Romney Wrong That His Abortion Flip Flops Like Reagan's

Men's News Daily ^ | 8/20/07 | Warner Todd Huston

[Mobile Vulgus]

Former Massachusetts Governor and current GOP candidate for president Mitt Romney has been doing his level best to redefine in his favor his past stance on abortion and to push his newfound anti-abortion position as he continues his campaign. Romney appeared on the August 12th edition of Fox News Sunday to face host Chris Wallace who confronted the Governor with several video clips of Romney's professing far more support for abortion just 5 years ago than he now claims to have espoused then, or that he claims he currently espouses.

Romney has been desperately trying to distance himself from his past abortion stance and has been lately saying he was always "personally pro-life" and was mistaken to begrudgingly allow for pro-abortion support while he was Governor. Also, during the Sunday ABC Republican debates in August, Romney tried a mae culpa of sorts on his past stance calling it the "greatest mistake of his life." Romney told George Stephanopoulos, "My greatest mistake was when I first ran for office being deeply opposed to abortion but saying I'd support the current law, which was pro-choice and effectively a pro-choice position. That was just wrong."

But, Chris Wallace presented Romney with proof that pretty much devastates Romney's claim that he never supported abortion and that he only bowed to his Massachusetts constituency's desires. Wallace played two video clips where Romney went much further then any begrudging support, both of which in fact, seemed more like active advocacy than any perfunctory support. After the clips, Wallace reminded Romney that "for eight years" he had said that he would "protect and respect a woman's right to choose."

Video Clip One transcript:

M. ROMNEY: I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years that we should sustain and support it.

Video Clip Two transcript:

M. ROMNEY: I will preserve and protect a woman's right to choose and am devoted and dedicated to honoring my word in that regard. I will not change any provisions of Massachusetts's pro-choice laws.

But as Romney's current explanation is that he was always "personally pro-life" but that he made a mistake not to say so in the past, he also said just last December that he has "grown" to his current position. This "grown" claim seems to make the lie to his more recent GOP debate claim of having "always personally opposed abortion."

What is plain is that the evidence shows that Romney evolved from being a qualified abortion supporter as governor, to become a possible candidate claiming that he viewed abortion as wrong but supported it because those who voted for him by and large supported it, to an official candidate that says that he was always anti-abortion and regrets that he seemed to support it as governor. Its all hardly believable, but it does show a candidate who will say what he thinks his constituency wants to hear, at least on the issue of abortion.

Of course, these claims are hard to assess as who really knows what is in someone's heart? Certainly his past statements seem much more as advocacy for abortion but who can really say what is in his heart today? We can quibble about the veracity and truth of those statements and still not be able to successfully arrive at the truth, granted. But, the most disingenuous claim Romney has made, and one that can be assessed for its truth, is his claim that he has grown in his abortion position just like Ronald Reagan did when Reagan was first confronted with the issue while Governor of California in 1967. Romney told Chris Wallace that as governor Reagan was "adamantly pro-choice," and that Reagan "became pro-life as he experienced life," and presumably as his governorship evolved.

Romney's claim, however, is just patently false. Reagan's most able biographer, Lou Cannon, has documented* that in contravention to Romney's claim that Reagan was "adamantly pro-choice" Governor Reagan had never really given the abortion issue much thought before he took office. Cannon demonstrates that when Reagan was first confronted with abortion in 1967 he was unusually indecisive and had a difficult time deciding what he should do with a liberal abortion bill winding its way through the state house in Sacramento.

Cannon documents that after the abortion bill passed the California Senate, Reagan was asked by reporters during a press conference about his stance on the bill. When asked if he would sign the bill, Reagan answered, "I haven't had time to really sit down and marshal my thoughts on that." Such a reply certainly does not reveal an "adamant" position on the issue, as Romney claims Reagan held. Further, such indecision was not in any way a hallmark of the Reagan mode of operation.

In fact, Cannon writes that in 1968, the year after the bill passed, Reagan said that "those were awful weeks," and that he would never have signed the bill if he had "been a more experienced governor."

In light of the evidence it cannot be said that Reagan was ever an "adamant" pro-abortion supporter who later "grew" into an anti-abortion advocate. For Romney to invoke the spirit of Ronald Reagan in this way is a disgraceful attempt to co-opt the reputation of the most famous and successful politician of his age and an icon of the conservative movement to the aid of a candidate floundering on an issue. Mitt Romney's abortion problem bears no resemblance at all to Ronald Reagan's views "grown" or not.

Much can be said of Romney and his abortion problem. You can take him at his word that he "grew" into a more staunch pro-lifer or not. But one thing is absolutely sure; Mitt Romney is not like Ronald Reagan in any way, shape, manner or form.

A Transcript of Romney's reply to Chris Wallace from Fox News Sunday, August 12th, 2007:

M. ROMNEY: Yes. Yeah, that's right. And then when I became governor — I don't know what's so unusual about this, but when I became governor and when legislation was brought to my desk that dealt with life, and I sat down and I said, "Am I going to sign this? Because I personally oppose abortion. Am I going to sign this?"

And I brought in theologians. I brought in scientists, took it apart — this related to embryonic cloning. And I said, "I simply have to come down on the side of life," and wrote an op-ed piece in the Boston Globe and said, "Look, here is why I am pro-life."

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.

And the same thing happened with Henry Hyde and George Herbert Walker Bush. And so if there's some people who can't get over the fact that I've become pro-life, that's fine.

