Heart-ache: Mitt attended Planned Parenthood fundraiser in 1994; Update: Medved to Mitt supporters — stop whining about bigotry

posted at 12:29 pm on December 18, 2007 by Allahpundit

To my surprise, judging from the comments in headlines some HA readers think this matters. We’ve known for years that he was pro-choice in ’94, we’ve known for months that his wife once cut PP a check. Who cares if he popped in to gladhand while he was running for Senate?

Or is this a case of the cover-up being worse than the crime?

Mitt Romney attended a fund-raising reception for Planned Parenthood in 1994 in conjunction with a $150 donation his wife made to the organization — notwithstanding Romney’s contention that he had “no recollection” of the circumstances under which his wife made gave money to the abortion-rights group.

In the photograph obtained by ABC News, Romney and his wife, Ann, are shown in a yellow-and-white tent chatting with local political activists, including Nicki Nichols Gamble, who was then president and CEO of the Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts…

“They were both there, and I remember very well chatting with both of them, and talking about his support for the pro-choice agenda,” she said. “We talked about the fact that he was taking a pro-choice position on the issues, and we were very pleased about that.”…

“I can understand that he might not remember the check — it’s surprising to me that he would not remember the event,” she said. “His main motivation for being there was a political motivation.”

I guess the “crime” here, as it was when Rudy’s donations to PP were revealed, is that it calls into question the sincerity of the straddle Mitt had in 1994. While supportive of abortion rights, he claims he personally opposed the practice even at the time. It’s hard to take that seriously after seeing him share hors d’oeuvres with providers. Still doesn’t matter, though, for two reasons: (1) if you believe his conversion to the pro-life side is sincere, this story is easily assimilated into the narrative of him having seen the light, and (2) even if you don’t believe it’s sincere, he’s still preferable to Huck in most ways and stands to reap the backlash windfall. Just hold your nose a little tighter when you pull that lever.

It’ll be fun watching Hugh spin this later. Have a look at the comments to this post if you’re in the mood to laugh. Exit question: How much can Mitt be trusted? And before you answer, read this. Not sure why that’s circulating today but from Bryan’s inbox to my post to your eyes.

Update: I’ve imported the comments to the headlines item into this post.

Update: “What’s disturbing in Mitt Romney’s case is that he makes the switch at exactly the most politically opportune time. That is what is worrisome.”

Update: Never let it be said that Townhall doesn’t allow for diversity of opinion.

[T]he fact that I’d be glad to vote for a Mormon, doesn’t mean that I want to vote for this Mormon —and.Governor Romney looks less and less like a viable candidate to me. Part of the problem is the arrogance behind the current posture of the Romney camp. His backers suggest that their guy is so obviously qualified and brilliant and charismatic and wonderful that the only possible reason anyone could fail to endorse him must have something to do with his religious faith…

It’s troubling that it was Mitt Romney, not Mike Huckabee, who gave the campaign’s biggest address on religion and politics, and it’s the Romney rooters, not the Huck-a-Nuts, who seem most eager for every opportunity to discuss the role of faith in the campaign.

Update: According to Politico, Fred’s campaign is already circulating the photo of Mitt at the fundraiser.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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

Not good.

Rightwingsparkle on December 18, 2007 at 11:28 AM

How does it hurt him, though? He’s already admitted during a debate that he was “wrong” in his former beliefs, and did so quite simply and sincerely. Romney’s past abortion record is kind of a known quantity at this point.

Slublog on December 18, 2007 at 11:32 AM

I don’t remember where I was on any given day 14 years ago, how can a politician be expected to remember every political event he attended during a campaign where he probably made hundreds of appearances? Hillary plans on visiting all 99 counties in Iowa in the next 3 weeks, does anyone expect her to remember every meeting in 15 years? The article’s unfair implication shows bias. Besides, Mitt says he has changed his mind, what else is there left to say? He changed his position, and is now pro-life. Case closed. The MSM should move on to more important issues – BUT – they don’t want to, they are scared of Mitt and will now try to tear him down.

JustTruth101 on December 18, 2007 at 11:32 AM

oopsee

bnelson44 on December 18, 2007 at 11:37 AM

Yawn.

Mitt already said a gazillion times he changed his mind while governor.

So is news that he had a contrary opinion before he changed his mind NEWS????????

Everyone knows he was pro-choice back in them thar’ days. So how is this gonna “hurt him”. The question for those who oppose abortion is whether Huck’s “conversion” to anti-abortion recently is sincere — not whether he was ever pro-choice.

I keep defending Huck and I am a Rudy guy, because the attacks on Huck are SO FREAKIN LAME.

Always Right on December 18, 2007 at 11:47 AM

Im sorry I said HUCK and I meant MITT… The question is whether MITT’s conversion is sincere or not.. and I believe the attacks on MITT are Lame.

