Romney's Non Flip-Flop On Abortion

Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney said this week that as president he would allow individual states to keep abortion legal, two weeks after telling a national television audience that he supports a constitutional amendment to ban the procedure nationwide.

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.

Assuming that Romney's story of a late-in-life pro-life conversion is true -- and that's a reasonable assumption absent evidence to the contrary -- it's not surprising that he has trouble articulating, in soundbite form, what he believes -- especially to a media that's been conditioned to listen for nuance.

It's also true that everything Mitt Romney says about abortion will be scrutinized to see whether it comports with what he said last week, two months ago, three months ago. His advisers accept that, frustrating as it may be.

It's also true (so many truths) that a media report about Romney's alleged flip-flopping on abortion is dangerous. No matter what Republican campaigns and strategists say, if the media labels some-thing a flip-flop, it becomes, to many voters, a flip-flop -- even if, at the end of the day, before God himself, it isn't. That's unfair, in the scheme of things, but it's one of the reasons why the press remains powerful. Compare: if the media calls something Barack Obama says a "gaffe," it becomes a gaffe until the voters are convinced otherwise -- even if it wasn't a real, genuine gaffe in the first place.

Comments

"Assuming that Romney's story of a late-in-life pro-life conversion is true -- and that's a reasonable assumption absent evidence to the contrary."

Reasonable!?!?!?!?!?! This is a ridiculous assumption and can not be made less ridiculous just because you follow it up with your own ridiculous opinion that it is reasonable. What kind of sane argument is that.

What could be more convenient than a religious man changing his position (uh, I mean converting) to the postion of his base vote that has been required to win the nomination for the position he has at that exact time decided to persue.

Absent evidence to the contrary, the assumption is the opposite. Not just for Romney but for any politician (trust must be earned). And in this case particularly for Romney based on the historical fact.

Therefore the likely reason he has trouble articulating is not because of a late conversion, but because it is not his real belief or passion.

Posted by Tom | August 23, 2007 12:29 PM

i'd have to agree with tom. this flip-flop (please...) is SO obvious that it's ridiculous. romney clearly has changed or modified his position on SO MANY ISSUES in order to run for president it must be embarrassing. oh, but wait...maybe not. since he has people like marc ambinder saying that he's "reasonable".

or maybe you're being sarcastic and i didn't get it.

Posted by Tony | August 23, 2007 12:46 PM

While Mitt Romney has the right to flip-flop all he wants on this issue, Mike Huckabee has always maintained a firm stand and hasn't constantly changed to fit the electorate as Romney has done.

Posted by Peter | August 23, 2007 12:49 PM

Mitt Romney is just not going to go as far as some people demand. Some people see this as an issue that is black and white, either you get an abortion on demand for any reason without explaination making the government pay for your "choice" or you never ever have a right to one, while most of America is somewhere inbetween, reverenceing the existance of a life, while recognizing that there are situations where a life must be given for another. Mitt Romney has been consistant in his beliefs, he just changed his label because it was demanded of him.

Posted by kh | August 23, 2007 1:00 PM

I'd actually agree with this column written here. Romney's support for life shouldn't be as big of a deal as the media makes it out to be. In fact, this conversion, as many people call it, didn't happen just before the white house race. Romney stood up for life while governor of Massachusetts, which, by the way, is a very liberal state. It was not politically popular to do as the governor of that state.

People claim that his conversion to life was a flip-flop to pander to the conservative base. But the thing you have to remember is that when he began supporting life, his base was liberal! This is not what I call pandering to the base.

Another point that needs to be made: America is sick and tired of politicians who doggedly stick to their old point of view just so they appear more sure of themselves or resolute. Think how many people out there are angry at the Bush Administration for not admitting mistakes and correcting errors earlier. If anything, we should see Romney as a guy that is willing to admit he was wrong... something you won't see from Hilary. We need someone to bring change to Washington, but change won't come to the government from a person that isn't willing to change himself. Remember, change isn't bad as long as you make the correct changes.

In fact, as a pro-lifer myself, I'd be happy if every pro-abortion person out there "flip-flopped" and came to support life as I do. That would be great news to me if that happened, and it should be great news for everybody who supports life. So why isn't it great news when it comes from Mitt Romney? The answer is simple: politics. People out there look for anything that could be cast in a negative light about the candidate they don't support and paint the ugliest picture possible. After all they try to do to discredit Romney, he's still a good man at the end of the day. His record shows it, and he's done amazing things for US companies, workers, the Olympics, Massachusetts, and next Washington.

Posted by Jaytee | August 23, 2007 1:01 PM

Not a flip-floper? Check out his Mass. record and you're sure to find somethung there...

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by paul | August 23, 2007 1:13 PM

"Assuming that Romney's story of a late-in-life pro-life conversion is true -- and that's a reasonable assumption absent evidence to the contrary ...."

But there is evidence to the contrary, plenty of it. Running in pro-choice Massachusetts, Romney was pro-choice. Running in the anti-abortion Republican primaries, he's against it. You can believe that Romney is sincere if you like, but it's going to take an awful lot of effort.

Posted by Alan Vanneman | August 23, 2007 1:20 PM

I agree with Jaytee - Mitt's conversion happened years before his White House bid, and he actually took actions to support that conversion. What I'd like to know is why is it that people are so adverse to someone changing their mind? When I was five my favorite color was pink. Now its not. When September 11th happened I was all for going to war. Now I'm not so sure. When Mitt began his bid I didn't like him. Now I do. We all change our minds, what is so wrong about that? Truly great people are those who change as they learn, not those who stubbornly stand by an opinion they chose when they were young.

Posted by janey | August 23, 2007 1:25 PM

janey, i hope you said the same thing about Kerry in the last presidential election as the Republicans screamed "flip-flopper" from the rafters as he continually, as you would term it, 'changed his mind as he learned.' The problem with both Romney and Kerry's position alterations are not that they change, but that they seem to take total reversals of their previous positions instead of having them change organically and thoughtfully. It is more than very convenient that Romney was mostly pro-choice during candidacy in liberal Massachusetts, and now he's come to realize that he is indeed pro-life around the time he pursues a Republican presidential nomination, which just happens to be the same stance the Republican base has.

