In Response to Hugh Hewitt
I think pro-lifers are smart
By Ben Domenech Posted in 2008 | Abortion | GOP | Romney — Comments (21) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
"I've never called myself pro-choice."
-Mitt Romney in 2006
"If the question is whether I will protect and defend a woman's right to choose, my answer is an unequivocal 'Yes.'"
-Mitt Romney in 2002
I am a fan of Hugh Hewitt. I may be his biggest fan here at Redstate. I think he's a great radio host, a savvy writer, and the most capable, intelligent, and adept interviewer on the right. I was proud to work on his last book, and he's now an advisory editor for The Critical, a quarterly publication of the best center-right blog writing, where we've been honored to feature his fantastic on-air puncturing of Jon Chait and Andrew Sullivan.
This isn't to say that Hugh and I agree about everything, of course – we certainly disagreed loudly about the Harriet Miers nomination – and in his new book, A Mormon in the White House?, Hugh takes aim at a post of mine from last year concerning Governor Romney's views on the abortion issue.
Here's an excerpt from Hugh's book, in the chapter entitled "Mitt Romney is Pro-Life":
Perhaps the first loud shot in this battle was fired on September 27, 2006, with a searing post by Ben Domenech at the conservative blog Red State. Domenech plucked out Romney quotations from his 1994 Senate campaign against Ted Kennedy, and from Romney's gubernatorial campaign of 2002, and went on to accuse Romney of "lying" about his past.
Almost immediately following its publication, pundits favorable to Romney replied to Domenech's broadside, and did so with the best possible approach: candor combined with the right of politicians to adjust their public positions over time in response to both the field on which they are competing as well as the changing nature of the fact set they are addressing.
[Hugh quotes this response post from Kathryn Jean Lopez and a subsequent Dick Morris column]
What Morris, Domenech, and other critics of Romney's pragmatism fail to realize is that the pro-life community is sophisticated and educated, and quite capable of understanding how a pro-life politician in Massachusetts has to advocate for the possible, and mustn't allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good.
Now to be fair, there's a bit more to this than Hugh mentions. What specifically prompted the post in question was an interview Gov. Romney did here at Redstate. In that interview, Gov. Romney claimed that he'd never personally called himself "pro-choice."
This seemed a little odd to me, given that his campaign had previously told me that Gov. Romney had a deep, serious, personal change of heart on the issue. I thought maybe I had missed a story about this. After all, if he'd never been pro-choice, what would he have to change from? From being pro-life to being...more pro-life?
So I did a little digging, and came across...well, you know what I came across. By now, we all know about the various changing statements from Gov. Romney about his position on abortion. And it seems like every day some new piece of footage comes out that Gov. Romney has to respond to. Today's latest, from 2002, has Gov. Romney saying:
If the question is whether I will protect and defend a woman's right to choose, my answer is an unequivocal 'Yes.'
Of course, this is all ground we've covered many times. Surely only someone who was seriously biased against the Romney candidacy would infer from this latest post that he was calling himself pro-choice. And real pro-lifers are smarter than that.
I think where Hugh and I disagree, and what really matters here, is what we, as smart pro-lifers, do going forward. What disappoints me most about Gov. Romney in this campaign is that he has adopted a stance on his evolving view on life that, while possible, is rather difficult to believe or understand. It certainly is a stance that, viewed by the public, has all the appearances of kowtowing to the conservative base of a national party after a career of avoiding them at the state level. It seems like, in Hugh's words, he is merely exercising "the right of politicians to adjust their public positions over time in response to…the field on which they are competing."
To me, that just sounds like politics as usual. And even if it proves acceptable to the pro-life base, it's a story that won't change anyone's mind about the abortion issue.
This could have gone so much better. Imagine if instead of claiming defensively that he "never called [him]self pro-choice," Gov. Romney chose to describe in moving terms his personal change of heart on this divisive issue. An "I once was blind, but now I see" story is something the vast majority of pro-lifers will understand and relate to. Arguing that you were always personally pro-life, but just chose not to do anything about it because you needed to win an election…? Well, perhaps I'm not a smart pro-lifer, but I don't think we relate to that.