I have Huck on the brain, because, in the words of that Obama brat yesterday, Huck makes me want to Puke.

PS: I wish HA had an EDIT function for authors of comments so we could correct stuff like this.

Always Right on December 18, 2007 at 11:49 AM

I cant believe it.

Does anyone know if this is true?
Oh well
No sense worrying too much.
Time will tell if it matters.

Could be a big deal
Although then again maybe not
Republicans arent all one issue voters
Everyone has their own criteria

Dash on December 18, 2007 at 11:52 AM

Dash on December 18, 2007 at 11:52 AM

Heh. What are you trying to say? :-)

Slublog on December 18, 2007 at 11:54 AM

There is a difference between “wrong” (his words) on abortion and attending a planned parenthood fund raising event. If this gets legs it will hurt him a great deal. People can have an anti-war position, but if they are at a rally where a fleg is burned it takes on a whole new life.

sweeper on December 18, 2007 at 11:55 AM

I don

sweeper on December 18, 2007 at 11:57 AM

It was NOT at a planned ….
Where is that edit?

sweeper on December 18, 2007 at 11:58 AM

So he paid $150 to get into a group of people who are in the habit of giving money to politicians. The problem is?

pedestrian on December 18, 2007 at 12:05 PM

“Romney responded by saying that while he personally opposed abortion, he supported abortion rights — a position he has subsequently referred to as “effectively pro-choice.”"

I think that if he really “personally opposed abortion” then he would not be involved in PP fundraisers. The guy is 47 yrs old at the time, so it is not like he’s in his 20′s and he hadn’t had time to think about it. It seems like he is either lying about “personally opposing it” at the time, or he sold himself out politically.

So 13 yrs later is he doing the same? He needs to do a better job of explaining his “change of heart”. His explanation so far is weak and unbelievable.

nottakingsides on December 18, 2007 at 12:06 PM

And…And…I’m waiting for the rest of the story. Personally, I don’t care. However, I’m sure many one/two issue voters will.

Did he ever deny going?

amerpundit on December 18, 2007 at 12:08 PM

And

bnelson44 on December 18, 2007 at 12:30 PM

Did he ever deny going?

amerpundit on December 18, 2007 at 12:08 PM

He kinda-sorta denied being involved at all with PP, having basically blamed his wife for their previous donations to the organization.

Big S on December 18, 2007 at 12:31 PM

So 13 yrs later is he doing the same? He needs to do a better job of explaining his

Big S on December 18, 2007 at 12:32 PM

I suspect he will give a statement soon. Expect some tears.

bnelson44 on December 18, 2007 at 12:33 PM

If he does give a statement, it’ll be along the lines of: I was wrong back then, and I’ve said so numerous times. What, you thought I was lying when I said I was wrong–I really, secretly was on the right side all along?

It may hurt him, but you know, all his movements have been to the conservative position. And guess what–if the conservative kills converts because they weren’t Reagan in the cradle, then who could possibly win, outside of some Bircher types? And who would want them in charge anyway?

Every candidate is going to not be 100% perfect–no one candidate is. Fred’s personal life leaves much to be desired, plus his dedication to his campaign. Rudy’s and McCain’s personal life is the same way, and all the rest have various policy issues to be criticized on.

I’m a Romney guy. Do I wish Romney was better? Sure on some issues, but he’s still far and away the best candidate (with Thompson as VP and Hunter in the cabinet). I cannot really think of any other Republican people wish were running, aside from possibly Newt–and Newt is much more suited to chief of staff than president.

Vanceone on December 18, 2007 at 12:42 PM

Im pretty much Pro choice when it comes down to it i guess. But I dint think i would be donating money to Pro choice groups. Theres a difference there, somewhere.

Something along the lines of supporting gay rights, but not being willing to share a stall with Larry Craig.

amish on December 18, 2007 at 12:46 PM

I think I will sit back and read what the Mitt-spinners post. This should be fun…how many ways can they twist this (some will just have to wait for the “official spin”…

right2bright on December 18, 2007 at 12:47 PM

Dash on December 18, 2007 at 11:52 AM

Never mind, I think you got them all. You should have numbered them, then they could just post #1, or #5, etc. saves a lot of time.

right2bright on December 18, 2007 at 12:50 PM

I think this is the last nail in the coffin for Mitt with Evangelicals. Even if Huck gets crushed before Iowa, his followers cant go to Mitt now.

amish on December 18, 2007 at 12:50 PM

This is going to hurt Mitt. He better put it to rest fast or else we are going to be stuck with that Huckabee tool. His admission in the debate that he was wrong about this issue back then went over well and he needs to reiterate that (without crying).

This line:

“What’s disturbing in Mitt Romney’s case is that he makes the switch at exactly the most politically opportune time. That is what is worrisome.”

