Two videos for your viewing pleasure. First, Mitt Romney appears to have altered his position on abortion yet again. You didn’t think it was possible. But here it is.There are two key points here. First, for years – going back to a 2005 Globe op-ed – Romney has been proclaiming that he does not approve of abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or to save the mother’s life. He said exactly the same thing in 2011 in the National Review, in his “pro-life pledge.” But in the above video, he notably includes the mother’s “health.” That is an enormous policy shift, and one that is frankly not likely to be acceptable to many Republicans if that’s what he actually meant.
Second, what is this sudden bizarre deference to the Supreme Court? In the 2005 op-ed, he wrote “I believe that the states, through the democratic process, should determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate.” And in his 2011 NRO piece, he similarly wrote that “I support the reversal of Roe v. Wade, because it is bad law and bad medicine. Roe was a misguided ruling that was a result of a small group of activist federal judges legislating from the bench.” But now, suddenly, he is content to leave matters to the judiciary, to the point of saying that it’s been “settled for some time in the courts”?
Note to Republicans who think they like Mitt Romney’s new positions: you cannot trust him on anything. Ever.
And this one is purely for entertainment value: check out Chris Matthews tearing Reince Priebus a new one. Priebus doesn’t know what hit him.
Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
historian says
Now that I have let you know what I really think at this moment about abortion, I Willard Mitt Romney want to let you all know:
That I support ending the Bush tax cuts
I have no intention of pegging the military budget to GDP
I will not end tax breaks for wind power
I fully understand that my opponent has not in any way shape or form abolished work requirements for welfare
I understand that humans are causing accelerating global warming
I will release the last 10 years of my tax returns immediately without any further delay
I will tell folks with Romney yard signs that there is no reason to believe anything I say about anything other than the fact that I have a natural right to be made President of the United States
JHM says
that we humble never doubted you for a moment.
Happy days.
pogo says
What he was saying in his head was:
“Health”, “rape”, “incest”, “whatever”
methuenprogressive says
selling his snake oil to willing suckers.
johnd says
HA! So annoying and for someone who previously had credibility, now he’s as big a joke as some of the other MSNBC heads.
He doesn’t know what to do when he has someone who can talk back to him, that’s why his show is packed with lefties only. Gutless and if you watch, he always gets the last few words/lines in against anyone he disagrees with after they have signed off.
In this case, he didn’t even give Reince (nice name?) a chance to answer.
I’m getting a very good feeling about November!
methuenprogressive says
…to buy the snake oil Priebus is selling.
johnd says
First I have to admit Mathews makes me want to vomit on a regular day. His spitting, blabbing, calling JFK “Jacky”, pining about his days on the Hill and his not allowing anyone else to speak turns me off.
His inability to see the “race card” with Biden’s remarks to a large black audience about the GOP “putting you back in chains” but Romney’s joke about his birth certificate (and Obama’s) is pathetic. Have some credibility will ya.
And this other BULLSHIT angle that ANY criticism of welfare is also about race needs to go. Clinton did a lot to reign in Welfare, was that racist? Far more white people are not he welfare rolls than blacks so please stop talking about it as racism. I have been criticizing unions and if someone found out unions were mostly black, does that person suddenly become a racist. If they had a benefit in welfare to buy them a new car and YOU criticized it, does that turn you into a racist?
David says
is that Romney is straight-up lying in them. Everyone who has looked at them has concluded that that’s the case. So if it’s a lie, why do it? Obviously, the Romney campaign has conducted a cost-benefit analysis and concluded that it’s worth it to take the hit about lying in exchange for the value they get from them. And, sadly, there’s really only one explanation for why the value would be so great.
johnd says
When you want to get to a certain location… sad.
centralmassdad says
That is well phrased.
I don’t think the word “racist” is a particularly useful word at this point; it has been over-used to the point where many people change the channel as soon as they see where the argument is going.
“Straight-up lie” has more potential.
SomervilleTom says
I remember the same complaint (that “racist” and “racism” is overused) being made in 1965 or so in my home state of MD. At that time, the claim was that — for example — there was no discrimination in real estate, and therefore candidates such as George Mahoney campaigned against open housing laws. Their claim was that home owners and real estate brokers weren’t “racist” when they refused to show certain properties to certain buyers — they were merely respecting the rights of property owners to sell to whomever they pleased. Those who opposed open housing laws thought the charges of racism were “over-used” then as well.
