In today’s Washington Post, Ruth Marcus writes about a early 2005 interview that she and Dan Balz conducted with Mitt Romney on abortion. If you’ve been following Romney’s statements for a while, this might be old news. But it is interesting nonetheless:
Precisely two years ago, Mitt Romney, then the governor of Massachusetts but already eyeing a 2008 presidential bid, sat in the coffee shop of a Washington hotel, doing his best not to explain his views on abortion.
Romney was speaking to a few of us from The Post, and my colleague Dan Balz noted the similarity between Romney’s expressed views on abortion rights and the stance of another Massachusetts politician, Sen. John F. Kerry: Both men said they were personally opposed to abortion but did not support making it illegal.
From there, Romney proceeded to expound one of the odder positions I’ve heard in years of listening to politicians talk about a subject most would prefer to avoid: “I can tell you what my position is, and it’s in a very narrowly defined sphere, as candidate for governor and as governor of Massachusetts,” he said. “What I said to people was that I personally did not favor abortion, that I am personally pro-life. However, as governor I would not change the laws of the commonwealth relating to abortion.
“Now I don’t try and put a bow around that and say what does that mean you are — does that mean you’re pro-life or pro-choice, because that whole package — meaning I’m personally pro-life but I won’t change the laws, you could describe that as — well, I don’t think you can describe it in one hyphenated word.”
Got it? I didn’t, and I asked, “Do you support making abortion illegal? I’m not talking about what you would do as governor of Massachusetts.”
Romney: “But that’s the furthest I’m going to take you right now. I’m governor of Massachusetts, and I’m telling you exactly what I will do as governor of Massachusetts, but I’m not going to tell you what I’d do as mayor of Boston or a congressman or any of those positions.”
But I wanted to make note that the interview was conducted on February 28th, 2005. That date is extremely important when discussing the chronology of Mitt’s transformation. Why is that day, exactly 103 weeks ago today, so important, you ask? Well, because by the end of February of ’05, that was already 3 months PC* (or post-conversion).
Romney’s campaign and his supporters in the blogosphere have a slight bipolar complex when it comes to discussing their man Mitt. Often times, perplexing and/or contradictory statements that Mitt’s made in the past are dismissed because because he said them BC (or before conversion) and therefore they somehow aren’t a valid representation of Mitt Romney Version 9.6 of 2007.
The Romney revisionist history states that once the conversion took place and he realized at the tender age of 57 that Roe v. Wade had “cheapened the value of human life,” he became a champion for the unborn and grand protector of traditional values. This is an incredibly flimsy argument and has rightly been ridiculed by lots of people on both sides of the aisle, including Romney “Chief Disciple” Kathryn Jean Lopez who said that it wasn’t “very compelling.”
But there appears (surprise, surprise) to be more than meets the eye here. Because here we have an interview a full three months after Romney saw the light and yet he was still recycling his old line about being pro-life, while pledging not to touch Massachusetts law. What happened to standing up for human life, Mitt? Things take an even more bizarre turn when in June of 2005, Romney’s chief political strategist said that Romney had “been a pro-life Mormon faking it as a pro-choice friendly.” But the coup de grace comes a month later when on July 26th, 2005 he vetoed a bill providing from emergency contraception, or the “morning after pill.” So, there was a definite shift in Romney’s rhetoric and actions between the day of conversion and when he fully embraced his culture warrior role. What happened during those months? Romney says his beliefs “evolved and deepened.” Perhaps they did, or perhaps he just decided to run for President.
* The exact date of Mitt’s conversion was November 9th, 2004 when he and his chief of staff Beth Myers met with Harvard stem cell researcher, Doug Melton.
February 21st, 2007 at 5:33 pm
Repugnant as Romney is, I do have to give him credit for keeping his promise to do nothing. That must have been extremely challenging.