Posted by sf greg | August 23, 2007 1:53 PM

Jaytee, when his spontaneous "conversion" happened, the state he governed may have been liberal, but the primary audience he was just starting to pander to was certainly not.

Posted by Peter | August 23, 2007 2:01 PM

Mitt ran as a moderate/liberal to win the Massachusetts governor's office (against a very weak Dem) and immediately FLIP-FLOPPED on choice.

It was all very calculated.

Mitt never planned to spend more than one term in office in Boston, and he decided to run for the 2008 GOP nomination about two seconds after he won the governor's race. As the great Wholesome Conservative Hope who tamed the heathens in Massachusetts.

Posted by Woody Bombay | August 23, 2007 2:02 PM

Trackback: http://flapsblog.com/?p=5459

Posted by Flap | August 23, 2007 2:09 PM

I think the Republican Party had better get out of the moral trenches that has in effect turned off a lot of its constituients who are increasingly souring on the shenninanigans of the current administration. Check out author Anne Rice's website folks. You may find her a whack job, but she's probably more representative of a lot of Xians than you care to admit: pro-choie & gay marriage.

This issue serves only to divide the country when we are faced with a boodndoggle in Iraq, all the fault of this administration that decided to get rid of Saddam instead of pursuing Bin Ladin, which WOULD NOT HAVE REQUIRED A FULL OUT MILITARY ACTION.

Pasty pudgy old white heterosexual men you're time is up!

Posted by samguy | August 23, 2007 2:15 PM

Hey Peter -

Indeed, Huckabee has always been pro-life. Too bad he's also always been a tax raising, big spending, regulation loving big government liberal on fiscal issues.

Posted by Bill B | August 23, 2007 2:18 PM

Governor Romney's RECORD is 100% pro-life.

Spin the words and and distort the sentences all you like but facts are facts and they show Mitt Romney governed a very pro-choice state as a PRO-LIFE GOVERNOR.

There is not a single abortion group that supports Romney. Why do you think that is?

Posted by Goldwater | August 23, 2007 2:20 PM

"Assuming that Romney's story of a late-in-life pro-life conversion is true -- and that's a reasonable assumption absent evidence to the contrary ...."

Marc Ambinder is a spokesperson for Romney. Marc has proven it again and again over the last few months. He comes up with some weird illogical logic to cover Mitt's ass. At the same time, Marc attacks Edwards or Obama everytime they make news. Even a school going kid who can read Romney's history will say that Romney has flipflopped on abortion.

Probably Marc is hoping for Romney-Ambinder ticket.

Posted by Tony | August 23, 2007 2:31 PM

Here is an ad about Romney. With multiple-choice Mitt's pictures flashing all over the screen..

$50 for that sleek pretty boy haircut

$100 for the hair gel to keep that hair neat

$200 for a nice pedicure with cuticle cream

$250 for a body moisturizer

$300 for a Cover Girl Makeup

$25 millions for changing the image

Desparate attempt to erase all those FLIP-FLOPS.. PRICELESS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There are some things that money can't buy!

Posted by MP | August 23, 2007 2:33 PM

Romney only started being "pro-life" when he decided he wanted to run for President.

Posted by Peter | August 23, 2007 2:34 PM

For brain-washed mutiplechoice Romney fans:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/politics/candidates/articles/2006/12/17/romneys_journey_to_the_right/

The real Romney is clearly an extraordinarily ambitious man with no perceivable political principle whatsover. He is the most intellectually dishonest human being in the history of politics.

Posted by Rice | August 23, 2007 2:36 PM

One more example of Mitt's FlippityFloppity:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxV-QNXoRIc

Mitt VS. Facts

MITT: Mitt Romney maintains that he changed his position on abortion to pro-life after a "single revelatory moment" in November 2004.

VS.

FACT: A new video shows Mitt Romney, just six months after his so-called epiphany, declaring himself "absolutely committed" to supporting pro-choice laws.

Posted by Chrissy | August 23, 2007 2:56 PM

This article was pretty reasonable. I am accustomed to reading articles which paint views on abortion as being locked into one of two extremes, of which most Americans are neither, including Romney.

The media like to think that people either favor all abortions, any-time, for any reason or they favor no abortion, ever, for any reason. We all know it's far more complex. Additionally, most of us have a position on what we would do in the situation of an unplanned pregnancy and perhaps struggle with what we think others MUST do.

I think abortion is wrong and would not do it unless my life were in jeopardy. I have high standards for my own behavior and am willing to pay the consequences if I screw up. On ther other hand, I realize that a significant number of people have been raised with few standards of behavior. They have been carefully taught that they have every right to do what they want at all times with no thought of repercussions -- for themselves or anyone else. Do I want the silly people to risk death when they try to escape from the natural consequences of their behavior? No, I don't want that either.... I'd hope they'd have a chance to live and learn from their mistakes.

So, over time I really hope that hearts and minds will change on this issue -- and that there will be many, many "flip-floppers."

Inherent in people's abortion position is an assumption on when life begins, and here you may be assuming things about Romney's beliefs that are not true. You may be assuming that every religious person assumes that life begins at conception and abortion is therefore murder. But not every religious person believes this "must" be the case. You may assume that if someone thinks that life does not begin at conception, that abortion should therefore be OK. And a religious person might disagree with you on entirely different grounds. Murder or non-murder is not necessarily the question, though many people think that is the only question....

Why should Romney be portrayed as a flip-flopper when his position was never one of the two extremes people assume it must belong to -- even though their own position is not likely one of those extremes either...?

Posted by CM | August 23, 2007 3:09 PM

Woody Bombay is absolutely right. Timing of the "conversion" happened after he already attained his position in a pro-choice democratic state. That is the critical point.

And as to the "spun" facts.......Romney may have been personally pro-life, but his message to his electorate before the conversion was that he wanted to "maintain the status quo with regards to laws relating to abortion and choice and so far I've been able to successfully do that". [QUOTE - MAY 2005]. Please don't remove the subtleties from the facts, particularly as you accuse others of lying and spinning. Thats on par with Marc's establishing something is reasonable by writing that it is so.