That is an unfair gotcha line. If this PP woman really believed Mitt was pro-choice she of all people would be staying quiet right now. She would love to sneak in a pro-choice Republican to the White House. The truth is, though, that she knows he isn’t. She knows her pro-abortion agenda will be damaged by a Romney presidency. If she wasn’t worried about that she would not have said something unfair like this intended to damage his candidacy. The truth is that Romney has mentioned specific moments and events in his life that have caused him to re-think this issue in particular. I have had similar things happen to me that have forced me to have second thoughts. I know other people who’s life events have caused them to re-think political issues. Romney’s life experiences mirror his political position changes. This planned parenthood woman fails to mention that little detail.

Zetterson on December 18, 2007 at 1:01 PM

I recall reading some comments at various blogs over the past two days about Mitt not saying that abortion is murder. I think it originally came from an interview with David Brody at CBN over the summer, but there was some reinvigorated murmuring about it. I see a push against Mitt on his abortion record coming…

Big S on December 18, 2007 at 1:08 PM

I see a push against Mitt on his abortion record coming…

Big S on December 18, 2007 at 1:08 PM

For every push, there is a pusher. Who do you think the pusher is? Huck? Rudy? Hillary?

Zetterson on December 18, 2007 at 1:16 PM

To my surprise, judging by the stories on the page, some HotAir bloggers get a kick out of sandbagging Romney. We’ve known for months that AP is not the biggest fan of Mitt, but is this a case of the cover up being worse than the crime? Did Allah really just want to take a cheap shot at Mitt’s camp or did the four negative comments really necessitate top-story status?

This story is a joke, $150 admission to some backyard dinner is laughable. ABC would have you think this was some national PP event. Newsflash: real political fundraisers don’t charge $150 a plate. I’ve squandered thousands for a dinnerplate with many groups I don’t care for just for access to people I needed to see and couldn’t get a meeting with. Hell, just last week I bought a rice krispie-treat from a bake sale to benefit global warming research. If someone with Romney’s kind of money is only cutting $150 check, use your sense of reasoning and ask yourself if you think it’s a political contribution or to cover the cost of attending? Now ask yourself why would that pivotal fact would be omitted from the story, entirely. Is it that tough to figure it out? I don’t care who you’re backing, a sandbag is a sandbag and giving this story any credence only encourages this kind of manipulative, sloppy, journalism.

Medicated on December 18, 2007 at 1:20 PM

Zetterson on December 18, 2007 at 1:16 PM

I don’t think it’s a campaign. Fred and Rudy won’t commit to abortion being “murder”, but I assume there are quite a few pro-Huck groups that think that way and would try to bring that back up. As far as putting the Planned Parenthood info out there, I don’t know. It may not be a coordinated push all around, but more of a pile-on set off by one or two pieces of info percolating back up to the surface at around the same time.

Big S on December 18, 2007 at 1:22 PM

Or is this a case of the cover-up being worse than the crime?

It’s a federal office we’re talking about, and fed prosecutors have been known to nail for the cover-up. Any questions?

steveegg on December 18, 2007 at 1:30 PM

It’s a federal office we’re talking about

?!

Big S on December 18, 2007 at 1:31 PM

Medicated on December 18, 2007 at 1:20 PM

I agree with your point that for someone of Romney’s wealth $150 is not much of a donation to make to a cause if he really was a passionate supporter of it. Its honestly more of an insult then anything. That is a argument.

I think you are being a little tough on Allah though. In my opinion he’s no tougher on Romney then he is on the others. Its primary season. ‘Tis the season for scrutiny. Read through the posts and you will find that Rudy supporters complain that their candidate is treated unfaily by Allah. Huck supporters complain that their candidate is treated unfairly. McCain supporters (I think there is only one) are up in arms that their hero is not getting the respect he deserves. Fred supporters complain that Fred is critisized too much. And on and on and on. Its the same deal for all of the candidates. If you think a candidate is being treated unfairly and you can provide an adequate defense lay it on us. If you can’t. You can’t. So be it.

Zetterson on December 18, 2007 at 1:37 PM

Big S on December 18, 2007 at 1:22 PM

So you think its just a consequece of being one of the candidates with a good shot to win on the run up to the first votes being cast? Media driven moreso then competitor driven?

Zetterson on December 18, 2007 at 1:41 PM

For every push, there is a pusher. Who do you think the pusher is? Huck? Rudy? Hillary?

As much as I’d love to give credit to the libs, this filth comes from our own camp. Most likely camps would be Fred Thompson’s people, who need results in Iowa or they’ll be dead in the water, or Giuliani’s. After the sanctuary-mansion gaffe, we know Rudy likes recycling tired stories. Rudy also needs the defeat for Mitt early, but I really think he’s content to let Huckabee take care of it while he focuses on Florida and South Carolina. My money’s on the Thompson camp being behind this one and it’s a smart move on their part. If Romney is badly tarnished in Iowa, he’s still got a shot and certainly. From where he sits in the polls right now, he certainly has the most to gain.

