Advertisement - story continues below
In the past, you have been our warrior princess of conservatism. It’s what drew millions of us to fall in love with you so many years ago….ah young love…(sigh)….where was I? OH YES! I must admit it has been mostly a long and blissful marriage dear Ann. Listening to your sweet sarcastic voice on the evening programs, cuddling in front of the fireplace with your latest book excoriating the ethically vacuous left, fighting the good fight together (you the Ann of Arc up there swinging your sword at all comers and us adulating grunts doing our best to let political blood in the trenches and buying your latest war bond for the cause.) I’m afraid, however, that we have hit a very rocky place and have somehow…how do I say this? We’ve well… “grown apart.” You see Ann, my stance for protecting the life of every unborn person is not contingent upon political winds. I’m not saying you no longer care Ann, but pragmatism is often the bane of honor.
Sadly, in your willingness to buy into the push poll induced delirium that Mitt Romney can somehow inspire voters and defeat Obama, with nothing more than simultaneously appearing to be “moderate” to moderates and “conservative” to conservatives, you have now traded your own stellar pro-life credentials to falsify Mitt’s at the expense of your credibility. So now, dear Ann, due to this and recent “progressive” dalliances, I must set you free to find your own happiness (wipes tear). In the spirit of Ronaldus Magnus, “You left me Ann, I didn’t leave you.” It sure was great while it lasted.” – John Q Republic
Advertisement – story continues below
Humor aside, Ann no doubt shares the legitimate concern of many over the threat Obama is to individual liberty and has every right to calculate whom she believes is the best candidate to stem the Alinsky tide (despite Romney’s record). I respect that, of course. However, by having this sordid love affair with the so called “pro-life” aspect of Mitt Romney’s campaign, she is subjugating the principle of protecting the unborn to a tactical political expediency with nothing more than the “hope” it turns out well. This became rather apparent when Coulter sought to assuage her fears by saying to Romney, point blank:
“You owe me and you better be as right-wing a president as I’m telling everybody you’re going to be.”
Advertisement – story continues below
Note: Romney’s response was apparently as tepid as Coulter’s confidence since she was unable to remember or was unwilling to share the content of his response “or words to that effect.”
Now one may think that I’m judging Romney on his positions prior to his “Road to Damascus” experience. Not so. His utterly abysmal record prior to a November 2004 meeting with a Harvard stem cell researcher, which he later referred to as the moment of his epiphany, is well known. Yet, his post epiphany actions (speaking louder than his words) are erratic at best.
Post Nov ’04, it is clear that Romney began pivoting to the right from his staunch pro-abortion position. This cannot be denied. Was it evidence of an awakening? Or was it all just preparations for 08′? To sensibly judge if he is truly pro-life, one must judge him for his known actions (not just his words) from the moment of his claimed conversion. While “progressively” speaking pro-life words from November ’04 forward as Governor and vetoing an embryonic stem cell research bill (worthy of note), he nevertheless vacillated. While Mitt did veto the Mengelean-like science known as human cloning, he simultaneously praised efforts in Congress to publicly fund embryonic stem cell research and was an investor in such research:
“The United States House of Representatives voted for a bill that was identical to what I proposed…They voted to provide for surplus embryos from in vitro fertilization processes to be used for research and experimentation. That’s what I have said I support. That’s what they have just supported.”-Mitt Romney, May 2005
Advertisement – story continues below
Furthermore, Mitt’s signature health care program known lovingly as “RomneyCare” began mandating policies violating the pro-life stance of the Catholic and Protestant Churches in violation of their freedom of religion. (This Obamanation sounds oddly familiar.)
Now that ObamaCare has been shoved down our throats in a “package” eerily similar to RomneyCare (despite the denials), the best response Mitt could muster when Rick Santorum eloquently pinned him on the matter was to say:
“First of all, it’s not worth getting angry about…Everyone has a requirement to either buy insurance or pay the state for the cost of providing them free care.” – Mitt Romney (Conservative)
Huh? It’s ”not worth getting angry over?” “Pay the state for “free” health care?” Really, Mitt? Really, Ann?
The dull pencils in big government rewrite the Constitution and tells churches their rights are subject to the Feds (or the States), and the most profound thing your candidate of choice can say on the matter is that it’s not worth getting angry over? And defend it by admitting residents are forced to pay a fine for their “free” care. No wonder Romney insider Norm Coleman let Mitt’s cat out of the bag when he let it slip that ObamaCare would not actually be fully repealed. Why would it be?
Now if you still think Romney will be an ardently pro-life president (in more than just words), then consider these two little facts that have either been excused away by Ann, or slipped past her all together:
While other Republican candidates have signed the Susan B. Anthony list pro life pledge, Mitt refused to sign it. In fact, only Mitt Romney and Barack Obama have something in common in this regard, and considering Obama’s “demonic” passion for the abortion industry, the willingness of Romney to share in this snub is not comforting. Also, despite Mitt’s pro-life rhetoric, he seems to be specifically avoiding pro life rallies.
Note to Ann, Mitt, and anyone else (Ron Paul) that think this is a state’s right issue; just because the Constitution does not exclusively grant a power to the federal government DOES NOT mean it is exclusively granted to the state. Go dust off your copy and ponder the simple words “or to the people.” That phrase was a reminder that certain rights were granted solely to the individual, and government usurpation by the states was no less unconscionable and tyrannous to our founders than by the federal government (or a King.) Furthermore, lest you dismissively hint that the Constitution does not mention health care, said individual rights of self determination are not to be enumerated as they would thus limit future rights of the individual to that of the determination of the government.
“P.S. Ann. This man you left me for has shown a propensity for walking through society’s difficult political issues with two left feet, ever unsure of his next appropriate step. This is indicative of someone who is not absolutely sure of his own beliefs. I fear by November that one of those feet will be permanently inserted in his mouth and the other in yours. Until then, we only have his record and, of course, his words. His actions continue to hint at a lack of commitment to protecting life, leaving his words to appear instead as nothing more than sweet nothings.” – John Q
Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore (Creative Commons)
The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by the owners of this website.