Personally, I disagree with many of my pro-life friends when I say that I believe Gov. Romney would be a pro-life President. I believe his judicial appointments would be decent to good on the issue. But as it stands, we're weighing nearly a decade of political statements, from his race for Senate to his race for Governor and beyond, against what he's saying now. And that doesn't really inspire confidence.
Hugh's really just wrong about one thing: I do believe the pro-life community is sophisticated and educated. I believe we have a good memory. We remember that, if you are at all weak on the subject of abortion, if you are overly trusting, or if you have an administration with a blind spot on the issue, you can easily end up with David Souter…Anthony Kennedy…Sandra Day O'Connor…or, dare we say it, Harriet Miers.
And I think that's plenty smart.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Sam Brownback Is on a Roll — Comments (99) »
In Response to Hugh Hewitt 21 Comments (0 topical, 21 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
If you're going to chide, and do so illogically, at least spell the man's name correctly; otherwise, you're referring to his Treasury Secretary.
Reagan changed his tune while the party was demonstrably and explicitly pro-choice. And even so, with his administration, filled as it was with old-line, pro-choice Republicans (many of whom were from a certain New England Commonwealth), they got Sandy O'Connor.
The fact that you claim to support the pro-life movement which at it's heart has the mission to change public opinion, yet argue we shouldn't trust the politicians who hop on board is kind of backwards.
Does it matter if he's hopping on board just to get the nod?
Just a thought.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
Although he's not. Actually if it was the case, it would only show he would be interested in keeping there votes for 2112. If he wins without pro-lifers than you are only hoping he really is truly converted. If he wins with them, then you know he's in the pro-life pocket. Which one would you want?
In regards to Reagan, my point wasn't Reagan's conversion as it was Ben Claiming that a pro-life blind spot in a converted politician can lead to people like O'Conner. Was Reagan really suffering from a blind spot? Is that what Ben was claiming?
Actually if it was the case, it would only show he would be interested in keeping there votes for 2112. If he wins without pro-lifers than you are only hoping he really is truly converted. If he wins with them, then you know he's in the pro-life pocket. Which one would you want?
Doesn't follow. If he gets enough voters who don't agree with me on life issues, he doesn't need pro-lifers anymore. If he wins with me, and makes the right noises, and the Dems keep hanging left, then he knows I have no alternative, and can be in favor of -- I'm looking for a term, gimme a sec -- oh, right, the status quo.
In regards to Reagan, my point wasn't Reagan's conversion as it was Ben Claiming that a pro-life blind spot in a converted politician can lead to people like O'Conner. Was Reagan really suffering from a blind spot? Is that what Ben was claiming?
Let's re-read what Ben said, then continue this discussion.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
We remember that, if you are at all weak on the subject of abortion, if you are overly trusting, or if you have an administration with a blind spot on the issue, you can easily end up with David Souter…Anthony Kennedy…Sandra Day O'Connor…or, dare we say it, Harriet Miers.
Now you can address my point. Or maybe another chiding remark from yourself would do?
I don't know how one could read this and not infer that Ben was stating that O'Conner was a result of a politician with a problem on abortion. Since she was appointed by Reagen I think we can see the natural progression of thought.
But the man's name is R-E-A-G-A-N. :-)
"If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools..." 'IF' by Rudyard Kipling
Well, Ben, all you have to do to prove that Romney LIED is quote him where he says, "I am pro-choice."
'Pro-choice' is a euphamism for 'pro-abortion'. You know it. I know it. Romney has never been FOR abortion, but at one time he felt that a woman should be allowed to make the choice for herself without too many hassles. A death by illegal abortion to a close friend of his family colored his thinking on that one.
I guarentee Romney, being the devout Mormon that he is, is against drinking and smoking. But he is for the right of other people to drink and smoke. Are you going to say that because he supports the rights of other to engage in those activities, he is an advocate for them?
Why is that Romney gets a royal beating from the right when he says that he has had a change of heart on abortion, while Rudy gets a free pass (you know what I am talking about: his partial birth abortion flip)? Romney has at least offered an explanation for his change (the stem cell debate). Rudy half-heartedly tried to offer the life of the mother excuse. Now that this excuse has been shot all to pieces (all PBA bans contained a life of the mother exception), what is Rudy's excuse? Why don't people on the right seem to care about that as much?
