Mitt Romney insults Ronald Reagan
By Mark Kilmer Posted in Archived — Comments (52) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
On FOX News Sunday this morning, Presidential candidate Mitt Romney made an awful move for a Republican: He lied about the Gipper. When asked by host Chris Wallace about his change of heart on abortion, Romney uttered:
And I laid out in my view that a civilized society must respect the sanctity of life. And you know what? I'm following in some pretty good footsteps.
It's exactly what Ronald Reagan did. As governor, he was adamantly pro-choice. He became pro-life as he experienced life.
Adamantly. Romney told us that as California Governor, Ronald Reagan was stubbornly unyielding in his support for abortion rights. Oh, please forgive me if I'm shaking a little, but for gawdsakes, the President isn't alive to defend himself from this stuff. This is a "fib," and we have discussed this here last month.
Here is a description of the Therapeutic Abortion Act, which Governor Reagan signed in 1967:
It was "sold" as a compassionate law that would be used to deal with the "hard cases." This statute allowed the termination of pregnancy by a physician, in an accredited hospital, when there was a specific finding that there was a substantial risk that its continuation would "gravely impair the physical or mental health of the mother," or when the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest. However, the law did provide that no termination of pregnancy could be approved after the 20th week of pregnancy.
The law Reagan signed would be "unconstitutional" under Roe v. Wade; in fact, the California Supreme Court tossed it in 1972.
In Reagan's owned words from In His Own Words, transcribed by commenter Thomas TomlinsonDouthat, Reagan wrote:
Now, with regard to the permissive bill I supposedly signed, let me give you the correct history of what took place early in my term as governor. A bill was introduced that was permissive, indeed was abortion on demand. Naturally, there was great controversy about this bill. The author finally sent word that he would amend his bill to anything the governor would sign. Faced with this responsibility, I probably did more study and more soul searching on the subject that I had done on anything in my eight years as governor. I came to the conclusion, as I have already stated, that it [abortion] could only be justified to save a human life. The matter of health—meaning the permanent damage to the health of the mother if she went through with her pregnancy—was brought up. It seemed to me that the mother would have the right to protect herself from permanent damage just as she would be able to protect herself, even if it meant taking a life, from someone threatening her with mayhem, so I agreed to that provision. I thought there was adequate provision in the bill requiring responsible boards in the medical profession to declare such permanent harm would follow the birth of the child. Perhaps it was my inexperience in government, but, like so many pieces of legislation, there were loopholes that I had not seen, and the thing that made the California abortion bill become somewhat permissive in nature was violation of the spirit of the legislation by the groups that were supposed to police it. This was particularly true in the case of psychiatrists. If faced with the same problem today, I can assure you I would make sure there were no loopholes in the bill....
At the point that he signed the bill, Ronald Reagan was adamantly pro-life. Romney had said, in his previous incarnation, that he would support Roe v. Wade, abortion on demand, no matter what. Reagan said that he would support abortion only if it would save the mother's life and, in the extreme circumstance, health.
But as Reagan admitted, he had been snookered. Romney was not.
Note that Romney said that Reagan's soul searching came in the years following his signing of that bill, "as he experienced life." That is not the case. His soul searching came before he signed the bill, though his advocacy of life became stronger as infants became more threatened.
Look, Mitt Romney might be the most pro-life politician in the whole wide world right now. We have no way of knowing for certain. Mitt Romney may be many splendored things, but Mitt Romney is no Ronald Reagan. In any sense.
Mitt Romney will have to solve his abortion dilemma on his own. If his campaign staff directed him to compare himself to Ronald Reagan on abortion, he ought to seriously review their employment with his campaign. Referring to Ronald Reagan as having ever been "adamantly pro-choice" is a terrible mistake.
What he said this morning was awful.
Reagen shouldn't have been called adamantly pro - choice. But also I think you are stretching things to say he was adamantly pro -life when he signed the bill. Adamantly pro - life people don't agree with exceptions for rape and incest or for health, those are people that are somewhere in the middle.
For me to say that Reagan was "adamantly pro-life" when he signed the 1967 bill was to misuse the modifier. He did not become adamant until later.
Yes, one could be adamantly pro-life with the exceptions you listed. One could be pro-life in all cases but not adamantly.
There are several things I would have preferred to have put differently in the above piece, but I had just seen the transcript. In my notes, I had jotted that Romney called Reagan "adamantly pro-choice" as governor, but I gave him the benefit of the doubt that I had misheard. I did not want to accuse him of having said that only to have to be corrected.
One thing I forgot to mention was the different eras in which Reagan signed the bill allowing life and health exceptions after twenty weeks and when Romney pledged to fight for abortion on demand.
And I did not emphasize that I'm willing to take Romney at his word on his conversion. My problem is the Reagan comparison.
I'm willing to take Romney at his word on his conversion.
And may I interest you in purchasing a bridge for sale down in Brooklyn? I can getcha a great price.
Come on, a guy who flips
(1) just in time for the primary race,
(2) from one extreme to another (and with such passion and supposed conviction on one side then and on the other side now),
(3) on several issues,
(4) with all the flips in the direction that is politically beneficial,
can hardly be believed to have had sincere conversions.
If people like his current positions, fine. But it's beyond me how people can suspend their common sense and normal healthy skepticism and believe he has had a sincere conversion of conviction. I get the sense that some pro-lifers are so glad to see someone "see the light" (and so reluctant to criticize someone who has joined the pro-life side) that they are letting it cloud their judgment re: Romney's sincerity.
Romney's a very intelligent guy with excellent executive experience and record in both the private and public sector. But sincerity is not a trait he can legitimately claim.
I have no problem with people picking a different candidate than Romney in the primary, but lets get on the same page when it comes to the general if he wins (not saying you were implying anything else).
Personally, I am also not worried on this issue. I think with Mitt we'll get the judges we want and need.
(3) on several issues,
The guy flipped on abortion. As far as I can see, exactly once. Did we know his position on abortion prior to 1994? Everyone concedes that, even him if you get past his dumb attempts to prevaricate on it. He is a politician so I generally take everything he says with a grain of salt, but that doesn't mean it is beyond the realm of possibility that he simply changed his mind.
Heck, I'm still not certain he's really changed his mind. I wouldn't bet on it. But I do believe that a pro-life person can confidently vote for Romney knowing that he is well aware that crossing us means he's not winning a second term.
