Peter Robinson · February 12, 2012 at 11:25pm

On the front page of the New York Times this morning, a long story on Mitt Romney's positions on abortion.  In both his unsuccessful 1994 senate race and his successful 2002 gubernatorial race, the Times notes, Romney campaigned as unambiguously pro-choice.  

Then?  "By 2005, with Mr. Romney eyeing a possible presidential bid, he began to distance himself from his abortion rights platform."  In an article that June in National Review, Romney stated "[m]y political philosophy is pro-life."

Which brings us to the sentence that made me wince:

That same article quoted his top strategist at the time, Mike Murphy, as saying Mr. Romney had been "a pro-life Mormon faking it as a pro-choice friendly."

"Faking it?"  As best I can tell, there really is no other way of construing this.  Mike was suggesting that Romney intentionally misled the people of Massachusetts.

Behind-the-scenes politics, as Ronald Reagan once remarked, can be "like seeing civilization with its pants down."

Comments:


doc molloy
Joined
Feb '12
doc molloy

Faking it? Romney is a fakir, a charmer.. let him climb that rope trick and see what happens..vacuous. Pride comes before a fall. A sham or just shameless?

As Thomas Sowell says of Romney, Mr Bland.. Mr Bland's dream of the White House is unravelling bit by bit.. Coming to the end of his rope..

Pseudodionysius
Joined
Sep '10
Pseudodionysius

At least Mike didn't say it the other way around. Then you'd be seeing civilization with its zipper undone.

EJHill
Joined
May '10
EJHill

What made you wince, Peter?

  1. That a politician would lie?
  2. That a politician who claims to be pro-life would gladly sacrifice hundreds of innocent lives for the chance at election?
  3. That your friend Mike Murphy was probably in the middle of that little piece of soul-selling?
  4. That Romney is a lighter shade of Obama?
Edited on February 13, 2012 at 12:30am
DrewInWisconsin
Joined
Aug '11
DrewInWisconsin

I'm rarely surprised when politicians turn out to be politicians.


Joined
Jun '10
Samwise Gamgee

I bet next week's front page will feature Mr. Obama's "emerging" position on gay "marriage."

Maybe that's above their pay grade.

Sisyphus
Joined
Jul '10
Sisyphus

5. That Mike Murphy was a party to such activities?

6. That Mike Murphy admitted to being party to such activities?

7. That Mile Murphy would throw a client under the bus in such cavalier fashion?

8. That the NYT would would paint such a ridiculous portrait and we would take it at face value?

Pseudodionysius
Joined
Sep '10
Pseudodionysius

Cue the Casablanca graphic EJ. I am shocked, shocked, to find politics going on in here.

ParisParamus
Joined
May '10
ParisParamus

If Romney said "I'm pro-life," that would have moved the law in MA in that direction.  Really?  Come on.

Albert Arthur
Joined
Oct '11
Albert Arthur

Mr. Robinson, what exactly is the point of all your incessant griping about Romney?  For instance, a good portion of the Uncommon Knowledge episode with Jonah Goldberg was devoted to lamenting how awful Romney and the rest of the field are.  I would understand better if you were advocating for some other candidate, but you don't seem to be. You have forlornly called for Mitch Daniels to get into the race, true. But he's not running. I just wonder why you think it's helpful to be so negative about the field, and about Romney in particular.

AmishDude
Joined
Dec '10
AmishDude

Well, Murphy tends to have opinions of his own and I really don't trust him to tell us what's in Romney's heart.

I just assumed what Romney told us, that he changed his mind, and inferred it was that he was more secular and politically ambitious. (And maybe changed because he's still politically ambitious.)

It actually doesn't reflect well on his character either but it makes more sense.

Somebody who is actually pro-life is usually committed to abstract principles and a rigid moral code.  It makes little sense that they would also be Machiavellian.

EJHill
Joined
May '10
EJHill
Pseudodionysius: Cue the Casablanca graphic EJ

Actually, Doc Molloy gets the Graphic Inspiration of the Day Award:

Mr Bland
Douglas
Joined
Mar '11
Douglas

EJHill:  

Than your friend Mike Murphy was probably in the middle of that little piece of soul-selling?

Raise your hand if you were actually surprised. Bueller? Bueller?

