Mitt: Against the Human Life Amendment before he was for it?
posted at 2:17 pm on August 15, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
Sad. Amid all the knocks on Obama about not being ready for primetime, how is it that Mitt still can’t get his story straight on an issue that’s central to his social-con credentials and about which his convictions are already notoriously suspect? Simply as a matter of message discipline, shouldn’t the Romney camp have their position on this nailed down?
This story’s actually a week old but I missed it when it first broke on ABC. Here are two clips, both cribbed from Liz Mair; the first is from February 18 and shows Mitt endorsing the Thompson-esque federalist approach and the second is from August 6 on GMA, in which he embraces the Human Life Amendment:
Each position is defensible but they can’t happily co-exist: if you support a federal constitutional amendment to extend due process rights to fetuses then you’re obviously not willing to let each state decide for itself. ABC asked Romney’s spokesman about the contradiction and he solved the dilemma this way:
Asked to reconcile the seeming discrepancy between Romney’s GMA interview and his National Journal interview, Romney spokesman Kevin Madden provided ABC News with a description of Romney’s position, which says that overturning Roe v. Wade and “putting the decision back in the states” is what Romney supports “in the meantime.”…
“Gov. Romney supports the Republican Party’s platform protecting the sanctity of life,” Madden told ABC News. “He believes that Roe v. Wade should be overturned so that the life issue can be returned to the Democratic process through the people and their elected representatives. Gov. Romney’s support for the Republican Party’s pro-life platform and overturning Roe v. Wade are complementary goals and beliefs.”
What I guess he’s suggesting is democracy in “stages” while the electorate theoretically shifts towards being pro-life. The first move would be to repeal Roe so that the pro-life states can ban abortion in their own yards; then, in a few decades, ideally there’d be the requisite three-quarters consensus needed to pass an amendment that would ban it (or effectively ban it by extending due process rights to fetuses) everywhere. But go watch the first clip again. If he’s really in favor of states making their own decisions on this knotty moral conundrum then he shouldn’t support an amendment at any point, regardless of whether there’s a consensus or not, lest the few remaining pro-choice states be forced to follow the supermajority. That’s a true federalist line, not federalist means towards an anti-federalist end. Nothing wrong with being anti-federalist either, especially on issues which inspire a strong moral conviction: the Thirteenth Amendment is as anti-federalist as they come and we’re all better for it. Just pick a side, though. Federalist or no? Strong moral conviction or no?
There’s also plenty of, shall we say, nuance in supporting a Human Life Amendment while also supporting stacking the Court with anti-Roe judges to have that decision overturned. If you believe abortion policy warrants an amendment, then why eschew that approach when it comes to overturning Roe? If you don’t believe it warrants an amendment, then why stop at stacking the Court with anti-Roe judges? Stack it with judges who want to grant fetuses due process rights by judicial fiat. What’s it all about, Alfie?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
sing it sister!
zane on August 15, 2007 at 2:26 PM
You can’t possibly be fine with an Amendment or at least reversing Roe so states can decide. How’s that possible?
meanwhile troops in Afghanistan are just bombing villages and killing civilians, we haven’t invaded Pakistan yet and we haven’t destroyed our nuclear weapons (since we won’t ever use them why bother keeping them around?)
TheBigOldDog on August 15, 2007 at 2:26 PM
Yawn. That Mitt flip-flops and panders isn’t exactly news- even to his MA supporters who claim he was pandering to the MA electorate then, but he’s really being honest about his views now.
Realistically, an anti-abortion amendment would never get enacted anyways; Bush was pandering a bit himself when he supported an amendment he knew would never pass- it shouldn’t even be an issue since it has exactly zero chance of getting a supermajority vote.
What’s more troubling is that FlipFlop Mitt previously expressed his support for Roe v Wade being upheld, but now- for a different election- is supporting it being overturned. No matter what your view on abortion, it’s pretty clear that Roe v Wade was an activist decision unsupported by the Constitution. I guess he was against a constructionist view of the Constitution before he was for it.
Hollowpoint on August 15, 2007 at 2:37 PM
So wait, let me get this straight…
Mitt wants to elect judges who will do their constitutional duty i.e. show Roe v. Wade as the judicial strongarming it is, so the courts can’t deem whatever Amendment the people vote for (i.e. The Senate passing an amendment) at a later time unconstitutional.
Yeah, there’s a flip-flip Hollowpoint. I never knew that “leaving it to the states” could not include an Amendment to the Constitution passed by, gasp, 38 out of 50 states.
