SBA president Marjorie Dannenfelser then e-mailed me early Sunday claiming that she had spoken with the Romney campaign to try to clarify the pledge. She denied that there was any attempt to damage Romney and stated, “Romney has been an ally of mine/ours since the last election. His not signing came after a sincere effort to clarify intent and convince him to sign.”
The Romney campaign declined further comment on the record. Although no reason was given, I can imagine that the last thing the campaign wants to do is gin up a fight with a group that’s already caused a stir. However, the points raised by Romney remain in the pledge (its overbroadness on providers and its impact on executive branch appointees). It is baffling that SBA, if it intended to qualify and limit the pledge, didn’t redraft and recirculate it. What is the point of a pledge that says one thing but is interpreted privately in an entirely different way?
Join the conversation as a VIP Member