If even as half-baked a political pundit as yours truly could see it coming (at about 40 seconds in), it must have been pretty obvious. And sure enough, Jon Keller points us to a column describing John McCain’s early efforts to sow doubt about Mitt Romney’s “evolving” position on abortion among the all-important Iowa Republican activists.
Let’s take another look at Romney’s “evolution,” shall we?
- 1994: Mitt Romney is running against Ted Kennedy for US Senate. Here’s what he said then:
I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time that my mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a US Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years we should sustain it and support it.
- 2002: Mitt Romney is running for Governor in Massachusetts. Here’s what he said at that time:
Believing in people is protecting their freedom to make their own life choices, even if their choice is different from yours. Accordingly, I respect and will fully protect a woman’s right to choose. That right is a deeply personal one, and the women of our state should make it based on their beliefs, not mine and not the government’s….
The truth is there is no candidate in this race who would deny the women of our state abortion rights.
He also said that “I believe women should have the right to make their own choice.”
- 2006: Mitt Romney is running for President (not officially, but come on). Here’s his position now:
I am prolife. I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother.
In that same op-ed, Romney equated “life” with “conception.” And he went further, stating not only his personal views on abortion, but also stating (though not in so many words) that Roe v. Wade should be overruled:
I believe that the states, through the democratic process, should determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate.
And he even said he would have signed South Dakota’s outrageous law, which would ban abortion except to save the mother’s life (no exception for rape, incest, or the mother’s health).
Evolution? Or “intelligent design”?
Anyway, it’s been perfectly obvious for some time to anyone who wanted to look that Romney believes in only one thing: “me, me, me.” (He said it himself! How much more proof does anyone need?) But we in Massachusetts have to have a little patience with the good people of Iowa, South Carolina, and elsewhere, since they don’t (yet) know Mitt’s record like we do. But they will – John McCain et al. will see to that.
In any event, it may turn out that McCain, Giuliani and the rest of the gang don’t have that much to worry about from Romney. Despite Romney’s numerous visits to Iowa, recent polling there still shows him firmly in the single-digit second tier. Current numbers (poll was of 400 likely GOP caucus-goers. MOE: +/- 4.9%):
Giuliani: 30% (has visited Iowa once since 2004)
McCain: 17.3% (has visited Iowa twice this year)
Frist: 6.5%
Romney: 4.5% (has visited Iowa multiple times this year)
Allen: 3.5%
Pataki: 3.3%
Huckabee: 2.5%
Brownback: 2.5%
Undecided: 29%
Even in New Hampshire, the state next door in which he owns a vacation home and on whose TV screens he routinely shows up as Governor of MA, Romney can’t break out of the also-rans. I’ve always thought that, in reality, he’s running for Vice President. McCain/Romney? It’s not crazy, I guess.
Right on every account. Makes me want to go to NH and campaign against him.
…we were successful for 8 years with the vigorous younger man/wise old counselor model. So, in 2008, perhaps a wise old sage/vigorous young lieutenant model?
<
p>
Romney takes away much of McCain’s problems with the right wing of the Party, by being an heir apparent they can support. That whole heartbeat away thing…
perhaps the key is vigorous. Reagan was vigorous. But of course no primary voter is thinking I’ll pick wise old for the top of the ticket if in their heart of heart’s their desire is vigorous. No one runs for VP. Romney is not running for VP. But ultimately, every party needs one. Romney would be a strong one, but might also be strong at the top of the ticket. Could have said the same for Reagan/Bush.
Interesting post. Is it reasonable to expect that someone has a change of view over the course of a decade? I suspect that it’s a little bit of that combined with massaging the message for the audience.
<
p>
I have been quite disappointed with the governor’s seeming abandonment of his job. I had never thought that he might have his eye on VP. My hunch is that the elder statesmen/women will have an upper hand in this next election. We seem to have been in that cycle since Eisenhower. Maybe not so much the change from Johnson to Nixon, and certainly not Regan to Bush, but in general we’ve seen a flip flop of younger and older presidents.
…but the second he does, he’ll get whacked on flip flopping on “life”. If that doesn’t kill his chances, he’ll get whacked again on something else (in the first year as Gov, he was still playing Mr. Moderate and did such things as appoint a gay person as a Judge.) If somehow he’s still standing, they’ll whack him again for things he never did, but were programs or policies that Dukakis or the moderate (compared to the right-wing national Reps) Weld/Cucc/Swift started and, in Romney’s short stay, he just continued.
<
p>
By that time, Romney will be so labeled as a Massachesetts liberal, that he’d have a better shot at winning the Democratic nomination.
<
p>
And I think Romeny’s making traction. I occasionally go over to the {dark side http://www.redstate….] and see right-way bloggers saying nice things about him. Saying he is a real conserative and is electable. Romney is playing the money game real well–setting up multiple PACs to raise and give more money out in South Carolina, Iowa, ect. His personal founadation (jezz, doesn’t everybody have a personal foundation?)has given money to right-wing think tanks (sorry for lack of links–I’m citing Globe stories–but to lazy to find them.)
<
p>
The polls are to early on this, my point is he’s doing all the right things to get early traction…before getting whacked.
<
p>
Which brings us back to VP. Hey, would you go through hell for 2 or three years for the chance to be a heart beat away from being the world’s most powerful person? I got nothing better to do, if I had the chance.
You’ve got zealots on each side. Pro-choice will vote Dem; Pro-life will vote Republican. Nothing short of a major Party shift will change that. Did he flip-flop or evolve, or whatever? Won’t matter.
<
p>
Abortion’s not the hot button it used to be. The opposition has staged a slow, death to Roe by a 1000 cuts campaign that’s clearly and slowly winning.
<
p>
As for the opinions great middle America, there’s broad support for a middle ground on abortion (62% Republican favor a middle ground; 72% Democrats; 66% Indep), at least according to the Pew Forum Interesting statistics.
not the general election. You might be right about the latter, but in the former, don’t you think the “zealots” still set the tone?
Like Lamont?
Caucuses vs. primary: seriously aware and active politicos who often represent the furthest-from-center viewpoint, vs. politically aware citizens who bother to vote in primaries.
<
p>
S.C. vs. CT: Republican primary voters in an extremely conservative state, vs. Dem primary voters in a left-of-center but not overwhelmingly liberal state (GOP Governor and some GOP congressional reps).
<
p>
I won’t deny that there’s some analogy there, though I’d say there are significant differences.