I repeat: For all Romney topics:
1. Shocking Soundbite! Romney is Doomed.
2. Hollowpoint Rant
3. No wait, Mitt knows what he’s talking about.
4. Topic dies/rolls out of sight.
BKennedy on August 15, 2007 at 2:52 PM
THe mitt? campaign folks will shout to the mountains in 5..4..3..2..
jdawg on August 15, 2007 at 2:53 PM
BKennedy nailed it.
RiteWingFascist on August 15, 2007 at 2:54 PM
(a) The courts aren’t going to deem an amendment unconstitutional. They can’t. By definition, it’s constitutional. (b) If you think they’re willing to overlook that fact, then a liberal court can and will do whatever it wants in the future. Even if Mitt’s judges “do their duty,” nothing’s to stop them from being overruled. Your best bet is an amendment.
Allahpundit on August 15, 2007 at 2:56 PM
Maybe Mitt knows what he’s talking about, but you sure don’t. First, you don’t elect judges to the Federal courts. Second, the amendment process is looked upon as a way to go around the couts; that is, the Constitution itself cannot be declared unconstitutional.
Big S on August 15, 2007 at 3:03 PM
One could paint this as he’s willing to do and take whatever steps it takes to outlaw abortion. Personally I think it’s more that he started running before he had all his preparations in order.
- The Cat
P.S. It’s all about the slow and steady turtle that wins the race.
P.P.S. Turtles are bald
P.P.P.S. “I like turtles.”
MirCat on August 15, 2007 at 3:04 PM
Sorry Allah, I’m a little slow on the trigger.
Big S on August 15, 2007 at 3:04 PM
I’d have to see the ABC quote in greater context. It sounded to me like he could have been advocated what should happen in the absence of a Human Life Admendment, whose absence will be present for a long time to come.
pedestrian on August 15, 2007 at 3:06 PM
He gets a pass from me today because of the beating he gave that lib guy ( Bob or Bill Becktal or Beckal or something) on Hannity and Colmes, the one sitting in for Colmes…took him apart and made him look like the fool he is.
right2bright on August 15, 2007 at 3:07 PM
Mitt is employing the “all bases covered” strategy.
Liberal courts are known for overriding the constitution when it serves their goals, e.g. the 5-4 Kelo v. City of New London where they basically said the government can take any land they want for “economic development” as long as they give “suitable compensation” to the owners. Fifth Amendment? Pssshaw. Meaningless to a liberal court.
You take away Roe v. Wade, you take away their ability to strike down any state or federal law that limits or prohibits abortion.
Then you have the pro-life war of attrition strategy. The more pro-choicers abort, the less of them their are. So soon as there is enough public support, legislatures will pass bills restricting, and possibly even banning abortion. With no supreme court to go “stare decisis! Abortion is a woman’s right!” they can make legislation unfettered by judicial fiat.
Eventually, when enough states have heavy abortion restricting laws or prohibitions, the idea is that a constitutional amendment goes up and passes.
It’s a long haul strategy that requires a short term goal of overturning Roe v. Wade and associated legislation. Only when you can actually have state legislatures pass their own laws vis-a-vis abortion without judicial interference can “leave it to the states” have any meaning whatsoever. A constitutional amendment is simply “leaving it to the states” writ large.
BKennedy on August 15, 2007 at 3:07 PM
Oh, sorry, I meant nominate appointees.
Done hair splitting?
And you know full well that a liberal supreme court has no problem in declaring the constitution unconstitutional. Remember, these are the “living document” folks, as long as it’s “living” their preferences.
BKennedy on August 15, 2007 at 3:09 PM
But it’s a long, hard difficult process with no guarantee (or likely) of success. You need 2/3 majority in both Houses and that’s never going to happen. Are you saying if you feel that way, you should be against it and for simply getting Roe overturned by appointing strict constructionist?
TheBigOldDog on August 15, 2007 at 3:10 PM
The more pro-choicers abort, the less of them their are.
BKennedy on August 15, 2007 at 3:07 PM
So it’s genetic?
Big S on August 15, 2007 at 3:11 PM
Overturning Roe v Wade would have the effect of leaving it to the states. Anyone who thinks that winning 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the states to get any amendment related to abortion to pass it delusional. True, you technically don’t need Congress to submit it for vote to the states, but it’s never happened and is highly unlikely to happen given the issue at hand.
Again- I question Mitt’s committment to constructionist principles given his past support for upholding Roe v Wade.
Hollowpoint on August 15, 2007 at 3:14 PM
No, it’s called the Roe Effect - google it!
