendment, then that renders state action completely moot.

The amendment process cannot happen without state action, so I think your statement is at least a little confused. One way or another the states will have to have this debate. There is no magic "Federalism" word which will make it all go away.

Rational conservatives take the approach that vacating Roe would effectively repeal a shadow Amendment illegally imposed by the Supreme Court, and such a "repeal" would allow states to decide on abortion for themselves. That's the best outcome in the rational world.

Nothing I have seen on this blog would indicate that you have the right to appropriate the "rational conservative" label to yourself. I think it's an open question whether you are a conservative of any sort, rational or otherwise.

Overturning Roe is a good first step and is worth doing for reasons having nothing to do with abortion.

When you do not believe something with passion you can not always remember what it is that you do believe. Mitt is full of self, and is a presidential seeker. He will say whatever needs to be said to gain favor.
The Republicans do not have anyone in the top tier who has any real backbone.
McCain once showed promise but he is fast becoming a joke.

When you do not believe something with passion you can not always remember what it is that you do believe. Mitt is full of self, and is a presidential seeker. He will say whatever needs to be said to gain favor.
The Republicans do not have anyone in the top tier who has any real backbone.
McCain once showed promise but he is fast becoming a joke.

I recently saw Romney and his wife in an interview in which they BOTH claimed that having children of their own and the natural process of maturing had caused them BOTH to come to a pro-life position they were VERY comfortable with, including his wife's position with his political stance. They were very impressive - I admit it.

Why, if LOOKS is all I care about...[bats them eyelashes coquettishly, out from under a huge southern hat and twirling umbrella]

However, stuff like THIS flip-flopping is why folks don't much care about his religion, or how handsome and charming he and his family are, or a lot of other things about this GOP "RINO" who has managed to thrive in the shadow of the Massachusetts KENNEDY MACHINE.

That yankee from Kennedy-land just ain't gonna have such an easy time in the South, where we are bloody tired of DIM MACHINES and their way of doing things - especially of telling the voters what they THINK the voters want to hear, then governing exactly as they CHOOSE while telling the VOTERS, afterwards, THEY MUST FOLLOW THE RULES and OBEY THE LAWS.

Fox News is reporting on Rasmussen polling that Romney isn't polling well with Conservatives, for 3 separate reasons, and 25% of GOP will NOT vote for Romney.

Also that 43% of Americans (didn't say "Likely Voters") will NOT vote for a Mormon. (Wonder what those numbers would be if the polled people truly considered that a GENERIC question - like would they vote for Donnie Osmond? - How many of these, FOR WHAT THE STATS ARE WORTH - won't vote for a Mormon because they KNOW it is Romney they are talking aobut???)

Yeah, we all know what these polling stats are worth.

Anyway, count me as one who won't vote for anyone caught THRIVING under the KENNEDY MACHINE SHADOW, in a manner that suggests heavily thae Kennedy BLESSING is upon him.

Sorry, guys - I flat don't give a darn whether that perception is accurate or not - I do NOT owe Romney any trust - not when it comes to evaluating who I will vote for for President of the USA.
I simply do not owe ANY candidate the same evaluation as would equal a foundation for according someone an assumption that they are in fact an honest citizen in good standing with his community.

Any political theorist who promotes the idea that we do is trying to finagle you out of using the honest assessment tools that God gave a squirrel in assessing the quality of his winter store of nuts.

I have every OBLIGATION for the OFFICE OF PRESIDENT to assume the WORST of any candidate until said candidate EARNS MY TRUST AND MY VOTE.

That is why that when some candidates SEAL ANY OF THEIR RECORDS, until years after the Election, are AUTOMATICALLY DISQUALIFIED - i.e., Hillary's papers sealed at the BC Library, Hanoi John's military records, etc, etc etc....

BTW, once again, I urge those who are SCREECHING for GOP UNITY to consider passing over these "HIGHLY ELECTABLE" RINOS and support candidates in the Primaries THAT YOU KNOW THE WHOLE PARTY WILL NOT HAVE A CONFLICT OF CONSCIENCE REGARDING THE VOTE FOR a CONTROVERSIAL "GOP" Candidate.

If you want us to vote with you - if you are TRULY so desperate to make us understand we all need to stick together - quit demanding we have to vote for some clod that violates our conscience - and quit characterizing our specific LEGAL objections as "AN IMPOSSIBLE SEARCH FOR PERFECTION".

