Redstate

The distinction you make is one without a difference. John Kerry, for goodness' sake, is "personally pro-life," to listen to him talk. What matters in the context of a political debate (and everyone knows this) is whether you favor some sort of government action to prevent abortions. So when you say that you are "personally pro-life, but publicly pro-choice," what you are saying is "I am pro-choice." Because after all, [almost] every pro-choice person will tell you that nobody wants more abortions. So, the real chart is something like this:

Early in life-family member dies of an illegal abortion = ambivalent
Family member dies of abortion - SLC Olympic games = pro-choice (strongy so)
SLC Olympic games - 2002 = pro-life
2002-2004 = pro-choice
2004-present = pro-life

------------
[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

So stating that he does not "prefer" to be labeled pro-choice makes him pro-life. Just because he does not prefer to associate himself with a certain label does not mean he became a full fledged pro-life convert. He could still have his view that abortions should be safe and legal and not "prefer" to be labeled "pro-choice."

I believe that one of the most damaging aspects of the whole abortion debate are the labels. Either you are pro-choice (abortion is okay in all circumstances) or you are pro-life (abortion is not okay even if the woman was raped and is about to die due to the pregnancy). There is no middle ground. So he doesn't like the label. So what. That doesn't show he changed his position.

To me there is not a distinction between "personally pro-life/publicly pro-choice" and pro-choice now, but there was a time in my life where I believed (however wrongly) that "ppl/ppc" was not a separate and distinct position from pro-life. I ask you to look at it through that view - to espouse each of those previous points of view up until 2004/5 would not be inconsistent (to them and many other people). So if you follow that "logic" out, there is only one conversion (or two if you consider the first movement to be a change of direction). I guess another way of me saying all of this is to put it thusly:

Early career, public life = pro-choice (ppl/ppc)
SLC Games, private life = pro-life (ppl/ppc)
2002 back to public life = pro-choice (ppl/ppc)
2004/5, public life = conversion (pro-life)

The distinction comes into the difference between Romney serving in a private roll and public roll. I can look back now and realize that my ppl/ppc view was silly but that doesn't mean at the time I thought the position was inconsistent (it was a very popular thing to say in the early 90s).

Also note, I'm not saying that Romney's conversion is not for furthering his political career. I just don't know and frankly, it seems very, very opportunistic.

Two thirds of the world is covered by water, the other third is covered by Champ Bailey

I'm perfectly willing to grant that many people (especially non-political junkies) don't necessarily spend a lot of time thinking and pondering about the implications of their political positions, but we're talking about a pretty savvy political operator in Mitt Romney, here. I'm willing to bet you that he knew exactly what he was talking about.

Plus, you go back and look at what he said in those 1994 debates.. he used at that time the "I hadn't thought much about it" excuse, but he was referring then to why he was previously pro-life/ambivalent, but he said that when his close relative died from an illegal abortion, it became clear to him that a woman should have the right to choose that. That doesn't sound like ppl/ppc to me, that sounds pretty darn much like "pro-choice."

I will grant you that by 2002, he had his SLC winter games comments to contend with, so he fell back on ppl/ppc, but as I've explained, I can't really view this as anything other than "pro-choice."

------------
[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

I would say that Romney is speaking in the governing/public life. So as someone who would say "ppl/ppc", the arena he was in was the public one, therefore the position he took would be the publicly pro-choice (geez my head is spinning from that one). I grant that this is Romney's weakest point, and the defense I write here doesn't make me feel very good about him on this issue, but as others have said - if he's willing to pander to my side about it that's better than pandering to the other side. Romney is very savvy and that is why I have trouble with his sincerity on the issue, it reeks of political opportunism. As with any other President, they are still limited by Roe, however they do need to use the bully pulpit to move the country.

My other "defense" of Romney on this issue comes this way - there are a lot of people who just don't care one way or the other about abortion being legal or illegal. His statement in 1994 shows that he never really thought deeply about the issue, I think - "someone of someone I knew died from an abortion, therefore I'm publicly pro-choice" doesn't seem to me as a person who gave more than 10 seconds of thought to the issue and those 10 seconds were spent on "how can I limit my attacks against me". I do believe that Romney never gave much thought to the whole pro-life issue until he had to actually make a decision (his conversion regarding the stem-cell issue). At that point, he really needed to not just make a point, but rather had to choose one way or the other. And that choice would have consequences - so the difference between campaigning and governing. He couldn't just say, he had to do (rubber meets the road to throw in another cliche here).

