Well, this probably won’t help him persuade skeptics:
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said this week that President Bush “was pro-choice before he became pro-life,” an assertion the Romney campaign now acknowledges was inaccurate. The remark was based on a magazine article Romney had read, his campaign said.
The comment came as Romney struggled to explain to Republican presidential primary voters the evolution of his views on abortion since he described himself as “pro-choice” when he ran for U.S. Senate in Massachusetts in 1994. Now, Romney says on his campaign Web site: “I am pro-life. I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother.”
In interviews and speeches, Romney has said that his view changed after the question of stem-cell research came to the fore in the Massachusetts legislature in 2004. His advisers point out that he has not tried to have it both ways or weasel on his stance.
Romney made the comment about the president during a 15-minute interview on Thursday with the Spartanburg (S.C.) Herald-Journal. Here is the exchange, which was recorded and is posted on the Campaign 2008 blog on the newspaper’s Web site:
Question: “Bloggers like to call it ‘flip flopping,’ the way you’ve changed your views on issues like abortion over the years. I’ve heard the story about stem cell research that caused you to change your mind on abortion and come to your current position. But will conservatives here buy that? Doesn’t that give off the impression that you’ll do whatever it takes to win?”
Romney: “Ronald Reagan was pro-choice, and became pro-life. I understand that George W. Bush was pro-choice before he came pro-life. Zell Miller was pro-choice before pro-life. And I was effectively pro-choice before I became pro-life. I don’t think anyone questions the commitment on the part of those other gentlemen for pro-life principles. And, in my case, you don’t have to take my word for it. You can look at my record as governor, because I made the move to pro-life some time ago. I’ve been governor. I’ve had several bills that came to my desk that raised the question of abortion or life, and I came down on the side of respecting the sanctity of human life every time.”
As Soren Dayton said, there are two issues involved with Mitt’s conversion; recency and genuineness. Not only was Romney “effectively pro-choice” as little as 2 years ago, but he was vehemently pro-choice. He told NARAL in 2002 that they “need someone like me in Washington.” Not to mention the fact that he angrily denied getting the endorsement from Massachusetts Citizens for Life. This is why I have such a hard time believing his conversion story. He advocated fiercely on behalf of the pro-choice movement, but then suddenly has a complete turn around after the November 2004 stem cell meeting.
He mentions Reagan, Bush and Zell Miller. Reagan’s conversion happened over the course of a decade, as did Miller’s. Even if Bush ran as a pro-choice candidate in 1978, that was fully 22 years before he ran for President and by then his pro-life credentials were not in any sort of doubt. There is a big difference between that and Romney being pro-choice a mere 27 months ago.
February 24th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
Another LJ hit piece. What would this website be without it. Obviously, the most feared man is the one LJ and others feel the need to take out at every opportunity. These pieces are getting tired. I’m just glad we’ve picked up Jason to get some more truth out there concerning Romney.
February 24th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
The National Review reported that Bush was pro-choice in 78. If this was not the case, it’s hardly Romney’s fault that he took the most pre-eminent conservative paper in the country at their word. I’ve read the article Romney’s referring to, as well as others that asserted the same thing about Bush.
February 24th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
Just for reference, what is the specific issue and columist associated with the article in question? Romney should have vetted the information better, but why isn’t there any flak directed at the media for disseminating dubious information?
February 24th, 2007 at 4:29 pm
Quoting Soren Dayton? That alone makes me laugh at this piece. You mine as quote the DNC press releases, oh wait you basically are.
February 24th, 2007 at 4:29 pm
RayB,
This wasn’t meant to be a hit piece at all.
Matt,
Sure. I’ve heard the same thing about Bush as well. It’s not really surprising given that GHWB was famously pro-choice at the same time too. But given that the Romney campaign admitted that they were wrong, I guess it’s generally accepted that Bush was pro-life at the time. But as I mentioned in my piece, even if Bush was pro-choice at the time, there’s still a worlds difference between his and Romney’s positions.
