More on Mitt
Updating yesterday's post, I had a chance to scan some of the lefty reaction to Mike Murphy's comments over at .08 Acres (and a Donkey) and The Chimes at Midnight. Both of them, along with the state Democratic Party are toeing the line that this is somehow newsworthy for anything but the fact that a Romney advisor said something politically stupid.
Both bloggers assail the guv for holding a contradictory position. Chimes says it's a crass attempt to appear socially liberal at home, yet Bible-thumping conservative to the more levelheaded part of the country (OK, so he didn't phrase it that way). Romney's stance is "dishonest," .08 Acres says: "if you don't want to change the laws, you are pro-choice."
I disagree. Being pro-choice means you believe women should have the right to an abortion. Being pro-life means you believe a fetus/embryo/fertilized egg should be carried to term, and allowed to live or die naturally, despite the mother's wishes.
Romney -- along with many moderates from both parties -- walks a fine line between these two extremes: he believes a human life, which begins at conception, should not be ended by any individual. But he does not appear to believe it's the right time to use government force to impose that belief on his fellow citizens, in the form of a law or a court ruling.
It's a complex set of beliefs, and I can understand how it might be confusing to some, especially people who are used to dealing in absolutes (e.g., Massachusetts librals and Bible-thumping conservatives).
But consider the position of Abraham Lincoln, who pre-1860 felt that slavery was wrong but did not want to put America through the political bloodbath of trying to impose that belief on the South. It was only once that bloodbath imposed itself upon the country -- literally -- that Lincoln considered using his presidential powers to free the slaves. And that he justified as a war measure, not a purely humanitarian gesture.
Is the governor pro-choice? No. He wouldn't be clamoring to introduce abortion rights if they had not already existed. He won't lift a finger to expand those rights.
He is pro-life, but he's a political realist and will reserve imposing his beliefs until (if) society as a whole is ready to repudiate Roe v. Wade. This is exactly the kind of moderation and respect for the rule of the people that is sorely lacking in, for example, Massachusetts liberals' stances on homosexual marriage and income tax relief.
Both bloggers assail the guv for holding a contradictory position. Chimes says it's a crass attempt to appear socially liberal at home, yet Bible-thumping conservative to the more levelheaded part of the country (OK, so he didn't phrase it that way). Romney's stance is "dishonest," .08 Acres says: "if you don't want to change the laws, you are pro-choice."
I disagree. Being pro-choice means you believe women should have the right to an abortion. Being pro-life means you believe a fetus/embryo/fertilized egg should be carried to term, and allowed to live or die naturally, despite the mother's wishes.
Romney -- along with many moderates from both parties -- walks a fine line between these two extremes: he believes a human life, which begins at conception, should not be ended by any individual. But he does not appear to believe it's the right time to use government force to impose that belief on his fellow citizens, in the form of a law or a court ruling.
It's a complex set of beliefs, and I can understand how it might be confusing to some, especially people who are used to dealing in absolutes (e.g., Massachusetts librals and Bible-thumping conservatives).
But consider the position of Abraham Lincoln, who pre-1860 felt that slavery was wrong but did not want to put America through the political bloodbath of trying to impose that belief on the South. It was only once that bloodbath imposed itself upon the country -- literally -- that Lincoln considered using his presidential powers to free the slaves. And that he justified as a war measure, not a purely humanitarian gesture.
Is the governor pro-choice? No. He wouldn't be clamoring to introduce abortion rights if they had not already existed. He won't lift a finger to expand those rights.
He is pro-life, but he's a political realist and will reserve imposing his beliefs until (if) society as a whole is ready to repudiate Roe v. Wade. This is exactly the kind of moderation and respect for the rule of the people that is sorely lacking in, for example, Massachusetts liberals' stances on homosexual marriage and income tax relief.
Pro-Choice, Pro-Life Scramble
So the get-Romney political punching bag issue du jour is abortion, and Mitt is "scrambling" to recover from an aide's startling admission that the governor is privately pro-life, publicly pro-choice, just like he promised he would be in 2002.
When this story broke, the item of interest was the fact that political consultant Mike Murphy called his boss "a pro-life Mormon faking it as a pro-choice friendly." And that he did it in a national magazine.
Now, Murphy did not mischaracterize the thin line the governor walks on this issue; he just (allegedly) stated it in a snide, disapproving manner. Radio commentators on the day the story broke correctly identified the news value of Murphy's statement: flunkies shouldn't go around calling their bosses "fake." Murphy has retracted the statement, Romney says there are no hard feelings and life goes on.
