Mitt Romney for President My Man Mitt: KJL does some 'splaining

I don't really have anything to elaborate on KJL's post about Romney's abortion stance, but thought I would give you all a heads up:

I know it’s cool on all sides not to trust Romney, but this strikes me as no there there, despite the reporter’s contention otherwise. He supports a human life amendment but lives in the incremental real world. If Roe is overturned, states will take up the issue. If Roe is overturned, it would be helpful to have a president who supports a federal ban, and who will presumably support those trying to ban abortion in their states (something worth hearing him make clear he would). Romney's position makes sense to me.

Update: Marc Ambinder agrees (my emphasis added):

Mitt Romney is simply struggling to explain the Republican Party's conventional pro-life position. Which is: overturn Roe v. Wade. And then, slowly build up public support for a constitutional amendment banning abortions. ETA: 30 years or more.

This is not a flip-flop.

Assuming that Romney's story of a late-in-life pro-life conversion is true -- and that's a reasonable assumption absent evidence to the contrary -- it's not surprising that he has trouble articulating, in soundbite form, what he believes -- especially to a media that's been conditioned to listen for nuance.

It's also true that everything Mitt Romney says about abortion will be scrutinized to see whether it comports with what he said last week, two months ago, three months ago. His advisers accept that, frustrating as it may be.

Update #2: James Taranto also concurs

The Post reporter seems to be ignorant about the Constitution. Whatever Romney's opinion of a constitutional amendment on abortion (or any other amendment), it is irrelevant to anything he could do as president.
Amending the Constitution is a purely legislative function, possibly the only purely legislative function in the American system of government. To propose an amendment requires the assent of two-thirds of each house of Congress; to ratify it requires the approval of the legislatures in three-fourths of the states. Once this happens--which is exceedingly rare--the amendment comes into force regardless of the president, who has no veto power.

Labels: James Taranto, Kathryn Jean Lopez, Marc Ambinder, national review


	6 Comments: Look at where these attacks are coming from, are they coming from a one issue candidate who has everything to gain by convining "the folks" that Romney will kill the unborn or are they coming from bloggers and reporters who acutally agree with the positions they accuse Romney of having, such as being pro-choice, for gay rights, out to decieve the religious right, and raising taxes. Seriously, articles like the Washington Post and unfortunately any newspaper you read nowadays has to be weighed against the motives of these who are writing the article because journalistic objectivity has been thrown out the window on both sides. By Unknown, at August 23, 2007 at 11:52 AM Mitt Romney is handling all this nonsense 1000% correctly. He is taking his case to the American People and staying on message. Romney is not going to take the bait and will refuse to let others, especially the media, define him. In realty it is all about "location, location, location." In presidential politics it is, "Stay on message, stay on message, stay on message." By Anonymous, at August 23, 2007 at 11:57 AM Mitt Romney is just not going to go as far as some people demand. Some people see this as an issue that is black and white, either you get an abortion on demand for any reason without explaination making the government pay for your "choice" or you never ever have a right to one, while most of America is somewhere inbetween, revencing the existance of a life, while recognizing that there are situations where a life must be given for another. Mitt Romney has been consistant in his beliefs, he has just changed his label becuase it was demanded of him. By Unknown, at August 23, 2007 at 12:10 PM Isn't Mitt advocating the same course that was taken by the women's suffrage movement--gain momemntum in individual states and then take the fight, when it is stronger, to the national level? He's merely a pragmatic student of history, not a wild-eyed, bleeding-heart, divorced-from-reality uber-conservative. By Anonymous, at August 23, 2007 at 3:07 PM The pro-life movement has hundreds of lawyers and special interest group folks who have been working on this issue for 35 years -- full time. --- As stated by the poster above, the goal is incremental gains. --- People who think a single president is going to change all this have not been paying attention the past 3 decades. ----- Reagan didn't stop abortion and gave us Kennedy and O'Conner on the court. ------ GHW Bush didn't stop abortion and neither did his son. ------- It is up to us to get elected pro-life Congress Critters and Senators as well as presidents who will appoint good judges and justices. By Anonymous, at August 23, 2007 at 5:09 PM This is not a story of flip-flopping at all. This is a story of inimical journalistic obsession. By r7968df6, at August 23, 2007 at 9:12 PM Post a Comment