Social conservatives

Is Romney telling the truth about his stem-cell position?

In the recent kerfuffle over the relationship between Mitt Romney’s universal health care plan and abortion, the Romney campaign issued a response in the "Myth vs. Fact" mode (although, I tend to think of them as "Mitt versus Reality"). At the end Romney said that he had a pro-life record, had defended the culture of life, and mentioned his position on embryonic stem cell research:

Governor Romney Supports Adult Stem Cell Research But Has Opposed Efforts To Advance Embryo Destructive Research In Massachusetts And He Has Not Supported Public Funding For Embryo Destructive Research.

That seems clear. However, today, I was forwarded a recent release from the Republican National Coalition for Life, a Phyllis Schlafly organization. They have a weekly update, and last week it said that Mitt Romney is not pro-life. The whole letter is after the jump, but I wanted to illustrate a couple of points from it, which was titled "Mitt Romney Supports Killing Human Embryos for Research":

Governor Romney, who has established an exploratory committee for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008, says he is now “pro-life” after more than thirty years of staunch support for Roe v. Wade. How can he make that claim when, on the one hand he says he opposes creating human embryos for research purposes (cloning), yet, on the other hand he says he supports using human embryos created for another purpose, that of in vitro fertilization?  It’s a distinction without a difference!   He sanctions the killing of embryos “left over” from IVF treatments “provided that those embryos are obtained after a rigorous parental consent process that includes adoption as an alternative.”

The last is a quote from an op-ed that Romney wrote in the Boston Globe. In this case, Romney vetoed a bill that legalized and funded "therapeutic cloning" and embryonic stem cell research. In his piece Romney declared:

Stem cell research does not require the cloning of human embryos. Some stem cells today are obtained from surplus embryos from in-vitro fertilization. I support that research, provided that those embryos are obtained after a rigorous parental consent process … Known as altered nuclear transfer, this method could allow researchers to obtain embryonic stem cells without the moral shortcut of cloning and destroying a human embryo.

A bill that includes methods such as these and bans all human cloning would receive my full support. I share the excitement and hope that new cures to terrible diseases like multiple sclerosis, juvenile diabetes, and Parkinson’s could soon be within our reach.

In other words, it seems, Romney was opposed to cloning, not embryonic stem cell research, as such.

That doesn’t seem consistent with his statement that, "He Has Not Supported Public Funding For Embryo Destructive Research". Isn’t that just a clear contradiction?
(more…)

By Soren Dayton, ago

Rudy jumps in … and people start dumping on him

Well, yesterday Rudy Giuliani acted to ease people’s fears. He is really in. I had my suspicions otherwise, but no more. I have friends being offered jobs in New York City (and friends who have already left) and others who are taking jobs in Iowa, South Carolina, and other states.

And now, as if the guns had been loaded, people have started to fire on him.

At first, the social conservative groups, conservative movement establishment, and religious community will fire at him.

But the real question is, when does Mitt Romney go after him? You see, Romney’s whole schtick is that he’s the anti-McCain. But Rudy could also be an anti-McCain. And Rudy is totally electable. And Rudy has executive experience — indeed, as Hotline notes, New York City is larger than Massachusetts. And since pundits are starting to say things like, Chuck Todd’s (see the YouTube after the jump) comments about Romney:  "I’m starting to wonder if he can hold up" or "Maybe it’s too soon to say he’s crumbling. He’s not crumbling." Rudy’s sun could eclipse Romney’s.

On the other hand, Romney has already made the mistake of going negative against Sam Brownback (not to mention a "gadfly"). Attacking a hero like Rudy will be tough for people who aren’t interest groups.

This will be interesting to watch.

(more…)

By Soren Dayton, ago

Did Romney mandate taxpayer-funded abortion?

The latest attack on Mitt Romney’s abortion conversion narrative involves his signature healthcare plan — which he now is distancing himself from. The question, raised by Red State and The Prowler and based on more information from Mass Resistance, is whether the healthcare plan expanded publicly funded abortion, which Romney Read more…

By Soren Dayton, ago

Romney’s new approach on abortion

I noticed this in the coverage of Romney’s visit to South Carolina and then again in his Nightline appearance. He is more clearly coming out and saying that he had been pro-choice. This is clearly an attempt defuse the issue. First Nightline: We all learn from experience. And I’m just Read more…

By Soren Dayton, ago

The Romney attack on Brownback

I have been stunned by the attack on Sam Brownback over the last week by Mitt Romney partisans on abortion. The substance of the allegations is that Brownback was not a solid pro-lifer in 1994 and may have been pro-choice.

The Romney people have latched on to this as a way to defend themselves from attacks that they are flip-flopping on abortion. They claim that if Sam Brownback is allowed his conversion, then so should Mitt Romney.

There are several problems with this:

First, there is the issue of recency. As a recent Weekly Standard article (apparently the article was passed around at NR’s conservative gathering in Washington this weekend. Is this going to become a theme of grassroots assaults on Romney’s record?) has demonstrated, Romney was actively pro-choice much more recently. Indeed, Romney was even trying to get the support of NARAL with lines like:

"You need someone like me in Washington." Moreover, those present recall that Romney argued that his election would make him credible in the Republican party nationally and thus help "sensible" Republicans like him overshadow more conservative elements in the GOP.