The only other thing I've seen him accused of flipping on is gay marriage - your pet issue. And that is actually not true. The man said he supported gay rights in 1994 (i.e. when the subject then was simply about non-discrimination) which has somehow transmogrified into support for full-blown gay marriage because today's subject is that.
I may be wrong so you can educate me ... but this incredible hostility you've shown towards the guy is a little ... off-putting.
George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.
See my replies to Quentin for info re: flips.
Re: my hostility toward Romney, if you believed, as I firmly do, that a candidate was a shameless flipper, the quintessential phony politican, the embodiment of everything we say we hate about politicians, who either abandons deep convictions for the sake of political ambition or has no convictions, would you emphatically brand him a phony on related threads on RedState? Would that be inappropriate or even undesirable? You can disagree with me (and with a heck of a lot of other people) on my view of Romney as a big-time flipper, but I don't think you can rightly criticize me for criticizing a candidate as I have if indeed he fits the description. And I've seen some pretty harsh things said about McCain and others, so let's have a single standard.
And speaking of single standards, what makes gay marriage my "pet issue"? I've never posted on my diary on that issue. Who did? YOU! What I have done is comment on threads initiated by others, as I assume you have as well. So what makes gay marriage my pet issue and not yours? The fact that I disagree with most RedStaters in those threads? Interesting standard you've got there. And by the way, at some point I may post on the issue, if only just to provide one somewhat compreshensive collection of all my thoughts and refutations of all the arguments against equal marriage rights/opportunity for gays.
Come on, a guy who flips
(1) just in time for the primary race,
You are welcome to be suspcious of the timing.
(2) from one extreme to another (and with such passion and supposed conviction on one side then and on the other side now),
This is simply untrue. He promised to uphold Massachusetts law as it is written. At no time did he say he was an enthusiast for abortion. I am not aware that he ever said he liked the law, just that he would make no effort to change it. If that is your definition of an extreme position on the issue, I would like to introduce you to the Democrats.
(3) on several issues,
Name one other.
(4) with all the flips in the direction that is politically beneficial,
Unless you have an answer to (3), this makes no sense.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
Gotta call you on your calling me on it. It seems you're not that familiar with Romney's past vs. his present. I don't have time tonight to answer fully (I have a number of comments to reply to on a few threads when I can find time), but for now, re: #2, haven't you seen how passionate he was in his pro-choice position in the 1994 debate http://youtube.com/watch?v=a9IJUkYUbvI and in the 2002 debate http://youtube.com/watch?v=P_w9pquznG4 ???
On #3 and #4, again, I suggest you do a bit of research, but when I have a chance I'll provide some info. On another thread several weeks ago I laid out quite a bit of info, so when I have a chance I'll try to find it.
Recommended reading http://www.redstate.com/blogs/kowalski/2007/jun/25/thinking_of_romney#co... Read that comment and links and then follow the thread down for additional comments and links.
I don't have time to watch all of those videos just now, but I would be surprised if you, alone, have uncovered something which has eluded the myriad of other people who have been researching Romney.
Your first youtube video confirms exactly what I said about abortion. He has never been an enthusiast. He used to hold that view that it was wrong for the government to try to prevent abortions. He has changed his mind. That's one flip which has been acknowledged by the campaign and which you mischaracterised when you said it was from one extreme to another.
I know people have been scrabbling around to try to find some contradiction between his statements on gay issues. Did you find one? I have never seen one, and people have been posting this nonsense here the whole time I have been a member. He said he was an advocate of gay rights in 1994 and now he is opposed to gay marriage. It's a FLIP. Er, no, it is two different comments on two different issues.
Just tell me another issue, apart from government regulation of abortion, on which Romney has changed his mind.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
Are you going to accuse Ronald Reagan of flipping on gay issues? After all, he opposed an initiative to ban gay people from teaching jobs in California, and then he maintained a ban on gay people in the military for 8 years as CinC. That's a flip, right? Or, it would be if he were Mitt Romney.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
You really should do a bit of research (at least what I've handed to you) before persisting with the charge that I'm making an unsubstantiated claim about his flips.
As for abortion, you're missing the point. I never said he loved abortion (heck, who IS an abortion "enthusiast"??). His flip is from being a very passionate defender of "a woman's right to choose" to being politically strongly pro-life and expressing passion on that opposite view.
Re: gay issues, how about saying in 1994 that Clinton's "don't ask don't tell" was a "step in the right direction" toward the goal of gays being able to serve openly in the military. http://online.logcabin.org/assets/pdf/romneylettertomalogcabin1994.pdf I don't have a current quote handy (to link to) on his current position, but I don't think he still holds that position.
Re: "I would be surprised if you, alone, have uncovered something which has eluded the myriad of other people who have been researching Romney."
I really suggest that you stop and and least review the info I've provided in convenient form before continuing to say that Romney's flips are some illusion. I'm still strapped for time today so can't spend a lot of time discussing this topic and those on other threads (maybe tonight or tomorrow), but maybe in the meantime you can view/read the info at those links. And remember to scroll down that thread for more comments and links.
You have a much better grasp of logic and sequiturs than you have shown in this debate.
First, a point of protocol. To suggest that I need to do some research is ridiculous. You were the one who made the allegation of serial flip flops. I just asked what subjects, other than abortion, Romney has changed his mind on. You are the one who needs to justify the charges you are making. What am I supposed to do? Review everything he has ever said to prove a negative.
A list of links does not justify your charges. I do appreciate that you are short of time. You probably have a life. But if you don't have time to respond properly, just say so.
A decent response would be to say on date X he said A whereas on date Y he said 'A is a load of rubbish'. Please note, it is not enough to note that on date Y he said B, unless B directly contradicts A.
I have now had time to review the links you posted. Nothing comes close to demonstrating serial flip flops. Just one flip, long acknowledged, from saying that he would not try to change Massachusetts law on abortion to saying that he now thinks it should change.
Let’s look at these one at a time.
Abortion: you have provided nothing new except your own spin. You describe both his previous position and his current one as extreme. I don’t know where that is coming from. He was proposing no change in the law, and I don’t know where you detected a ‘passion’ for the pro-choice position. He consistently rejected the label and made it very clear that he did not like abortion. He just didn’t want to change the law. The ‘passion’ and ‘extremism’ are your descriptions. I don’t they are justified by your cites.
Campaign finance: there’s nothing here worth discussing. At one time he was supported one thing and at another time he opposed another. That is not a flip.