In the light of day and 24 hours later, now come the Telegram & Gazette and the Boston Globe (reg req, both sites), questioning what this means about Romney's stance on abortion. The Herald also joined the fray, tossing this softball to anyone who wants to see Romney kicked around a bit.
Apparently, Romney's "stance on pro choice [is] raising doubts" (Telegram headline) and the governor is "scrambling to defend himself" against Murphy's comments (Herald lead).
In the Telegram piece, Richard Nangle leads with the head of MassNARAL, a pro-choice PAC. Apparently Melissa Kogut feels "Mitt Romney would not have been elected governor in 2002 if he had staked out the anti-abortion position he appears to be assuming for a possible presidential run."
Yeah, and he may not have gotten the support of MassNARAL if ... oh, wait. Let's turn the Wayback Machine to 2002 and try to remember whether there was anybody suggesting that the Savior of Salt Lake was going to be a liberal influence on Massachusetts. Back then, when he made a statement like "privately pro-life, publicly pro-choice," nobody batted an eye. Farther down in the Telegram story, it's revealed that MassNARAL was "impressed with his answers" on their questionnaire, even though they decided to endorse Losing Candidate Shannon O'Brien instead.
Of course, now that Romney isn't the shining star he was in 2002, and now that the Democrats have a pretty boy too, Romney's stance means he's "scrambling," according to the Herald's Ann Donlan. OK, which of these statements qualifies as a "scramble":
Rationally pointing out that your consultant's statement was taken out of context.
Reiterating a 2002 campaign pledge that you have not broken, and do not plan to break.
Saying you consider the issue closed.
Those are the first six paragraphs of the Herald story. I don't see any scrambling here. But let's quote the next three paragraphs of the story, and you tell me if that lead, and those headlines, are just a bit off. You tell me if you can find some scrambling somewhere.
When this story broke, the item of interest was the fact that political consultant Mike Murphy called his boss "a pro-life Mormon faking it as a pro-choice friendly." And that he did it in a national magazine.
Now, Murphy did not mischaracterize the thin line the governor walks on this issue; he just (allegedly) stated it in a snide, disapproving manner. Radio commentators on the day the story broke correctly identified the news value of Murphy's statement: flunkies shouldn't go around calling their bosses "fake." Murphy has retracted the statement, Romney says there are no hard feelings and life goes on.
In the light of day and 24 hours later, now come the Telegram & Gazette and the Boston Globe (reg req, both sites), questioning what this means about Romney's stance on abortion. The Herald also joined the fray, tossing this softball to anyone who wants to see Romney kicked around a bit.
Apparently, Romney's "stance on pro choice [is] raising doubts" (Telegram headline) and the governor is "scrambling to defend himself" against Murphy's comments (Herald lead).
In the Telegram piece, Richard Nangle leads with the head of MassNARAL, a pro-choice PAC. Apparently Melissa Kogut feels "Mitt Romney would not have been elected governor in 2002 if he had staked out the anti-abortion position he appears to be assuming for a possible presidential run."
Yeah, and he may not have gotten the support of MassNARAL if ... oh, wait. Let's turn the Wayback Machine to 2002 and try to remember whether there was anybody suggesting that the Savior of Salt Lake was going to be a liberal influence on Massachusetts. Back then, when he made a statement like "privately pro-life, publicly pro-choice," nobody batted an eye. Farther down in the Telegram story, it's revealed that MassNARAL was "impressed with his answers" on their questionnaire, even though they decided to endorse Losing Candidate Shannon O'Brien instead.
Of course, now that Romney isn't the shining star he was in 2002, and now that the Democrats have a pretty boy too, Romney's stance means he's "scrambling," according to the Herald's Ann Donlan. OK, which of these statements qualifies as a "scramble":
Those are the first six paragraphs of the Herald story. I don't see any scrambling here. But let's quote the next three paragraphs of the story, and you tell me if that lead, and those headlines, are just a bit off. You tell me if you can find some scrambling somewhere.
But Democrats disagreed, quickly seizing the opportunity to pounce.
Democratic gubernatorial candidate Attorney General Tom Reilly immediately issued a statement, declaring, "Massachusetts has had a fake governor long enough.... Tom Reilly is pro-choice and has consistently fought to protect a woman's right to choose.:
Democratic gubernatorial candidate Deval Patrick took aim as well. "Deval Patrick takes a woman's right to choose very seriously and will defend it as long as he's governor," spokesman Kahlil Byrd said. "He thinks women should be troubled by the governor changing positions on such a core issue."
Day by Day
Quotidian quips of four sharp wits with bad posture ... © by Chris Muir.
