A Defense of Romney
By jbonham76 Posted in 2008 | Spotlight Blogs — Comments (35) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
From the user blogs by Erick. . .
James Bopp Jr., a well known Pro-life litigator penned a wonderful article for NRO that covers some of the great arguments in support of Romney. Bopp begins with some interesting quotes from 1994, and an endorsement we don’t hear very much about:
Romney’s conversion was less abrupt than is often portrayed. In his 1994 Senate run, Romney was endorsed by Massachusetts Citizens for Life and kept their endorsement, even though he declared himself to be pro-choice, because he supported parental-consent laws, opposed taxpayer-funded abortion and mandatory abortion coverage under a national health insurance plan, and was against the Freedom of Choice Act, which would have codified Roe v. Wade by federal statute. In 1994, NARAL’s Kate Michelman pronounced him a phony pro-choicer. “Mitt Romney, stop pretending,” she demanded. “We need honesty in our public life, not your campaign of deception to conceal your anti-choice views,” she said. Some conservative Boston newspaper columnists view it similarly. As Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe put it:
“Romney’s very public migration rightward over the last few years is . . . intended not to hide his real views but to liberate them. In 1994, Romney struck me as an extraordinarily bright, talented, and decent man — and a political neophyte who fell for the canard that the only way a conservative could win in Massachusetts was by passing for liberal.”
Bopp goes on:
The evaluation of Romney’s conversion needs to be considered in light of the pro-life movement’s consistent effort over the years to educate, and thereby convert, people to the cause. The pro-life movement has aggressively promoted conversion and has achieved great success in doing so.
Good point. Pro-lifers work hard to convert and now they have Romney on their side. They should be celebrating, not providing the DNC some talking points. Bopp goes on:
Yet how is the sincerity of a conversion to be measured? There are two salient considerations in this regard: first, some defining moment that prompted a change of heart; second, the fact that deeds speak louder than words. Romney’s conversion exhibits both. First, Romney has had a life-changing event. It was when he was governor and researchers were proposing embryonic cloning at Harvard. As he recounts it, one of the researchers said that there “wasn’t a moral issue, because . . . they destroy the embryos at 14 days.” Romney said that “it struck me that we have so cheapened the value of human life in this country through our Roe v. Wade decision that someone could think that there is no moral issue to have racks and racks of living human embryos and then destroying them at 14 days.”
This was not a trivial matter for Romney and his family. As he told the New York Times at the time, “My wife has MS and we would love for there to be a cure for her disease and for the diseases of others. But there is an ethical boundary that should not be crossed.”
This point is often forgotten. Romney’s decision to veto embryonic cloning came at an enormous personal cost, if he indeed is faking it. Romney’s wife has MS. It would be quite a thing to oppose embryonic stem cell research with a wife in a condition many promise could be helped by this form of research, when you really support it.
Here is a video of Ann explaining this:
Bopp goes on:
And Romney, as governor, acted on these convictions. He vetoed an embryonic cloning bill; he vetoed a bill that would allow the “morning after pill” to be acquired without a prescription on the grounds that it is an abortifacient; he vetoed legislation which would have redefined Massachusetts longstanding definition of the beginning of human life from fertilization to implantation; and he fought to promote abstinence education in the classroom. One should not underestimate the tremendous political price that Governor Romney paid in Massachusetts for these acts. Both conviction and courage are necessary for effective pro-life leadership, and Romney, in office, displayed both.
Often the attack is used by Anti-Romneyites that he wouldn’t have been reelected in Massachusetts. This may or may not have been the case. Yet if it is true, we should realize the reason for his unelectability in Massachusetts is directly related to his hard work on conservative social issues.
Bopp goes on to discuss what the options are in a Non-Romney ticket:
It cannot be forgotten, however, that this is also a political question, a matter of practical choices. And what are these choices? Senator John McCain and Mayor Rudy Giuliani are the other leading candidates for the Republican nomination. Barring the unlikely emergence of some conservative alternative in the next few months, the choice will be between Giuliani, McCain, and Romney. While both Giuliani and McCain would be vastly superior to any of the prospective Democrats, there are serious questions about the policy positions of both, and not just on social conservative issues.
Giuliani is simply not a social conservative. He is pro-choice, pro-partial birth abortion, and pro-special rights for homosexuals. He is also pro-gun control. Senator McCain opposes the federal marriage amendment, supports embryonic stem-cell research, and was a ringleader of the Gang-of-14 compromise that made it easier for Democrats to block President Bush’s judicial nominees. Also, he is the principal sponsor of the McCain-Feingold bill, which imposes severe limits on the participation of citizens groups and political parties in our representative democracy.