A gay commission in MA: you have found some back and forth between the governor and the state legislature and someone from California who is prepared to criticise Romney. No actual policies on which he changed his mind were identified.
Immigration: you have found a press release from a group that wanted Romney to clarify his position. It seems that at some point he said some positive things about a major bill with many clauses and later said he opposed it. In the first instance there were no direct quotes, so we are given no clue as to what elements of the bill Romney might have supported.
Healthcare: you have found a blogger who is critical of Romney’s healthcare plan in MA. No flip identified or even discussed, except in a headline that is not borne out by the text below. The website does not even acknowledge that the US has a federal constitution and that it might even be reasonable for a person to support a policy being pursued by a state government and at the same time reject the same policy for the federal government. Not that this website goes any way towards demonstrating that Romney has done even that.
Immigration again: as before.
Immigration video: A little more detail this time. Romney describes some aspects of the immigration as ‘reasonable proposals’ that are being considered. No flip identified.
Don’t-ask-don’t-tell: he once described it as a step in the right direction and now says he supports it. My goodness, what an enormous shift! By the way, you mischaracterised what he said. He didn’t, in his letter to the Log Cabin Club, said he thought DADT should lead to gays openly serving in the military. He said it will lead there. Not the same thing.
Guns: no contradiction or change in Romney’s position identified. The article did refer to other ‘changes’ such as opposing gay marriage when having previously sought the endorsement of LCR. This is not a flip.
The Boston Globe wrote an article criticising him. Good. It talks about his change of view on abortion and mentions some other issues without bothering with any direct quotes.
And finally, an expired link on the Union Leader. Maybe that contained all the examples you were thinking of.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
Re: protocal, your point is well taken inasmuch as I should at least have listed on which issues he has flipped (although not necessarily with any specifics or detail at the moment if I'm short on time, as I was and still am). Problem is I'm reluctant to do so until I have time to re-check for what claims I have links with quotes, etc. I've read/seen enough to be confident that the guy is a serial flipper, but was not sure how much I have time to document.
As for your review above, if you've really reviewed all my links, I think you are bending over backward repeatedly to give him the benefit of the doubt. I'll try to find time to discuss more fully sometime within the next day or two, but for now I do want to say I really can't understand how you could watch the videos of the 1994 and 2002 debates and not say that he was passionate about "a woman's right to choose" (by those words and other similar terms). Bear in mind, too, that in 1994 he was running for U.S. Senate, not governor. Are you seriously saying that he didn't express passion and strong conviction that abortion should be legal?? Please watch that 1994 debate video again and tell me that with a straight face. And I'm talking about his political position, not his personal feelings (come on, how many Democrats and other solidly pro-choice politicians say they are personally against abortion but are strongly committed to keeping it legal, and does anyone say they LIKE abortion?).
And on gays serving openly in the military, again, come on, my friend. Re-read that paragraph in that letter to the Log Cabin Republicans. To say that I mischaracterized what he said is, well, a mischaracterization of what I said. Romney wrote that Clinton's "don't ask, don't tell" was "a step in the right direction" and "the first in a number of steps that will ultimately lead to gays and lesbians being able to serve openly in our nation's military", and said that that goal will be reached when "preventing discrimination against gays and lesbians is a mainstream concern, which is a goal we share." Please apply your usual good judgment in assessing what Romney's message was there. Per Romney, it was a step in the right direction which will lead ultimately to gays serving openly in the military once others (the mainstream) shared
his goal of remedying the "discrimination" that still existed. It really takes quite an effort to try to parse what he said in any way to suggest that he wasn't expressing the hope and the goal of gays eventually serving openly in the military. Really. This is an even clearer case of obvious meaning than in our last disagreement of this nature http://www.redstate.com/stories/featured_stories/the_new_class_envy_part... (follow dialogue from there down to where Next93 responds). I'm not referencing that dialogue to be petty or needling, just to point out that you should sometimes give more thought to reasonable interpretation rather than how a defense attorney might parse his client's words hoping to create reasonable doubt (you should especially do so before accusing someone of "mischaracterizing" someone else's statement).
On immigration, from the reporting I heard (repeatedly) a couple of months ago during the immigration debate, the earlier bill that Romney said sounded reasonable was even weaker on illegal immigrants than the one Romney denounced as "amnesty", which he defined in that clip completely differently than he did as he denounced the ultimate McCain-Kennedy bill.
I really should stop checking this thread for the next several hours due to workload, but we'll see how much self-control I have today. Hopefully sometime in the next couple of days I can get add to this, as well as respond to much to which I'm eager to respond on other threads.
I do appreciate that you have limited time.
Re abortion: I detected clarity, but no particular passion on this. He set out his position: that it should be legal. I do realise, of course, that this is purely a matter of opinion.
Gays in the military: I do agree there is an implication that he would like to see gay people serving openly in the military at some point. I was making it clear that he did not actually say this, it is implied. I think, to convict of flippery, you need something more specific. I am not aware that he has backed away from this. For all I know it is still his position that gay people will one day serve openly in the military, and he may well welcome this. As it happens, this is my own position. I have not formed a view on when it is practicable for this happen and I know that at the moment it would meet formidable resistance. In the meantime I am happy to support DADT. All you have provided is two quotes with a slightly different emphasis both of which could describe my own position on this and both of which are consistent with several other nuances. They do not contradict each other in any way.
Immigration If he supported an earlier bill at all, that is not demonstrated by any of your links. What that showed was him being asked a question about a bill and saying that one aspect of that proposal was something that sounded reasonable. There was no wholesale endorsement of any bill and only a tentative welcoming of discussions around the subject. It sounded to me like a rather unformed view. If I put a proposal to someone and they say "that sounds reasonable", I don't think I have them sold on it. I think we are still in the area of discussing things and pinning down a firm agreement. He did say that it differed from a full amnesty though. If you have an example of him describing substantially the same proposal as an amnesty at a later date I will concede that he changed his rhetoric on the issue.
I really don't think I am bending over backwards to make allowances for this guy. I am not on his team. I am currently leaning a different way. It does seem to me that in this thread - and at other times you have commented on this candidate - you are the one who is going out of your way to find flip flops that you just can't document.
You are not the only person trying to make this case. The allegation has been rehearsed here many times. While I don't know the man, and for all I know he has changed his mind multiple times on every issue there is, you have managed to document this on exactly one issue one time. That is exactly the same number of flips other people have been able to document and exactly the number that Romney has acknowledged.
