Hey! What do you know, Romney was right on W’s abortion flip. Kate O’Brien said this:
On Monday it was reported that Governor Mitt Romney had said something inaccurate. Responding to charges about his change of positions on abortion, he had said in a recent interview that George W. Bush, too, “was pro-choice before he came prolife.” His campaign based that claim on a National Review article (which I wrote) about political converts to the pro-life cause.
The White House denied that Bush was ever pro-choice, and Romney backed down.
But Romney was right.
In 1978, a newspaper in Lubbock, Texas, interviewed Bush during his first congressional campaign. The article reported that Bush, then in a primary fight with a more conservative candidate, opposed both the Human Life Amendment and federal funding of abortion. He was described as in favor of leaving the abortion question up to a woman and her doctor. “‘That does not mean I’m for abortion,’ he said.”
Flash forward to 2000. The Bush campaign accused Gore of flip-flopping on abortion, and David Corn came back in The Nation with an account of his 1978 interview. Dan Bartlett, speaking for Bush’s 2000 campaign, gave this less-than-categorical denial to the Washington Post: “The best we can tell is, this is a misinterpretation of the governor’s position. The governor was pro-life before he ran for Congress, during his run for Congress and after he ran for Congress.”
The Post explained that Bartlett, who hadn’t been with Bush 22 years before, didn’t know whether the 1978 campaign requested a correction. The Texas reporter told The Nation that she didn’t recall any complaint about being misquoted. Bush’s abortion views as reported by the local paper would have been wholly unsurprising for a Texas Republican in 1978. Gerald Ford and his father were pro-choice, as was GOP Senator John Tower, who was running for his third term that year. It is also not surprising that in 2000 the Bush campaign wouldn’t want to acknowledge it, having labeled Gore a flip-flopper on abortion. Understandably, the Romney campaign has little interest in taking on the White House over Bush’s changed views on abortion. But that they have changed shouldn’t really be in doubt.
In the latest volley in the GOP primary’s war over abortion positions, past and present, Senator Sam Brownback’s campaign pounced on the controversy to accuse Mitt Romney of “untruthfully characterizing the record of President Bush on life issues.” But any untruthful characterization of George Bush’s abortion position hasn’t been Romney’s.
Whoopsy! How come I don’t think the accusers will be issuing any apologies?
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLe5p7l7xUY[/youtube]
…and her sister in law is a MittHead!
February 27th, 2007 at 8:04 pm
Will people ever accept that politicians can change their minds, just like normal people?
In the current political climate, surely changing your mind is a good thing. Many Americans would love it if Bush could change his mind on Iraq…
February 27th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
Jason,
Good posting. However, with regard to the video, the Title is extremely misleading. Nowhere
in the video does Mrs. Bush come out and support Gov. Romney as a candidate. She says, repeatedly, that
she will not pick a candidate but will support the nominee. A little dishonest to call her anything
close to a “Mitthead” for defending the Gov. regarding his faith.
February 27th, 2007 at 8:15 pm
Geoff, she does say of Mitt that:
- “I know him well”
- “I like him a lot”
- “he’s a very outstanding and wonderful man with great character and a lot of great credentials”
So its fair to say that she’s supportive of Mitt, even if she doesn’t support him as the candidate. Its a pretty good reference from the First Lady!
February 27th, 2007 at 8:27 pm
Geoff,
Sorry, didn’t mean to imply something that wasn’t there, I will change that part. I just wanted to use the term MittHead!:)
February 27th, 2007 at 8:34 pm
Jason,
Ya, no big deal, leave it. I just wasn’t sure. It is a pretty sweet term though.
February 27th, 2007 at 8:41 pm
nice….romney does his research!
February 27th, 2007 at 8:56 pm
Jason,
First, I’ll apologize about getting the Bush thing wrong. But Romney also retracted his statement, so he evidently thought he was wrong too.
Also, MittHead? Just stick with Romneyite…
February 27th, 2007 at 10:33 pm
Yeah, the jury is out on Mitthead. But I think it is more catchy than Romneyite.
February 28th, 2007 at 2:51 am
This is still a little obscure, don’t you think? From what you’ve presented, it sounds like one Texas newspaper reported that George W. Bush made one quote in which he seemed ambiguous on abortion 20 years before the 2000 race, while his staff denied that he was ever pro-choice. George Bush may have changed his position on abortion. I don’t know. But I don’t think that this is incontrovertible proof that Bush flip-flopped. Even if he did, he went on to establish a decades long record of supporting pro-life issues. We can argue about whether it’s valid to judge candidates’ current stances based on past positions. But I’m not sure it’s effective to validate your own ideological shifts by comparing yourself with those who have much stronger pro-life records than you do based on a few ambiguous sources from decades ago. Nonetheless, I still applaud the good research in finding that 1978 source.
February 28th, 2007 at 9:01 am
Diane,
Nothing obscure about this quote:
“He was described as in favor of leaving the abortion question up to a woman and her doctor.”
That’s pro-choice language, pure and simple. I’m grateful that W went on to become a strong pro-life ally. The reality is that all 3 GOP Presidents of the past 30 years, despite being pro-life Presidents, had ambiguous or blatanly pro-choice rhetoric in the background. That didn’t stop them from governing as pro-lifers. And most SoCons will take that gamble with Mitt as well, especially when the “front-runner” is a NARAL-supporting, admitted pro-choicer. SoCons will not let Rudy skate on a promise to appoint certain types of judges, unless he tells us exactly who he is going to appoint. Especially once he’s exposed in the debates, and his pro-choice positions are juxtaposed with several pro-lifers.
Of course, the poll numbers in Kavon’s post above this one seems to indicate that there aren’t that many SoCons around. Rudy might be banking on it, but I’m a little skeptical of that poll’s findings.
February 28th, 2007 at 11:43 am
Romney might talk more like a pro-life candidate than Rudy, but I still would rather go with someone whose pro-life views didn’t just fall out of the sky a few years ago.