We tend to think that by knocking down Romney we will now elect the true-social conservative. We social conservatives can split the vote amongst the lesser candidates of Brownback and Huckabee, who each have their have their own issues, but it will be at our peril. We can easily find ourselvs stuck with someone who won't support a Marriage ammendment or is a afraid to veto an embryonic cloning bill.
Finally Bopp concludes this better than I can ever hope to:
Whatever one thinks about Romney’s conversion, and I believe it is sincere, the fact remains that Romney opposes public funds for embryo-destructive research that McCain and Giuliani support. Romney has fought for a federal marriage amendment and McCain and Giuliani oppose one. There is the simple question of whether social conservatives want someone who is currently on their side or someone who currently opposes them.
If there were a race for First Lady (or First Spouse in the case of Bill,) Ann Romney would run away with the prize, in my book.
Rudy and McCain need to be much more judicious in how they highlight this. Romney has no such problem. Its an example of conservatism that the other candidates don't have. I'm not a woman but I'm going to guess that women pay more attention to that stuff or am I just being a shallow-minded pig?
I believe it was Charles Krauthammer who said that it's important insofar as it tells us a little bit about what a person chose when they were making the most important decision of his/her life.
Now, I'm not slamming the other First Lady candidates. They all seem fine to me so far. But I just really like Ann Romney, and while it doesn't really affect how I rank any of the candidates, I think that a bad choice in a life partner would be rather detrimental. For instance, I wouldn't want Hank Paulson's wife to be the First Lady, THAT'S for sure. Geez. What a nutcase.
And, if given the choice between two equals - one with a great family life and another who has had a tumultuous one in the past - I'd say I'd probably choose the guy who was able to manage his family life as well as he manages his professional and public lives. It shows that he knows how to put his priorities in order.
I think this is an extremely interesting concept to evaluate as it relates to the Clintons.
I can appreciate when a man has a change in his views and opinions, especially when that change takes place over a number of years that likely include life changing experiences. Afterall, at one point (early) in his life Reagan was a new-deal democrat, yet he eventually became the face of the modern Republican party.
BUT, I imagine a lot of the people around these parts who support Romney now are the same people who called Kerry a "flip-flopper" in 2004. Just keep that in mind. That phrase that our side invented in 2004 could be thrown right back in our face in 2008.
To be perfectly honest (a) I thought it was lame when others used it against Kerry and (b) it was already “thrown in our faces” when Democrats pointed out how Bush has supposedly changed his position on a number of issues like the Department of Homeland Security, AGW, “nation-building,” and the like.
And from what I’ve seen, Romney has far less to explain and does a better job of explaining it.
I'm not a South Park Republican, I'm a King of the Hill libertarian.
Was Kerry's muddled defense.
Kerry said: "I voted for it before I voted against it"
People don't like political figures who can think like that.
Romney was on the news last night- he was asked about his change on abortion, his response: (paraphrased) 'I was wrong on somethings, and once I decided I had made a mistake if I didn't admit it and change my position then I'd deserve to be fired'
Big difference in how much a flip flop charge will hurt.
We'll see when once the primary debates roll around. I've got to belive Brownback is going to hammer him (as well as McCain and Rudy) on this kind of stuff.
If I were advising the McCain campaign, I would suggest playing to his strengths and trying to keep above the fray as much as possible. More than likely I think McCain will avoid any sort of personal attacks in the primary debates and focus instead on what he thinks the most serious challenges are facing our country and how he plans to meet them. In so far as he addresses the other candidate’s it will probably be something along the lines of “so and so is a great person because of X but we disagree on Y and here are the reasons why I think this is a better way to proceed.”
It’s one of the reasons why so many independents like him and it enables him to get away from the handicap that the presidential candidates who are members of the Senate will have – which is that they will be seen as being part of the “partisan bickering of Washington.”
I'm not a South Park Republican, I'm a King of the Hill libertarian.
There's a difference between what Kerry did, which was vote for something in committee and vote against it on the floor, and evolving a new position over time.
Now let's see someone make the social conservative case for McCain that is as compelling as the one Mr. Bopp wrote for Romney. Thanks for pointing me towards that article. What a great read.
Here's another stellar paragraph that I wanted to highlight:
"It is unlikely that there will be any social conservative in this race to rival Giuliani and McCain other than Governor Romney. And Romney’s record on other conservative issues is impressive as well. He has demonstrated his administrative ability in successfully managing a variety of organizations in the private (his venture-capital firm), the nonprofit (Salt Lake City Olympics), and the public (as governor) arenas. Romney’s views on economic and foreign affairs are thoroughly conservative, his ability to effect them is enviable, and, just as importantly, his skill at articulating them is superb."
In other words, he is our most qualified candidate.
“Romney’s very public migration rightward over the last few years is . . . intended not to hide his real views but to liberate them. In 1994, Romney struck me as an extraordinarily bright, talented, and decent man — and a political neophyte who fell for the canard that the only way a conservative could win in Massachusetts was by passing for liberal.”