February 21st, 2007 at 5:36 pm
Nice try, yet again LJ. The letter Romney wrote to the Boston Globe in 2005 calling himself pro-life said that he would, nonetheless, preserve Massachusetts’s pro-choice laws as he’d promised. In short, he said everything he’d said above, but added that he now wanted to identify himself as pro-life. Linguistically, in terms of actions he’d take, and in terms of what he’d favor at the national, or state level, there’s no contradiction here. In fact, this line “But that’s the furthest I’m going to take you right now. I’m governor of Massachusetts, and I’m telling you exactly what I will do as governor of Massachusetts, but I’m not going to tell you what I’d do as mayor of Boston or a congressman or any of those positions” details a significant shift in and of itself. Entirely gone is the, “that choice needs to be left to women” rhetoric he’d occasionally included in his position explications. Not only isn’t he identifying himself as pro-choice here (which he refused to do in the 2002 video as well) but he refuses to even admit he believed in a woman’s right to choose. Romney wasn’t calling himself pro-life at this point, but it’d take a truly imperceptive individual not to note the substantial shift in rhetoric. Romney’s eventual letter to the Boston Globe coincided with the next major abortion related bill, after his conversion. This is entirely logical. It’d be odd indeed for Romney to call a press conference, out of nowhere and on no pretext, to announce such a serious position shift. Instead, he waited to explain it in the context of his actions.
February 21st, 2007 at 5:38 pm
I’m sure most that read this blog will take the discussion in another direction, but can I just say something about K-Lo, based 100% on my own personal perception of things?
FWIW, I don’t agree that anything Romney has done has changed her thinking. She pretty much had all the info upfront (as we all do, though for some reason many seem to wish to “break” the same flip-flop every other week). I think the poor woman was weary with hearing about how she was an “obsessed” stalker, and having her every statement about Romney being immediately dismissed because of who she (supposedly) was: a Romneybot.
Hence, IMHO, she diluted her passion with some measure of moderation: “not compelling” this, “Rudy’s okay” that…So, it irks me just a tad to hear people say, EVEN Romney’s #1 disciple is cracking. I don’t quite see it that way. Not that it matters a great deal to me what K-Lo, of all people, really thinks. Just my 2 cents.
February 21st, 2007 at 5:42 pm
More to the point, I’ll say that I would be careful to call a person’s personal conversion story to a pro-life position “ridiculous.” I’m talking as a human being here. That is some very delicate stuff.
How can you so nonchalantly assert that in nobody’s mind could the image of rows upon rows of human embryos being destroyed have any real impact? I wasn’t even there, and the story affects me.
February 21st, 2007 at 5:51 pm
It’s entirely useless to explain to Rudy or McCain advocates that actually dealing with social issues, as a personally conservative man, could have a significant impact on ones positions. There’s been absolutely no place in the country over the last four years more likely to provoke a backlash of sentiment on social issues, because there’s no place where so many social issues came to the forefront. I’m frankly getting bored pointing these things out.
February 21st, 2007 at 5:56 pm
That should have been, “I would be careful ABOUT CALLING a person’s peronal conversion story ‘ridiculous’”, obviously.
February 21st, 2007 at 6:49 pm
LJ,
News flash. This STILL isn’t news. Romney has in the past promised that despite his personal conversion on the issue, he would uphold his campaign pledge to allow no change to MA laws. This story from February 2005 backs that up. And in July 2005 he was again upholding his campaign promise to allow no changes to the MA abortion laws. Again, no contradiction.
I find your constant attempts to make new spin out of old news tiresome. Your attempts to make contradictions appear where there are none is blatently dishonest.
February 21st, 2007 at 9:08 pm
murphy,
I did put this disclaimer in the post: “If you’ve been following Romney’s statements for a while, this might be old news.”
I wasn’t claiming that this was shocking, as it happens, breaking news, but this was a prominent article about a top-tier 2008 contender that deserved some attention.
And with all this huffing and puffing over whether he would stick to his campaign pledges, it’s clear that he didn’t. In 2002, he pledged to support stem cell research (and was opposed to Bush’s position) – but he didn’t. He pledged to increase access to EC – which he didn’t. He pledged to support sex education in schools – which he didn’t
February 21st, 2007 at 9:44 pm
Matt, Murphy, HeavyM:
Frankly, I’m getting bored listening to you guys touting Romney like he is some kind of
God. You are all constantly harping on this guy, trying to defend him every minute of the day.