Romney was not just a moderate Republican, he wanted to be a leader of the moderate Republicans against the conservatives. And the level of activism continued into his administration.

Second, there’s the issue of genuineness and expediency. A pro-Romney blogger on Evangelicals for Mitt recently attacked Brownback, but also walked into an anti-Romney self-trap. Nathan Burd said:

Contrast that with Senator Brownback’s odd explanation for his 1994 views on life. He was pro-life, but he didn’t want to say he was pro-life? Huh?

However, Mitt Romney has the same problem. As has been noted, Romney claimed to be pro-choice in 1994 and again in 2002. But it is not well understood that be backed off this position when he was flirting with running for Governor of Utah in 2001. In fact, he wrote in a letter to the Salt Lake Tribune (full letter at end of post):

I do not wish to be labeled pro choice. I have never felt comfortable with the labels associated with the abortion issue. Because the Olympics is not about politics, I plan to keep my views on political issues to myself.

So, again, the problem for Romney is not that he went from pro-choice or "indifferent" to pro-life, which is the substance of their attack against Brownback. He went from pro-choice to somewhere between pro-life or indifferent to vociferously pro-choice to pro-life.

Then, there’s the issue of believability. One pro-life activist characterized his trouble with Romney’s conversion like this:

What I don’t understand about Romney’s “conversion” is how he contributes it to when he was studying the embryonic stem-cell research issue. I don’t understand how a tiny human embryo was able to “convert” him, but a visibly developing child in the womb wasn’t able to. Just does not make much sense to me.

Finally, the conservative movement has to ask itself a question: what price is too high. As another activist says (emphasis in the original):

We cannot give Mitt Romney a pass on this solely because he’s running against John McCain. To do so would be being dishonest to ourselves, the conservative movement, and any notions that honesty and integrity matter in politics.

This blogger continues by questioning Mitt Romney’s integrity in general. If the flip-flopper moniker (which now seems well settled in the press) moves into a problem with Romney’s integrity, he is toast.
(more…)

By Soren Dayton, ago

Fisking Mitt’s YouTube defense

The YouTube video of Mitt Romney during a 1994 debate with Ted Kennedy shows him to be an eloquent defender of gay rights and abortion rights and dismissive of Ronald Reagan. Romney released a YouTube video of his own (per David All’s best practices) claiming that he had been wrong on some issues in the past. 

Trying to laugh off allegations that he is flip-flopping, Romney continues to misrepresent his record.

Let’s look at the most important part of his statement (full transcript below) which was designed, as AP’s Glenn Johnson pointed out, to tell "social conservatives key to his presidential campaign that he is one of them":

If you want to know where I stand, by the way, you don’t have to just listen to my words. You can go and look at my record as governor. Frankly, in the bluest of states, facing the most liberal media in the country, I’ve led the fight to preserve traditional marriage. I’ve taken every legal step I could conceive of, to prevent same-sex marriage. I’ve also taken action to protect the sanctity of life. I’ve vetoed bills that authorized embryo farming, therapeutic cloning, Plan B, emergency contraception, and, of course, a redefinition of when life was going to begin as well.

Here’s what social conservatives need to know about Romney’s assertions.

Romney said, "I’ve taken every legal step I could conceive of, to prevent same-sex marriage." Deal Hudson, a Catholic scholar who is close to President Bush, recently showed that this is not true . Hudson said that Romney had an effective, legal way to take jurisdiction over marriage from the courts. Instead, he ignored pressure from conservative groups, taking the high-publicity route, turning the issue into the basis of his Presidential campaign. For more posts on Romney flip-flops on gay rights, go here.

Romney said, "I’ve also taken action to protect the sanctity of life." Leon Wolf at Redstate has pointed out that Romney actually overturned his own Health Secretary to end the conscience exemption in Catholic hospitals in Massachusetts. Maybe he’s taken some "action to protect the sanctity of life", but it certainly hasn’t been consistent even in the last two years.

Romney said, "I’ve vetoed … Plan B, emergency contraception, …". This time Romney is telling the truth. However, it’s a flip-flop. He made a campaign promise to expand these. Will Romney win social conservative votes by breaking his promises?

Romney tries to dismiss this all as "13 year old history." However even his "record as Governor" over the last 2-4 years does not live up to his words today.

While Mitt thinks 13 years is too long to be responsible for his own words, in 1994 he had no problem criticizing Ted Kennedy for something he said 21 years earlier. In 1994, Mitt argued that pro-choice voters couldn’t trust Ted Kennedy because Kennedy had flip-flopped on abortion 21 years earlier:

"The reason they don’t trust Ted Kennedy is that he flip-flopped on abortion . . . Mitt has always been consistent in his pro-choice position.” Romney consultant Charles Manning during the Kennedy race.

Ted Kennedy (!!) was unreliable on abortion. Therefore, according to Romney’s campaign, they should vote for Romney because he’d been consistently pro-choice.

Mitt misrepresents his actions and doesn’t take responsibility for his words.

If 21 years wasn’t good enough for you to believe Ted Kennedy was really pro-choice, why is 2 years — at best — enough for conservatives to believe that Romney is really conservative?

Update: John Hawkins doesn’t think this is a successful rebuttal. And Romney’s response, however well done (not that in my opinion) is ephemeral compared to being in print. And as Glenn Reynolds points out, this got a lot of press.
(more…)

By eye, ago