I Was Right: Romney Sucked

Excerpt from an email to Kathryn Lopez of NRO, from one of her readers:

I'm a Mormon, so I should be Romney's natural constituency, but that speech just didn't sit well with me. It never came together. It was recipe conservatism, not conviction conservatism. The part about his conversion to pro-life causes was particularly unconvincing. The part about his conversion to pro-life causes was particularly unconvincing. The catalyst, he said, was when the Harvard profs tried to justify embryonic stem-cell research on the grounds that they'd destroy the embryos they created. The result of this catalyst was that he decided that destroying frozen embryos would be acceptable but not creating new embryos for destruction. Then he mouthed a few platitudes and said he was now a whole-hearted life-beginss-at-conception pro-lifer. That was it. I defy anyone to show any evidence that Romney had a coherent way of connecting those dots.

[...Goes on to compare the pro-choice to the provocations of the Southern Slave Power...]

This is the case that Romney needs to make—that he never thought seriously about abortion and was content to keep abortion laws the way they were, but he found that the abortion crowd wouldn't stop. They kept pushing for more funding, for lower ages of consent, for the right to *create* embryos just to do scientific experiments on them before destroying them—and eventually he decided that he'd had enough.

Oh, and then there's this part, which made me giggle:

P.S. Can Romney please stop talking down Massachussetts at every opportunity? I know all us yokels out here in the sticks don't like the place, but we do understand local patriotism and sticking up for your own people. All his Massachussetts talk feels like condescension to me.

Mark Steyn responds:

Governor Romney needs to do quite a bit of work on his pitch in this field, but you shouldn’t be holding it against the guy that he’s changed his mind. If he means it, then that’s great news for us: we’re meant to be persuading people, aren’t we? And, if he’s just being opportunist, then even that is modestly encouraging.

So, actually, at least Steyn dug the pandering.

Labels: Kathryn Lopez, Mark Steyn, Mitt Romney, The Corner

  ¶ Posted by Paul Curtis 4:45 PM 0 comments

  Notes from the Summit: "The View" on Webb and Hillary

Part one of the full report will be up in a few minutes (just adding the html). Meanhile, here's an additional snippet from the Friday night panel with Kathryn Lopez, Kate O'Beirne, Mona Charen, Michelle Malkin, and Laura Ingraham.

Jim Webb's response to the State of the Union really seems to have gotten under the conservatives' skin. I'll hear denunciations of Webb all weekend, but tonight's panel is impressed. Ingraham thinks Democrats must be “pumped up” about Webb, and she praises him for praising America. She frets that the GOP is losing touch with “the little guy.” We can’t let the Republicans become as elite as we like to say the liberals are, she argues. She even relates a story about a friend's right-wing father who called to ask, "did you hear this Webb guy? I haven't heard a Democrat talk like that in years."

The panelists debate whether Webb represents a genuinely important new development for the Dems. Is our Democrats learning? Charen, who gives me the cold creeps, tries to argue that Republicans shouldn’t worry too much about him. He’s not running for President, and anyway the rest of the Dems are still a bunch of loonies. Ingraham is worried nonetheless. “Heaven forbid if the Democrats became a pro-life party,” she says. “They would be dominant.”

They also discuss the Democratic field: Obama’s a fad, Edwards makes them laugh, but they really fear Hillary. K-Lo asks if HRC will be the next President of the United States. "No," moans the crowd. But it looks stark to the panelists: "Does anyone really think she'll lose any of the states Kerry won?" asks Ingraham.

And the Republicans: Apropos of Mitt Romney, K-Lo asks rhetorically if anyone in the room could vote for someone who voted for Paul Tsongas. Inside my brain, I raise my hand. And Ingraham asks the crowd: “Is everyone in this room looking for the next Reagan?” Big cheers. Make straight the way…

And, of course, they have to get in their digs at Speaker Pelosi. They can't believe she could be a role model. Says Lopez, "I don't think little girls are going to bed tonight dreaming of being Speaker of the House."

Replies Charen: "I hope they're dreaming about Margaret Thatcher."

Labels: 2008, Conservative Summit, Jim Webb, Kathryn Lopez, Laura Ingraham, Michelle Malkin, Mona Charen, Presidential election

  ¶ Posted by Paul Curtis 12:13 PM 3 comments

  Mitt Romney at NRO: Vive la Difference!

(Cross-posted at Daily Kos)

This morning at the National Review, K-Lo puts Mitt Romney through his paces, as the Governor from the Great State of Dukakis/Kerry continues his effort to pander to conservatives. Given how the GOP spent 2004 redefining Massachusetts as "France, only worse," it can't be easy for the guy.