I also don't think this discussion represents people who are adverse to thinking, reflecting and changing ones mind. Believing (i) Romney is pandering (which if you are honost you have to say John Kerry did also) and (ii) valuing the ability to think and reevaluate ones postion are not mutually exclusive. Really changing your mind and not just your position are two different things.

Bottom line is that the issue is trust. If you value the pro-life plank (or any other plank) more than an honost and throughtful candidate, and are willing to sacrifice honosty for a national leader that supports your position, you are entitled (and it could be the right choice for you).

I personally think that is one reason we continue to be frustrated with the politicians we have been electing. And I'm willing to trade some personal positions for some honesty, if our current system will allow me that choice.

Posted by Tom | August 23, 2007 3:48 PM

Trackback: http://www.mittreport.com

Posted by Scott H. | August 23, 2007 3:54 PM

Please pardon an Englishman commenting on your political process - Mitt Romney is not only the most unprincipled politician in the Presidential race , American voters should know Romney as a Mormon believes that Jesus is the brother of the Devil . Romney also believes we all originate from a planet near a star called Kolob . That is just a sample of his shocking views.

Posted by Andrew Price | August 23, 2007 4:32 PM

Please pardon an Englishman commenting on your political process - Mitt Romney is not only the most unprincipled politician in the Presidential race , American voters should know Romney as a Mormon believes that Jesus is the brother of the Devil . Romney also believes we all originate from a planet near a star called Kolob . That is just a sample of his shocking views.

Posted by Andrew Price | August 23, 2007 4:33 PM

I am so sick of hearing about the "Flip-Flopping" political attack. My goodness, Politics these days is just pathetic. This ridiculous attack is, in my opinion, the weakest political assault imaginable, and yet ironically, due to the willingness of the public to blindly follow what the biased news broadcasts, the attack becomes the ultimate weapon.

The entire assault is based on the idea that if a political figure changes their mind, they are weak and cannot be trusted since they will obviously just do whatever appeals to the public at the moment. Rather than changing your mind being a sign of wisdom or reflection, it is the symbol of a sly politician who craves power alone.

Yet if Bush would "Flip-Flop" on the war, and begin to remove troops (or at least re-deploy them elsewhere in a more appropriate and worthy cause) from Iraq: Well then, we would all be cheering him on! Interesting isn't it?

The thing that scares me is that the more this ridiculous tactic is used, the more credible the public believe the attack to be... The more serious of an offense it becomes in the eye of the public. "Oh no! He Flip-Flopped!" What effect will this have on the political future of the United States? Well, what happens when a Republican or Democrat truly feels that something should be changed on an issue even though it conflicts with his or her previous statements? Will they have the courage to say they've changed their mind becuase it is important? Or will they stick to their guns and old ways for fear of being labeled a Flip-Flopper by the media?

This attack was hilariously ridiculous when it was used against Kerry. It is even more ridiculous as it is being used now against Hilary (in small circles) and Romney (much more widely in the press). Other Democrats running for the nomination accuse her of supporting the war in the beginning and then flip-flopping to be against it (even though she is right in doing so)... She's not suited for leadership! Romney changed his mind about abortion (and only in the political-state function, not personally) and so he obviously not conservative enough. He can't be trusted.

*sigh*

I just think it is so embarrassing that the world gets front-row seats to the childish political games played by the leaders and media of our nation. I don't care whether it is Fox news attacking Hilary or MSNBC attacking Romney... America needs to grow up and take a step back to look at the circus we are all cheering on right now. Get to the issues people. Cut it with the sly attacks of "You said this six years ago Hilary..." Talk about your own ideas.

In closing, take a moment to think why political attacks are becoming so common. There is nothing better to take attention off of your own lacking of an answer than to point the camera elsewhere and bring up a political slander campaign. Seriously, if you have answers - tell us... Don't tell me what is wrong with Obama's, or Clinton's, or Romney's, or whoever.... Tell me what is right with YOU.

Sadly enough, me typing this all will have little effect I am sure. People still hypnotized by the media and politcal parties who demand loyalty will stare on convinced that the media has no agenda other than truth. Convinced that if their politician says so-in-so is wrong, then without checking it out for themselves, they will know it is so.

Stare on Americans. Continue the Daze. At least your amusing the on-looking world that laugh at the so-called world-power and Leading Nation of the Earth which is so politically enlightened and progressive.

Posted by T. Farr | August 23, 2007 4:37 PM

The whole flip-flop hype has been very irritating. Romney may have evolved his abortion position slightly (he was always personally pro-life, but in heavily Democratic Mass. he agreed to keep abortion safe and legal, even though he was seriously opposed to it, all along. I'm 100% convinced that this man is 100% pro-life. He may have flipped, but he never flopped back and never will. I think that some Dem.'s are upset about what happed to John Kerry eight years ago, and are trying to coin the same thing on Romney. The thing is that Kerry would change his viewpoint from one minute to the next, practically in the same conversation. That is very different than Romney evolving his pro-life stance over the course of 14 years. Thank you for this refreshing article! Great read!

Posted by Bill | August 23, 2007 5:02 PM

I can't stress enough that there is a real difference between changing your mind and what Romney has likely done in this instance (and as you note - Kerry also did very well during his campaign.)

There is a significant distinction -- I can compare it to the legal concept called Mens Rea (or mental state) - a crime involves an act and a mental state. For example a person commits murder if he (1) purposely or knowingly (2) causes the death of a human being. If you don't have the mental state it may be a lesser crime or may not even be a crime.

In this case, the act of changing ones mind is innocent and even admirable (as some here mention) if it does not involve the intention of pandering for votes. Once that deceptive mental state is added it is very worthy of criticism.

You can obviously overlook this and continue screaming if you want.