It seems to me that you are, in essence, suggesting that we should ignore those who pander to racists because we are — well — weary of being reminded that they exist.
Racism is real, it is current, and the GOP panders to it. The fact that so many people “change the channel” is testimony to how much work remains to be done. I’m guessing that most of those who change the channel are white, by the way. I think you might find that minority communities react differently to this.
centralmassdad says
It has long been used to denounce whomever disagrees with whatever the liberal view is on any particular issue.
Concerned about excessive illegal immigration? Racist. Think AFDC was abused and ineffective? Racist. Advocate minimal security at voting places? Racist. Police? Racist. Think the 2nd Amendment means what it says? Racist. I exaggerate, but not by much.
It certainly seems to me that, when deployed in politics, the epithet usually means “I have discovered that some people agree with your position X for unsavory reasons; therefore you are a racist and any discussion with you about anything is a concession to racism and you must be ignored.” It is a means of talking at people rather than to them, and is therefore a bad idea for politicians trying to win elections.
I am not saying that you are wrong about the effectiveness of these welfare ads, but just that this particular rejoinder would not be particularly effective.
I’d rather see President Clinton put on this, to show it is BS, rather than complaining about racisim.
SomervilleTom says
I agree that focusing on the lie has more potential among one demographic. Calling out the racism that the GOP panders to does not exclude also calling out the “straight-out lie”.
The rejoinder against the racism of these ads will, I think, be very effective in the minority communities that are targeted by these ads. Meanwhile, not all white voters are as jaded as you suggest. The reality of the implicit (and sometimes explicit) racism that underlies these ads does not go away by ignoring it. The scapegoating of immigrants and welfare recipients is, hopefully, a red flag for all voters who seek an inclusive America. Similarly, the brazen efforts to manipulate voter rolls and polling places is a similar red flag.
I agree that Bill Clinton can speak forcefully and persuasively about this, and I hope he does so.
SomervilleTom says
Unions aren’t going to become mostly black overnight. Welfare was never a “black” problem — it was turned into that by the racist spin of Ronald Reagan and his “welfare queens”. That was a racist stereotype, and still is. The fact is that the GOP has been pandering to racists and racism ever since it welcomed the racists ejected from the Democratic Party in 1968.
Mitt Romney’s crude and offensive “joke” is racist through-and-through, and nobody is playing a “race card” by saying so. The outrage expressed by Mr. Matthews should have been universal.
The heart of the “joke” appeals to the same tribal instinct that you and I sparred about on another thread. The thrust of the joke is that the tribe that Mr. Romney appeals to doesn’t have the color skin of Mr. Obama, doesn’t give children middle names like “Hussein”, and doesn’t have family in Kenya. That “tribalism” is pure unadulterated racism. It has nothing to do with immigration status or birth certificates.
It has everything to do with offensive racial stereotypes. I suggest the GOP adopt a new totem along the lines of the following:
johnd says
There is no hope for you.
kbusch says
I think Duncan Black (aka Atrios) gave Chris Matthews that nickname when he treated us all to fawning support for Pres. Bush. Liberals have a decidedly ambivalent view of Mr Matthews.
Christopher says
…to equate welfare with the African-American population? By that I don’t mean that a stereotype is ever good when a negative conclusion is drawn, but what usually makes a stereotype sound valid is a grain of truth. However, in this case, would I not be correct to say the majority of welfare recipients are actually WHITE? In other words, not only would it be bad enough, if the majority of welfare recipients were black, to draw conclusions about the entire African-American population, but in this case the underlying assumption isn’t even accurate!
SomervilleTom says
The (false) connection between “welfare recipient” and “black” was a racist stereotype from the start. That’s what made the GOP’s enthusiastic embrace of that stereotype so offensive.
David says
I’d say I’m generally less quick than you are to jump to the assumption that Republicans’ actions are racist, or are designed to appeal to the racist elements of their base. But in the case of these welfare ads, I see no way around that conclusion.
johnd says
Look at how the GOP is attacking union abuses. It is universal. Thankful;ly the majority of unions are not black or your ironclad logic would of course point to “racism” as the only possible reason why the GOP would be criticizing unions. Talk about low information voters.
