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.

[Plutarch]

The fact he did it in 2005 smells of political expediency.

Okay. Romney changing his stance to Pro-Life was entirely political expediency. 100% a cynical political move. Fine.

If our choice in Presidential candidates is limited to those untainted by political expediency, then we are going to have small choice indeed. I'd sooner take my chances with a candidate who has been tested by the gale force left wing winds of MA than by candidates who have enjoyed balmy conservative climes and have simply had to go along with their constituency.

[Reagan Man]

I think the “creator”, as you put it, would expect folks to respect human life enough and not make off the wall remarks to hide their own failings.

Has Romney apologized? No. Was it the first time he said something along those lines? No.

[restornu]

Your own words has reveals your disingenuous!

[restornu]

My experience with you is that you are hopless because you are void of civility!

[Reagan Man]

Than you just might find the former Mayor of NYC even more to your liking.

Political expediency isn’t a virtue. Romney`s recent conversion to pro-life candidate status is the perfect example. Its a vice. An ugly vice.

[hoosierpearl]

It isn’t a poor choice of words, it is not truthful. Either he is ignorant and doesn’t know what the truth is or he said something not true in order to get elected. I don’t want a good man trashed.

I don’t know why he or you is doing this but it is unacceptable. Reagan cannot speak for himself so someone wants to rewrite history. I don’t know what is in your heart or Romneys but I can protest. I can defend Reagan. Because I want his reputation protected.

Why do something like this? You want him to be elected so bad that you are willing to do anything to have it happen? It is as if you are calling Ronald Reagan a liar.

It isn’t about grammar or my preferences or editing. It is about the truth and about things not true and slander. The truth is the truth, an untruth is not simply a poor choice of words. It goes to character. What kind of character would want to do something like this? I cannot understand a conservative doing something like this.

If this is being done for the purpose of getting Romney elected [and I’m not completely sure of that] then he does not deserve to be elected.

[colorcountry]

Guess who?

“These are my principles. If you don’t like them, I have others.”

[redgirlinabluestate]

Right. Reagan's history on the topic is decidedly better than Romney's. I think we can stipulate to that. That is not my point at all. There is only one Reagan. And while some may possess Reaganesque qualities, there will be no other Ronald Reagan. I don't know about everybody else, but the only point I am trying to make is that people do change for the better.

Also, even though the past record is checkered, there is no limit to the good that Romney can do in the future precisely because he does possess many Reaganesque qualities. Some of us have chosen to embrace this convert, Mitt Romney, who has been endorsed by good and decent people like David French, Jay Sekulow, Peter Flaherty and others. They trust him to do great things and so do we.

BTW Diamond -- there is no rich irony there --- we have much more than mere words now on which to judge --- Romney has established a pro-life record in Massachusetts. See posts #50 & #52

[redgirlinabluestate]

No, those are not the only explanations for the word choice, HP. I would like the first person to step forward who has not exaggerated something or said something they regret in a heated exchange. Then I'd like all those to step forward who can guarantee they'd never exaggerate or misspeak or slip up on national television while being attacked by a MSM tool. I don't know anybody perfect like that.

Because you are a supporter of another candidate campaigning on this thread rather than promoting your own candidate on another, you are inclined to assign nefarious motives to his word choice. I am not. I think it was an honest mistake.

[redgirlinabluestate]

For your enjoyment Resty!

[restornu]

No one can speak for any of or for the Founding Fathers yet they do give their opinion on things!

Thinks have been said about JFK and he is not here to defend hisself as well as Nixion etc.

Some of you are just thowing pasta against the wall to see if its sticks!

[Reagan Man]

Romney's attack on the Reagan legacy was a huge error in judgment. If it was a mistake, than he should've apologized for it immediately and his supporters shouldn't be making endless excuses for him. IMO, it appears to have been a deliberate falsification of the Reagan record on abortion, to hide Romney's support of Roe v Wade and abortion on demand during most of his adult life.

>>>>>Also, even though the past record is checkered, there is no limit to the good that Romney can do in the future precisely ...

Since I don't consider Romney a conservative, I find your rhetoric here to be way over the top. Bush has given conservatives a checkered policy record as POTUS. We only got about half up the conservative meter with Bush. A glass half full, at best. If Giuliani is at the extreme lower end of conservatism that places Romney somewhere between Bush and Giuliani. A weak Republican candidate, more a political centrist moderate, than a solid conservative.

I don't trust liberals and I don't put my faith in centrist moderates either.

[Reagan Man]

OMG You’re shameless. LOL

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

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

No doubt by nefarious means. I'm sure the anti-Mitt gang will be along soon to tell us how he robbed old ladies at gunpoint, accepted bribes from the mafia, blah blah blah. I'm not very good at this stuff but trust me, they are FAR better. Your wish will be fulfilled!

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

At least they don’t have to hide Mitt in a golf cart only to emerge periodically for show. That’s a candidate with something to hide. As soon as he opens his mouth you know why.

[Reagan Man]

This comparison is more truthful.

Two centrist-moderate Republicans.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

Don't forget, Democrat Ronald Reagan voted for FDR for President four times, and campaigned for Harry Truman. He remained a Democrat until he switched his registration in 1962. He lived 5 decades as a Democrat.

Don't forget, too, that Ronald Reagan said he had no opinion on abortion one way or another when he became governor. He was 56 years old. Hadn't really thought about it too much .

He would be called a RINO and blasted on FR today.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

It truly is bordering on.....crazy.

I've become convinced these people don't interact much with the outside world.

[Reagan Man]

What are you talking about. Reagan is being attacked on FR on a daily basis.

Posters are comparing the liberal Rooty Giuliani to Reagan.

Other posters are comapring the centrist Mitt Romney to Reagan.

Both are insults to Reagan’s great conservative record as POTUS. Nuff said!

[hoosierpearl]

I have not campaigned for my choice on this thread.

I have not said a word about another candidate. You’ve got me mixed up with someone else.

The ONLY thing that I am concerned about here is what he said about Reagan.

I can accept that you think it was an honest mistake. But I cannot. He might have said it just because he listened to someone else say something. Should let President Reagan speak for himself [in his books] in his own words. Even if it was an innocent mistake it is hurtful to the character of President Reagan. It would be to me if someone said something like this about me.