You wouldn't feel that way if your gut were in knots over the young man who just came to pick up your daughter, for a first date comprising 3 weeks in the outback with no communication with civilization.

I'll tell you what Jesse DuPlantis said once to a tatoo-covered hippie long-haired freak on a motorcycle who showed up for a date with his teenage daughter once, and she asked him to answer the door, she needed a few more minutes to get ready for her date - he opened the door when the young man rang the doorbell, and the young man said, "Hi, I'm here for your daughter", and Jesse said, "No, you're not!" and slammed the door in his face.
His daughter called down the stairs, "Daddy, was that for me?" and Jesse called back up, "No, Darlin', that was not for you."

I'm telling you - too much wrong stuff has taken place because for the LAST 50 YEARS, too many Americans have put MANNERS and a guilty sense of mistrusting their own good judgement ABOVE THEIR GUT INSTINCTS.

THAT is STUPID. NO MORE!

It's one thing to be stuck with what is "left over" - but I tell you, the accountability for DELIBERATELY AND WILLFULLY EMPOWERING THE KNOWN WRONG QUANTITY, because it SEEMS like the lesser of two evils, AND THE VOTERS REFUSE TO BE PATIENT, is just a lot higher, and a lot more STUPID than one can imagine.

But rejecting whom one KNOWS is wrong, and depending on GOD to be the parachute and safety net for the difference is vastly preferable.

Give God a chance! He did alright by Israel when Israel did alright by Him. We need to give Him another chance.

I'm disappointed with Mitt....Actually, I'm disappointed with all politicians that spin and spin and spin...

I have a solution to avoid these flip flops...be honest. I would love a politician that actually had integrity and said what they feel instead of playing to the poll numbers...but such a person could never get elected...so sad....

If Romney meant to say he favors an overturning of Roe, which would return the abortion question to the states, but a Constitutional Amendment if that cannot be done - or eventually anyways - then he expressed himself poorly.

His problem on this is history. Advertising himself as a convert to the pro-life side, he begins with a credibility problem. Many or most of us who are pro-life see abortion as a horror, and think anyone who can support it has at minimum engaged in a serious self-delusion.

Therefore whenever a former supporter of "abortion rights" or "choice" (what a lovely euphemism for chopping up babies, eh?)"converts" to a pro-life position, he or she must deal with a lingering cloud of suspicion for a while. If the conversion ever so conveniently happens shortly before declaring for office, well, call me cynical but I think most pro-lifers become even more doubtful of the sincerity.

That's Romney's problem in a nutshell. We just don't buy it. Contrast the reception Giuliani - who has never renounced his pro-abortion position - is getting among social conservatives who vehemently disagree on the issue. It's because he is honest about it. Honesty is generally admirable; honesty in politics when it can hurt your chances is almost unheard of.

First off, this emphasis on the abortion issue with any candidate is just plain nuts. Stupid. And second, anyone, anywhere who thinks that Romney would be for abortion is even nuttier. As a Governor or as President, an individual cannot violate the law as it stands. There is not a chance in the world that Romney would nominate anyone less than conservative on the issue for the courts. I like to say that I'm pro-choice and I chose for life. That does not sit well with the pro-abortion crowd. Choice to them is only the right to kill babies, not the right to choose for life.

Romney is the smartest and best qualified candidate running. He has the best creds for our economy. You can call it flip flopping but that is just a cover for some other deeper bigotry. Americans have become so cynical and jaded, they cannot see a genuine man and family when it is square in their face.

Democrats with their defeatism make me sick, but lately Republicans who want to eat their own make me even sicker. Good people are being destroyed because of whiny small-minded single issue people who have lots of clout in the press and in the blogosphere. We've seen it over and over in the past couple of years and I'm sad to say that some of the worst are on the right. Anyone who thinks that a Mormon who believes in the pre-existence of the spirit would be "for" killing an unborn child is just insane. There is a far far distance between a position that says I will follow the law or that ending a pregnancy is between the individual and their God and someone who advocates for abortion on demand with no restrictions.