SomervilleTom says
Your own “ironclad logic” is steadfastly refusing to admit that the majority of unions ARE NOT black. We aren’t talking about unions here anyway. We are instead talking about the false and racist stereotype of blacks as “welfare cheats”.
Your effort to loudly shout “Look over there!” (at the unions) is a failed attempt to distract the conversation from the flagrant racism that the push against welfare signals.
David says
I’m not one to claim “race card” quickly. But in this instance, it is so painfully obvious that news stories – not editorial writers – are pointing it out all over the place.
The union thing? Complete non-sequitur. Drop it before you make yourself look even sillier.
johnd says
perfectly logical.
johnd says
Who days they are black??? You guys are hung up on the color thing, not us.
I don’t like criminals and I never have. I don’t care if the prison population is 10% black or 90% black, I don’t like them. But according to you guys, the makeup of the population is the driving force behind my reasoning… well you are wrong!
SomervilleTom says
Again, you change the subject. We aren’t talking about prisons. We aren’t talking about what you believe.
We are observing, correctly, that a significant number of voters falsely and ignorantly associate welfare with being black. The GOP is pandering to those ignorant racists in its blatantly dishonest attacks on President Obama’s welfare policies.
Mr. Lynne says
Ezra (emphasis mine):
centralmassdad says
It is certainly has a long history as a very effective wedge issue, at least before the 1996 legislation.
Apparently this is an issue they are pounding in the FL and OH, and seem to be getting some traction therby. I hope that the Obama campaign has a defense coming, because it is dangerous to just let stuff like this hang in the air–even if untrue.
I kind of hope they put Clinton– the president, not the Secretary of State– on this issue.
johnd says
here we go with the dog whistles again. How about immigration? That is an important issue in this country, can Romney talk about without blowing the stupid dog whistle? Does any issue which can be connected by Kevin Bacon to race automatically become a dog whistle for you hounds?
SomervilleTom says
If somebody stands and blows on a small object, and dogs race towards the person from all directions, then there is nothing wrong with observing that the person is blowing a dog-whistle.
Your question about immigration is yet another distraction (your third today on this thread), but I’ll respond to it — yes, immigration is another dog-whistle that panders to those who find immigrants offensive (as opposed to blacks). The tribalism you described recently motivates both racism and xenophobia, and the GOP is only too happy to pander to each.
So, to return to your metaphor, yes — whenever I see dogs racing towards an individual, I do tend to suspect the use of a dog-whistle.
kirth says
I think you meant to say that none of the dogs are union members or illegal aliens, so the Republicans can’t possibly be using a dog whistle.
Mr. Lynne says
Are you denying that it’s a dog-whistle?
I can understand wanting to be skeptical – but there’s empirical data here that the issue is functioning as a dog-whistle. Don’t use another issue to sidetrack your point – if you dispute what Ezra pointed out, address it on the merits, not with a distraction or merely on the basis that it’s Ezra Klein.
Surely you have to be at least that much in reality-based reality.
kbusch says
I’m trying to decide who I’d be inclined to believe first without double-checking. On the one hand, Ezra who reads lots of wonky stuff and likes numbers. On the other, someone who disputes the “myth” that there’s a recession late in 2008 by noticing how crowded a shopping mall is.
Difficult choice. Still thinking.
johnd says
I listen to professionals like to Ezra all the time, and you know what… they’re wrong half the time about everything they discuss. Listen to Ezra and see what he’s poreduicting concerning elections and issues, and now revisit them in 6 months. It’s shocking to see how wrong these guys are.
I do mistrust any of these when the GOP says this they really mean that…
I do stick by my observations at shopping malls and even current real estate markets as an indicator of local economies. The difference is which populations are suffering and which ones are doing just fine (and have been doing fine since before 2008).
kbusch says
On the economy, liberal pundits have done exceedingly well. The stimulus was too small but had an effect. No real danger of inflation in a liquidity trap. National debt still going for a very small interest.
Conservative pundits: stimulus wouldn’t do anything (except if spent in Paul Ryan’s district), inflation like Weimar Republic just around the corner, interest rate on federal debt was going to skyrocket.