But I'm not going to apologize for the fact that I am pro-life and that I was wrong before, in my view, and that I've taken the right course.

*Governor Reagan, His Rise to Power, by Lou Cannon, published in 2003 by Public Affairs, New York. Reference Chapter 16, pages 208 through 214.

[Mobile Vulgus]

Romney i a slippery one, ain't he? I cannot see myself ever voting for this charlatan.

[JohnnyZ]

And I brought in theologians. I brought in scientists, took it apart — this related to embryonic cloning. And I said, "I simply have to come down on the side of life," and wrote an op-ed piece in the Boston Globe and said, "Look, here is why I am pro-life."

Of course, Romney is still splitting hairs -- he supports some embryonic research and opposes other embryonic research.

Not to mention his investments in companies that do embryonic stem cell research.

[elizabetty]

Mitt Romney sure has the peanut gallery scared.

[RolandBurnam]

anyone know how he made his money? I saw the article the other day he is worth 200 million. How did he get it?

[HitmanLV]

This abortion issue drives too many people batty.

[jdm]

He became pro-life as he experienced life

Romney was born in 1947.

Romney only recently became pro-life.

Therefore, it took Romney almost 60 years to "experience life"?

What a load of .... .

[CTK YKC]

Perhaps it is so important to so many because they see it as the fundamental issue that others spring from. If one can’t see sanctity in the most innocent, how do they truly find sanctity in anything else?

[BritExPatInFla]

This abortion issue drives too many people batty.

---

And is the big issue that the ‘Conservatives’ pay lip service to, but know that they cannot and will not ever ‘Overturn’. Single issue abortion voters are truly being led around by the nose.

[HitmanLV]

I’m pro life, but the pro life movement has played the shell game with this issue.

The traditional conservative position on abortion was that the Roe decision impeded States’ rights, and that the states decide their individual abortion policies.

These days, too many pro lifers expect a USSC decision that would outlaw abortion (bad idea), a Constitutional Amendment that would outlaw abortion (what happened to state’s rights?), etc.

I have the traditional conservative view - I’m against abortion but the states should decide their policy. This doesn’t seem good enough for modern-era anti-abortion fetishists. They move through life like wide-eyed dumbasses unable to make sense of their position. They make the rest of us look bad.

[HitmanLV]

I think the goal of no more first trimester abortions in the USA in the modern era is strictly fantasy island stuff. Many conservatives don’t have the clarity & maturity to see that too many people (maybe even a majority) want abortion to be legal.

It takes a remarkable individual to truly have no grasp that they have lost.

[restornu]

should we be on the watch now for all candidates who make faux pas?

Should we beat them who make faux pas every few hours with a rehash press release for days?

[dirtboy]

should we be on the watch now for all candidates who make faux pas?

That was no faux paus - that was a blatant mischaracterization by Mitt of Reagan's views on abortion while he was governor.

Some Rudy boosters also have attempted the same thing, and for the exact same reason - to bring down Reagan a notch in the hopes it somehow makes their guy look better. But such an attempt is wrong. Reagan was never pro-choice and never in favor of abortion on demand. The legislation he signed allowed for legal abortion in cases of rape, incest and the health of the mother. Doctors abused that last provision.

[dirtboy]

They make the rest of us look bad.

Sorry, buy calling anti-abortion activists "fetishists" and "dumbasses" is what makes you look bad.

[HitmanLV]

I didn’t say all - I said some, or even many. I am pro life myself, but I see the legacy of failure that the prevailing pro life movement has brought us.

Indeed, many can’t even see it themselves. Those are fetishists and dumbasses.

[redgirlinabluestate]

That was no faux paus - that was a blatant mischaracterization

That is a slight exaggeration. It was a poor choice of words. Did you watch the whole interview? He misspoke under pressure in a heated exchange during an interview where Chris Wallace had gone on the attack on several issues. Mitt has never used that term before when describing Reagan's position.

Given that Romney is at 4-5 townhall meetings and 6-7 interviews a day, and not just sitting at home writing essays, it is not surprising that he will have a few words misspoken here and there. Nobody is perfect.

What about your candidate's (Fred's) blunder in telling the CNN guy he supported the Federal Marriage Amendment on Friday and then turning around the very next day and saying he opposed it? Blunders happen. Nobody is perfect.

I sense increased desperation as people make mountains out of molehills.

[dirtboy]

That is a slight exaggeration.

Horsecrap - like I said, we've seen this gambit from Rudy boosters as well. It was a deliberate mischaracterization of Reagan's record to somehow rationalize Mitt's.

What about your candidate's (Fred's) blunder in telling the CNN guy he supported the Federal Marriage Amendment on Friday and then turning around the very next day and saying he opposed it? Blunders happen.

Fred wasn't trying to tear down part of someone else's legacy. The mistake was his own.

[TChris]

anyone know how he made his money? I saw the article the other day he is worth 200 million. How did he get it?

I'm sure it was by some devious, underhanded, possibly satanic means. Just ask the We Hate Mitt gang, they'll tell you.

[RolandBurnam]

I just want to know. Didn’t the clintons have a net worth of 500k when elected, now worth 40+ million. I have no problem if he made money in the private sector.

[restornu]

As you sow so shall you reap

[EternalVigilance]

anyone know how he made his money? I saw the article the other day he is worth 200 million. How did he get it?

Corporate takeovers. Buy a healthy company with borrowed money, saddle it with debt, part it out, and walk away with the profits.