Mitt Romney on Social Issues
I know. I’m not supposed to be posting anything on the 2008 Presidential campaign before June. However, I’m adding a codicil to my New Year’s resolution: I can make an exception when able to present primary-source material about a Presidential candidate (or someone with a Presidential exploratory committee) that adds to a discussion area already active here at Anchor Rising.
At the National Review Institute’s (direct quote from NRO-Editor-at-Large Jonah Goldberg: “Whatever that is”) Conservative Summit held this past weekend in Washington D.C., Presidential Candidate and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney gave a substantive address on his philosophy concerning the major issues in American politics — limited and fiscally conservative government, healthcare, foreign policy, and social and life issues. Here’s what Governor Romney had to say about gay marriage, abortion and stem-cell research…
Governor Mitt Romney: When I ran [for Governor of Massachusetts], there were a couple of social issues that were part of that debate. You probably know what some of them were.
One was gay marriage. I opposed then and do now oppose gay marriage and civil unions.
One was related to abortion. My opponent was in favor of lowering the age where a young woman could get an abortion without parental consent from 18 to 16…I, of course, opposed changing the law in that regard.
Another issue was the death penalty, I was for, [my opponent] was against.
Another was English immersion. For a long time, our state had bilingual education, where the schools or the parents get to choose what language their child is taught in. I said that’s just not right. If kids want to be successful in America, they have to learn the language of America. We fought for that, and by the way, I won that one, my opponent did not.
Now, as you know, after I got elected, Massachusetts became sort of the center stage for a number of very important social issues, one of them being gay marriage. I am proud of the fact that I and my team did everything within our power and within the law to stand up for traditional marriage. This is not, in my view and the view of my team, a matter of adult rights. We respect the rights of gay citizens to live as they wish and to have tolerance and respect and not be discriminated against. I feel that very deeply. At the same time, we believe that marriage is not primarily about adults. In a society, marriage is primarily about the development and nurturing of children. A child’s development, I believe, is enhanced by access to a mom and a dad. I believe in every child’s right to a mom and a dad.
Now, there’s one key social issue where I did not run as a social conservative, at least one. That was with regards to abortion. I said I would protect a woman’s right to choose an abortion. I’ve changed my view on that, as you probably know.
Let me tell you the history about that. Some years ago, when I was at the Olympics, I met a guy named Mark Lewis. He was head of our marketing there. He told me that he was a finalist for a Rhodes scholarship. I don’t know how far he got. His final interview was with a German interviewer and the interviewer said to him “Mr. Lewis, who is one of your political heroes?” and he said Ronald Reagan. The German had the predictable response — *GASP*. He said how in the world can you square that statement with what Churchill said, which is that “a young person who is not a liberal has no heart?” Mark responded by repeating the last portion of that Churchillian comment, that “an older person who was not a conservative had no brain” and adding “I, Herr Doctor, simply matured early”.
On abortion, I wasn’t always a Ronald Reagan conservative. Neither was Ronald Regan, by the way. But like him, I learned with experience.
In my case, the point where that experience came most to bear was with regards to learning about stem-cell research. Let me tell you, there are so many different ways of getting stem cells. I was delving into that because my legislature was proposing new legislation that re-defined when life began. I think it’s interesting that the legislature thinks it has the capacity to make that determination. Our state had always said that life began at conception, but they were going to re-define when life began, so I spent some time learning (with, by the way, a number of people in this room who helped) about all of the different types and sources of stem-cells, not only adult stem cells and umbilical stem cells and stem cells from existing lines, but also surplus embryos from in-vitro fertilization. I supported all of those.
But for me, there was a bright-line when you started creating new life for the purposes of destruction and experimentation. That was somatic-cell nuclear transfer (or cloning) and also what’s known as embryo farming. At one point, I was sitting down with the head of the stem-cell research department at Harvard and the provost of Harvard University, and they were explaining these techniques to me. I imagined in my mind this embryo farming. Embryo farming is taking donor sperm and donor eggs and putting them together in the laboratory and creating a new embryo. If that’s not creating new life, then I don’t know what is. I imagined row after row after row of racks of these, created either by the cloning process or the farming process. At that point, one of the two gentleman said, “Governor, there’s really not a moral issue at stake here, because we destroy the embryos at 14 days”. I have to tell you, that comment and that perspective hit me very hard. As he left the room with his colleague, I turned to Beth Myers, my chief of staff, and said I want to make it real clear: we have so cheapened the value and sanctity of human life in our society that someone can think there’s not a moral issue because we kill embryos at 14 days.
Shortly thereafter, I announced I was firmly pro-life.
Now, you don’t have to take my word for it, by the way. The nice thing about being able to watch governors is you don’t have to look just at what they say, you can look at what they’ve done. Over my term, I had 4 or 5 different measures that came to my desk [concerning life issues] and on every single one I came down on the side of respecting human life. That didn’t make me real popular in the state. Remember, in Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy is considered a moderate….
In the next few days, I’ll have more from Mitt Romney on other issues, excerpts from Newt Gingrich and Jeb Bush on the meaning and future direction of conservatism and from Tony Snow on the Iraq Surge and the President’s new healthcare proposal, plus a whole lot of insights and opinions that I heard discussed at the conference that will bring you up-to-date on the state of conservatism…
I have a question.
At what point is a politician’s shift on an issue acceptable and when is it opportunistic?
Governor Romney has been accused of tweaking his stance on some issues over the last couple of years as he heads for a Republican primary. (I don’t know that this is so; I bring it up as a hypothetical example.)
This morning, the issue of certain Democrats in Congress, especially la Clinton, changing their stance on the war in Iraq came up in conversation. My friend defended them, saying they had thoughtfully changed their view on the matter. My point was that politicians who change their stance on an issue on the basis of polls was possibly not admirable or desireable. His comeback was, we put them in there to do what we want. Why criticize them when they are guided by polls, which reflect what people want?
So why do we?
So when do we start calling Mitt Romney a flip flopper whom waffles on every decision he makes?
The reason he wasn’t popular in Massachusetts was because he was never here. He was always on vacation or campaigning outside the state when he was supposed to, you know, be the governor. Your position on life isn’t why people hate you Mitt, it is your slimy way of using the state to run for President. It became clear you didn’t care about us, and in return you got exactly what you put in, which is nothing.
Mitt Romney asked for and got the support of the majority of the Massachusetts electorate, then turned around and spit on them to gain political points (and campaign cash).
Mitt’s a whore. Principled Republican voters will eventually see through this charlatan’s act.
5/3 Debate: Romney’s Roe v. Wade Flip-Flop
In the debate last Thursday former Governor Mitt Romney was prepared and ready when asked about his position on Roe v Wade. Question: “Governor Romney, in recent months, you’ve said you were, quote, “always for life,” but we’ve also heard…
Didn’t Mitt Romney get healthcare for all MA residents? Didn’t he eliminate the huge deficit without raising taxes? To me, those seem like great things to accomplish.