That being said, all this garbage is troubling, mostly because it’s so divisive (and I think that’s why the media spends so much time covering it). Save for Rudy, there isn’t one GOP candidate up there that I don’t trust to protect life. Zetterson is dead on in my assessment, these things happen only to damage candidates, but I’ll admit, I’m just as guilty. I can find something wrong with every candidate out there and it’s not that I’m actually uncomfortable with their positions, or that I don’t trust them (again, save for Rudy), it just provides me with an excuse in a debate. I don’t really think Fred Thompson supports abortion because of his lobbying activities, but I’ll sure as hell throw it out there when some overzealous hill staffer tries to “enlighten” me in a drunken Georgetown bar. With all this religion and abortion saturation, we’re playing into the hands of the very people we wish to defeat. We’re destroying the GOP from within. Mitt came down on the side of life on everything from embryo farming to parental consent, I trust him to do the same as President, but it wouldn’t surprise me to see people criticize him on his conversion.

Medicated on December 18, 2007 at 1:46 PM

Good grief this is getting old. HE’S PRO-CHOICE FOLKS…wakeup and smell the cosmoline for heaven’s sake. He’s a Massachusetts flipflopping Pol who’s only spine comes from his religion.

For us far right wing nutjobs we call it killing babies and there isn’t a politician alive who would say they support that so he says he’s against killing babies…that does NOT make him Pro-Life. His record makes the call.

Wouldn’t surprise me if he gets the nod however…because this field is full of self serving ambitious swine. Where is JC Watts? Steve Largent? Those men I could support. These bozos are a perfect of waste of bandwidth and carbon.

I will vote for one of them against any Dem in the race because these dems are the enemies of my country.

God Save the United States because we are clearly incapable of presenting a worthy candidate for President.

Pilgrim on December 18, 2007 at 1:49 PM

I don’t care if Mitt gladhanded at a planned parenthood meeting 13 years ago. I could care less if Mitt is a Mormon, however I care a helluva lot about Conservative issues and sincerity.

Mitt sounded sincere about his transformation from RINO to Conservative, especially concerning the illegal alien issue but if he wants to put those who have no right to be here on a path to citizenship and dilute my second amendment rights, that not a real transformation and its not sincere.

Speakup on December 18, 2007 at 1:53 PM

How does it hurt him, though? He’s already admitted during a debate that he was “wrong” in his former beliefs, and did so quite simply and sincerely. Romney’s past abortion record is kind of a known quantity at this point.

Slublog on December 18, 2007 at 11:32 AM

It’s never the action, it is the cover up. Being personally opposed to abortion should mean that you do not give money to groups that advocate abortion. Mitt’s parsing this all over the place and hiding behind his wife’s skirt just looks bad.

Dash on December 18, 2007 at 11:52 AM

I have a picture in my mind of all the Romney supporters gathered at a speech with their hands over their ears and their eyes closed repeating the mantra, “I don’t care.”

Bill C on December 18, 2007 at 1:57 PM

To my surprise, judging from the comments in headlines some HA readers think this matters. We’ve known for years that he was pro-choice in ‘94, we’ve known for months that his wife once cut PP a check. Who cares if he popped in to gladhand while he was running for Senate?

Or is this a case of the cover-up being worse than the crime?

No, I think this is more of a case of a picture making it concrete in people’s minds. How can you say you are opposed to abortion when you hobnob and donate to Planned Parenthood? It’s like that picture of Huckabee carrying Pablo Escobar across the Rio Grande on his back, it just doesn’t look good.

Bill C on December 18, 2007 at 2:00 PM

I do not care if he gave $150 to PP. I do care however that he is a tax cheat and made millions of dollars helping others avoid taxes by setting up sham Cayman Island companies. Low taxes are great. Tax cuts are great. But when taxes are owed they should be paid, not avoided by off shore schemes — particularly by those running for President.

tommylotto on December 18, 2007 at 2:04 PM

How many of you all think you will change your political position on abortion at age 60? And if so, wouldn’t you be able to explain it if asked? Wouldn’t you have a believable “story” and such?

Also, is there a difference between a political and personal position on abortion? How many of you “personally” oppose, but are politically pro-choice? Isn’t this an anomaly primarily with politicians or people won’t take a stand?

If you believe life begins at conception, you could never “at heart” be pro-choice or promote Planned Parenthood unless you were (at age 47) a complete sell-out, right?

Wouldn’t Mitt’s “change of heart” really be to sell-out to be POTUS?

nottakingsides on December 18, 2007 at 2:05 PM

Mitt has a great story for why he was pro-choice — a close relative of his allegedly died in an illegal abortion — from then on he was absolutely convinced abortions should always be safe and legal. That story worked — he was elected in Mass.