The proof is also in the candidates actions. If being very open minded and changing their minds was truly what these politicians were doing, then the law of averages would provide that a few times during the campaign one would change their mind against their base or polling numbers. This rarely happens, and when it does or when the change is outside the political season or otherwise seems convincing, we will admire it.

Until then it is actually intelligent and not as you suggest "hypnotized" for people to challenge these candidates on their "conversions".

Posted by Tom | August 23, 2007 5:09 PM

All the Romney sycophants here can try to spin it as much as possible but the fact remains that Romney is a FLIP-FLOPPER. Its not only on abortion but also on many other topics Romney has flipflopped.

***********************************************

Romney = Political Opportunist

Romney = FLIP-FLOPPER

**********************************************

Posted by Tom | August 23, 2007 5:19 PM

You're the spinner, Tom. Face it. The whole flip-flop thing is simply media spin/twist. Get over it.

Posted by butch | August 23, 2007 5:46 PM

There is one crucial point here that NOBODY can know with certainty -- aside for Romney himself and God -- and that is his motive for changing his position.

It may be easy to ASSUME that his motive was political expedience, but NOBODY can KNOW that. It may fit into your own personal prejudices or preferences that Romney's change of heart was only political expedience, but you can't know that.

"Attributing Motives" is referred to as a Cognitive Distortion. In other words, it is faulty thinking to assume you have privileged information as to the motive behind another's actions. His actions may seem suspicious to you, but that is as far as you can logically take your claim.

What is reasonable to believe? Is it reasonable that a person who has always been personally opposed to abortion but did not believe he could impose that on others eventually came to the conclusion that the slippery slope has gotten out of control -- that the devaluation of life has descended further than he ever imagined...?

I think such an evolution in one's position is reasonable. As for the timing? Is there an approved schedule for changing one's mind? Can you only change your mind when it appears you have nothing to gain?

Some are also assuming that a pro-life postion is absolutely necessary for a Republican candidate and yet Guiliani is doing very well.

Posted by CM | August 23, 2007 5:58 PM

To the person who gave a garbled up view of LDS beliefs. Mitt Romney's church believes that we are ALL brothers and sisters, and children of God, every single being. LDS detractors stretch that to say that Latter-day Saint belief that Jesus and Satan are brothers. They are siblings in the same way that you and I are siblings. Get it? Also FYI Kolob is not a planet, it's a star. No one can live on a star. In the early Christian churches, Catholics and Protestants were considered "incestuous" because they called one another brother and sisters in Christ and married each other. They were bashed about as heavily as LDS are bashed now. Before you start spreading misinformation and slandering people's religious beliefs, get your information straight. A good start is www.lds.org for the church's actual non-twisted beliefs.

Posted by Alex | August 23, 2007 6:04 PM

A lot of twists, spins, and turns have occurred in the media and elsewhere regarding Romney's Latter-day Saint Faith.

Could members of the Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) be more "Christian" than Evangelicals? . . Protestants and Catholics subscribe to the Nicene creed, which was initiated by the Emperor Constantine in the Fourth Century to rid Scriptures of the Apocrypha, some of which made reference to the oral traditions of Jewish and early Christian temple worship.

First Century Christian churches, in fact, continued the Jewish temple worship traditions:
1) Baptism of youth (not infants) by immersion by the father of the family
2) Lay clergy
3) Anointing with holy oil after baptism
4) Then clothing in white clothing

A First Century Christian Church has been re-constructed at the Israeli Museum, and the above can be verified. . And read Exodus Ch 29 for Aaron and his sons” ordinances. . Jewish Temple practices were continued by Christians prior to Constantine”s corruption [see St. Cyril of Jerusalem (315-386 A.D.) Lecture XXI]. . . Early Christians were persecuted for keeping their practices sacred, and not allowing non-Christians to witness them

A literal reading of the New Testament points to God and Jesus Christ being separate beings, united in purpose. . To whom was Jesus praying in Gethsemane, and Who was speaking to Him and his apostles on the Mount of Transfiguration?

The Nicene Creed”s definition of the Trinity was influenced by scribes translating the Greek manuscripts into Latin. The scribes embellished on a passage explaining the Trinity, which is the Catholic and Protestant belief that God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The oldest versions of the epistle of 1 John, read: "There are three that bear witness: the Spirit, the water and the blood and these three are one."
Scribes later added "the Father, the Word and the Spirit," and it remained in the epistle when it was translated into English for the King James Version, according to Dr. Bart Ehrman, Chairman of the Religion Department at UNC- Chapel Hill. . . .He no longer believes in the Nicene Trinity.

Members of the Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) have concern for their ancestors” spiritual welfare, so they practice proxy baptism. (1 Corinthians 15:29 & Malachi 4:5-6).

Only members of the Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) continue these practices of First Century Christians. But Mormons don”t term Catholics and Protestants “non-Christian”. The dictionary definition of a Christian is “of, pertaining to, believing in, or belonging to a religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ”:. All of the above denominations are followers of Christ, and consider him the Messiah foretold in the Old Testament.

It”s important to understand the difference between Reformation and Restoration when we consider who might be the more authentic Christian. If members of the Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) embrace early Christian theology, they are likely more “Christian” than their detractors.

* * *

And the National Study of Youth and Religion done by UNC-Chapel Hill in 2005 found that Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) youth (ages 13 to 17) were more likely to exhibit these Christian characteristics than Evangelicals (the next most observant group):
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LDS Evangelical
Attend Religious Services weekly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71% . . . . 55%
Importance of Religious Faith in shaping daily life –
extremely important . . . 52. . . . . . 28
Believes in life after death . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 . . . . . . 62
Believes in psychics or fortune-tellers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . 5
Has taught religious education classes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 . . . . . . 28
Has fasted or denied something as spiritual discipline . . . . . . . . . . . .68 . . . . . . 22
Sabbath Observance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 . . . . . . 40
Shared religious faith with someone not of their faith . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 . . . . . . 56
Family talks about God, scriptures, prayer daily . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 . . . . . . 19
Supportiveness of church for parent in trying to raise teen
(very supportive) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65 . . . . . . 26
Church congregation has done an excellent job in helping
Teens better understand their own sexuality and sexual morality . . . 84 . . . . . . 35

Posted by Yvonne | August 23, 2007 6:10 PM

It's a flip-flop, because in truth the whole modern "pro-life" position is contrived flip-flop. They claim to believe that abortion is murder, but they want to preserve it as a local option? C'mon.