People could credibly assert that a truly "rock ribbed" person would never have fallen for that kind of hooey, and instead they would have just taken the heat and the rotten tomatoes and held fast to their principles.
But I know how difficult that can actually be in practice, and I don't consider myself to be a rube or a fool (at least not as a dominant character trait). It's very important to realize that intellectually a person can adopt a position that rationally is defensible and yet, in the fullness of time, they come to realize was incorrect. My feeling about Romney on pro-life issues is that he was intellectually lazy, as I was. The pro-choice movement does a very convincing job of telling people that abortion is not just a "choice" but that it should be funded as a "medical procedure" by the federal and/or state government.
My sympathy for the difficulties of Romney's long journey on this comes from the fact that I worked closely with one of the most adamant and influential advocates for abortion in the State of Illinois, Nada Stotland. I worked for Illinois Masonic in Chicago and visited her home several times to help her family with their computer problems (she had one of the original Toshiba Libretto sub-laptop computers.)
Her house is a monument to academic irrefutatbility. You walk inside and lining the walls on almost every exposed surface are her personal library, which consists of thousands of books, some of which are piled high on tables and sitting on the floor. When people like Nada Stotland give you the indoctrination about why abortion is just a "medical procedure" and you are young and open to that kind of influence, you listen avidly. I did. And I was wrong! But it took more than 10 years for me to reach the point where I could even hope to debate someone like her on this issue intelligently.
That's one of the reasons that I'm willing to give Romney the benefit of the doubt on this issue. In a way, I think it speaks more to the fact that he was influenced from the outside. That might not be a wonderful hallmark of a "rock ribbed" pro-life Republican, but if that is the standard that any Republican candidate needs to meet in order to be taken seriously as a Presidential candidate, I know that I couldn't meet it myself.
I consider it much more important that he has changed his mind on this issue instead of holding onto a belief that was wrong. All of us have similar flaws.
Nada Stotland was one of the people who helped cement my early conviction that abortion was just a "medical procedure" and something that should be applauded, supported, and funded by the federal government.
I can tell you right now that there is nobody on this blog who, if they met her and actually had to debate her, could win solely on the basis of their scholarship about the issue. She's read more books than anyone here, including me.
I have a question for the anti-Romney crowd. What issue other than abortion has Romney changed his position on?
Let me preempt some of the responses by explaining that one can be for gay rights as understood in 1994 (gays should not be discriminated against in society) and against gay marriage, one can also be for campaign finance reform in general and be against McCain-Feingold specifically, and that charges Romney flip-flopped on Bush's tax cut amount to relying on a reporter from the Boston Globe who heard Barney Frank's account of a meeting with Romney. Got anything else?
* ENDA: Romney was for ENDA (Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), a proposed U.S. federal law that would prohibit discrimination against employees by their employers on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity). Now he is against it
* Gun Control: Romney was for very strict gun control. Now he is against it. (He also apparently thinks we are idiots - he joined the NRA last summer, after deciding to run for president, but says that it has nothing to do with his attempts to court conservative voters.)
* Stem Cells: In 2002, Romney supported research using human embryos created during fertility treatments and supported federal funding for that research. Now, although he still supports research using excess embryos, he has flip-flopped and now opposes government funding for such research. (His overall position is hair-splitting: he opposes research using cloned embryos, supports research using excess embryos, but opposes government funding for research using excess embryos. Got it?)
* Lame-duck appointments: In 2002, Romney rescinded "lame-duck" appointments made by his Republican predecessor, and promised never to make lame-duck appointments. In December 2006, he made lame-duck various appointments.
* Tax pledge In 2002, he refused to sign a no tax-hike pledge, criticizinsg the pledge is a gimmick. Flip-flop: now he loves the no tax-hike pledge and has signed one.
* Campaign finance: In 2002, Romney proposed taxing private political contributions in order to finance publicly funded campaigns. Does he still support such a plan? OK this one isn't definitely a flip-flop since he hasn't said either way, but I doubt it. It wouldn't be what Republican primary voters want to hear.
* Bush tax cuts: Romney did say that he would not support the Bush tax cuts. OK, you don't like the Boston Globe and Barney Frank? How about the Boston's conservative paper, the Boston Herald: "In 2003, Romney stunned a roomful of Bay State congressmen by telling them that he would not publicly support Bush’s tax cuts, which at the time formed the centerpiece of the president’s domestic agenda. He even said he was open to a federal gas tax hike." - and it quotes U.S. Rep. Michael Capuano (D-Somerville), who was also there. Here we have two people and two newspapers reporting that Romney said it. Now the burden is on you to find a place where Romney has denied saying it.