Every other example is down to statements being made on different issues or to statments that are mutually consistent but have a different emphasis.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
Maybe individual flip-flops can be explained away, but in the end Romney is still a totally different person today from the guy who debated Kennedy in 1994. It's not just about abortion. I don't think it disqualifies him, but it is a concern.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
First, I fully respect your demand for evidence rather than just labels or claims from me or reporters or columnists or anyone.
Where I really don't understands is how you could interpret what I've presented in such an extraordinarily charitable way (to Romney). It's as if you are asking if there's any reasonable doubt, like he's on trial for the crime of flip-floppery, and even then I don't think he meets that burden based on even just what I've presented. How, for example, can you possibly view that 1994 debate and not see him expressing (supposed) passion and deep conviction behind his commitment to legal abortion?? I really don't get it. Some things are indeed a matter of opinion, and technically this is of course, but I don't see how in the world you can say that you don't see passion or an expression of deep conviction.
_Gays in the military: I do agree there is an implication that he would like to see gay people serving openly in the military at some point. I was making it clear that he did not actually say this, it is implied. I think, to convict of flippery, you need something more specific._
I hope you're not really suggesting that such a clear implication (as that in Romney's letter) doesn't qualify for our purposes here -- to assess if someone flipped on an issue. If that's what you're saying, I have to think you haven't stepped back and really though about it, unless again your standard is that of a criminal court (beyond a reasonable doubt), and even then I don't think a jury would have much doubt. As for his current position, it is indeed fair for you to ask how different it is. As far as I know, what he says now is that we are at war and gays serving openly would be a bad idea at this time and he leaves it at that, rather than saying whether or not it is still his ultimate goal or hope. Perhaps he is simply saying what he's saying, believes we are in an exceptional period (at war) and still has the same ultimate goal but is not saying so anymore (because he's not running in Massachusetts now) or perhaps he is copping out with a convenient excuse. I'll bet you that if he's asked directly about his ultimate goal he won't repeat what he said to the Log Cabin Republicans, but I realize a prediction doesn't count here.
On immigration, I don't have details handy, but again, I've read that the bill he was referring to in that clip was LESS tough on illegal immigrants than the ultimate McCain-Kennedy bill that he denounced as "an amnesty bill", and he described that previous legislation as "reasonable" while describing McCain-Kennedy in quite opposite terms. And he kept calling it "amnesty" despite the fact that he specifically defined amnesty in that previous clip in a way that would NOT apply to McCain-Kennedy.
I'm not sure if I want to invest all the time it seems I'd need to have even a chance of convincing you on this matter. For now at least, let me just say this. We have an expression (don't know if you have it across the pond, but if not, let me know your equivalent), that "if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck". Put another way, an abundance of circumstantial evidence can be quite probative even if each piece individually is not. Maybe some extremely charitable parsing of statements can be done and some unusually high standard of proof (for our purposes) such that for each statement within each issue some shred of doubt can be raised, but at some point it's fair and appropriate to conclude that a duck is a duck.
Final note: you seem to suggest some bias on my part in interpreting Romney as a flip-flopper, but that is largely putting the cart before the horse. It is precisely BECAUSE I'm apalled at his flipping that I dislike him and think him unworthy of the presidency. Perhaps you could argue that I'm resistant to changing my mind now that I've taken a strong position (due to cognitive dissonance, pride, etc.), but the key fact is that I first concluded that he was a shameless flipper based on a lot of info and fact-checking, mostly done months ago.
Where I really don't understands is how you could interpret what I've presented in such an extraordinarily charitable way (to Romney).
I don't think I have. You seem to think I am showing some sort of bias here, though you react strongly to an implication that you might have some biases of your own. All I am asking for is actual evidence. I am looking at his statements to see if I can find a contradiction, not a change of emphasis, which is just common senses when addressing a different electorate, a contradiction.
I hope you are not suggesting that a change of emphasis itself is problematic. That would be like saying you should give the same speech to all audiences rather than, say, talking about medicare to seniors and military matters to vets. These different speeches should be compatible one with another, but they are sure to stress different things.
Abortion: let's just agree to differ.
Gays in the military: I think we are basically there. You have conceded that the two statements we are talking about are not contradictory. They have a different emphasis, as any candidate would talking at a different time to a different audience. You don't have to like it, but it is nothing like a duck.
Immigration: I was commenting only on the evidence you presented, not what you have heard. He may well have changed his views, but you haven't presented any evidence to that effect. Regarding the word 'amnesty', if he was using it to describe McCain-Kennedy, then it does sound as though he has changed the way he uses that word. Is that a flip-flop? It is not quite the same order of magnitude as voting for £87 billion before he voted against it.
So, we have narrowed it down to three issues, once we have hacked away the garbage of various journalists' and bloggers' opinions.
One, he acknowledges a change - you regard it as an especially egregious one from one extreme to another.
Two, there is no evidence that his position has changed in any way at all.
Three, he seems to have changed the way he uses a word. (I haven't seen the evidence, but you seem very sure of it, so I will accept it arguendo). There is a change of emphasis. No evidence of an actual change in position though. No instance of him supporting a proposition at one point and then opposing the same proposition. Just evidence that he leaned towards a proposition at one point and then opposed a similar one later.
Finally, yes, I am holding you to a very high standard of evidence here. It is deliberate and it is in accord with the strength and frequency with which you (and others) make this charge against him. If you were saying that you don't altogether trust him because it seems as though he is all things to all voters, that's one thing. But you have specifically said that he is a serial flip-flopper: that he has changed his policy positions (not just rhetoric) on issue after issue. You have still provided evidence of just one policy change (on abortion) plus one rhetorical shift (on immigration).
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
By the way, I have mixed feelings regarding gays serving openly in the military, and I lean against it, at least in roles in which there may be substantial privacy concerns (justified or not) on the part of heterosexual troops (e.g., barracks). After all, I assume the military doesn't have co-ed barracks and showers, and presumably there's a reason for that. I think the military is a unique institution in the sense that (1) so much is asked of our troops and (2) its role is so vital to our nation that its effectiveness -- and anything that can interfere with it -- should be by far the primary consideration. I realize that similar arguments could have been made (and probably were) against racial integration of the military, and I'd have to say that even there I'd have to weigh pro's and con's from an effectiveness perspective (intially and over the long-term) first and foremost.
And don't forget, Reagan only came out the closet in 1975 conveniently when he started his 1976 run for the Presidency. So Mitt changed in 2 years ahead of the process and yet Reagan changed under 1 year ahead of his run.