His latest explanation for his latest epiphany is less credible. Getting into stem cell research??? That story is lame, Mitt. How could that trump the dead relative story? You could do better. How about one of those convenient revelations from God…

tommylotto on December 18, 2007 at 2:12 PM

tommylotto on December 18, 2007 at 2:04 PM

ZOMG! Tommylotto turns on Mitt. What happened? Did his check bounce?

Bill C on December 18, 2007 at 2:14 PM

Yep, still not voting for Mitt. Only now I’m extra double secret not voting for him.

These are the cracks in the thin veneer of his pro-life switch. The timing of his conversion is waaay to convenient to be believable.

TexasDan on December 18, 2007 at 2:17 PM

Zetterson,

just poking fun, But on that note, I don’t want or expect unbiased posts from HotAir. I visit HA, in large part, because I want the opinions and analysis. If I’m too busy to analyze an issue entirely, I can count on HotAir to provide the facts that are relevant to me, as a conservative. Now I certainly don’t think it’s in a blogger’s self interest to start making Primary endorsements (as others have this week), potentially angering large blocs of loyal readers, but I in no way think they should keep their opinions to themselves. I want their opinions; that’s why I’m here. To AP’s credit, I’ve had less to complain about in recent months, but I don’t think I’m alone in thinking that the man-crush with Fred was getting out of hand back there. For a while, this place was pumping plenty of “HotAir” into the balloon of Fred Thompson’s candidacy. Whether he was your number one guy or not, the exposure HA (and other bloggers) provided to Fred was invaluable. In fact, I’d venture so far as to say that bloggers were one of the strongest forces that wedged Thompson into the MSM and the race. Anyways, long story short, I like opinionated bloggers. What I don’t like is seeing an already disorganized and divided party squabble over petty things like this. Like you said, “‘Tis the season for scrutiny,” but this “extended season” of over-saturation is taking it’s toll within the party.

Medicated on December 18, 2007 at 2:25 PM

ZOMG! Tommylotto turns on Mitt. What happened? Did his check bounce?

Bill C on December 18, 2007 at 2:14 PM

Seriously, next time there are open registrations for commenters I’m signing up 40 or 50 gmail accounts and selling them to the campaign with the most money.

Medicated on December 18, 2007 at 2:29 PM

We’ve known for years that he was pro-choice in ‘94, we’ve known for months that his wife once cut PP a check. Who cares if he popped in to gladhand while he was running for Senate?

Abortion isn’t black and white. Planned Parenthood isn’t just some pro-choice organization. They arguably promote abortion. There is a huge difference between believing that a woman has a right to an abortion, and showing up at a fundraiser for an organization that promotes and performs abortions. As to what effect this will have, I couldn’t say. I would have thought that Rudy and Mitt both would be non-starters with their pro-gay, pro-abortion, anti-gun stances and histories. But everything seems to be about Iraq and immigration now, so who knows.

Mark Jaquith on December 18, 2007 at 2:38 PM

There is a huge difference between believing that a woman has a right to an abortion, and showing up at a fundraiser for an organization that promotes and performs abortions.

Did you read the whole post, dude? Quote: “While supportive of abortion rights, he claims he personally opposed the practice even at the time. It’s hard to take that seriously after seeing him share hors d’oeuvres with providers.”

Allahpundit on December 18, 2007 at 2:40 PM

I’d like to see a demonstrative pattern that of the Romney’s support for the pro-choice movement.

It’s one thing to cut a check to a clinic to sponsor birth control for some low income women. It’s another thing to cut a check for the political action committee of an organization that profits from destruction of the unborn.

gabriel sutherland on December 18, 2007 at 2:49 PM

Update: According to Politico, Fred’s campaign is already circulating the photo of Mitt at the fundraiser.

Fred needs to do something. Christmas is next week.

bnelson44 on December 18, 2007 at 2:50 PM

While supportive of abortion rights, he claims he personally opposed the practice even at the time. It’s hard to take that seriously after seeing him share hors d’oeuvres with providers.

Bryan,

I don’t follow this thinking; it seems like an awfully rigid position. One could also hold it against a candidate if he consorts with anyone who received fertility treatments, or is involved with running a fertility clinic, because of the steps involved to produce a child in this manner.

Besides, I share hors d’oeuvres with liberals all the time. That is in no way an endorsement of their positions on issues.

Anyhoo, I’m importing my comment over from the headlines which didn’t make it here :-)

It’s never the action, it is the cover up.

Bill C on December 18, 2007 at 1:50 PM

Surely you jest! That statement is comical.

Buy Danish on December 18, 2007 at 2:05 PM

Buy Danish on December 18, 2007 at 2:58 PM

Woops, my 2:58 should have been addressed to Allahpundit!

Buy Danish on December 18, 2007 at 2:59 PM

ZOMG! Tommylotto turns on Mitt. What happened? Did his check bounce?