Two thirds of the world is covered by water, the other third is covered by Champ Bailey

To their own belief about the sincerity of Mitt's conversion stories. Myself, when I hear that he was so troubled by an examination of embryo-destructive research that he came to only support state funding for a significant part (rather than all) of that research, I tend to be somewhat.. skeptical. Especially since it doesn't make a tremendous amount of sense to me that he'd get up in arms about allowing an embryo to grow for 14 days before killing it when it never apparently bothered him about all the fetuses that grow to between 6 and 15 weeks before they are killed, but like I said; it works for some people. :-)

------------
[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

that Governor Romney never had to sit down, weigh each side and make an actual decision on fetuses. To me it's like the difference between Monday morning quarterbacking and playing in the game. It's easy to say what you would do in someone else's position, but entirely another thing to be the one to make the choice, so I see how that could have a more profound effect on his position.

Two thirds of the world is covered by water, the other third is covered by Champ Bailey

His statement in 1994 shows that he never really thought deeply about the issue, I think - "someone of someone I knew died from an abortion, therefore I'm publicly pro-choice" doesn't seem to me as a person who gave more than 10 seconds of thought to the issue and those 10 seconds were spent on "how can I limit my attacks against me".

It wasn't "someone of someone." It was a "dear, close family relative that was very close to me." It's silly to suggest that Romney didn't give more than 10 seconds of thought to the abortion issue after such an experience.

Ok, 10 seconds was too much. His statement doesn't show contemplation, it shows "this happened, I'm X." That's not reflective, it's reflexive. It doesn't show someone who spent time on the subject, who weighed both sides and had to make a decision based on that which would affect other people. That statement to me says that Romney didn't think about it.

Two thirds of the world is covered by water, the other third is covered by Champ Bailey

2003 on - The actual conversion (singular) happens. He gets into a position where the decisions he makes have consequences on the issue of life. For the first time, Mitt Romney has to do instead of just say.

Can you point to a single statement or action of Romney that indicates he was pro-life in 2003? If not, saying "2003 on" is intentionally misleading. But, perhaps that your intent?

but you are just the hammer looking at a world of nails, aren't ya. Your answer is up there in my post, but I'll quote it for you as you don't seem to be the best at reading what is actually IN the posts.

Running in 1994 - "personally pro-life/publicly pro-choice"
SLC Olympic Games - "personally pro-life/publicly pro-choice"
Running in 2002 - "personally pro-life/publicly pro-choice"
Sometime between 2003-2007 - pro-life

Again, you miss the entire point of my post (purposely I think, since we've already had this discussion and you ignored my point and went off on this tangent already). The point is not when the conversion happened, but rather that one conversion happened and not several.

Those are two entirely different points, and if you would have read the rest of the thread and my discussion with Leon you would see that I'm pretty harsh on the timing of Romney's conversion.

Two thirds of the world is covered by water, the other third is covered by Champ Bailey

Your point may not be when the conversion happened, but you do make statements on that subject. The statements are misleading. In debate, making misleading statements detract from your point. So, if you're interested in making a strong argument, you should get the facts straight.

I'll lay them out for you since you don't seem to be the best at actually reading what are in the posts:

"2003 on - The actual conversion (singular) happens" and "Sometime between 2003-2007 - pro-life" are inaccurate and misleading statements.

Romney himself has stated that his conversion to a pro-life position occurred in 2004. As best I can tell, however, he did not make any public statement or take any public action evidencing a pro-life position until 2005. So, it is misleading to suggest a conversion as early as 2003. Likewise, it is equally inaccurate to suggest a convesion as late as 2006 or 2007.

Is this really such a big point for you - To find the exact point at which he made his conversion? I guess the difference between 2003 and 2005 means the whole world to you, to me it's tangential. Like I said, to me it doesn't matter when his conversion took place, be it 2003, 2004, or 2005. The point being that one conversion happened, it happened sometime during his governorship when Romney had to make a decision on a life issue that came before him.