And yet, Reagan saw the effects of the law he signed, but he did nothing about it when he was Governor? That is hardly a pro-life stance. In fact, Romney actually vetoed legislation, whereas Reagan signed legislation.
And thanks for the shout-out, although, to my eternal inconvenience, my name actually is Tomlinson rather than Thomas. (Don't get me started about my unpronounceable last name.) Just call me Tom, though.
As I think I've mentioned before, the idea that Reagan was pro-choice is a fairly common misconception, and hence a forgivable one amongst those who have not looked closely at the matter. However, to describe his as "adamantly pro-choice" is an entirely new one, completely unsupported either by the evidence or by any published account. It may have just been a slip of the tongue, but if Romney persists in using this line, "liar" would not be too strong a word.
But it's unfortunate that Romney uses this line of defense anyway, since it clearly indicates that he has no understanding of why people are concerned with his change of position on abortion. He is treating the flip-flop issue as if he is being accused of violating some arbitrary rule of politics about when you can or cannot change your mind about something. But that is not it at all. The underlying concern in all this is whether or not Romney is trustworthy—whether or not, that is, he is telling the truth when he says he is pro-life.
Romney has to know at this point—and if he does not, his advisors are not doing their jobs—that there is some dispute, at the least, as to whether Reagan was ever pro-choice at all, much less "adamantly" so. And it should be clear that pro-lifers (i.e., the very people he is purportedly trying to convince that he is really pro-life) would be particularly likely to believe the contrary. Therefore, Romney is trying to convince people that he is not a liar by telling them something that they believe is untrue. I cannot fathom why he thinks that this is a good idea, since there are literally millions of Americans who have actually changed their minds in precisely the same manner that he purports to have done, and verifiably so.
Furthermore, in trying to establish that he is trustworthy in this, Romney is implicitly calling Reagan a liar, since, whatever the truth of the matter, Reagan himself denied that he was ever pro-choice, and would have adamantly denied that he was ever adamantly so. So we hit another paradox: Romney is trying to establish his truthfulness by comparing himself to a liar, and he is basking in the glow of someone whose own account he thinks unworthy of credit.
You're right. Romney really needs to find another way of dealing with this.
With due respect, Mark, your reaction strikes me as a little bit over the top. We don't need to be looking for reasons to savage our own candidates. So Romney said "adamantly," when he should have said... what? merely that Reagan signed what proved to be an extremely liberal abortion law?
You may not like the characterization, and it may not be the best possible, but it's hardly uncommon, even (especially?) in conservative circles. For example, in the conservative New York Sun, Eli Lake recently wrote, "When Reagan was governor of California, he was pro-choice." Or as Jim Bopp, longtime General Counsel to National Right to Life (a genuine conservative and a Romney supporter) recently wrote in National Review, "Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush, both pro-life presidents, were converts. In 1967, Reagan, as governor of California, signed into law the nation’s most permissive abortion law, and, in 1980, Bush ran as an unabashedly pro-choice candidate." The "nation's most permissive abortion law." Perhaps we can forgive this as being characterized as "adamantly" pro-choice.
So let's just relax. In Mitt Romney we have a great pro-life candidate. There are more than a few pro-choice candidates out there that might be better targets.
I hate outrage in politics.
Brad Smith
Professor of Law
Capital University Law School
Capital University website
Center for Competitive Politics website
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
under the strictures of Roe v. Wade, but it was considered liberal compared to the previous law from 1876. Someone writes that Governor Reagan signed a liberal abortion law. Someone else determines that he must then be pro-choice. Someone else writes that he changed his mind. Romney declares tacitly that Reagan supported abortion on demand.
None of this is true, but you see how this misinformation gets dragged around from source to source. No one checks it; they merely repeat.
You know that I'm not one who usually knows outrage, and I'm not certain that this is where I am now. What I saw was Mitt Romney declare that he was just like Ronald Reagan, who once was "avidly pro-choice." Ronald Reagan was never pro-choice, and there's nothing avid there.
Mitt Romney repeated the lie. If it was by mistake, a possibility for which I allowed, then a retraction and an apology will do. If it was knowing and deliberate, he needs to be called on it.
If Romney says he's pro-life, fine. That's between him and his God. (Who is also my God.) I wish he would not have slandered the late President. That's my gripe, Brad.
Certainly no more than it is to say, as you do, that Reagan was "never pro-choice." He was Mark. Maybe not "adamantly," though adjectives often mean different things to different people, and maybe not without reservations, but he was. You want to put this in the "context of the time." Within the context of the time, when abortion was illegal just about everywhere and there was no Roe v. Wade, the abortion bill that Reagan chose to sign is all the more "pro-choice."
I don't think you usually are full of outrage, which is why this overreaction surprises me. Let's go after the pro-choice candidates, not after the pro-lifers for not being holy enough at every turn of a phrase. Gee, maybe Romney just didn't study every element of Reagan's conversion as closely as you have. I'm not sure that fits into the "lie," "slander," or "insult" categories. In fact, you haven't even convinced me it's inaccurate.
Best,
Brad Smith
Professor of Law
Capital University Law School
Capital University website
Center for Competitive Politics website
But as one academic to another, "adamantly" is an adverb.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
You might have the resources to help clear this up, professor. If you can, find the language of California's 1967 Therapeutic Abortion Act. Is it a pro-choice measure?
The ACLU of Northern California holds:
A progressive measure 35 years ago, the Therapeutic Abortion Act now is archaic, confusing, and unconstitutional. A lawyer researching the Health and Safety Code today would read that abortion is legal only if a hospital committee determines that the pregnancy will gravely impair a woman’s physical or mental health or a District Attorney concludes that the pregnancy probably resulted from rape or incest.
If that's the case, the measure was not pro-choice and neither was the governor. Pro-choice implies the right of a woman to decide whether or not she wants to abort her child. You know the lines about her body, her choice, invading her womb, etc. Governor Reagan did not go for any of that, and he offered the woman no real choice to abort. The exceptions listed above are ones acceptable to many who are pro-life.
Again, Ronald Reagan was in no way pro-choice.
Mitt Romney has cavalierly repeated the old untruth that Reagan was pro-choice and had to see the light. This is not the case. What I would like is for Romney to disavow this lie, to set the record straight. To cavalierly tell the world that Ronald Reagan was adamantly pro-choice is a self-serving lie, one on which Romney would be called if the President were alive today and able to defend himself.