To the tune of "I Walk the Line":

Lopez asks Romney about comments he made in 1994, when he argued that gay marriage should be an issue decided by the states and denounced "extremist" Republicans ["People of integrity don't force their beliefs on others, they make sure that others can live by different beliefs they may have" - whoops! Don't let Dr. Dobson hear you talking like that!]:

GOV. ROMNEY: These old interviews and stories have frequently been circulated by my opponents ever since I took a stand against the Massachusetts supreme-court ruling on same-sex marriage. This being the political season, it is not surprising this old news has appeared again. But I have made clear since 2003, when the supreme court of Massachusetts redefined marriage by fiat, that my unwavering advocacy for traditional marriage stands side by side with a tolerance and respect for all Americans.

Like the vast majority of Americans, I’ve opposed same-sex marriage, but I’ve also opposed unjust discrimination against anyone, for racial or religious reasons, or for sexual preference. Americans are a tolerant, generous, and kind people. We all oppose bigotry and disparagement. But the debate over same-sex marriage is not a debate over tolerance. It is a debate about the purpose of the institution of marriage and it is a debate about activist judges who make up the law rather than interpret the law.

I agree with 3,000 years of recorded history. I believe marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman and I have been rock solid in my support of traditional marriage. Marriage is first and foremost about nurturing and developing children. It’s unfortunate that those who choose to defend the institution of marriage are often demonized.

Shorter version: "I supported civil rights until the courts started trying to enforce them."

You certainly get the sense that Romney has been carefully studying his conservative lexigraphy. One of the benefits of being a Republican is that if you want to appeal to conservative voters, there are certain pre-packaged words and concepts you simply need to cite in order to demonstrate your bona fides. It's a remarkably effective way for a political movement to exercise control: provide the specific language that politicians must use. Orwell understood this. In this case Romney sees the obvious out: this isn't about teh gays, it's about "activist judges who make up the law rather than interpret the law." A million conservative heads nod in unison: check.

On abortion:

LOPEZ: In a 1994 debate with Senator Kennedy, you said “I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time that my Mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years we should sustain and support it.” [...] What is your position on abortion today? On Roe? How do you account for what is obviously a change — certainly publicly — on the issue?

GOV. ROMNEY: My position has changed and I have acknowledged that. How that came about is that several years ago, in the course of the stem-cell-research debate I met with a pair of experts from Harvard. At one point the experts pointed out that embryonic-stem-cell research should not be a moral issue because the embryos were destroyed at 14 days. After the meeting I looked over at Beth Myers, my chief of staff, and we both had exactly the same reaction — it just hit us hard just how much the sanctity of life had been cheapened by virtue of the Roe v. Wade mentality. And from that point forward, I said to the people of Massachusetts, “I will continue to honor what I pledged to you, but I prefer to call myself pro-life.” The state of Massachusetts is a pro-choice state and when I campaigned for governor I said that I would not change the law on abortion. But I do believe that the one-size-fits-all, abortion-on-demand-for-all-nine-months decision in Roe v. Wade does not serve the country well and is another example of judges making the law instead of interpreting the Constitution.

What I would like to see is the Court return the issue to the people to decide. The Republican party is and should remain the pro-life party and work to change hearts and minds and create a culture of life where every child is welcomed and protected by law and the weakest among us are protected. I understand there are people of good faith on both sides of the issue. They should be able to make and advance their case in democratic forums with civility, mutual respect, and confidence that our democratic process is the best place to handle these issues.

This one is particularly neat: "It was the plight of the stem cells that made me see the light!" I hope some communications consultant got a bonus for that one. (He also includes another dig at those wacky activist judges and - what's that high-pitched whistling sound? - a jab at "experts from Harvard.")

The answer is actually a pretty half-assed attempt at sounding moderate while going after the anti-choice vote. He burps out some vacuous rhetoric about "civility, mutual respect," and the "democratic process" to at least make a show of covering his butt as he makes the only promise that matters here: a President Romney would appoint justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade. Operation Rescue will take care of the rest. There are ways to approach the abortion issue from a consensus-building perspective. This ain't it.

And in case there's any confusion on the matter:

LOPEZ: Does that mean you were “faking it” — as one former adviser has suggested — as a pro-choicer in your previous political campaigns? Why should anyone believe you’re really pro-life now?

GOV. ROMNEY: I believe people will see that as governor, when I had to examine and grapple with this difficult issue, I came down on the side of life. I know in the four years I have served as governor I have learned and grown from the exposure to the thousands of good-hearted people who are working to change the culture in our country. I’m committed to promoting the culture of life. Like Ronald Reagan, and Henry Hyde, and others who became pro-life, I had this issue wrong in the past.

Lesson learned: Mitt Romney, unlike the majority of Americans, is anti-choice.

Of course, Romney was for civil rights and choice before he was against them. Is 2008 the year that the Republicans nominate a flip-flopper from Massachusetts?

(Paul)

Labels: abortion, gay marriage, Kathryn Lopez, Mitt Romney, National review

  ¶ Posted by Paul Curtis 10:19 AM 0 comments