Mitt's conversion over stem cell research is simply the most convenient, if tortured, little fig leaf that happened by. Until November 2004 he was OK with legal second trimester abortions, then all of the sudden he's worried about stem cells, but still OK with in vitro fertilzation, which destroys far more "potential lives."

Posted by AJ | August 23, 2007 7:13 PM

Alex - you did not read my comment with care I said Kolob was a star , since the Mormons think this is normal along with the view that Christ is the Devils brother - oh don't forget that God is married then we can all reasonably assume that Romney will tell the world something about these views . After all we all want our politicians to be open . You dont have to be a Bible believing Christian to find Mormonism not only wierd but repugnant . Perhaps Alex or Mitt Romney can tell us what happens when they " hie to Kolob "?

Posted by Andrew Price | August 23, 2007 7:41 PM

Again for some clarity... No one is saying for certain that they know what Mitt is thinking. Just because you can't get into someones head does not mean that their actions and past statements don't give you insight into what their true motivations are. Our entire legal system operates on this principal -- juries are asked to make these types of determinations every day in court and I can't honostly see how you can even avoid them every day in life (unless I guess you just believe everything everyone tells you unless proven wrong because you can never for certain determine their motivations)

His actions are more than extremely suspicious. That is the point. Even to the point that they appear opportunistic. And I personally (you again may feel differently) would rather start purging instead of adding to the opportunistic characters on the national political scene.

If you like him, that is fine, there is obviously nothing we can say to make you question the motivations for some of his actions.

Posted by Tom(1) | August 23, 2007 7:54 PM

Andrew Price:

Latter-day Saints ("Mormon" is a slightly derogatory nickname)whole heartedly believe in the Bible. They are all studying the New Testament (King James Version) this year every Sunday at every LDS church in the world. Why do you hate them so much? What have they ever done to you? It seems like you're purposefully trying to hurt them. With enough scrutiny any religion could be made to look strange. You obviously know that you're twisting their beliefs and slandering them. Why would you do that?

Posted by Alex | August 23, 2007 8:56 PM

Christians believe that by drinking the blood of a zombie they'll get to live forever and go to some magical place called Heaven. Sounds pretty weird doesn't it Andrew? How is it that you could ever vote for someone that believes in zombies when they obviously aren't real? Take your hate and go back across the pond.

Posted by Brenden | August 24, 2007 12:03 AM

KEEP BELIEVING THE LIBERAL TEMPLATE THAT ROMNEY IS A FLIP FLOPPER--you are lemmings for doing so, though, and here is why.

Any reasonable person who has looked at Mitt's 1994 Senate Campaign Brochure can not see any difference between his platform on over a dozen issues then and now, other than abortion. Some clever cut and paste work will deceive lemmings who want to believe.

Mitt was never personally pro-life. How that position translates into his political positions better change as he becomes more experienced and seasoned. Many democrats have flip flopped and it just doesn't get any press...hmmm must I be paranoid to believe there is media bias on this one?

The double standard here is clear: Bush is reviled for being so stubborn--refusing to change positions no matter what the facts are. But if Romney does so he is a flip flopper. For Dems it is simple, if you morph into liberalism you are enlightened but if you morph into conservatism you are a flip flopper--what a hypocritical double standard.

The difference was Bush and his campaign cronnies were the only ones who called Gore a Flip Flopper. On the other hand, just about every NEWSPAPER has at least one story calling Romney a flip flopper--a big difference because these are "unbiased" WRITERS are they are getting their licks in early and often. Of course, in addition to these "independent" "journalists" trashing Romney, they run an article every time the DNC website calls Romney a Flip Flopper.

My journey has been somewhat like Romney's on the abortion stance. I used to feel abortion was morally repugnant but felt government should keep it illegal. I felt government didn't belong in such a personal decision and feared illegal unsafe abortions would result. I even had some persuasive articles published to that effect. Guess what, after getting married, having kids, practicing law and counseling married couples in a church setting,15 years later I CHANGED MY MIND. Believe it or not, you can flip flop on abortion. While I always have believed it wrong, I now support any state that wants to make it illegal (except in the instance of health of the mother, rape or incest).

The fact is Romney has more conviction, more consistency in his personal and public positions and life, than any other candidate--hands down, not even close. This scares the hell out of the Dems, so their approach is to attack Romney's strenghts--moral courage. (Coach Mike Bellichecs strategy in the NFL). The more American's learn about Romney the more genuine he will be to them.

Keep running over the Flip Flop Cliff you lemming liberals.

Posted by Dan Lounsbury | August 24, 2007 12:13 AM

KEEP BELIEVING THE LIBERAL TEMPLATE THAT ROMNEY IS A FLIP FLOPPER--you are lemmings for doing so, though, and here is why.

Any reasonable person who has looked at Mitt's 1994 Senate Campaign Brochure can not see any difference between his platform on over a dozen issues then and now, other than abortion. Some clever cut and paste work will deceive lemmings who want to believe.

Mitt was never personally pro-life. How that position translates into his political positions better change as he becomes more experienced and seasoned. Many democrats have flip flopped and it just doesn't get any press...hmmm must I be paranoid to believe there is media bias on this one?

The double standard here is clear: Bush is reviled for being so stubborn--refusing to change positions no matter what the facts are. But if Romney does so he is a flip flopper. For Dems it is simple, if you morph into liberalism you are enlightened but if you morph into conservatism you are a flip flopper--what a hypocritical double standard.

The difference was Bush and his campaign cronnies were the only ones who called Gore a Flip Flopper. On the other hand, just about every NEWSPAPER has at least one story calling Romney a flip flopper--a big difference because these are "unbiased" WRITERS are they are getting their licks in early and often. Of course, in addition to these "independent" "journalists" trashing Romney, they run an article every time the DNC website calls Romney a Flip Flopper.