Taking on the pro-choice candidates will not be a simple task, as this country is divided on whether or not an unborn baby is a human life. We had better have our own house in order first, and as long as this slander of the late President is perpetuated by our Presidential candidates, or even us, the harder this more difficult this task will be.
If Mitt Romney wants to explain his change of heart on abortion, he had better do it without Ronald Reagan. The two have nothing in common on his issue. He can do it on his own, say he came to his new conclusion after talking to a panel of experts. Whatever. Leave Ronald Reagan out of this.
when a candidate perverts history to make his own background seem better. If a candidate is willing to lie his way into office, how can you trust ANY of his stated positions?
Quoting a Romney supporter to argue that Reagan is a convert isn't really helping your case here. I've no problem with saying that Reagan wasn't adamantly pro-life. Heck, just look at his Supreme Court appointments. But it's simply lying to call him adamantly pro-choice.
...at the time when he signed the most liberal abortion law in the country.
Did he crusade for the bill? Did he fight for it to be passed in the legislature? I don't know because I wasn't born until a couple months before his election.
But neither did Mitt Romney.
Mitt Romney campaigned for Governor promising stasis in the state's abortion laws, and that's exactly what he achieved. And in Massachusetts, that's a feat in and of itself.
If there is a line to be concerned about Mitt Romney on, it is his healthcare policy - not his stance on abortion or even, I believe, the judges that he would nominate.
What about Governor Reagan was pro-abortion? Nothing at all. The law he signed led to a large increase in the number of abortions performed, but he did not sign the legislation because he thought women have a right to choose to abort their babies.
Mitt Romney called Governor Reagan "adamantly pro-choice," and my gripe is with that alone. It has nothing to do with Romney's own position on abortion, except that he did not reach it in the same manner as did Reagan and Reagan was no a pro-choice governor.
Whether he intended to sign the most permissive abortion law in the nation at the time or not, Ronald Reagan did, unfortunately. So he FUNCTIONALLY was the most pro-abortion governor in the nation, regardless of his personal feelings on the issue.
Heck, I'd vote for a pro-choice governor if I thought I could bank on him accidentally signing inordinately strong pro-life legislation because while he would be pro-choice in his heart of hearts, he'd be FUNCTIONALLY pro-life. Never seems to work that way, though.
Mark, I see your gripe with the "adamantly" pro-choice label, even if he was "functionally" pro-choice.
On this matter, I can't really speak since I barely knew life before Ronald Reagan was president. I would need to see more than a passage from Ronald Reagan's autobiogragphy though. I'd need to see statements from around the time that the law was passed.
But I also agree that if Mitt is going to use the label, then HE should have that information and not just use the term "adamantly pro-choice" carelessly.
For Ronald Reagan to have been a pro-abortion governor, he would have had to have signed a bill in order to increase access to abortions because he thought abortions were a right.
Ronald Reagan did not do this. The law he signed was not permissive in the sense of pro-choice: abortion as a right, abortion as a choice, abortion on demand. He signed a bill which would have allowed abortions only after 20 weeks when it was not really a choice. How it was eventually used does not bear on Governor Reagan when he signed the bill.
Until I find out more information from this time period (and it's not exactly high on my list of priorities) I can't really engage in further discussion on this topic.
I will say this, though - the permissive abortion law that Reagan signed was at least one more permissive abortion law than Mitt Romney signed.
"permissive abortion law." If a State were to pass it today, it would be called a Draconian anti-abortion law.
Mitt Romney came out years ago in support of abortion on demand, but that is not my problem with him. He says he has corrected that.
My problem with Mitt Romney is that he called Ronald Reagan "adamantly pro-choice," or even pro-choice, and trying to use him to excuse his own former views.
And I'll repeat, Mitt Romney is no Ronald Reagan.
It wasn't an excuse. He was just pointing out that with time and experience peoples views do change. Like his seem to have. I wouldn't call it an excuse.
Thompson/Rice 2008 and Beyond!
A couple of commenters on this thread have asserted that Reagan signed the "most permissive" or "most liberal" abortion law in the nation as of 1967. Say what you will about Reagan's intentions in signing the bill, but it is inaccurate to describe it so. The bill he signed was based on model legislation passed in a number of states around this period, but Reagan insisted on restrictions that were not present in the model legislation and were not passed in any other state. Specifically, he insisted that the provision allowing for abortions in the case of fetal deformity be removed, under threat of a certain veto. This ensured that the California law, while more permissive that what preceded it, was more restrictive than the abortion laws in other states.
Of course, it is unclear why someone who was pro-choice in the modern sense of the term would insist on such a thing. Nor is it clear why the same pro-choicer would struggle with the decision of whether to sign the law, even with this provision having been removed. (It is well attested that Reagan was very hesitant to sign the bill, and only did so under enormous political pressure.) I happen to think that the simplest explanation for these facts is that Reagan was not, in fact, pro-choice. But again, whatever one makes of this, one cannot truthfully say that he signed "the nation’s most permissive abortion law."
(And thanks for the correction on my name, Mark. Much appreciated.)
...to call him a liar. There are several posts here at Redstate
in which people believe that Reagan was Pro-choice and changed to Pro-life. It may be that Romney honestly believes this and it came out in an interview. Intentional liar or misinformed?
I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.
Thompson/Rice 2008 and Beyond!
It wouldn't be any more of an endorsement if that was the case.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
You seem to think I am showing some sort of bias here, though you react strongly to an implication that you might have some biases of your own.
I haven’t said or implied that you’re biased. I’m saying that for some reason in this case, as in that other thread from a few weeks back, you apparently have a burden of proof akin to proof beyond a reasonable doubt (and beyond, in this case, re: that letter to Log Cabin Republicans and re: passion in that 1994 debate) rather than a standard of what seems highly likely, and per this standard you reject anything that is short of an explicit statement that “I am 100% for policy A” and then “I am 100% against policy A”.
All I am asking for is actual evidence.
As I said previously, I fully respect that.
I hope you are not suggesting that a change of emphasis itself is problematic.
A change of emphasis while maintaining the same or similar position is not problematic. But where a candidate has substantially shifted positions, in assessing the likelihood that sincerity in his supposed shift of beliefs, the passion and depth of conviction and commitment expressed previously toward to the old position (and toward the new one) is indeed relevant (as opposed to someone who seemed not to have reflected deeply on an issue back then or who had not expressed strong commitment to a position).
Abortion: let's just agree to differ.