There's a vast, right-wing conspiracy at work ensuring we get Obama v. Giuliani in November 2008.
Run like Reagan!
Rudy has gotten blasted from one or two sources on the right. Tony Perkins for one, comes to mind, as does the recent piece by the National Catholic Register. Rudy may win the nomination, but he won't waltz to it, and suspect he'll have to flesh out his positions a bit more on issues like his judicial philosophy and gun control.
To the extent that he is received more warmly on the right, it's probably because Giuliani seems more genunine, and less opportunistic. Romney comes across as a chameleon.
From an interview with Hannity the other night on this subject:
HANNITY: You won a very significant straw poll after a weekend of speeches at CPAC, Governor. It seems to be the battle for that Reagan mantle. Right at the open opening of your speech -- I read the whole speech -- you quoted Ronald Reagan, who had previously spoken at CPAC.
I guess the issue for conservatives keeps coming up, both for you and Rudy Giuliani and Senator McCain on some issues, of whether or not they're as conservative as Reagan was. The issue that comes up the most for you, Governor, is the issue of abortion. And when you were running for the Senate in Massachusetts, this was your position.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROMNEY: I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country; I have since the time that my mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate.
I believe that, since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years, that we should sustain and support it. And I sustain and support that law and the right of a woman to make that choice.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
I have no problem -- I'm not embarrassed at all by telling you that I've changed my position. And so did Ronald Reagan. So did George Herbert Walker Bush. So did many other people before me. And, by the way, we need a lot of other people to change their mind, as well.
Now, I changed it about two-and-a-half years ago, and so people don't have to rely on my word for it, they can look at my record as governor. I came to believe that the government should not play the kind of role it had been playing, which is insisting on a one-size-fits-all pro-abortion policy for the entire nation. I'm pro-life and am proud that I made that decision.
HANNITY: Rudy Giuliani has said in answer to that, because he has a different position. He's pro-choice. And he has said he would appoint originalist justices like Scalia, and Thomas, and Alito. On that issue of judges, is that the type of justice you'd be looking for?
ROMNEY: Well, of course, we're all going to talk about appointing judges that will follow the law and not legislate from the bench. But being pro-life is, of course, broader than just the kind of judges you appoint. There's legislation, which month to month and year to year comes forward, that can either protect the sanctity of time of can take it away.
As governor, I had several measures that came to my desk, which affected life. And they were not court decisions; they were legislative decisions which I faced as governor. And if you're pro-life, then you're going to come down on the side of life. And if you're pro-choice, you'll take the other direction.
And it's something where my record is clear. When my legislature tried redefine when life began, I said no. When they said they were going to clone human embryos for research purposes, I said no. When they said that they were going to block the education of our kids on abstinence in school, I said no.
So we're going to be able to define ourselves based upon our positions on issues, and people can decide where they line up.
I am guessing that you've been pro-life for your entire life Ben. And I think most people who haven't been "pro-life" their entire life thought about it differently, such as never calling themselves by the label pro-choice, even though that would be the correct description of their position (the old "personally pro-life/publicly pro-choice position that was much more common in the 1990s). You are only coming at this without stepping into the other person's shoes, and trying to understand how someone could hold that position. I have been there, but I never called myself pro-choice, and would have rejected that label at the time (even though I recognize now it is actually appropriate).
It seems to me that Romney is finally understanding that, maybe something he didn't understand even a few months ago when he gave the RedState interview.
Two thirds of the world is covered by water, the other third is covered by Champ Bailey
If your opposition is not to the legality of abortion, but rather to a federal position on the issue of abortion, you're not pro-life. You're anti-Roe. Someone should clue Romney in on this.
------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...
-John Locke
being anti-Roe is really the most important part of the equation for the next president.
Or more precisely being for jurists who will interpret the law and not make it.