February 24th, 2007 at 4:45 pm
LJ,
What does it mean that others’ change took place over the course of decade? You mean that there was a decade of time between their conversion and when they took office? Or that the change took place over the course of ten years?
I mention it because I would contend that Romney’s conversion has been more gradual than sometimes assumed; for example, he was much more ardent in his defence of pro-choiciness in ’94 than he was in ’02, from my perspective.
Even so, let it be known that I don’t care how long you’ve been pro-life, or how long you’ve been a Bears fan, either. So long as you are today, good on ya, and welcome. The question always was, IS ROMNEY REALLY PRO-LIFE TODAY??
If actions have any place in this debate, maybe you could consider his record as governor as a good indication of his place on the issue now.
February 24th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
[]
Why don’t you give Romney some credit for saying he was wrong. At least he didn’t lie! And BTW, does Romney have to be pro-life for a decade like Reagan for him to be credible? Maybe you will support him in 2016. Do we really need to wait for someone to have a position that long. Seems a little silly [].
February 24th, 2007 at 5:36 pm
MellowFellow,
What does it mean that others’ change took place over the course of decade?
Good question. I generally mean, as you say, that the change took place over the course of several years. I don’t know if you’ve ever changed your mind on something that you’ve ever been deeply committed to. Let me tell you, you don’t just change on something like that overnight. It takes a lot of time and soul searching. You don’t just change on it overnight unless you were indifferent to it to begin with.
he was much more ardent in his defence of pro-choiciness in ’94 than he was in ’02, from my perspective.
If that was true, I’d say you were correct. But the Romney evolution is peculiar because he was ardently pro-choice in 1994 and then in 2001 he said that he wasn’t pro-choice or pro-life (signaling indifference), but then in 2002 he told NARAL that he would represent their interests in Washington and that in the 2002 Gubernatorial debates, he denied getting the endorsement of the Mass Citizens for Life and tried to get to the left of his Democratic opponent on abortion (back to ardently pro-choice). Then he had his pro-life conversion in 2004.
February 24th, 2007 at 7:02 pm
Somebody like Brownback who has held his pro-life position for over a decade is definitely going to be trusted more than Romney who looks now like an opportunist.
February 24th, 2007 at 10:05 pm
LJ,
I’ll quote the erudite folks over at NRO who seem to have answered your most recent anti-Romney missive in advance:
February 24th, 2007 at 10:28 pm
I agree. Lets stick to Romney’s relevant flaws, like his incredible flip-flopping.
February 25th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
Romney is a pile of puke.
February 25th, 2007 at 5:50 pm
LJ,
I know I can’t win trying to defend Mitt’s position in 2002. I wouldn’t try, in fact, because he had an indefensible position, in my opinion. However, even at his lowest point, he would not assume the “pro-choice” label. A meager development, I concede, but still better than 1994, no?
But as I said, he is pro-life now, and that’s what’s important now. Sincerity is only an issue if you think Romney may go back to being pro-choice. For a plethora of reasons – not least of which are political – I can’t believe Romney will ever do that.
February 26th, 2007 at 10:43 am
LJ-
Its not a matter of how sincere he is in the fact that he changed his mind. The issue is that he
comes off like he CHANGED his POSITIONS on a number of issues for political posturing.
February 26th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
KT,
I can’t agree. Sincerity is everything. May the whole world pander to me, this coming election, so long as they are
sincere when they do so (ie, they don’t go back on what they promise me)! That’s what I always say.
February 26th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
… and there’s the rub, MF. Many of the “pro-life” and other social conservative proclaiming republican candidates appear to choose the typical stance and be as vocal as possible about it in the run-up to election. But then what? Very little legislation occurs as a result. Candidates, once secure, then hole down in their business-as-usual bunkers until the next election comes around and the pro-life or pro-marriage mantra needs to be dusted off and brought back out to rally voters around either a movement that doesn’t move or a straw-man, respectively.
Given this, I agree with KT’s point that it does matter what the underlying reasons mean to the position-changes. While it may be good to have the ability to change your mind as new evidence develops or your experience increases, changing your mind as you begin to look at running for a national office doesn’t bode well.