Many of us of Romney's generation paid little attention to Roe when it was passed. We looked at it as liberating the women from illegal backroom abortions, but as we matured and began to see that abortion wasn't being used in dire circumstances but rather as another form of birth control or as our own sons and daughters were reaching an age of sexual activity, we had to rethink the issue. And as the advances in pre-natal technology have come along, we have a better understanding of fetal development. In the early 70s, we'd never seen a baby in utero, we'd never known anyone who even contemplated an abortion, let alone had one. All we heard was how 10,000 women would still be alive if they hadn't had to seek out the services of a baby butcher. No one, absolutely no one contemplated that in saving 10,000 women, we would be dooming 40+ million unborn. This is a State issue, not a Federal one. It is a religious issue, not a government one.

I'm disappointed with Mitt....Actually, I'm disappointed with all politicians that spin and spin and spin...

I have a solution to avoid these flip flops...be honest. I would love a politician that actually had integrity and said what they feel instead of playing to the poll numbers...but such a person could never get elected...so sad....

I'm disappointed with Mitt....Actually, I'm disappointed with all politicians that spin and spin and spin...

I have a solution to avoid these flip flops...be honest. I would love a politician that actually had integrity and said what they feel instead of playing to the poll numbers...but such a person could never get elected...so sad....

Captain Ed, Why not just go ahead and put a picture of Romney with a Red Circle and Slash through it on your front page?

Your total lack of objectivity with regard to him is transparent to all.

You are smart enough to see what the reporter was trying to do and what Mitt was trying to say.
Yet you perpetuate the MSM spin. Congratulations.

Mitt is a problem solver and he is going to look at all contingencies and plans b -z.

Ideologues have the luxury of sitting around a theorizing about a perfect world but leaders have to actually function and try to succeed in a very imperfect one.

What do all you people who have made it your full time job to pick apart ever syllable ever uttered by Romney on abortion THINK HE WILL DO AS PRESDIENT?
Do you think he is going to work to make it more prevalent? Do you think he is going to order abortions for everybody? Do you think he is going to institute a "one Child rule" as they have in China.

If anybody in this argument were intellectually honest they would look at all the work Romney did to further the cause of life while Governor. Look at the glowing reports given him by the pro-life folks in Massachusetts. Look at the bills he vetoed and those he supported. There is real and concrete proof if you would only look at it.

This is not about theory, it is about the REAL WORLD. Abortion is a complicated issue and it is very hard to look at practical and real solutions in the few minutes a TV interview affords.

Shame on the so-called pro-lifers who keep attacking this person WHO IS ON OUR SIDE! If you really cared, I mean really cared about saving the lives of the unborn you would not attack someone who has done just that.

Romney needs to think carefully about what are federal issues versus state issues.

Any situation involving the life, liberty, or possessions of person which crosses state lines can be turned into a federal case. Dredd Scott is the classic example.

I just dont see the logic in voting for a pro-choice candidate like Rudy because the opposition (Romney) is Pro-Life but only recenetly.

Voting Pro-Choice is still voting Pro-choice, no matter how much sugar you sprinkle on Rudy's head.

Nate,

The day after I became a pro-life convert was a great day for the cause.

It is true with every single convert.

That is the goal, unless of course you have ulterior motives.

The reason we protest in the street is becuase we want EVERYBODY to become a convert to our cause.

Well said Goldwater.

There may be some question about how staunch a pro-lifer Romney is. There may also be some doubt about Guiliani's pro choice stance. Will it translate into simply maintaining the status quo and will he at least nominate reliably conservative judges to the federal bench? But there can be no doubt what will happen if a Democrat is elected President. Republicans can focus on trying to hold the ground already gained when it comes to abortion or they can go rabid on the issue, lose the 2008 election and watch Hillary Clinton nominate reliably liberal judges to the bench.

At what point in a politician’s career is he/she required to form opinions? Is it necessary that they are born with their opinions?

Would it be okay if those in favor of abortion rights changed their opinion now?

There have been a lot of suggestions that we MUST listen to our gut regarding candidates; I agree. My gut tells me Romney is TOO slick for my tastes. I agree with the fellow who said not too much gets done in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts without old Teddy's approval.....so I must question how that new healthcare law is working.....among other concerns. John McCain & Lindsey Graham are best buddies with Ted; we all can see where that has gotten them....or what it's cost them. If candidates would be absolutely honest with us they wouldn't have to worry about what they told this group....or oops, they told something different to that group. I'm definitely pro-life, but I dislike this topic being the litmus test to determine if someone is qualified for office. I voted for Dubya twice, he has done what I'd hope he'd do, i.e. he got 2 men onto the SC who (hopefully) won't try to legislate from the bench.