Obviously, there is something askew here with this guy, otherwise you would not feel the need
to do this. You three really need to get a life already. Kavon, I apologize in advance if
I am being harsh and personal.
KT
February 21st, 2007 at 10:36 pm
LJ,
Regarding the stem cell research, EC, and sex education, do you have details and citations? You may be right, but I’d like to see the evidence for my own education. And reflecting back on this, I too quickly breezed over your initial disclaimer that this was old news.
Regardless of the above statement, I’m still quite sure that you were painting this piece as evidence of Romney contradicting himself, which w/r/t the abortion timeline, he was not.
February 21st, 2007 at 10:42 pm
KT,
I’ll speak only for myself and not Matt and HeavyM, whose posting I enjoy primarilly for the equal treatment to the various candidates and secondly for the pro-Romney angles.
Many of your posts recently have been towing the Boston Globe line and attempting to slam Romney for one thing or another, often times misrepresenting the facts. If you’d like, I can provide examples. Were it not for this, I can guarantee you I would have probably posted a few dozen less comments this week. And you’re right, I may need to get more of a life because I’m addicted to Kavon’s blog.
And if hearing Romney’s record cited in comparison to the other candidates gives you the impression that he’s a god, those are your words, not mine.
February 21st, 2007 at 11:08 pm
murphy,
Ask and you shall receive.
Stem Cells: “I am in favor of stem cell research, I will work and fight for stem cell research. . . . I’d be happy to talk to [President Bush] about this, though I don’t know if I could budge him an inch.” – Brandeis University bioethics panel, June 13, 2002.
EC: In the 2002 campaign, Romney answered “yes” to this question from the Planned Parenthood: “Do you support efforts to increase access to emergency contraception?”
Abstinence: Also in ’02, Romney said “yes” on a NARAL survey to this question: “Do you support comprehensive, age-appropriate family life/sexuality education in the public schools, and oppose ‘abstinence-only’ sexuality programs?”
I don’t have a link offhand (I got these from LexisNexis), but I can dig it up if you want. And, yes, while the MA abortion laws themselves remained untouched, that was because Romney would’ve been crucified if he did anything to them. He tried to ban Catholic hospitals from giving EC to rape victims, but changed when vast majorities in both parties and Lt. Gov. Healy all turned on him.
February 21st, 2007 at 11:32 pm
Romney vetoed the stem-cell bills on the basis that they extended funding to embryo-farming, embryo-cloning, and somatic cell nuclear transfer sections. In 2002 he stated that he didn’t yet have a position on those aspects of stem-cell research. I’d also note that that quote of yours doesn’t mention embryonic stem cell research, but rather generic stem cell research. I don’t want to give the impression that Romney didn’t support research from surplus embryos. To the best of my knowledge, he did. And he no longer does (at least in terms of public funding), but that quote doesn’t show it.
On EC: He vetoed the morning after pill bill on the grounds that it allowed minors to purchase the pill over the counter. It’s a far cry from saying you support expanded emergency contraception as a general principle, to supporting emergency contraception, without parental knowledge, for minors. And he vetoed RU-486 on the grounds that it was really an abortificent (which it is of course). None of this in any way conflicts with any general support for emergency contraception.
On Abstinence: The programs Romney promoted in office weren’t abstinence-only programs. They simply placed increased emphasis on abstinence. You might not believe this, but in Massachusetts, they actually didn’t discuss abstinence at all in most sex education classes before Romney. “Comprehensive” comprehended everything except not having sex (hardly comprehensive in any serious sense then). I presume that Romney still opposes abstinence-only programs. I sincerely hope he does anyway. I think they’re an awful idea, and I’m as conservative as one can conceivably get on life issues.
February 21st, 2007 at 11:35 pm
Also, Romney was not trying to ban anyone from giving EC to rape victims. The Catholic hospitals themselves were deeply opposed to emergency contraception, but a recent law (or court ruling) required it of them. He attemped to get them exemption status, but backed down when he realized he had no support.
