« Are Republicans Finally Coming to their Senses? | Main | All 10 Republicans to Debate in South Carolina »

Romney Lacks the Integrity to be President

A few days ago I wrote of Mitt Romney's flip-flop on the issue of Roe v. Wade, pointing out that Romney is displaying an elephant-sized lack of integrity on this matter, and that his recent flip-flop is nothing more than a slimy, spineless politician telling conservative voters what they want to hear.

Let's look back at the very first sentence in his answer on last Thursday's debate. "Well, I've always been personally pro-life." Does this lay the groundwork for another Romney flip-flop? If his concerns over stem cell research were addressed would he return to his long-held pro-choice beliefs since he's personally pro-life?

Perhaps after a failed run at the presidency, Romney will return to Massachusetts and mount another campaign for U.S. Senate, and at that point he'll look the predominantly-liberal Massachusetts voters in the eye and tell them he has come to realize the errors of his ways, and he's returned to his "pro-choice" roots.

So I wasn't surprised in the least to learn of news reports that Romney's wife Ann donated money to Planned Parenthood back in 1994... they had good reason to make that donation: (emphasis mine)

His wife's donation was made at a time when Romney was unsuccessfully running to unseat U.S. Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., before Romney was elected governor in 2002.

Back then supporting Planned Parenthood was beneficial to his campaign for Senate in the liberal state of Massachusetts. Today, courting conservative voters, Romney sees matters differently.

Tomorrow? Who knows...

Romney lacks the integrity to hold the highest office in the land.

Note: Wizbang Blue is now closed and our authors have moved on. Paul Hooson can now be found at Wizbang Pop!. Please come see him there!

  • Currently 3/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rating: 3/5 (2 votes cast)

Comments (12)


Flip flopping...lack of integrity? Let me guess, you didn't vote for John Kerry?...or did you?

When is it ok to try to appeal to your base, when you're John Edwards saying you'll "look into" insane conspiracy theories about WTC7 to please your not so small "insane nutball" base?

I'm not saying Romney isn't floundering here...he's having a really difficult time with this issue, as are the others. It doesn't look good, and as a Republican, I don't like it.

Let's share the love though...perhaps we can petition for one of the questions for the next Democratic debate:

"By a show of hands, do you believe there was was some form of a U.S. government conspiracy regarding 9/11? Raise your hand for 'yes', not for 'no'."

Oh, the squirming would be visible.



I can see it being relevant for a woman to say that she would never consider having an abortion, but what does it mean when a man says that?

It means that women don't get spontaneously pregnant.

"Oh, the squirming would be visible.".

Not a single hand would go up, Heralder. You know that, and your honest enough to admit that - so your probably honest enough to admit to yourself at least that this line your pursuing is as "out there" as far-fetched as the the 9/11 conspiracy theories. You're just playing on the other side of the fence as the conspiracy theorists - same field though...

P. Bunyan:

"Romney lacks the integrity to hold the highest office in the land."

On this we agree Lee.

There are few I can think of that have less integrity than Romney. If I were to make a list of them Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Barack Obama, Al Gore, & John Kerry would top it.



Edwards and Kerry have already bowed to this part of the constituency, hence what I said.

Heralder -- You may be as wacky as the tin-foil-hatted conspiracy theorists if you think this exchange with John Edwards constitutes his endorsement of the 9/11 conspiracy.

(pssst, this is the point where you should just confess that up to now you've been pushing an anti-Edwards meme you picked up on the Right Wing Blogosmear and you've never actually seen the video showing exactly what transpired until now)

How about a deal -- we don't talk about Edwards and 9/11 conspiracy theories until and unless you watch the video and first let us know if you still feel Edwards is somehow endorsing or encouraging the 9/11 conspiracy monkeys in that exchange, m'kay? It's only 1:34 in length.


Hey thanks Lee,

That's video I was referring to. It was good to watch it again, to see Edwards saying "I'll look into it" referring to the conspiracy theory about 9/11...and the applause after was just lovely.

What I said stands. Not encouraging those monkeys would have been to say: "Sir, that's been investigated and the case is closed, there is nothing to look into." rather than "Whay shor, jus vote fer me and I'll do it!"

Sorry you had to type so much for no reason.

It's clear from the video that Edwards doesn't know the person is referring to a 9/11 conspiracy theory, Heralder. Edwards has to strain to understand WTF the guy is talking about, and eventually refers him to a campaign aide to explain later what the issue is that the guys is referencing.

Edwards then says "I'm willing to look into it and get back to you" - again, clearly not understanding at all - since it was never mentioned at all -- that the guys is referencing a conspiracy theory.

The applause - yeah - it looks like he was standing in a room full of moonbats, but only a wingnut would hang the guy for that.

Love the hat!


romney has not been impressing me lately.

personally, i think that the whole abortion question belongs in the state legistlatures and not in the federal courts. heck, even some liberal lawyers and legal analysts agree that Roe v. Wade was horrible case law.

having said that, i have a hell of a lot more respect for someone who stands up and says something they honestly believe and sticks to it, than i do for someone who tells me what i want to hear. and then goes tells somebody something else that they want to hear.

i'm a big believer in intellectual integrity. which is why i don't like most politicians

P. Bunyan:

So is your point that Edwards was clueless, Lee?

On that I might agree.


My belief is that he knew what he the guy was talking about but stalled to try and think of the appropriate reaction, which in the end was to not refuse the man's craziness.


Since when did you need integrity to be president?!


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]





Add to Technorati Favorites


Publisher: Kevin Aylward

Editors: Lee Ward, Larkin, Paul S Hooson, and Steve Crickmore

All original content copyright © 2007 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark. Wizbang Blue™ is a trademark of Wizbang®, LLC.

Powered by Movable Type 3.35

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.