Last week, an advisor to Massachusetts Republican governor Mitt Romney got the gov into a bit of hot water. In an interview with National Review, political strategist Michael Murphy described Romney as “He’s been a prolife Mormon faking it as a prochoice friendly.”
This has the Boston Globe and Massachusetts Democrats (but I repeat myself) in a dither. How DARE Romney have these views? After all, he ran on a vow of not tampering with abortion laws!
Apparently to these fine folks, thoughts are the same as deeds, and personal beliefs are strictly regulated.
Let’s review the facts: Romney did, indeed, make that pledge. And in the three years or so he’s been governor, he’s kept it. He’s made absolutely no effort to change, alter, repeal, or in any way touch the abortion laws in Massachusetts. (Of course, with the current overwhelmingly Democratic makeup of the Massachusetts legislature — 137 of 160 in the House, and 34 of 40 in the Senate — and the overwhelmingly liberal Supreme Judicial Court — the same body that gave them gay marriage — any such effort would be doomed to failure, but I digress.)
But that’s not good enough for the Democrats and the Boston Glob. They don’t want to know what you have done in the past, or what you will do in the future. They want to know what you think, what you feel, in your heart of hearts.
Because simple acquiescence isn’t enough. If you aren’t with them 100%, right down to the core, you are the enemy and must be crushed.
But I guess that’s just one of the many joys of living in what’s essentially a one-party state. They make sure you don’t get contaminated by icky, wrong thinking.
That’s why I left the Democratic Party years ago. I’ve found a much higher level of tolerance in the Republican Party. The Dems will strip you down to your underwear to make sure they’re blue too or they’ll gleefully throw you under the bus.
Great post, Jay. It’s exactly the case that the MSM/DNC (as dubbed by Cassandra) not only wants liberal policies, they want thinking conservative thoughts to be considered verboten.
Jay Jay Jay….this is what Mitt said in 1994:
”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 US Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years we should sustain it and support it.”
It is not his thoughts that are getting him in trouble — it is his words. And frankly, I find my attraction to Mitt — which was originally based upon his forthright honesty — waning.
You can’t “finesse” this transformation with double talk like “I’m in a different place.” Just come out and say it. He could have come out and said in 1994, “I am personally opposed to abortion, but I will do nothing to interfere…” He didn’t — he said he supported Roe v. Wade (AT LEAST THAT’S THE OBVIOUS IMPLICATION OF HIS STATEMENT THAT “WE” SHOULD SUPPORT IT).
The irony of this from guys who spend so much time hurling spite at liberal “moonbats” for disagreeing is intoxicating.
I agree with wavemaker.
And, if your line is that your candidate was faking it and will sell out his former supposed friends, you raise the obvious question: why will he not sell out the people he’s wooing now?
Only if you think the people you are now appealing to are very, very stupid is this a hopeful pitch.
Romney’s father, George, was Governor of Michigan some time ago, and was actually the leading candidate for the Republican nomination at one point in 1968.
Sr. Romney came back from a trip to Vietnam and said that the American people were being “brainwashed.” This brought up such a hoot in the media that he was soon out of the race.
Some time later it became apparent that Romney was right, but the media and others have never made much of it.
Romney was a straight talking Governor and would have been a great President. So would be his son.
Robert, I agree with your assessment of George Romney — and it had a significant effect on my initial attraction to Mitt (I worked the convention floor for him in his 1994 Senate race) — I thought he was a straight shooter. When he said what he said about Roe then, I didn’t agree with him, but I respected him for making a clear statement of his position, one which he (apparently) held with conviction for quite some time.
Now we learn that — what, he’s changed his mind? He was lying all along?
Or he’s just changed his position?
I still like the guy, but the bloom is off the rose.