Bill C on December 18, 2007 at 2:14 PM

I’ve never been in Mitt’s pocket. I’ve just been holding my fire until recently. There are certain things that should just disqualify a person from the Presidency, and I’m not talking about silly stuff like appearing in drag, I’m talking about giving legal advice to terrorists or establishing sham off shore companies to cheat on taxes. These are offenses too great — regardless of their current stated position, amount of hair or where they are from — to overlook in my book.

tommylotto on December 18, 2007 at 3:08 PM

Buy Danish on December 18, 2007 at 2:58 PM

Romney was supporting their FUNDRAISER = a political endorsement of their positions on issues.

maverick muse on December 18, 2007 at 3:09 PM

Allahpundit on December 18, 2007 at 2:40 PM

Umm, no. I was so fired up I had to comment on that right away. Mea culpa.

Bill C on December 18, 2007 at 3:15 PM

tommylotto on December 18, 2007 at 3:08 PM

The funny thing is that off shore tax havens don’t bother me in the least. I would be a hypocrite if I said they did. I have a feeling that a lot of Republicans have them.

Bill C on December 18, 2007 at 3:19 PM

Huck’s little aside about Mormons and Satan seems to have somehow escaped the notice of Medved, the master political analyst.

WasatchMan on December 18, 2007 at 3:26 PM

maverick muse on December 18, 2007 at 3:09 PM

I believe it is a huge stretch to say that his attendance at that event means that we now have to make a leap and conclude that he was untruthful when he said that he personally opposed abortion.

And if we’re going to be purists on the abortion issue, then we should also be up in arms about fertility clinics.

Buy Danish on December 18, 2007 at 3:42 PM

What I don’t like is seeing an already disorganized and divided party squabble over petty things like this.

Medicated on December 18, 2007 at 2:25 PM

“This” only refreshed an issue that was never settled. To some votors the abortion issue or Mitt “going where the wind blows” is important for many reasons. If most everyone here wants to sweep it under the rug, that’s fine but it will still be a reason that many will not vote for him.

It seems like you (and many here) think it won’t be a major issue (or even brought up?) a few months down the road when it really counts. Maybe, but I’d still be interested in statistics on how many voters would turn on him when they are better informed of his pro-choice flip-floppage and weak past/present explanations.

nottakingsides on December 18, 2007 at 3:59 PM

WasatchMan on December 18, 2007 at 3:52 PM

Good link.

Buy Danish on December 18, 2007 at 4:04 PM

Nottakingsides: You’re right, I don’t think it matters, but that’s really because I don’t buy into this whole “flip-flopper” argument, and I don’t think his record as Governor demonstrates any reason to doubt his sincerity. Perhaps someone can provide me with an official definition of the term “Flip-Flop.” What are the traits that differentiate between a change of mind and a flip-flop? Do you have to actually revert back to your old ways or is this a completely pre-emptive label? I mean, there was a time when I used to smoke pot; Imagine my surprise to learn that all this time, it wasn’t growing up and learning from experience that ended the habit… it was just flip-flopping on my pro-pot agenda so that I could pander to all the non-dopers in society. Boy do I feel duped, all that time I could have wasted on the couch… I just threw it all away on productivity. Face it, changing your outlook over time is not a “flip-flop;” if I went out today and bought a three-footer, then you could start calling me John Kerry, but until then, it’s time we start calling it like it is.

Would it be more accurate to say that it’s not a flip-flop, and that you just don’t believe he ever truly “flipped” in the first place? You either don’t believe his conversion, or you do and you’re concerned he’d revert to circa.94 Mitt. If it’s neither then I’m afraid to say that we’re facing our second pre-emptive war… the one on flip-flops. We’re holding candidates accountable for flip-flops that haven’t even occurred. Why? Is it because we don’t think that any true conversion could be possible, at any time, throughout the half-century plus that each candidate has lived)? Fred’s lobbying clearly indicates his preference to appoint Planned Parenthood’s CEO to the Supreme Court. Mitt’s 15 year old you-tubes and hors d’oeuvres indicate that he shares Fred’s dream. Of course, McCain didn’t flip-flop or abandon conservatism ever; he was just being a “maverick.” Then there’s Rudy… he’s not called a flip-flopper because he was never that conservative to begin with… right? Evangelicals will endorse that undercover liberal over other viable candidates… but that’s not hypocrisy, right? Instead, we’re angrier at the guys that became more conservative as time went on, as if that’s a bad thing (or we just claim that it’s not genuine).

