abcnews.com: “Romney has once again changed his position on whether states should be allowed to retain abortion rights”
“Mitt Romney has once again changed his position on whether states should be allowed to retain abortion rights,” writes the estimable Teddy Davis in an abcnews.com story aptly titled Romney Muddles Abortion Stance.
Two weeks after indicating to ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos on “Good Morning America” that his abortion position goes beyond reversing Roe vs. Wade and includes support for a human life amendment to the Constitution as well as federal legislation that would bring the unborn under the protections of the 14th Amendment, Romney said Tuesday that he supports letting states make their own choices about abortion — a position that would be impossible if his “GMA” abortion position were implemented … more
Another Romney full reversal and mad-dash retreat? This is beneath comment.
But we simply must ask: This is leadership? This is competence? By what evaluative standard!? How is this so-called Romney “leadership” or “competence” functionally different from what ordinary mortals refer to as cowardice, indecision, immaturity, or simple confusion?
Take a stand, Romney! Take a stand! This isn’t even funny anymore. What do you really believe?
P.S. The enraged and PMSing file clerk who writes the increasingly peeved copy for the “blogs for mitt” web review accuses abcnews.com’s Davis of being a “poor student of Mitt’s position,” and redstate’s Kilmer of “splitting hairs” when he accuses Romney of lying about Reagan.
First, a note to the Mittwit file clerk of “Blogs for Mitt” herself: try not to repeat the charge, you super-genius. (One of the best sources for leads on bad press on Romney is “Blogs for Mitt!”) This is the first rule of crisis communication. So if you want to write effective copy for a super-effective crisis attractor like Willard Milton Romney, you need to learn it.
Second, here is the problem with the file clerk’s reasoning: she fools no one when she tries to blur the distinction between making her case and claiming that she made her case. Viz.: To insist that “there is no daylight” between a Human Life Amendment and overturning Roe versus Wade—i.e. that the two are “different angles” that “achieve the same result”—does not address the issue of whether states would be allowed to “make their own choices” about abortion, and that Romney continues to vacillate on this issue is precisely Davis’s claim. Even Romney sympathizers—those inclined to give the troubled candidate the benefit of the doubt—recognize that Romney flatly contradicted himself: Morrissey of captainsquartersblog.com calls Romney’s reversal “[a] circle [that] will prove difficult to square.” We agree.
As for Kilmer’s apt critique of Romney’s account of Reagan, after a lot of angry noise and heavy breathing, the piqued file clerk concedes Kilmer’s claim!—that Romney lied when he used the term “adamant.” Well, duh. Kilmer’s entire argument hinges on the adjective “adamant”:
“Was Ronald Reagan ever pro-choice? Did he champion and sign pro-choice legislation in 1967 when governor of California? Was he “adamantly pro-choice,” and outspoken protector of a woman’s right to choose?” … more
To concede “adamant” is to concede the argument, even if you do try to excuse it as “bad phraseology” on Romney’s part.
Romney desperately needs to recruit hirelings who can communicate.