Brat on August 15, 2007 at 3:18 PM
BKennedy on August 15, 2007 at 3:09 PM
Perhaps I was a bit too snarky; I apologize. However, I think it’s extremely important to use the right terminology in these kinds of discussions.
As for the actual discussion we’re having here, decisions such as Kelo and Roe are made as an interpretation of the Constitution in cases where the rights of two different parties are in conflict. We may not like the decisions, but they do fall under the jurisdiction of the Judicial Branch, since the Constitution itself does not outline the law in those cases explicitly. However, if the actual text of the Constitution is changed, as happens with an amendment, the courts cannot declare it unconstitutional; they can only interpret it, as far as that is possible, in future cases.
Big S on August 15, 2007 at 3:20 PM
Ya know, I try and try and try to like the guy…….but I just can’t help but see him as the GOP equivalent of John Kerry. Ugh.
EduardoOTI on August 15, 2007 at 4:27 PM
I think terrorism will trump the abortion issue in the coming elections, however Romney is not believable at all on the abortion issue. In the last debate, he wavered a lot on the abortion issue. I think this is going to be a big problem for Mitt. At least Guliani is believable on his pro-choice position.
Mark
http://mark24609.blogspot.com/
“Everybody in politics lies, but [the Clintons] do it with such ease, it’s troubling.”
David Geffen - Former Clinton supporter and Hollywood mogul
mark24609 on August 15, 2007 at 4:44 PM
It’s hard to warm up to Mitt. It’s like he wants to fulfill the expectations of conservatives, but he doesn’t know what they are, or how to go about doing it. Painful to watch. He seems like a really nice guy.
jaime on August 15, 2007 at 4:47 PM
I have no problem with Romney’s position on abortion now.
Nor do I have any problem with the Federalist approach either; which probably is as much can be hoped for in the present politicial environment.
I support Federalism in general, but would not mind a constitutional amendment instructing those engaged in the murder of innocents to cease and desist. After all murder is murder.
MarkB on August 15, 2007 at 4:53 PM
Some adviser told Romney that “federalism” is a brand new buzzword that some of those weird conservative types are going nuts over all of a sudden. So, like learning a new “vocabulary builder” word-of-the-week, he started peppering his speeches with that word. Aside from Newt Gingrich and Fred Thomson, I honestly believe that no high-level politician in America understands what every reasonably intelligent fifth-grader should be required to know before moving up.
As for the Anti-Baby-Killing Amendment:
1. If we tried to cure every idiotic Supreme Court decision by Amendment, the Constitution would be 10,000 pages long by now - and infinitely more easily misinterpreted.
2. This is exactly the sort of “Christian heavy-handedness” that the liberal media have spent decades conditioning Americans to fear. Right or wrong, that sort of fear-mongering works; and giving liberal propagandists free ammunition doesn’t help anything. And
3. Of course Presidents don’t have any authority to impose Amendments; what Presidents do is pick Supreme Court Justices. The way to fix this problem is by having the having Constitutional convictions and STICKING WITH THEM. And as hopeless as a flip-flopper would be at getting a strict constructionist past Congress, trying to appoint an anti-abortion activist to the bench would be even worse.
As you pointed out, this type of Constitutional micro-management is exactly the OPPOSITE of federalism. Huckabee appears to be going for the “Christian is right” approach, and Thompson is taking the mutually exclusive federalist approach. Romney and all the other candidates are offering us yet another helping of Bush and Son’s brand of conservatism: defined as “whatever I personally happen to think works best today.”
After 12 years of that crap, I’m pretty much sick of bending over backwards to try to defend it in some sort of coherent manner. In the unlikely event that Huckabee’s crusade gains a LOT of ground, more power to him. I won’t be able to help, but that’s OK; those guys have enough energy for all of us.
Me? I’m waiting for Newt or Fred to throw his hat in. Frankly, I’m too damned fed up to support another “Bush Light” candidate. I just don’t have it in me. I suspect a lot of conservatives feel that way.
If the moderates end up co-opting the Republican Party again, then I suppose I’ll just have to live with whomever they pick. Hopefully, by the time Hillary leaves office, I’ll have recuperated enough to get involved again. But in the meantime, they’ll have to carry the load on their own.
logis on August 15, 2007 at 4:58 PM
C’mon, I am no big fan of Mitt’s history, but the one thing he proved last night is that he can take down a top democratic operative. Colmes clone has given fits to most every Republican he has gone up against, last night Mitt embarrassed him, and even got him to admit Obama choked. All with a smile.
History, smistory, we do need someone who can win a debate and win the trust of the voters. And most of the voters don’t read history…and that’s a fact.