Liberals 3. Conservatives 0.
stomv says
Chris Matthews may have been on to something, and I think he’s right to show indignation. However, he did a *terrible* job as a teevee talkinghead in that clip, for two reasons: firstly, he was downright rude. Secondly, it’s his job to ask questions with surgical precision and throw flags when the respondent goes out-of-bounds, be it with an inappropriate, dishonest, or irrelevant answer. Matthews didn’t do that in this video — he acted like a rudely righteous bully.
I agree with johnd that Matthews was the jackass on that clip, not Priebus.
That written, I do think it’s appropriate to judge the Democratic Party and their flagbearers differently than the Republican Party and their flagbearers on specific issues. For example, we the public tend to defer to the GOP on issues of national defense. For whatever reason (Eisenhower v. Carter?) the GOP has seized trust quotient on military, and yes I’m well aware of GWB’s administration’s blunders. The flip side is that the GOP has ceded any benefit of the doubt on issues related to black Americans, and have since 1968. Time after time, issue after issue, year after year. I’m not claiming that every GOP or Dem politician has followed suit, or that there aren’t counterexamples. Bottom line, the GO’ and Dem parties clearly have areas where they’ve led the nation, and areas where they’ve been on the wrong side of the voters’ view of history. Given that the GOP has spent 45 years espousing political policies, laws, and rhetoric which marginalize black Americans, it shouldn’t surprise anyone that folks these days assume the worst out of a racial statement which comes from the GOP but doesn’t make that same assumption when uttered by Joe Biden or some other Democrat.
Ryan says
Chiefly on two fronts:
1. It was Joe Scarborough’s show, so it wasn’t Matthews’s job to be the interviewer. He was every bit as much of a guest as Priebus.
2. While Matthews wasn’t perfect, he certainly made his point. Not many people are willing to call out Republican lies in the media (more now than 5 years ago, but still only a minority), so he had to dig his heels in, given that situation.
Plus, while Matthews was being a bit of a dick, Priebus looked as smarmy as any Republican I’ve ever seen and completely dishonest.
I’m thinking more people are walking away from that segment thinking there’s a racial motivation to the welfare ads and Romney’s new-found birtherism than the other way around, and Priebus was no help to Romney there.
Christopher says
…they got into a spat about over how much the President was looking to Europe for guidance. Matthews insisted we haven’t gone as far as Europe and to a certain extent of course he is correct. I would have taken a different tack at that point, however. To the accusation that we’re trying to become Europe my question is, “What’s wrong with that?” It is embarrasing how many ways they seem to be ahead of us, but according to some, don’t you dare question the dogma that the USA is number one just ’cause! Most European nations DO have better health care outcomes than we do, so why shouldn’t we look to other nations for examples of best practices to improve things here? Finally, just to anticipate the argument I believe that the problems we have seen with Ireland and Greece stem from trying austerity, not from being too generous; the President of Ireland had some rather nasty things to say about the Tea Party attitude in a video that’s been making the rounds.
David says
the mistake that Matthews and the others made at that moment was a big one. When Priebus claimed that Obama must have taken inspiration from Europe for his health care plan, the painfully obvious retort was “IT’S MITT ROMNEY’S PLAN, FOR GOD’S SAKE!” And that’s true – it is. I couldn’t believe they didn’t say that. Huge missed opportunity.
kbusch says
In the public imagination, Europe is not a happy place. 50% of Europe is Greece. 25% of Europe is French and the remaining parts, no matter how neat or picturesque, are taxed into irrecoverable economic stagnation.
And yes, those of us on the wonky side of liberal know by now how the Euro was a dreadful mistake, how much happier, better educated, and healthier many Europeans are. We can even talk intelligently, I would guess, about how the French economy is hampered, to a degree, by rigidity of their labor laws.
To the Palin fans, Europe is just one place, socialist, indebted, and lacking liberty.
Ryan says
if Europe decides to become the United States of Europe, but otherwise, yeah. You’re right.
Ryan says
Austerity has certainly taken a bad situation and made it dramatically worse, though I wouldn’t say it caused the problem in either of those cases. The banking sector did that.
But we can compare the aftermath of what happened after the banks crashed in Ireland and Greece to what happened in Iceland and the differences are stark. Iceland refused to go the austerity route and because of that, they’re on the road to recovery already. Ireland and Greece are continuing to spiral down towards the depths of a depression. Greece is already worse off, by some people who’ve been measuring their economy, than they were in the Great Depression.