You keep harping on this, yet I conceded the point in our first discussion, hence my change to "sometime between 2003 and 2007." Which is completely, 100% correct (and not 'accurate' enough for your taste? too bad, get over it).

Two thirds of the world is covered by water, the other third is covered by Champ Bailey

Before I'd vote for Romney, I'd want to believe that his new-found pro-life beliefs are sincere and not political opportunism. If his beliefs are sincere, then it seems much more likely that they would be important to him and that he'd try to advance those beliefs in office. If it's just political expediency, then I do not have much confidence that advancing those beliefs would be important to him, especially in the face of a hostile Congress.

One way to try to judge the sincerity of his poisition is by looking at the circumstances surrounding the change, including the timing. Being pro-choice is beneficial if you're a candidate for Massachusetts governor. Being pro-life, however, is beneficial if you're a candidate for Republican presidential nominee, especially since the social conservative side of the field is wide open. Romney's switch to a pro-life position neatly coincides with his personal political ambitions.

Besides, I like to get the facts straight.

You keep harping on this, yet I conceded the point in our first discussion, hence my change to "sometime between 2003 and 2007." Which is completely, 100% correct (and not 'accurate' enough for your taste? too bad, get over it).

Why don't you just say "sometime between 1992 and 2007?" It's just as "100% correct" as what you wrote. Of course, that would be misleading, just like saying "sometime between 2003 and 2007" when we know for a fact that it was not 2003.

Thanks for the advice on my posting, but I'd suggest that if you are bothered by me correcting you, that you be more accurate with the facts (or at least not be so thin-skinned when the facts are posted).

and yet it doesn't even come into the same ballpark. I have those exact same concerns (see upthread my discussion with Leon).

Once again 2 separate issues. You still can't grasp that? I don't think it too hard for anyone with a greater than lukewarm IQ (maybe we've identified the problem?).

Let me try this way - there is a problem that Mitt Romney has w/r/t the abortion issue (the timing/sincerity of his conversion for political purposes). You seem to grok that (frankly, you seem to grok only that and nothing else). This story (and others) have made a separate issue that Romney had more than one conversion.

Get it? 2 different things:

1 - timing

and

2 - number of conversions

You seem to be unable to grasp that I am agreeing with you on the first one as that has been my position all along. I have only tried to provide an alternate to #2 without addressing #1 at all. Comprehend now?

If not here's a review:

1 - timing

We agree on this, but it's not the point of the original story, nor of my topic. It's like I'm talking about the Superbowl and you're telling me that Roger Clemens deserves to be in the Hall of Fame when he retires. I say "Indy defense had a good game" and you counter with "his fastball is as good as ever." Once again, We agree on your point, but your point is off topic.

Which brings me to the meat of the topic

2 - # of conversions

This is the point I make again and again without response from you. Any comment on this point?

Two thirds of the world is covered by water, the other third is covered by Champ Bailey

I see a man who was pro-choice in 1994 and had one conversion happen over a decade, that when the chips were on the table, he governed in a pro-life manner.

The notion that Romney made some gradual conversion over a decade is belied by his record. He was strongly pro-choice
as recently as 2002. As best as I can tell, there are no public statements or actions from Romney on the issue in 2003 or 2004. He had a complete public turnaround in 2005. The precise time during which he was contemplating a presidential run and having a pro-life position would be politically expedient. There was no gradual, decade-long conversion.

:)

I didn't use the term gradual, but I see how one could read that into it though ("over a decade" could be interpreted that way). I was just contrasting the claim of 4 conversions in a decade vs. 1 during that time. My bad for not being more clear though - I'm not as articulate as Obama...

Two thirds of the world is covered by water, the other third is covered by Champ Bailey

To me, it's not very important in my decision. I lean more libertarian than anything and I've always had a hands-off approach when it comes to social issues. I want someone who will be fiscally conservative, into small government, and strong on national defense. I also want someone who will be a strong leader and well respected in the World. Those qualities stand above one social issue that has changed over time.

But I think everyone is different. Some hold social issues much closer to the vest and rely on that moreso in their decision making. If the party has swayed in a particular direction over time, it has been more to focusing on social issues.