My journey has been somewhat like Romney's on the abortion stance. I used to feel abortion was morally repugnant but felt government should keep it illegal. I felt government didn't belong in such a personal decision and feared illegal unsafe abortions would result. I even had some persuasive articles published to that effect. Guess what, after getting married, having kids, practicing law and counseling married couples in a church setting,15 years later I CHANGED MY MIND. Believe it or not, you can flip flop on abortion. While I always have believed it wrong, I now support any state that wants to make it illegal (except in the instance of health of the mother, rape or incest).

The fact is Romney has more conviction, more consistency in his personal and public positions and life, than any other candidate--hands down, not even close. This scares the hell out of the Dems, so their approach is to attack Romney's strenghts--moral courage. (Coach Mike Bellichecs strategy in the NFL). The more American's learn about Romney the more genuine he will be to them.

Keep running over the Flip Flop Cliff you lemming liberals.

Posted by Dan Lounsbury | August 24, 2007 12:16 AM

As recently as 5 years ago I was pro-choice, but now I have leaned further to the pro-life side. Does that mean I've flip-flopped? No, I may have changed my view, but it wasn't a flip-flop. Additionally, for people to say that we must assume he did it for political reasons and that it wasn't sincere without evidence otherwise is rediculous. It most certainly should be the other way.

Posted by shane | August 24, 2007 11:12 AM

Two comments:

1- Andrew is obviously a disgruntled ex-Mormon. Having not had the moral fiber to maintain the principles espoused by the church, likely having been excommunicated, he's embittered and has become ugly. Pay him no mind.

2- Anyone who calls Romney a flip-flopper is ethically bound to present proof of such. I've extended this same challenge to literally hundreds (maybe thousands) of people on dozens of blogs in the past few months. So far, no one has been able to stand up to it. Here it is:

Provide me with one single credible piece of evidence of Romney flip-flopping on any issue. I'll be the first to change my tune and admit it publicly if you can do it. I can debunk every flip-flopping claim that has been leveled against him so far. If you don't have something new and meaningful, I guarantee you'll lose.

Any takers?

Posted by Ryan | August 24, 2007 1:01 PM

My oh my - flip-flop; flip-flop.Reading all posts on this the last 10 minutes just makes me LOL!!! Who doesn't flip-flop? Last year at harvest time I craved onion and tomato sandwiches; now it's tomato and cheese; in October while I'm in Israel it may change to something else. Big deal. So I've flip-flopped and you all believe (and accept) that it should have been hamburger and lettuce all the time. It's so silly.All you guys that get so worked about Romney and the "flip-flop" issues are missing the real issue, when considering him or anyone else for nominee for President. Same deal for the illegal immigration, health care,tax reform, war on terror, etc, etc.ad nauseum. Everyone one gets all bent out of shape with this issue or that - as if the president REALLY is going to change things. The only real significant long term effect a president will have in our society are his Supreme Court nominees. Think about it. All this other stuff is just that . . . . stuff.
And another thing, about this Mormon issue. Rather than blindly accept what some so-called journalist, or "well-respected blogger" or some pundit or professor of xyz divinty school says about Mormons or any other faith, for that matter. What not go to the source, instead of someones interpretation of it? Who can tell me the real truth about the Baptist faith? A Baptist minister or a Jehovah Witness missionary? Or perhaps an on-line blogger whose uncle attended an Evangelical revival in Kansas last summer. If the qualifications of a candidate are the doctrines of his professed religion, then let's bring THEM ALL OUT ON THE LAUNDRY LINE TO EXAMINE, NOT JUST ROMNEYS!! Yeah,while we're at it,let's go back to all the "HOLY CRUSADES". Let's really in depth check out all the evidences of Christs church anciently and see where they are manifest on the earth today. Oh yeah and we'll have Jim Lehrer, or Mike Wallace, or George Stephanopolis (sp)or Rush Limbaugh, or Sean Hannity, or Michael Savage, or the Senate or the Joint Chiefs of Staff, or the Supreme Court, or whoever be the almighty final judge - and then EVERYONE WILL KNOW and be satisfied, once and for all.Yeah. Sure. This silly.

Posted by Leon Leavitt | August 24, 2007 1:26 PM

Leon,

My challenge still stands for any takers, but I found your comment poignant and hilarious. It's very true. We hear so much about this or that President's economy when in reality anyone who understands economics realizes a sitting President has very little influence over the economy's strength or weakness. A President with a party majority in both houses...a little different story. The same can be said for most any issue.

Well played. :)

Posted by Ryan | August 24, 2007 2:31 PM

Wow. These comments are astounding.

Mitt Romney is a totally phony political opportunist who will say or do whatever it takes to get elected. He has no core principles other than to pander.

While Governor of Massachusetts, he said that he decided to be pro-life after discussing stem cell research with Harvard scientists. He said that they talked about killing embryos, which is obviously not terminology that any stem cell scientist would ever use, and the scientists denied it. His whole explanation just falls apart on closer examination.

Go back and read the Globe article linked above and others from the time. It was the phoniest, most politically expedient conversion of all time.

He obviously only met with the Harvard scientists in order to stage this BS "conversion" for the media, and he also knew that it would be good for his upcoming presidential campaign to be able to bash Harvard (despite having two Harvard degrees, a J.D. and an MBA).

Total phony.

Posted by bob | August 24, 2007 5:10 PM

So, bob, do you accept the challenge or not?

Posted by Ryan | August 24, 2007 5:52 PM

About the only candidate who has not flip-flopped on the abortion/Roe v. Wade issue is Dr. Ron Paul. Of all the candidates he has been the most consistent, going back 20 years. Romney and Huckabee have indeed flip-flopped. Whether this is to garner votes or an expression of conscience is inconsequential. It is all right for a 20 year-old to vacillate, but not for a presidential candidate, whose record speaks volumes. That is why Ron Paul will have my vote.