In many cases, agreeing to disagree is ok, but in this case, I have to say that if you’re still not seeing passion and an expression of deep conviction and commitment to defending legal abortion in that 1994 debate then I don’t know what in the world he would have had to do to give you that impression. You’re really off on this one.
Gays in the military: … it is nothing like a duck.
Just to be clear, as I explained previously, the “duck” analogy/expression relates to an accumulation of pieces of evidence, not one piece of evidence that settles the issue. Granted, the gays in the military is not the stronges piece of evidence because to my knowledge he has not said anything to contradict his previously stated aspiration for gays to serve openly in the military, but it’s not completely devoid of evidentiary value because in one case (1994 letter) he expressed a strong commitment to it but at best today, by
omission when asked about it, he has backed off from that supposedly strong commitment and instead just focused on it not being appropriate because we are at war. Very convenient.
Immigration: … Regarding the word 'amnesty', if he was using it to describe McCain-Kennedy, then it does sound as though he has changed the way he uses that word. Is that a flip-flop? It is not quite the same order of magnitude as voting for £87 billion before he voted against it.
I think you are missing something here. He repeatedly and emphatically denounced McCain-Kennedy as “an amnesty bill” in the debate(s) and elsewhere, despite the fact that he explicitly denied (11/30/05 per the YouTube audio clip) that similar provisions would constitute amnesty (He said that amnesty would mean that all the illegal immigrants would instantly be made citizens and that the proposed legislation did not do that). And he went from calling “reasonable” proposed legislation which I understand was even weaker on illegal immigrants to denouncing McCain-Kennedy as practically the worst thing imaginable that could happen to this country – just coincidentally while the Republican base was up in arms about McCain-Kennedy and he could score major points by taking such a posiiton.
By the way, if I recall correctly, the $87 billion legislation that Kerry voted for was different from the one he voted against (and Republicans voted against the first and for the second), so you may want to change your example of clear flipping.
So, we have narrowed it down to three issues
NO. Perhaps I gave the wrong impression when I took the time to engage in discussion last night, but the issues and the evidence I offered in my comments was hardly exhaustive. I didn’t mean to imply that the points in my comments were all that could be drawn from all those links I provided, let alone other information. We’re talking a lot more time to cover this comprehensively. I hope you really did read and view all those links.
One, he acknowledges a change - you regard it as an especially egregious one from one extreme to another.
What he has, in my judgment, obviously done is to insincerely flip from one extreme to another on perhaps the greatest issue of conscience present for the sake of political ambition. I find his explanation for his supposed conversion implausible, given the explanation itself, the timing, his past expression of deep, long-held conviction on the issue, and his readiness to flip on other issues (although I realize you are not convinced of the last part and will therefore view that last part as circular reasoning if I’m using each to some extent to substantiate the other). I think you would agree, hypothetically if you wish, that it would be “egregious” for a presidential candidate to take a strong position on one end of the abortion debate when he believed the other was right.
Two, there is no evidence that his position has changed in any way at all.
Well, there is not strong evidence, but what he has done on gays in the military is change his policy preference but do so ostensibly because we are at war now, and deliberately omit any reference to the ultimate goal of gays serving openly that he expressed as a conviction in that 1994 letter.
Three… No instance of him supporting a proposition at one point and then opposing the same proposition. Just evidence that he leaned towards a proposition at one point and then opposed a similar one later.
Another example of an excessively high standard for evidence to have any weight in your view in assessing whether or not a candidate has flipped on an issue.
Finally, yes, I am holding you to a very high standard of evidence here. It is deliberate and it is in accord with the strength and frequency with which you (and others) make this charge against him.
Completely fair and appropriate (and good) for you to demand substantiation. But it’s one thing to demand substantiation that meets the standard, cumulatively, as a whole, of making something appear highly likely, and it’s another to parse each statement in such a way as to construct some infinitesmal room for reasonable doubt as if he were on trial for a crime (e.g., your denial of his clear implication in that Log Cabin letter)
Finally, two things again. One is that if you did read and view all those links (including scrolling down that thread for links in comments after the initial one), you have seen that there is far more than what I have mentioned in my comments here. I understand if you want to remain skeptical until and unless a larger number of pieces of evidence are scrutinized and found to be valid to your satisfaction per the burden of proof you require (apparently beyond a reasonable doubt and then some) for any piece of evidence not to be completely disregarded, but even if meeting your standard is/were possible, it would take much more time than I have today and this week to even put a dent in the bulk of information. Second, again, don't just look individually at each piece of evidence and discard it if it isn't in itself proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he has flipped on that issue or point. Look at it cumulatively. Get the gestalt. I'm not saying to include evidence that is clearly invalid, but to include evidence that has some substantial value in terms of indications, probabilities, etc. re: flipping.
say that you thought I was bending over backwards to make allowances for him.
I think I should respond by saying that a) I don't believe I am doing that. I am trying to be fair; and b) you do seem on one or two of these issues to be trying to squeeze things in to an over-arching narrative, and some of them don't fit. I am sure you absolutely approached this trying to be reasonable. What worries me is that after you had decided he was a serial flipper, you were then prepared to look at any and every change of emphasis or rhetoric in a negative light. The problem is, I think that the initial evidence was weak.
I do look at these things cumulatively. But an accumulation requires more than three issues, especially when his position does not seem to have moved in the slightest on one of them.
You provided a very long list of links, but many of them were almost entirely devoid of content. I did look at all of them, except the one to the Union Leader which, while presumably good at the time you posted it, is now broken.
We really have got it down to three issues. The others were nothing of substance at all. And, let's be fair, if the subject is flip flops, the gays in the military thing is nothing either. You have, in good grace, conceded that none of his statements contradict eachother. I am not looking for some unreasonably high standard of proof here. Just evidence that his actual preferences have changed and not just the emphasis and the priorities.
I have entirely conceded that his letter the Log Cabin Club implies - and I am sure it was meant to imply - that he supports gay people serving openly in the military one day. I only called you on it because he does actually stop short of saying that explicitly. I have to say that if he were now to say that he does not believe that and never has, I would share your doubts about his sincerity. Because, although he stopped short of saying it before, there was clear intent to imply that.
But, as far as either of us knows, he has never contradicted that position. To say of DADT on one occasion "It is a step in the right direction" and on another "I support it" is a very long way from a contradiction. Any reasonable person could say both those things in the same speech without a hint of a contradiction. I am surprised you keep digging on thise one. I thought you had entirely conceded that there is no contradiction and no flip.