Charisma, character, those win an election…if it was conservative or intelligence, Newt would be in.
right2bright on August 15, 2007 at 5:06 PM
I’m not so sure the “federalist approach” is so exclusive. In a lot of cases, it’s a wink-nudge to conservatives that they can prohibit abortion in their own states if they want to. From a governing perspective, it’s fine, but from a firm pro-life position, it doesn’t make sense to me (although I’m not as firmly pro-life as many who populate this site.) Just like the pro-life “attrition strategy” described by BKennedy in an earlier comment on this thread, shoudn’t a firm pro-lifer be against abortion anywhere in the country, not just in their own state or among those who happen to agree with him?
Big S on August 15, 2007 at 5:10 PM
NOBODY liked John Kerry. The moonbats didn’t like him any more than we did. They picked him because he’s the sort of plastic-faced personality vacuum you’d expect some OTHER sucker to buy a used car from.
We need to try for the brass ring. Focus on who represents us the best, not on who will be least likely to offend the middle. That’s a trap. The BEST you can hope for from that is mediocrity - and you’re pretty likely to end up losing anyway.
logis on August 15, 2007 at 5:23 PM
The only way anyone is going to save babies is to somehow convince the Dems that they can vote, and they are Liberal.
Dem science states that as long as any part of the baby is still in the cervix, that baby can be murdered by any means possible since it poses a threat and simply is not born yet. They have minions of sick, concentration camp doctors just waiting with ice picks and scissors.
Get the voting age down to -9 months with the clause that any Black American living in New Orleans, illegal alien or felon gets to cast a vote for the baby, and the entire disgrace of murdering infants is solved. In fact, there will be a baby boom with Liberals taking condoms away from kids.
Hening on August 15, 2007 at 5:24 PM
Hening on August 15, 2007 at 5:24 PM
Actually, I think the discovery of a gene linked to homosexuality is the best chance for converting liberals. Next time you have the abortion argument with them, ask if they’d support a mother’s right to abort a fetus because it’s gay.
Big S on August 15, 2007 at 5:34 PM
It’s unfortunate he couldn’t prove he could take down a top Democratic Senator- he blew an early lead in the polls to lose to Ted “Chivas Regal” Kennedy.
Hollowpoint on August 15, 2007 at 5:40 PM
So tell me Hollowpoint, If Ted Kennedy is so easy to oust, why has he been in the Senate for over forty years?
I bet you could do it, right Hollowpoint?
I hate Uncle Ted with a passion, but he is so admired and so protected by the liberal establishment here he could campaign naked on Beacon Hill with nothing but a Crossing Guard Sash and a Stop sign and still win 60% of the vote.
But why let reality get in the way of Hollowpoint’s delusions? After all, one should base their decision on who beats democrats by supporting the man who has never faced one in a serious race. Fred Thompson doesn’t even know what a Democratic opponent is. Mitt Romney had to work with a legislature and a judiciary full of them for four years.
We can tell your serious about a candidate who can stop Democrats Hollowpoint. After all, technically Fred didn’t lose to a Democrat if he never had the guts to face any.
He has, however, lobbied for them.
But why bore you with that fact either.
BKennedy on August 15, 2007 at 5:55 PM
Why don’t we just get back to dogs tied to roofs and his religion? So it isn’t good enough that Mitt! is pro-life, now he has to be the right kind of pro-lifer.
You’re really reaching AP. I guess August is slow huh?
csdeven on August 15, 2007 at 6:25 PM
I agree, but that was then, this is now. Like I said, you may read history but the voters don’t. You are one vote, there are thousands who vote on personality, charisma, and who is the “alpha” dog at the time of casting a vote.
I am not a Mitt fan, but he may prove to be the most electable…practically speaking. I would much prefer Newt, but he isn’t electable right now. Things tend to change as the campaign moves on. Look how Obama is flaming out, yet he may make a recovery, and Hillary may take a dive.
I don’t like to write anyone of our men out right now, it just makes it difficult if the one we attack ends up being our best choice to win.
We also have to look who can carry other Senators and Congressmen onto a victory. Who has the longest coattails.
right2bright on August 15, 2007 at 7:03 PM
Wrong- In his first Senate campaign, Fred was some 20 points behind his opponent, a popular TN Congressman. He ended up winning in a landslide.
Romney blew an early lead against Teddy. A tough opponent in a place like MA to be sure, but the fact remains. Romney lost one and won one. Currently his numbers aren’t good despite a campaign 2 years in the making and many millions (including millions of his own money) spent. In matchups against Hillary, he fares poorly. Furthermore, there’s the fact that many- particularly amongst Christian conservatives vital to Republicans- are reluctant to vote for a Mormon, unfair though that might be.
