And in this election, every single candidate has changed positions on one thing or another. It will get to the point that it too becomes a tired issue.
Seven, you need to look honestly at these next 3 posts:
(1) Mitt takes 3 positions on ENDA (forcing businesses to hire those with alternative sexualities)--2 of which are not pro-family...his 1st & 3rd positions [see below for details on that];
(2) Mitt takes 3 positions on embryonic stem cell experimentation--2 of which are not pro-life...his 1st & 3rd positions [see next post for details];
(3) Mitt takes over a dozen positions on general pro-life stances all over the map...I mean he even starts waffling away from wanting to be called "pro-choice" in 2001 before coming out as hardline pro-abortion as possible in 2002; only to undergo a pro-life "conversion" in late '04 & still make pro-abortion statements in 2005 & pro-abortion actions in 2006; and then muddle where he stood all throughout 2007. [See 2nd post ahead for details]
The only thing that's truly "tiring" is trying to keep up with his latest Gumby position.
THE FLiP SIDE OF MITT
Multiple Choice Mitt not only "changes" his positions, but he does so multiple times, waffling back & forth. On the position of whether business owners should be forced to hire alternative sexual preference employees, what do you think the chances are of a given candidate having three (count 'em, 3) pre-Christmas positions over the past 14 Christmases? (Well, Mitt has managed to do that...and his latest position is have the states do the dirty work of pro-homosexual activists.)
Pre-Christmas 1994 (October): “We have discussed a number of important issues such as the Federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which I have agreed to co-sponsor, and if possible broaden…” Oct. 6, 1994 Romney for U.S. Senate letter to Log Cabin Club of Massachusetts
Pre-Christmas 2006 Interview (mid-December): Lopez: And what about the 1994 letter to the Log Cabin Republicans where you indicated you would support the Federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) and seemed open to changing the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in the military? Are those your positions today? Gov. Romney: No. I don’t see the need for new or special legislation. My experience over the past several years as governor has convinced me that ENDA would be an overly broad law that would open a litigation floodgate and unfairly penalize employers at the hands of activist judges. Source: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MmY1MTQyMTk0Yjk2ZDNmZmVmNmNkNjY4ODExMGM5NWE=
Pre-Christmas 2007 Interview (mid-December): December 16, 2007: The following is excerpted from Romney's "Meet the Press" interview December 16 with Tim Russert: MR. RUSSERT: You said [in 1994] that you would sponsor [Sen. Ted Kennedy's federal] Employment Nondiscrimination Act. Do you still support it? GOV. ROMNEY: At the state level. I think it makes sense at the state level for states to put in provision of this. MR. RUSSERT: Now, you said you would sponsor it at the federal level. GOV. ROMNEY: I would not support at the federal level, and I changed in that regard because I think that policy makes more sense to be evaluated or to be implemented at the state level. Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22273924/page/6/
THE FLoP SIDE OF MITT
Has Mitt really converted, pro-life wise? Let's first just examine, in two summary statements, a comparison of what he has said in 2007.
Mitt on the 2007 campaign trail:
(Summary Statements: Example A)
Jan 28, 2007 in South Carolina: “Over the last multiple years, as you know, I have been effectively pro-choice." (Source cited in ensuing "FLiP & FLoP post). A little over 6 months later: Aug. 12, 2007 in Fox interview: "I never called myself pro-choice...I wasn't pro-choice..."
(Summary Statements: Example B)
June 15, 2007 (National Review article he wrote): "Some advocates told me that only the creation of human embryos for purposes of experimentation, otherwise known as cloning, could help them better understand and perhaps someday treat a series of dreaded diseases. But they ignored the importance of protecting human equality, dignity, and life. Almost 6 months later: December 5, 2007 Romney is interviewed by CBS' Katie Couric: ...surplus embryos...Those embryos, I hope, could be available for adoption for people who would like to adopt embryos. But if a parent decides they would want to donate one of those embryos for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable. It should not be made against the law."
A vocal pro-life nurse named Jill Stanek, up until this last quote from Romney, "was trying hard to give this pro-life convert the benefit of the doubt." Stanek's assessment of Romney's conclusion? "No. A parent cannot authorize killing a child. A parent cannot donate his/her living child for scientific experimentation. Romney understood this when discussing abortion earlier in the interview. He just need to apply that logic to human embryo experimentation...I don't get Romney's disconnect, but he has disconnected. And he has disqualified himself...Turns out he's not completely converted." Source: http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2007/12/mitt_romney_just.html
As Deal W. Hudson has said in his blog, Romney has a "lingering problem" in being only opposed to creating clones for stem cell research--not opposed to using "discarded" or "donated" frozen embryos: "...frozen embryos have been the primary source of embryonic tissue for stem cell research. How can you declare yourself opposed to this research when you are not opposed to the way it is actually carried out?...My question is this: How can you consider a frozen embryo a moral entity capable of being adopted, while at the same time support the scientist who wants to cut the embryonic being into pieces? Even more, if Romney's conversion was about the 'cheapened value of human life,' how can he abide the thought of a parent donating 'one of those embryos' to be destroyed?" Source: http://dealwhudson.typepad.com/deal_w_hudson/2007/12/the-problem-wit.html
So, just on embryonic research, we go from a...
...Mid-2002 Romney singing the praises of embryonic research: June 13, 2002, where he: ...spoke at a bioethics forum at Brandeis University. In a Boston Globe story filed the next day, he was quoted as saying that he endorsed embryonic stem cell research, hoping it would one day cure his wife's multiple sclerosis. And he went on to say: "I am in favor of stem cell research. I will work and fight for stem cell research," before adding, "I'd be happy to talk to [President Bush] about this, though I don't know if I could budge him an inch." When pressed, however, Romney and his aides declined to offer an opinion on "therapeutic" or embryonic cloning. Source: weekly standard http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/013/222htyos.asp?pg=1
...To a...
...Late-2004 Romney undergoing his pro-life "conversion" due to this very issue: Nov. 9, 2004: Romney meet with Dr. Douglas Melton from the Harvard Stem Cell Institute: He recalls that it happened in a single revelatory moment, during a Nov. 9, 2004, meeting with an embryonic-stem-cell researcher who said he didn't believe therapeutic cloning presented a moral issue because the embryos were destroyed at 14 days. "It hit me very hard that we had so cheapened the value of human life in a Roe v. Wade environment that it was important to stand for the dignity of human life," Romney says. Source: Time Mag, March 9, 2007 http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1619536-2,00.html
...To a...
...Late-2007 Romney who doesn't mind frozen embryonic life being "cheapened" or doesn't mind if they are excluded from his so-called "importance of protecting human equality, dignity, and life"...well that is, with this caveat: As long as Mom & Pop say it's OK for them to be sacrificed in such an experimental research manner!