I have no way of knowing for certain if Mitt’s conversion was genuine, but I do know that personally, I spent the majority of my youth as a catholic-conservative that didn’t care at all about abortion. Even during a pregnancy scare, the option remained on the table. All it took was one single moment in front of a sonogram (of my niece) to instantly change my mind; something that I’m sure has happened for a countless number of happy parents that once might have considered abortion as an option. One moment and a lifetime of callous disregard took a total u-turn. When it comes down to business, it cannot be a negative trait for Mitt or any other to support life. Maybe I’m giving Mitt too much credit. Maybe he is just pandering, but if pandering equates to supporting life in every decision as governor of ultra-blue Massachusetts, I’m not going to be all that worried. Some of you continually throw out this garbage about Mitt allowing $50 abortions. It’s a total crock, the Supreme Court of Massachusetts allowed it, and Mitt has made no secret of his disdain for activist judges. Lets also not forget the hundreds of politicians working against the interests of the pro-life movement in the Massachusetts Government. Looking at his record, I have absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe that, after he is elected, Mitt would suddenly start getting cozy with Harry and Nancypants. I certainly have no reason to believe that he’d appoint activist judges to the courts.

That being said, your point is well taken. I realize that for those of you that don’t believe a genuine conversion is possible, there’s no changing your minds on Mitt. That likely means you’ve spent a lifetime on the right side of life issues, so I’m certain the sincerity behind Mitt’s words are vital to making you trust him. Because of my own conversion, I have no trouble believing Mitt. I’m certainly anxious to see how it plays out

Medicated on December 18, 2007 at 6:10 PM

Buy Danish @ 2:58 I don’t follow this thinking; it seems like an awfully rigid position. One could also hold it against a candidate if he consorts with anyone who received fertility treatments, or is involved with running a fertility clinic, because of the steps involved to produce a child in this manner. Besides, I share hors d’oeuvres with liberals all the time. That is in no way an endorsement of their positions on issues.
@ 3:42 I believe it is a huge stretch to say that his attendance at that event means that we now have to make a leap and conclude that he was untruthful when he said that he personally opposed abortion.

Rationalization. None the less:

Romney was supporting their FUNDRAISER =
a political ENDORSEMENT of their positions on issues. maverick muse on December 18, 2007 at 3:09 PM

Mitt Romney did not merely support Planned Parenthood’s reason for existence. Mitt planted his political butt at their fund raiser as his endorsement of their positions, specifically–according to Mitt’s interview w/ Russert NBC–on abortion.

Buy Danish, in vogue with a liberal ignorance you would categorize rational criticism as bigotry. Don’t stretch the truth in order to prove your virtuous motivation that lacks relevance.

maverick muse on December 18, 2007 at 6:40 PM

Buy Danish, in vogue with a liberal ignorance you would categorize rational criticism as bigotry. Don’t stretch the truth in order to prove your virtuous motivation that lacks relevance.

maverick muse on December 18, 2007 at 6:40 PM

GFY, mm. I said nothing about bigotry. If however, you are anything like right2bright, you would categorize a statement such as “Jefferson had slaves” to mean that I endorse it.

Buy Danish on December 18, 2007 at 6:52 PM

Medicated on December 18, 2007 at 6:10 PM

Many of us consider flip-flopping not just changing your mind or understanding an issue from a different point and maturing. It gets down to timing…changing your course when it benefits you the most in obtaining votes or support, regardless of what you really feel (an opportunist, some would say). Many conservatives were liberal in their youth and morphed into conservatives. With someone like Mitt the transformation began at the onslaught of running for President. His “transformation” has taken place in the past 18 months or so.
My stand is the same as it has always been with Mitt…if he is truly a “born-again” conservative, let him prove it by works, not just words. Wait four years, let him live his life as a new conservative, and see if he stays the path. In the interim, give him a cabinet position where he can express his new found love of being a conservative. He has a lot of explaining to do, almost every major issue he has changed his position on recently.

right2bright on December 18, 2007 at 7:06 PM

Would it be more accurate to say that it’s not a flip-flop, and that you just don’t believe he ever truly “flipped” in the first place? You either don’t believe his conversion, or you do and you’re concerned he’d revert to circa.94 Mitt….
Instead, we’re angrier at the guys that became more conservative as time went on, as if that’s a bad thing (or we just claim that it’s not genuine).
I have no way of knowing for certain if Mitt’s conversion was genuine…
All it took was one single moment in front of a sonogram (of my niece) to instantly change my mind; something that I’m sure has happened for a countless number of happy parents that once might have considered abortion as an option….
Maybe I’m giving Mitt too much credit. Maybe he is just pandering…
That being said, your point is well taken. I realize that for those of you that don’t believe a genuine conversion is possible, there’s no changing your minds on Mitt.
Medicated on December 18, 2007 at 6:10 PM