There are still items of legislation that come down the pipewhich deal with pro-life items, specifically for ESS research, notification, transport, etc. Romney says now that he would veto the Castle bill, but while in Mass. said that he supported funding for ESS research on "leftover" embryos, which was basically the Castle bill.
------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...
-John Locke
ROMNEY: Well, of course, we're all going to talk about appointing judges that will follow the law and not legislate from the bench. But being pro-life is, of course, broader than just the kind of judges you appoint. There's legislation, which month to month and year to year comes forward, that can either protect the sanctity of time of can take it away.
As governor, I had several measures that came to my desk, which affected life. And they were not court decisions; they were legislative decisions which I faced as governor. And if you're pro-life, then you're going to come down on the side of life. And if you're pro-choice, you'll take the other direction.
As far as Roe goes, about the only thing a President can do right now is appoint judges to overturn it, at which point it gets sent back to the states. So I think Romney gets that, because at that point, unless you have an abortion amendment it will be a state issue and the President will have very, very little to do with it. But beyond the issue of abortion, there are other things a President can do on life issues.
Two thirds of the world is covered by water, the other third is covered by Champ Bailey
I agree with your concerns.
On the other hand I agree with what Romney has said on changing his position over time and his nod to Reagan doing the same thing.
At this point, I have a three point criteria:
1) could they win (this is where Tancredo, Brownback, Paul, Gilmore, Huckabee, etc drop off my list).
2) How would they be on judges?
3) Other -- GWOT, immigration, not a nut job, spending restraint, etc.
What I'm left with is a list that looks like this:
a) Fred Thompson (not running yet)
b) Mitt Romney
c) Rudy Guiliani
d) John McCain
e) Newt Gingrich (not running yet)
So for now I'm with Romney. Fred Thompson would quickly change that although I'd have no heartburn over Romney and would clearly vote for any of the five above or any other GOP nominee over the Democrat.
If he got the nomination, I have no doubt that he can win the general election. He needs on two major platforms: Security, and taking power away from the government and returning it to the individual.
We all know that the dem candidate, be it Hillary or Obama, or possibly someone else, will view government as the solution to everything. If our nominee effectively contrasts their position, that government creates problems, and should return to its box and stay there, any of the current candidates can win, be it Giuliani, Romney, McCain, Thompson, or possible Gingrich.
Bush has occasionally mentioned his "ownership society" but he hasn't really made that an important issue.
I've enjoyed Hugh Hewitt's conservatism for longer than I've been a blogger, and I think I at least understand where he was with his Harriet defense. It's confounding why he argues that suspicions of Romney's genuineness on the matter of abortion are invalid. He was passionately pro-choice, now he's running for President.
Then again, is there anything else Hugh could have argued in this particular book?
I might be just passing through, and Fred Thompson might be able to win me away, but of our big 3, he's the only one I can support.
And though Brownback wasn't eliminated in early rounds, he certainly lowered his chances with me when he opposed the surge.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
How much of Hugh Hewitt's support of Mitt Romney has to do with selling his book ? Don't get me wrong, Hugh is a nice guy. So nice, they almost named him twice. LOL
But the reality is Hugh Hewitt has supported numerous pro-choice candidates who had shifting positions on abortion. Mike Huffington is a good example. Sorry, I'm not buying into Hugh's latest attempt to bamboozle the prolife movement. I had enough of it with Harriet Miers.
Its time for Fred Thompson to stake his claim to the White House.
Basically to sum up your post, and please correct me if I am wrong, you think Romney would be a pro-life president, but we shouldn't trust him because he changed positions from a pragmatic candidate on life to a bonified pro-life candidate? And if we trust a guy like this we might get a nomination such as Regan's O'Conner. I always thought Regan was the standard, maybe he's not.
As far as Hugh goes, sounds like a good point. Politicians change opinions. They represent people and they are constantly lobbied by pro-life and other pro-family groups. This lobbying wold only make sense if the idea was to actually sway them. Do we only want to sway certain ones, or maybe just a little bit?
The fact that you claim to support the pro-life movement which at it's heart has the mission to change public opinion, yet argue we shouldn't trust the politicians who hop on board is kind of backwards.
www.mymanmitt.com
www.race42008.com