(By the way, I am very familiar with the duck phrase. My point is this: this one doesn't look like a duck, walk like a duck or quack like a duck. So, probably, it just isn't a duck.)
Abortion: I get it. You think his position was once extreme in one direction and now is extreme in another. But you get this from his manner not from his words. It seems to me that in 1994 he was plainly struggling with the issue. He stressed that it was a long-term view of his and of his family, but he also distanced himself from it at the same time. He was very clear that this was not a choice he would ever make himself, but he was committed to not preventing that choice for others by law. He was no evangelist for it. He did not attack others for holding a different view. (At least not in anything I have seen). He simply came down on one side of the debate about legal restrictions and shifted to the other. If you think this is passion or extremism you haven't seen a debate on this topic. Ardent pro-choicers argue that there are moral failings to the other side. They argue that the purpose of restricting abortion is keep women in the home. If Romney has ever done any of those things you have yet to provide the evidence. He also has not tried to make it a theme of his campaign on any occasion. A flip by Sam Brownback on abortion would be a major thing. A flip by Tom Tancredo on immigration would be. But this is a guy who answered questions on the topic because he had to. He didn't seek to prioritise it at all.
Immigration: yes he has changed his rhetoric. He may have changed his position. You have not cited any evidence to support this.
So we still have one flip, one time. It really is that simple. You are welcome to believe that this is the most important issue facing the US, and that it makes you doubt his sincerity on other issues. But that is insufficient to form any sort of case for serial flipping. Not beyond reasonable doubt. Not on the balance of probability either. Not even close.
How many times does someone have to change their minds to be a serial flipper? You started with about a dozen links, but it is still three issues. One long-acknowledged; one on which he appears to have had a wholly consistent position never contradicted; one on which he appears to have changed his rhetoric and could possibly have changed his position.
Now, I will absolutely concede that there are differences of judgement here. For one thing, none of these three issues is anywhere near the top of my priority list. If he had completely changed his position on free trade and changed his rhetoric on the war, perhaps I would be closer to where you are: looking at him very sceptically. But I wouldn't be accusing him of serial flips, because there just isn't the evidence to support that.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
Well, needless to say, I disagree markedly with your assessment and overall conclusion, for reasons we've discussed. I'm not willing, at least not today or in the next several days, to spend hours compiling and debating all the other information in those links plus other info. So I'll leave it there, at least for now, except to make one comment re: what you've just said re: abortion. I assume out of a misunderstanding rather than deliberately, you set up this straw man presuming that I was asserting that what he had flipped from was some personal opinion or set of opinions regarding abortion that I never attributed to him. My contention was that he passionately expressed deep conviction and commitment to defending and preserving legal abortion. Period. And now he takes the opposite position and expresses deep conviction behind that. I thought I made that clear, but you've persisted with that straw man for some reason.
Oh, and I said (and still say) you were "bending over backwards", but I wasn't implying favoratism toward Romney, but rather some desire to apply a burden of proof that I think is excessive for our purposes (and more appropriate for a criminal court).
Lastly, I think very few observers believe, as you apparently do, that there is little or no reason to believe that Romney has flipped on more than one issue. I'm certainly not argument that being correct is a matter of democracy, but perhaps you'll want to look into it more, given that reporters, columnists, political analysts, and other folks seem to have a distinctly different impression. It's possible that they're all wrong, and that it's all some self-reinforcing conventional wisdom myth or misunderstanding (or the result of some widespread, deliberate, malicious and disingenuous partisan propoganda). I think your demand for hard evidence is admirable. But I would think that you would be curious enough about your contrarian view to research and ponder it more.
I don't think we are making much further progress.
My contention was that he passionately expressed deep conviction and commitment to defending and preserving legal abortion.
I think I understood that, and I still don't see it. I would sum up his attitude from '94 as being "this is something I really don't like, but for practical reasons I think it has to remain legal". That doesn't strike me as being especially passionate or extreme. I cited the behaviour of people who genuinely are passionate and extreme as being rather different from this.
rather some desire to apply a burden of proof that I think is excessive for our purposes
I think that depends what the purposes are. For you to decide personally that you do not trust him and won't vote for him, a fairly low burden is necessary. We all enter the business of supporting candidates with limited information and a certain amount of guesswork about how they would behave in practice. But you, frequently, make the charge of multiple flipping against him, and I think that requires a somewhat higher burden. We will all make our own decsision on this sort of thing, but I think, by way of analysis, it is worth subjecting a claim to multiple tests. Perhaps it is worthwhile all of us considering whether a particular claim meets a) balance of probability or b) beyond reasonable doubt before we decide in what way we will use the claim?
Finally, I am not sure that my position is as contrarian as you imagine. Romney does have a considerable cadre of supporters. The narrative of him as serial flipper is believed by many, but I have been here a year, and while people have been making the claim for a year, I have never yet seen convincing evidence of it going beyond one issue.
So, I would maintain that there are two implications for this. One, the burden of proof (however high we set the bar) is still on those making the claim, not those questioning it. It really isn't practical (as well as not just) to expect sceptics to prove the point. Secondly, this is a narrative worth challenging. Once narratives such as this become embedded in the MSM, data is generally interpreted in a way that fits the narrative. Some academics did some research on the 2000 election and concluded that any time Gore misspoke it was immediately classifed as a lie whereas if Bush said something similar the media concluded he was stupid.
Over-arching narratives are worth challenging just for this reason. People become intellectually lazy and squeeze the facts to fit the theory. I didn't pick on you because I thought you were especially guilty of this, but because I have been thinking of taking this up for some time and because I (rightly) thought you would engage.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
I think you're still off on some stuff there, but I've already explained why (if you re-read my previous comment) and we're definitely at diminishing (or non-existant) marginal returns. See you later (i.e., some other thread).
Mitt Romney was pro choice through 2005, when he was 58 years old.
By that point he had experienced plenty of life.
He'd spent his whole life in the staunchly pro life Mormon Church, including missionary work and lay positions of leadership
He'd had 5 children himself as well as grandchildren
He'd come of age and spent his whole adult life under a regime of legal abortion under Roe and Casey and had seen its effects, as well being aware of the national debate, the legal debate and all the issues involved
He ran 2 statewide camapaigns being pro choice and supporting legal abortion
How much more experience did he need?
All of a sudden, in 2005 as he geared up to run for the WH, he had finally experienced enough in life to become pro life? Color me skeptical.