You are hitting around the edges of the problem. Mitt has no political principal other than a desire to get elected. His flips and flops were all at politically convenient times. When he wanted to be Mass’s governor he had a pro-choice epiphany allegedly due to the death of a close relative during an illegal abortion. Then months before deciding to run for POTUS as a Republican he has another epiphany. But he wasn’t looking at sonograms like you — he was studying stem cell research. That excuse is just lame. You seem to have faith that he will not flip flop back again. Maybe you are right. Maybe not. However, you must realize that you are voting for a man without solid principles that is likely to blow where ever the political winds might take him. Bush has his faults. But he has a stubborn streak in him. He kept us in Iraq and gave us a chance for victory. In all honesty, do you really think Mitt would have stood up to the public opinion polls and the hostile Congress or do you think he would have started pulling us out? A man without solid principles prone to flip flops would have lost the war in Iraq.

tommylotto on December 18, 2007 at 7:10 PM

if he is truly a “born-again” conservative, let him prove it by works, not just words.

right2bright on December 18, 2007 at 7:06 PM

Have you fashioned a cross for him to tie himself to yet? Better get cracking!

Buy Danish on December 18, 2007 at 7:24 PM

A planned parenthood meeting in 1994? This is a relevant topic in 2007? Some of you are living on a different planet then I am. Why don’t you guys wait to enforce your philosophical purity tests until the nations actual problems are solved?

Resolute on December 18, 2007 at 7:44 PM

Oh yeah and Medved: your myopic, close-minded, nitpicky book, “Hollywood vs. America”, sucked.

WasatchMan on December 18, 2007 at 8:24 PM

In all honesty, do you really think Mitt would have stood up to the public opinion polls and the hostile Congress or do you think he would have started pulling us out? A man without solid principles prone to flip flops would have lost the war in Iraq.

tommylotto on December 18, 2007 at 7:10 PM

I most certainly do, but let me get this straight:
You’ve now tied Mitt’s devotion to success in Iraq as being directly related to his former public stance on abortion. You’ve also insinuated that, because of his change in position on abortion, he lacks the principles to take on challenges in the face of negative support. Forgive me for my inability to draw the same conclusion, but so long as you think that qualities transfer so well to other issues with Governor Romney, let me remind you of some other challenges. Like those faced when he set out to find Robert Gay’s missing daughter, or those faced with dozens of mismanaged companies on the brink of bankruptcy. Or you might consider the types of challenges a Republican governor would face getting elected in a staunchly blue state, then finding a way to stay conservative, and cut spending while working with an overwhelmingly blue legislature. The budget, the uninsured, the big dig? The Olympics? Those all mean nothing to you when it comes to assessing his level of commitment in a challenge? Once again, forgive me for my inability to connect the dots as easy as you were able to, but I don’t see the Iraq connection.

I do not care if he gave $150 to PP. I do care however that he is a tax cheat and made millions of dollars helping others avoid taxes by setting up sham Cayman Island companies. Low taxes are great. Tax cuts are great. But when taxes are owed they should be paid, not avoided by off shore schemes — particularly by those running for President.

tommylotto on December 18, 2007 at 2:04 PM

And on your tax shelter propaganda: Until you show me something demonstrably illegal, I will always come down on the side of free markets and business. I don’t criticize H&R block for finding ways to reduce your tax burden, but that’s not what this is about anyways. If the untaxed monies in question are for the sole purpose of injecting capital into a struggling American business (and ultimately, the American economy), I can say with even more certainty that I have absolutely no problem with it. This is not some criminal act, it’s a totally legal incentive that helped (and continues to) save struggling American companies.

Medicated on December 18, 2007 at 10:01 PM

The budget, the uninsured, the big dig? The Olympics?

Medicated on December 18, 2007 at 10:01 PM

I don’t think mentioning Romneycare is going to strengthen your case.

Gianni on December 18, 2007 at 10:39 PM

Gianni, I think I was pretty specific in stating that it was an example of Mitt not running away when faced with a challenging problem; Not even Mitt thinks the MA plan is good for the nation. There’s plenty not to like, but I shudder to think of what that plan would have looked like without Mitt’s input.

Medicated on December 18, 2007 at 10:57 PM

I don’t buy into this whole “flip-flopper” argument, and I don’t think his record as Governor demonstrates any reason to doubt his sincerity. Perhaps someone can provide me with an official definition of the term “Flip-Flop.”

Medicated on December 18, 2007 at 6:10 PM

Start with this video and tell me what you disagree with:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNbGNHaNFtw

It has a timeline with many flops. I don’t think he honored his promise to Mass voters. Of course I could be wrong and the video could be dishonest. You tell me.

2 events in his life cause him to flop 2 different ways at convenient times on an important issue and promises. The stem cell one is flat out disputed by the scientist and sounds fishy anyway.

And Mitt’s position on states making their own choices vs. other options is confusing. Where exactly does he stand now. Or am I wrong on this also.

nottakingsides on December 18, 2007 at 11:38 PM

Medicated on December 18, 2007 at 10:01 PM

Great comments, and thanks for the link to the Robert Gay story.

Buy Danish on December 19, 2007 at 9:30 AM