Add in his past and current positions (some of which changed completely when he decided to run 2 years ago) and he’s simply not someone I’ll vote for- not in the primaries, not in the general election.
Hollowpoint on August 15, 2007 at 7:42 PM
Legitimate opinion, just one I no longer subscribe to after 8 years of Bush and a big spending Republican congress. My days of pulling the lever for whomever has an (R) next to their name are over, at least for the near future.
Hollowpoint on August 15, 2007 at 7:48 PM
This thread disgusts me for the simple reason that no one here including Allahpundit actually paid attention to what he said. He did not say he supported the ammendment. He supports states rights. Did you guys even listen to the clips or what? I guess editing down Romneys response to 4 seconds so he doesnt even finish a sentence is supposed to fool everyone?
Resolute on August 15, 2007 at 7:54 PM
I heard him say said he supports the republican platform and that being a part of the Republican platform. How is that not supporting the ammendment?
pedestrian on August 15, 2007 at 9:56 PM
You and I disagree about this one point…I think a weak Republican is better than any Democrat. If Mitt is selected, and I think he has some real weaknesses, he is still better than any of the Democrats.
Which Democrat would you select over Mitt? Hillary or Obama.
right2bright on August 16, 2007 at 12:11 AM
Neither. I’ll either vote 3rd party or stay home. I realize that voting for someone other than the Republican nominee kinda-sorta has the effect of voting for the Democrat, but I’m not voting for someone I don’t support. Not this time.
I’ll take the short-term pain of seeing a Hillary in office over the long-term evolution of the Republican party into just another bunch of big government, pork loving politicians who happen to be against abortion. The country survived 8 years of Bill, it would survive the wounds inflicted by Hillary.
Just because I don’t want to eat a turd sandwich doesn’t mean I’m going to eat a handful of worms because they taste a little better.
Hollowpoint on August 16, 2007 at 2:43 AM
Nice to see someone answer something straight up.
I hope it is short term pain, and we ain’t eating worms.
Every candidate has his/her faults, obviously Mitt is way over the line (in your analysis). The problem with that is, we have seen by the posts, every candidate has skeletons in their closet. Every one who has made the number of decisions and public discourse that some of these candidates like Rudy and Mitt or McCain have made, will have made their share of gaffs, retreats, mis-statements, change of course, etc. Most of us, and fact few of us, will ever have to make that many public decisions, that effect so many lives. And be scrutinized in such detail.
Overall, Fred has shown to be a conservative (look at his voting record), Mitt a little less, but still (considering having to survive in a liberal rich state) a conservative, McCain, who knows probably the weakest as to policy, Newt, no doubt, plain conservative (don’t forget, even Reagan leaned towards giving illegal immigrants rights…no it was not amnesty). But Hillary or Obama, not even close to conservative in any way shape or form.
To use another analogy, a flood is coming, do you get in a leaking boat…or drown?
I would get in the boat, and patch the leak, or bail like hell…you would choose to drown, hope your family isn’t with you.
right2bright on August 16, 2007 at 8:24 AM
The track record of “voting third party or staying hime.”
1992 Edition: Winner: Bill Clinton. Yay Ross Perot.
1996 Edition: Winner: Bill Clinton II. Yay Ross Perot
2000 Edition: Winner: George W. Bush. Kudos Ralphy Nader.
2006 Edition: Winner: Democrats. We showed those RINOs, though.
Voting third party or staying home is only a viable strategy for electing anyone remotely conservative if it’s the Democrats doing it.
Personally, I’d rather accept an imperfect candidate than fall on my own sword in the name of the candidate who is more like me but infinitely less likely to get elected.
Then again, I might just join you if they nominate Rudy. What the hell’s the difference? The guy used to run as a D, at least according to wikipedia. Being a hawk doesn’t make you a republican and it certainly doesn’t make you a conservative.
BKennedy on August 16, 2007 at 10:39 AM
Agreed, and well stated.
But Rudy, as imperfect as he is, is better than any of the “classic” Dems. We take a deep breath, gulp, and pull the lever for Rudy if he is the final choice. The same with the other, every candidate will have a group that loves them, and a group that hates them. The haters have to take that deep breath…whether it is; Rudy, Mitt, Fred, Tancredo, McCain, Newt, whomever.
Giving in to the liberal left is not an option for me. And none of the candidates for Dem. is even close to a center left.
right2bright on August 16, 2007 at 10:56 AM