Posted by zenpiper | August 24, 2007 6:27 PM

About the only candidate who has not flip-flopped on the abortion/Roe v. Wade issue is Dr. Ron Paul. Of all the candidates he has been the most consistent, going back 20 years. Romney and Huckabee have indeed flip-flopped. Whether this is to garner votes or an expression of conscience is inconsequential. It is all right for a 20 year-old to vacillate, but not for a presidential candidate, whose record speaks volumes. That is why Ron Paul will have my vote.

As well, Romney's now saying he would leave it up to the states is directly taken from the Ron Paul book; something he has been saying for 20 years. And Romney is just saying this now? This smells.

Posted by zenpiper | August 24, 2007 6:29 PM

The Funny thing about focusing on the "flip flop" it seems everyone always uses each situation to his political advantage. Nobody mentions that mormons are dead against abortion. Romney to ever be for abortion is a BIG deal in the eyes of his church. But yet everyone likes to broadcast what a zealot he is to his church. The media typically skewing things to their favor!!!

Posted by hugh | August 24, 2007 9:13 PM

No - Ryan I am not a disgruntled ex Mormon , but I do know plenty of former Mormons who are now Christians . I may add that they are certainly not disgruntled but have the joy of the Lord - that is to say they know the true Jesus of the Bible and not the Devil's brother of Mormonism .

I also know a Mormon man in Idaho who was so disgusted at the ambiguity of the Mormons on abortion that he resigned from the LDS . He has in his possession a copy of a letter{which I have seen} sent to all ward bishops giving guidelines recommending abortion in certain circumstances . Mitt Romney who was both a bishop and a stake president knows this very well , so when he was angling for office in Massachusetts his liberal stance on abortion sat comfortably with his Mormonism .

By the way Ryan I would be perfectly happy to arrange to send you a copy of this directive fron Salt Lake City to the ward bishops .

Posted by Andrew Price | August 24, 2007 11:08 PM

For those who call protecting unborn children an extreme position, I would remind them of a scourge called slavery. Protecting human beings and wanting to pass laws to insure their right to life is the only decent thing for any man to do. To allow anyone to kill children or even to say that it all should be allowed for individual states to make the decision insults the integrity of the human person.

Romney's lack of understanding of the issue is a further reason for questioning his position and asking a serious question about how his actions as governor of Massachusetts advanced any protection for the children. and oh by the way, what did he ever do to protect the institution of marriage?

Posted by John Jakubczyk | August 25, 2007 2:50 AM

Scenario: a 14-year-old girl gets raped by her own father and ends up pregnant. You think she should be forced to see that pregnancy through to term?

Don't think it hasn't happened.

Here's another.

You can't just say that abortion should be illegal in any and all circumstances. To force girls in this situation is both exceptionally cruel and indicates a myopic understanding of the nature of the gospel. Do you really think God wants children conceived under these circumstances to live? Do you think he wants the little girls to have to endure such abuse and live with it for their entire lives? The termination of such a pregnancy is not a tragedy, it's mercy, and if you can't understand that, you don't understand God.

That aside, no candidate who takes a pure anti-abortion hard line in this election is even going to get close to getting nominated much less elected. (See Ron Paul.)

Posted by Ryan | August 25, 2007 8:35 AM

Romney is simply supporting NRLC's official political position, which is not to pass legislation like The Right to Life Act that'd overturn Roe v Wade with the effect of banning abortion in all 50 states. No, they want to overturn Roe with the effect of kicking abortion's legality back to each state, so that their state affiliates can get a lot more financial support, and become as influential in state politics as Dobson's family policy councils are becoming. How could they be this selfish? Just ask yourself why they haven't yet passed a state-level personhood-at-conception constitutional amendment like in Georgia? www.personhood.net . At least Georgia Right to Life is doing it right.

Posted by daniel | August 25, 2007 10:52 AM

Here is another Mitt Romney flip flop - as a young Mormon missionary , Romney held the view that blacks were cursed , infact he held this view up to 1979 . Is there any evidence that he as a mature young man dissented from the view of his leaders - the so called prophet and apostles .

We know the Mormons have supposedly changed their views on the issue of race {in reality just outward cometics }. I repeat that the issue is did Mitt Romney dissent pre 1979 ? Did he flip flop his views simply out of obedience to the Mormon General Authorities ?

Could he and the rest of the Mormons now tell America that they were wrong and that such statements from Brigham Young and others eg " If a saint marries a black man , he should be killed on the spot " are repugnant .

Posted by Andrew Price | August 25, 2007 6:07 PM

Nice try, Andrew.

You need to lay off the anti-Mormon literature and try going directly to the source for once. There's no statement of proof of any kind that the church ever considered people of color "cursed" or that anyone, certainly not Brigham Young, ever said such a thing. Since you failed to provide any direct citations to support your allegations, you automatically concede that your point is invalid.

The challenge was for credible evidence. So far you're doing little more than exposing your own ignorance and bigotry.

Posted by Ryan | August 25, 2007 6:50 PM

Ryan - first I am a disgruntled ex Mormon , now I am ignorant and bigoted , simply because I ask questions about Mitt Romney and Mormonism . Insult is usually a sign of weakness .

I ask again , what were Mitt Romney's views on the subject of race when he was in his twenties ? Did he change them , why and when ? Did he flip flop when Specer W Kimball gave his supposed revelation on blacks ? Is there any evidence Mitt Romney dissented from the Mormon leadership's position whilst for exaample protests were going on in the 70s in Provo Utah ? My assertion is straightforward , Romney is thoroughly unprincipled and in complete deception about his real views and practices past and present .

With respect to the citation you wanted it is found in Brigham Young's collection of sermons Journal of Discourses vol 10 p110 [ assuming all editions are the same].

Ryan in a freindly way I ask youto address the questios

Posted by Andrew Price | August 25, 2007 8:53 PM

"Flip-Flopper" vs. Hardliner, what a terrible choice. I find both to be just as dangerous! A flip-flopper is one who changes their views while a hardliner is one who will not change views no matter what the cost. Both are extremes represented in all candidates and in all voters. A person is either one or the other.