____
Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged. — J. Michael Waller
#9) RGGI November 2006: Romney vows to join the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), a pact to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that he has supported for 21/2 years. December 2006: Romney suddenly opposes RGGI. "Observers say Romney's about-face has everything to do with his yearning for the presidency. In fact, his rejection of RGGI came on the very same day that he announced he wouldn't run for governor again ... Chicago Sun-Times' columnist Robert Novak wrote that Romney's rejection of the deal may give him 'a leg up in coal-producing states' and help him attract 'interest from automakers and other industries that oppose mandatory CO2 limits' ... Bryk put it more bluntly: 'There seems to be no logical explanation for Romney's rejection of RGGI other than that he wanted to capture the support and campaign dollars of the coal and utility industries.'" See a pattern yet?
But I'm glad Erick promoted this piece. It's about as good a defense of Romney as I can conceive. Does a good job of balancing our commentary thus far.
Jonathan Martin at politico.com
Whether or not Romney was ever really pro-choice or McCain has really fought for the right to life in the Senate or if Giuliani's soundings about judges are sincere, what is being missed is that pro-life advocates have three choices in the top tier whose passions lay elsewhere. Will any of these candidates really advocate to end abortion, or are they just paying lip service on an important issue to the base?
"Giuliani's adamantly pro-choice and a social liberal," Bopp points out, "McCain's generally pro-life, but it's not a big issue for him."
And about his candidate?
"I don’t know yet about Romney," Bopp admits. "I’m not really sure where [abortion] will ultimately fit in his agenda. He's still on a journey."
H/T to KLo at NRO.
____
Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged. — J. Michael Waller
It was an interesting comment. It would be interesting to hear the entire interview, rather than the few snippets the politico reporter gives us. It's also worth noting he is acting in an unpaid capicity.
So if he were paid he would give a more truthful answers?
A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli
I guess the way I phrased it, it could sound like that. I meant those as two seperate points. The latter I mean to add to the post, but once it's on the front page you can't edit.
I do think it says a lot for Bopp's commitment to Romney when he works as an unpaid advisor and an official endorsers.
A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever. -John Adams
The quote from Jacobson reveals more about the Romney campaign than about Romney:
“Romney’s very public migration rightward over the last few years is . . . intended not to hide his real views but to liberate them. In 1994, Romney struck me as an extraordinarily bright, talented, and decent man — and a political neophyte who fell for the canard that the only way a conservative could win in Massachusetts was by passing for liberal.”
Two points:
1) What exactly does it mean to "liberate" your views on any particular subject? I suspect it means something along the lines of "Candidate X is now free to change his mind because he has shown sufficient thoughtfullness and sagacity in doing so."
2) Nobody doubts Romney is smart. He's extremely smart, as far as I can tell. Nor do we doubt that he is a decent man. But if he "fell for the canard" that he needed to be liberal to win in Massachusetts, then how are we to know that he has not fallen for another canard, the idea that he must be more conservative to win the GOP nomination?
A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli
it seems to me that it means he moderated his views to run in MA, and his true stances can now come out. whether or not that's true (or rather to what extent it is true) is up for each to decide, but that seems to be the intent of the statement.
Romney is the best pro-life candidate by a mile.
Is the words they say when they are not in a position to make a decision?
Or is it the actions they take when they do have the power to make a difference?
To those of you who are still skeptical of Romney's pro-life values, I say:
Don't discount the possibility that being in a position of power and realizing that his actions would have real consequences may have forced Romney to engage with the gravity of the issue in a way that he never had before.
what does 1854 AD refer to in history? The only thing I can think of is the Kansas-Nebraska Act.
A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli
Is it the words said and actions taken that advance one's political ambitions?
Or is it the words said and actions taken even though they could harm one's political ambitions?
To those of you who still believe Romney's pro-life values, I say:
Show me one pro-life statement or action taken by Romney before he was planning to run for president.
Re; This point is often forgotten. Romney’s decision to veto embryonic cloning came at an enormous personal cost, if he indeed is faking it. Romney’s wife has MS.
whenever the issue of embryonic stem cells comes up we do need to bear in mind that there is no evidence such research will ever yield a cure for anything and that failing to use government funds for this research is certainly not the same as banning it altogether.
The point was mostly to address those who might claim that he was faking it on this issue and conversion. If that was in fact the case, than he probably would believe there are cures in this sort of research. That would be a tremendous diss on his wife who suffering from a disease that researches claim could be potentially cured from Embryonic Research- to think it could help her, but decide political expediancy should prevail. I think the video explains this to some degree.
Good article, keep up the good work!
www.iowansforromney.com
think of Romney's chances of being President I think I can be confident in saying Ann is an asset to his campaign and would make a great First Lady. Can anyone say class?
A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever. -John Adams