First

Disagree with the public if you will, but the polls I have seen have shown a majority of Americans don't want to restrict access to abortions.

This is wrong, polls show a majority of Americans favor keeping Roe, but then the same poll will ask if they favors some restrictions (Parental notification, PBA, etc) and those will garner a majority too - it just seems that people are not educated enough on the issue.

Anyways to your central point, there is a significant portion of Republicans that the issue of life is centrally important. You cannot have liberty without life, you cannot have property (pursuit of happiness if you prefer) without life. The first role of government is to protect those who cannot protect themselves.

I try not to rank my conservatism by issue, but to categorize myself I would be known as a fiscal conservative. Which means that I understand and can respond easier to fiscal issues (although my 2+ years here at RedState has helped me to understand the life issue better). The one issue that usually unites conservatives is national security. I think you will find that, in general, the more socially liberal the person is, the more fiscally liberal they will be too (and vice-versa). Exceptions to the rule apply, but look at the reversal socially liberal Gov Rell has done on the fiscal front. I don't have a sliding scale or anything handy to help out.

There is no candidate running on the R side right now that unites all 3 "factions." NatSec will trump all others, thus Rudy's popularity despite his social views and it is considered McCain's advantage over other candidates as well. Although almost any R candidate will be thought to be tough on NatSec.

Ones that would fit the best:
Gov Bush (if it weren't for his last name because even I have BushFatigue™ right now)
Gov Sanford (SC)
Gov Pawlenty (MN)

Two thirds of the world is covered by water, the other third is covered by Champ Bailey

Too many people also are of the opinion that an overturn of Roe would make abortion illegal (and I think the pro choice NARAL/PLanned parenthood types are more than happy to let this misconception remain). An overturn of Roe simply returns the issue of abortion, restrictions, access etc to the States to decide.

Also, people don't grasp that the companion case to Roe, Doe effectively means that abortion is available up until birth so long as a woman finds a doctor willing to give her the abortion. The "health" exception is so broad that anything qualifies as health.

I think the area of the health exception is the first thing the SCOTUS will likely address with the partial birth abortion case(s). What is a health exception has long been a sort of mish mash, broad definition, and I suspec this SCOTUS will likely reign in that broadness.

The abortion issue doesn't really float my boat the way it does others', but if it did, I'd have to say, I find Romney's "conversion" pretty convenient.

I'd be more inclined to assume that he was either lying then, or he's lying now, and conclude that there's at least a 50% chance that what he would actually say and do in office (or even in a general election campaign) would not reflect the position I favor.

For my part, in a Presidential election, I'm more inclined to look to a candidate's competence and character than any particular issue, because circumstances behave in unforseeable ways, and it's the President's personal characteristics that determine how he'll deal with them.

In that respect, Giuliani's refusal to pander for the sake of convenience is a pretty big plus as far as I'm concerned; just as Romney's desperation to pander is a big negative.

Listen up all you dysfunctional people, let's end the circular firing squad.

If you want to cast your lot with the unelectable Sam Brownback, be my guest.

Sorry dude, but your plea for peace might be a little more credible if you followed your own advice and didn't push the Romney meme of Brownback being "unelectable." Otherwise, you just come across as a hypocrite.

But as someone who has had to read the same, tired schtick for years now. Do you do anything besides drop comments telling front-page writers that their writing doesn't belong on the front page (usually backhandedly insulting them in the process)? I mean, I ask only because a quick review of your comment history suggests it's your only line.

If you don't like the front-page material here, read somewhere else. If you think you can do better, write your own blog. If you think an interesting story would be Why Thorley Winston Is Really Cool, have at it somewhere else. If you think the angle you you propose on Brownback is so freaking cool, go create a diary about it.

This half-baked commentary, however, is beneath even the relatively low standards we require. That you rarely respond to anything other than "You Go Thorley!" comments is not entirely suggestive of good manners either.

Shorter Thomas: Grow up, Thorley. Stop wasting our time.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

And if you have a problem with our content, next time either observe elementary rules of politeness, or address it via the Contact Us button.

The first sentence is a reminder; the second is an instruction.

Moe

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.