Sometimes I feel like we are playing whack-a-mole (you know, the carnival arcade game) with the whole "Mitt's a flip-flopper" meme in the MSM (and from rival campaigns).
The latest concerns some comments Mitt made recently about overturning RvW and giving the Abortion decision back to the states and how that might be inconsistent with supporting the GOP platform advocating a Human Life Amendment.
Having followed Mitt closely, I think it's clear that these are not mutually exclusive, but rather two phases of a long-term change effort. Rather than just give you my opinion, however, I'll let a couple well known right-wing bloggers weigh in more eloquently.
Marc Ambinder of the Atlantic states it well:
"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.
The reason why Romney is struggling to explain the complicated two-step is that he is relatively new to the dance. Pro-life activists who have been in the trenches for years are very comfortable with the nuance and subtlely of their beliefs and know how to translate them into morsels for the media's consumption. This measured, incremental approach — relatively new to the movement — has been successful in many ways."
Next, here's Kathryn Jean Lopez of National Review:
"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.
Sorry, no "waffle."
A pro-life, pro-Romney friend on the Hill sends me this:
The piece this morning is a regurgitated hit piece. The same "hit" took place on August 6 when Mitt appeared on GMA. Romney's position is quite simple: Romney says, "I am pro-life, I support a ban on all-abortions, but since that doesn't seem likely to pass, our immediate goal must be to overturn Roe V Wade and return the law to the states."
Neither of these folks is particularly known as a Romney apologist…they seem to be very fair analyses of what's going on here.
The MSM is what it is…I'm not expecting much from them. For the rival campaigns, however, my question is why don't they try differentiating themselves with positive messages regarding their competence, experience, track-record of results, etc. instead of demonstrating how intolerant the Right can be for folks who come around to our pro-life position (better late than never).
Perhaps if those things were the primary criteria for President, Mitt would clean their clocks?
No comments:
Post a Comment