Why is there even a "religious test" for President of the United States particularly when it is a clear violation of the Constitution we all strive to live by. Who cares wheather a candidate is Mormon, Muslim, Catholic, Protestant, or anything else? Why is there even a discussion in a political environment about such a topic? My concern is this, if such a discussion can take place, why can't charitable organizations and their members back a candidate? Both are illegal, as if we care about the rule of law!

At this point, I think there is an established religious test for the presidency and it is well documented by the media. It certainly is scarry what is done in politics to take out a candidate only because they are from a misunderstood religion.

I have yet to hear about a religion that is free from mistakes, misunderstandings, and challenges in the world. I however do believe that most people are lazy or fear change to investigate or at least seek understanding for the doctrines of a religion that is different from the traditions they have grown accustomed too. Change is always hard, yet it is absolutely necessary in this world. We are all learning new things about people, issues, challenges, information, etc. All to often, we rely on the media for our information. Yet, they can also be flawed in the data they produce.

Now, all of us have a delimma. Where do we get truth? Where is it found? Is there ever going to be a president who will never make a big mistake we will all regret? Will we ever perfect politics? If not, we will all have to live with our guesses! Every president is bound to disappoint all of us to some degree. Even your choice will likely disappoint you terribly in one way or another. There will likely be days when you will say to yourself, "What was I thinking to side with such a person as this?" If we remember our own weaknesses, maybe we can have tolerance for the weaknesses of a candidate or for that matter a President!

Posted by David Aust | August 25, 2007 9:51 PM

It would seem that politics by nature is gambling. We all hope our candidate of choice will represent our interests well. Yet, because it is human nature to have flaws and make poor decisions and judgments, we will never find anyone perfect for the issues. This is particularly true when the challenges that face America in the future are still unknown in the present. Are we all certain that our candidate is the best one to handle an invasion by foreign powers, or weather conditions that destroy millions, or economic destruction like China selling all of their treasury bonds and asking for a full settlement, etc. All of us only believe our candidate is the best for the issues facing us currently. Yet, our candidate may be the worst choice for future unknown challenges that other candidates are likely to do a better job. All I am saying is that your guess maybe as good as mine. Yet, we are all obligated to choose and pray they are the best one.

Posted by David Aust | August 25, 2007 10:02 PM

[quote]I don't care whether it is Fox news attacking Hilary or MSNBC attacking Romney... [/quote]The reason what Hillary said 6 years ago is relevant is not because it is unreasonable to change one's mind as circumstances change, but for a politician to claim that what WAS support at the time was in being mislead or tricked is a lie. Hillary, like most politicians in the late 90's until about 2002/3 vocally supported Iraqi regime change. Saying now that they were wrong would be honorable (though debatable.) Saying, as nearly every Dem does, that they were tricked or glossing over their support in other retoric ways shows a profound weakness of character. Bringing up what Hillary and others said 6 years ago is not to label them as a flip-flopper, but to show that the absurd charges they lodge against the president fit them just as well.

As for John Kerry, saying "I actually voted FOR the 87 billion $, before I voted against it" shoudl earn him a charge of flip-flopping, because he is here trying to earn credit for taking both positions simultaneously--not years later.

Posted by randy miller | August 27, 2007 1:10 AM

Andrew,

You know the answer perfectly well, but you're being deceptive in a show of bigotry.

Here are the answers:

1- You didn't even bother to address the official church doctrines point did you? If you had done any real research you would understand that Journal of Discourses, much as you anti-Mormons love to refer to it, is NOT and never has been part of the official doctrines of the church. The authenticity of its authorship is dubious at best, and try as you might, you won't find a single reference to it on the official church web site (www.lds.org) nor in any teaching by the church. So, like I said, you can't find a single such reference or comment in the official doctrines of the church. But you know that, don't you?

2- How could I possibly know, how could anyone know, what Mitt Romney's views were on any issue when he was in his twenties? Just as I don't know, neither do you, and trying to use this is some kind of "evidence" of flip-flopping is just a cheap, cowardly attempt to indict Mormons as a whole on some trumped up and bogus discrimination accusation.

Finally, you are an ignorant bigot, whether you once were Mormon or not. You claim that you were not, so I took you at your word on that. It's not a contradiction. If insult is usually a sign of weakness, what do you call yourself, slinging unfounded insults at Mitt Romney and Mormons? And after it all, you still have not provided a single shred of credible evidence of Mitt Romney flip-flopping.

Care to try again?

Posted by Ryan | August 27, 2007 10:07 AM

from today's Arkansas Times...

Mike Huckabee: For states' rights before he was against states' rights
FLIP FLOP ALERT! CALLING ROMNEY OPPO TEAM!

Earlier today, we linked coverage of The Huckster on Fox News, where he couldn't have been clearer that he opposes a state-by-state solution to abortion. This is to differentiate himself from Fred Thompson, who's taken that approach and thus, in effect, would permit abortion to remain legal in at least some states, regardless of how the Bush court might rule someday on Roe v. Wade.

Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee rejects letting states decide whether to allow abortions, claiming the right to life is a moral issue not subject to multiple interpretations.

"It's the logic of the Civil War," Huckabee said Sunday, comparing abortion rights to slavery. "If morality is the point here, and if it's right or wrong, not just a political question, then you can't have 50 different versions of what's right and what's wrong."
"For those of us for whom this is a moral question, you can't simply have 50 different versions of what's right," he said in an interview on "Fox News Sunday."

Ah, but that was today. Get a load of this interview with Right Wing News: (emphasis supplied)

John Hawkins: Switching gears again, do you think we should overturn Roe v. Wade?

Mike Huckabee: It would please me because I think Roe v. Wade is based on a real stretch of Constitutional application -- that somehow there is a greater privacy issue in the abortion concern -- than there is a human life issue -- and that the federal government should be making that decision as opposed to states making that decision.

So, I've never felt that it was a legitimate manner in which to address this and, first of all, it should be left to the states, the 10th Amendment, but secondly, to somehow believe that the taking of an innocent, unborn human life is about privacy and not about that unborn life is ludicrous.

Posted by stephen | November 19, 2007 10:07 AM