I like Rudy.....warts and all.....or maybe because he's open about the warts ;-) He's been married 3 times, big deal....my last boss was married 5 times. I don't think there are many marriages as strong as George & Laura, but what impact did that one fact have on the average citizen? Much has been made about Rudy in drag; if that shocks people they better stay away from Halloween parties in NE Pa. (especially after a few rounds of drinks). Take that back, even in Atlanta, Ga. where 2 of my bosses (at a large computer company) dressed up as Hooters waitresses....just thinking about that has me laughing to myself.

Rudy didn't hesitate to toss old Arafat from the Met & he returned that million dollar check to the sheik who said we "need to understand" where the hijackers were coming from. IMHO one of the best attributes of Rudy is he's NOT politically correct.

Thanks to someone on this board who suggested we look into Huckabee's position on amnesty for illegals. I've done so, what an eye opener. Mike looked like a good ole boy we could trust....looks are almost always deceiving.

Romney is the smartest and best qualified candidate running. He has the best creds for our economy.

How can someone who supports socialist health care have the best creds for the economy?

You need a trip to the library to study up on the meaning of "Socialist Healthcare"

Mitt Romney supports no such thing.

Shame on the so-called pro-lifers who keep attacking this person WHO IS ON OUR SIDE! If you really cared, I mean really cared about saving the lives of the unborn you would not attack someone who has done just that.

WHY? The BURDEN is on HIM to establish his bonafides. We don't owe him any "FREE CREDIT", just because "he says so".

The obligation isn't ours. HE is selling.
Something this expensive, it is his burden to convince us his stuff is pure.

Don't tell us we owe HIM.

Republicans can focus on trying to hold the ground already gained when it comes to abortion or they can go rabid on the issue, lose the 2008 election and watch Hillary Clinton nominate reliably liberal judges to the bench.

Sorry, watching Republicans nominate Liberal Socialist judges and get them appointed isn't sweeter than watching Dims do it.

Rudi and Mitt both fill me with utter and complete revulsion at the idea of them nominating JUDGES. At least as bad as Hillary, herself.

Well said Rose. The GOP is supposed to be moving forward against abortion, not just marking time forever.

"The GOP is supposed to be moving forward against abortion, not just marking time forever."

Good luck with that.

I'm not meaning to be flip, but there's a reason why every election cycle the Republican candidates get grilled on this issue. It's not to convince likely Republican voters that they're going to move forward on outlawing abortion, it's to scare likely Democrat voters into thinking that they are.

I'm not a Romney guy but I think you might miss an important element to the debate... 2 points, Captain...

1. A constitutional amendment, if ratified, would reflect the majority will of the states and would be a legislative process voted on by the people or their representatives, a process the I believe you (and I) both prefer to an active judiciary imposing its own beliefs. Arguing that a constitutional ban... "which would take the matter out of legislatures of both the states and Congress, as well as the courts." is not entirely accurate in that context. An amendment would be the result of a legislative process, the result of which would take the matter out of the hands of the courts.

2. The 'incremental' argument... the pro-life movement acts in both the long term and the short term... with the long term goal of a constitutional amendment. In the shorter term, overturning Roe v. Wade and leaving the decision to the states could lead to some states outlawing abortion in their legislatures.

I think Matt Lewis over at Townhall (http://www.townhall.com/blog/g/3e8c87a2-36ce-4319-86f3-1d3ac3082e23) has a better analysis and understanding of the position Romney should have explicated.

I don't see it as a stumble on the issue of federalism... Those powers not explicitly delegated to the federal government are the purview of the states... but... if 75% of the states (all 50 of which have ratified the constitution and its amendment process thereby agreeing to the results of the process) agree to 'give' the federal government that power, it represents the ultimate in respect for the constitutional system and the division of powers between federal and state government.

I think we can both agree that allowing 5 of 9 justices to determine policy does not further that same goal!

Your analysis seems to omit the 'process' associated with a constitutional amendment and only looks at the results.