February 21st, 2007 at 11:41 pm
LJ,
The wonders of your Lexus Nexus never cease. I only wish I could convince you to turn the power of that thing against McCain.
Now, as to that list.
Stem cell research is a whole world different than embryonic stem cell research. Romney has always supported stem cell research, and came out in opposition to the embryonic stem cell research for the exact reason that this (unlike the former) destroys human life.
W/r/t EC, I believe Romney was refering to Plan B (which is effective only in the first 12-24 hours after sex. RU-486 (which he vetoed) is not EC since it is designed to cause miscarriage any time in the first trimester.
W/r/t abstinence education, that one you may have correct.
February 21st, 2007 at 11:43 pm
Sorry, for the third post in a row, but I continually find new areas of amusement in LJ’s last post. “And, yes, while the MA abortion laws themselves remained untouched, that was because Romney would’ve been crucified if he did anything to them.” So let me get this straight…for weeks, months, you and others have been contending that Romney’s conversion was insincere; that he’s truly pro-choice and has changed for political expediency. But now you’ve decided that he REALLY wanted to ban hospitals from distributing contraception, but was foiled in his evil conservative design by…umm, liberals? Huh? What? Schizophrenic much?
February 21st, 2007 at 11:43 pm
Hmm, I should have hit “refresh” before posting…I default my entire post in favor of Matt’s, which is more comprehensive and to your points, LJ.
February 21st, 2007 at 11:46 pm
I have Lexus Nexus and various other college resources at my disposal, but haven’t yet motivated myself to go on a digging expedition on McCain and Giuliani. I do enough research for classes.
February 22nd, 2007 at 12:32 am
Matt,
In your above posts, its obvious that you clearly stick to your guns which is very admirable. LJ clearly points out previous statements from Romney contradicting positions he now takes. You counter by saying that his actions as Governor prove that he really didn’t mean what he said.
But I have to ask, doesn’t that in itself bother you? Doesn’t it bother you that a man can say one thing while running for an office and do something entirely different, in fact reneging on his word, while in office? To me, that once again proves Romney is willing to say anything to anyone if it will win him votes. To me he is a perfect politician, but not a leader of the free world. I just wanted to ask.
February 22nd, 2007 at 2:49 am
Lol LJ is desperate now with MR at about 5%.
Can you imagine what he’ll be like when he catches on!
Will be fun to watch.
February 22nd, 2007 at 6:49 am
Yawn…… Come on LJ, can’t you do any better then the same ole spin r42008 has been weaving for months now. All this has already brought up and discredited. After another repetitive article on this site I think I have finally been pushed to go shave my head and check into rehab!
February 22nd, 2007 at 10:59 pm
I want to say something about all you guys on here: you are obviously all very bright, thoughtful, intelligent people. I am a person of passion, myself and that is why I support Rudy. I do not see a whole lot of substance in Romney. Perhaps because he is from Utah and a Mormon, who moved to Michigan and then to Massachusetts…I dont know. But I wish that we could all get over the issues and just see the person for who they are. Who will make the best, strongest, most dynamic leader (republican, hopefully)? Who will excite us and drive us out of our seats when we are watching the acceptance speech? Who will make us really feel like it is us against the Bin Ladens of the world? In my opinion, that person is Rudolph William Giuliani.
February 22nd, 2007 at 11:12 pm
“Perhaps because he is from Utah and a Mormon, who moved to Michigan and then to MassachusettsI dont know.” Huh? That might well be the most incoherent thing I’ve heard from anyone on this site. I honestly have no idea what you’re trying to say. I thought maybe you were leveling some sort of anti-Mormon bigotry, but the “moved to Michigan and then to Massachusetts” bit threw me for a loop I have to admit.
February 23rd, 2007 at 11:50 am
KT,
I take heart in the fact that your objections to Romney are based on a religious, personal, or other intangible grounds…because it’s obvious you haven’t done much research on Romney’s personal background. Should you have an open mind, you’ll no doubt warm up to him as you learn more.
He’s from Michigan, not Utah.