DrewInWisconsin
Joined
Aug '11
DrewInWisconsin

I always try to figure out why the New York Times says what it says. I've been pretty sure they want Obama to run against Mitt Romney as they see him the easiest to beat (or, in the slim chance that Romney wins, at least he'll still expand the entitlement state).

So why would they want their readers to read that Romney is moving in a pro-life direction?

First, this is an assurance for pro-lifers. "Go ahead, vote for Romney. He's one of you."

But second, the reference to his mercenary flip-flopping is also an assurance for the pro-abortion crowd. "Don't worry, he doesn't really mean it."

Douglas
Joined
Mar '11
Douglas

BTW, I think it's far worse if you're supposedly pro-life and you change your position to pro-abortion to get votes than it is if you're actually pro-abortion and have an honest-to-God road to Damascus moment and see the light on life. I think the former speaks volumes about character here, and none of it good.

ultra vires
Joined
Feb '11
ultra vires

Mitt was juat following Yogi Berra's advice: "when you come to a fork in the road, take it."

Stuart Creque
Joined
Dec '10
Stuart Creque

If we elected a President who didn't equate "politics" with "lying in order to fool the electorate long enough to get elected," would the world come crashing down on our heads?I get the impression that Rick Santorum is the only one of the four Republicans and one Democrat running for the Presidency in this year whose election would let us test the hypothesis.

EJHill
Joined
May '10
EJHill

And just like Mrs. Blandings in the original, the government is there to meet your every need...

Duane Oyen
Joined
May '10
Duane Oyen
Albert Arthur: Mr. Robinson, what exactly is the point of all your incessant griping about Romney?  For instance, a good portion of the Uncommon Knowledge episode with Jonah Goldberg was devoted to lamenting how awful Romney and the rest of the field are.  I would understand better if you were advocating for some other candidate, but you don't seem to be. You have forlornly called for Mitch Daniels to get into the race, true. But he's not running. I just wonder why you think it's helpful to be so negative about the field, and about Romney in particular. · 18 minutes ago

1) What Romney actually said in Massachusetts was thta he wouldn]'t try to overturn Roe v. Wade.  Makes sense to me- a g0vernor overturn the Supreme Court?

2) EJ, who are all these babies that Romney therefore sacrificed in Massachusetts?

3) Albert, in 1994, Romney said that he was "independent during Reagan-Bush" during a debate.  If you knew and worked for President Reagan, hearing that line colors all of your subsequent thoughts about the speaker.

James Of England
Joined
Apr '11
James Of England

Romney's first experience with life politics that I know of was campaigning for his Mom's failed senate campaign, when she ran as a pro-choice republican in Michigan in '72. I don't know of any political involvement between then and the '94 campaign, but it was around 1990 that the "scandal" of Mitt's running into a hospital and browbeating a parishioner who was going to get an abortion into bearing the kid to term was born (it came to light before the gubernatorial campaign; the parishioner was still mad at him).

During the '90s and gubernatorial campaign, he promised not to change the laws, and refused to label himself pro-life or pro-choice (this is the origin of "multiple choice Mitt", Kennedy's slogan that still dogs him today). Both in his gubernatorial race and senate race, he claimed that this position was similar to his opponents, as I imagine he will do with gay marriage in the general, if only to imply insincerity on Obama's part.

When his conversion came,  he kept his promise to to Massachusetts to fight change, all of which was/ would have been (predictably) in a pro-choice direction.

James Of England
Joined
Apr '11
James Of England

While it's true that Romney tried to sell his position of fighting change as a neutral one, it wasn't a ruse that worked terribly well. Massachusetts Citizens For Life endorsed him, and have remained very supportive of him, while NARAL and Planned Parenthood loathed him. His tone may have been misleading, but the policies he laid out were precisely the policies he supported in government, and his efforts to mollify opponents were rarely serious.

Mike Murphy is a fascinating guy, and often comes out with very interesting insights, but I do get the impression that interviewers often walk away from interviews with him with a higher view of Murphy and a lower view of the candidate than ought to be the case.


Would you like to comment on this Conversation?

Become a Member for $3.67 a month.

Join the Conversation
Already a member? Sign In
Loading

Start your shopping here!

Help support Ricochet by making your purchases through our Amazon links.

Welcome Visitor!
Join  or  Sign In

Become a Member to enjoy the full benefits of Ricochet:

Ricochet: The Right People, The Right Tone, The Right Place.  Join today!

Already a Member? Sign In