Newt has an anti-Romney ad running here that actually concerns me a little for the general election

[tpsbmam]

assuming, of course, Romney ends up being the candidate. I'm in western NC, not far from the SC border, and we get ads from SC.

Here's the ad (as reproduced in text in WaPo):

“What happened after Massachusetts moderate Mitt Romney changed his position from pro-abortion to pro-life?” a female narrator asks as a picture of an unhappy-looking Romney fills the screen and spooky music plays. “He governed pro-abortion.”

She continues: “Romney appointed a pro-abortion judge, expanded access to abortion pills, put Planned Parenthood on a state medical board but failed to put a pro-life group on the same board. And Romney signed government-mandated health care with taxpayer-funded abortions. Massachusetts moderate Mitt Romney: He can’t be trusted.”

I did a little checking. Polls indicate about 27% of Republicans are pro-choice. Meh.....doesn't make much difference -- Republicans are pretty much going to vote for the Republican candidate.

What DOES concern me, just a little, is that this could peak Independents' interest. Polls indicate that around 58% of Independents are pro-choice and are more liberal on social issues than Republicans. I'm listening to the ad trying to put myself in that mindset, and it might peak my interest in him if I were an Independent leaning Republican. I mean, a Santorum would probably turn them completely off. But a Romney? I dunno.....if they're not terribly inclined to really doing their homework, this might help them lean toward Romney, mistakenly thinking that he's open-minded and not a typical 2012 right-winger.

What the ad doesn't tell you:

-Romney vetoed a bill expanding access to emergency contraception (his veto was overridden by the legislature)
-he did appoint an pro-choice judge.....to a court that deals "mostly with civil and criminal disputes, not constitutional issues"
-a state Supreme Court ruling mandated that taxpayer funding for abortion be included
-the law also mandated that a Planned Parenthood representative sit on the board

Maybe it's nothing. Romney being the opponent does make me concerned about Independent votes. I hope to hell, if he is, he's hit HARD....and incessantly....on all of his Bain and other dealings that make it clear he's the 1% shit that he is!

[Crankie Avalon]

1. I wouldn't worry so much if I were you...

...you really think socially progressive Independents will choose Romney over President Obama?

[jberryhill]

2. Meh...

If they want to sling anti-choice positions at each other for a while, it's not that big a deal.

They got to watch us go at the "racism v. sexism, what's worse and who's got it?" contest last time.

Bottom line... whether or not you are a partisan in that contest, you know the Republicans have plenty of both.

[southernyankeebelle]

3. It tells me you can't trust Romney even if his tongue comes notarized.

[Mopar151]

4. Now where's my stamper press?

Last edited Sun Jan 15, 2012, 11:58 PM - Edit history (1)

[southernyankeebelle]

8. Go for it. My lips are sealled.

[Jim__]

5. Good for Newt! The ad forces Romney to go public as a complete idiot on the question of abortion.

He needs to convince Republican primary voters that he he is as crazy as any of them. By forcing Romney to speak out publicly on this during the primaries, he can't finesse it during the general. It forces Romney's hand.

[DJ13]

6. It sure does

By the way, are we sure Newt isnt secretly working for the Obama reelection campaign?

[JI7]

7. people who vote on issues, especially Abortion rights will vote Obama, the indies and other non

informed types will see this as Romney being a "say whatever to get elected" type politician.

[RBInMaine]

9. Romney is celebrating his wish to overturn Roe v. Wade. He says is all the time. Nuff said.