by Frank James
An excellent example today of an attack by Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign and rapid-response from former Massachusett Gov. Mitt Romney's campaign.
Here's the e-mail many reporters received today. Unfortunately, I can't reproduce it in its full HTML glory.
For Immediate Release Contact: Matt David Wednesday, June 13, 2007SHIFTING POSITIONS ON ABORTION
"Mitt Romney's biggest challenge in this election will be convincing Republicans he has principled positions on important issues, especially now that it's known that he remained committed to pro-choice policies after his 'epiphany' on abortion in 2004. In stark contrast, John McCain has a consistent 24 year pro-life record." - Matt David, Deputy Communications Director
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. (YOUTUBE VIDEO: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxV-QNXoRIc)
BACKGROUND:Romney Says He Converted To Pro-Life Cause In November 2004, Saying That After That Time He Was Compelled To "Stand For The Dignity Of Human Life"
Romney "Simply Changed His Mind" On Abortion One Day In November 2004. "On abortion, Romney says he simply changed his mind. He recalls that it happened in a single revelatory moment, during a Nov. 9, 2004, meeting with an embryonic-stem-cell researcher who said he didn't believe therapeutic cloning presented a moral issue because the embryos were destroyed at 14 days. 'It hit me very hard that we had so cheapened the value of human life in a Roe v. Wade environment that it was important to stand for the dignity of human life,' Romney says." (Karen Tumulty, "What Romney Believes," Time, 5/21/07)
· The Doctor, Harvard's Douglas Melton, Claimed Romney "Mischaracterized My Position." "Governor Romney has mischaracterized my position; we didn't discuss killing or anything related to it. ... I explained my work to him, told him about my deeply held respect for life, and explained that my work focuses on improving the lives of those suffering from debilitating diseases." (Scott Helman, "Romney's Journey To The Right," The Boston Globe, 12/17/06)
Romney: "When I First Ran For Office ... I Concluded, Wrongly, That I Would Support The Law As It Was In Place ... And So I Publicly Acknowledged My Error, And Joined With You To Promote The Sanctity Of Human Life." "As you know, when I first ran for office ... I concluded, wrongly, that I would support the law as it was in place - effectively, a pro-choice position. ... And I was wrong. And so I publicly acknowledged my error, and joined with you to promote the sanctity of human life. And you know that my words were matched with my actions." (Mitt Romney, Remarks To Massachusetts Citizens For Life Mother's Day Dinner, Agawam, MA, 5/10/07)
Six Months After His So-Called Epiphany, Romney Said He Was "Absolutely Committed" To Maintaining Pro-Choice Laws In Massachusetts
Romney In May 2005: "I am absolutely committed to my promise 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 and my personal philosophical views about this issue is not something that I think would do anything other than distract from what I think is a more critical agenda ..." (Mitt Romney, Remarks At Press Conference, 5/27/05)
· Watch Mitt Romney Say He Was "Absolutely Committed" To Maintaining Pro-Choice Laws Six Months After So-Called Epiphany On Abortion.
Today, Romney Says "As Governor I Came Down On The Side Of Life"
Romney In May 2007: "You don't have to take my word for it. You can look at what I did as a governor. And as a governor I came down on the side of life." (Fox News' "Hannity & Colmes," 5/7/07)
###
Here's the response from Kevin Madden, the campaign's spokesman, whose subject line was "When faltering campaigns attack! (we respond.... rapidly)
Good afternoon, folks:* Senator John McCain’s campaign attacked Governor Romney’s pro-life beliefs by altering the context of Governor Romney’s views on life issues via selective editing of a news conference from 2005.
*A campaign that is faltering and flailing has again resorted to calculated distortions in a last ditch effort to maintain relevance.
1) Here is an on the record statement from our campaign in response:
“Governor Romney is firmly pro-life and can rely on his record of having protected the sanctity of life when faced with those issues as governor.Governor Romney consistently maintained, in an effort to protect the sanctity of life, that he would fight attempts to weaken the state’s existing abortion laws. Maintaining existing laws in a state like Massachusetts was an important fight in and of itself.
It’s very troubling that the McCain campaign would attack the governor’s pro-life stance by trying to alter the context of a statement made at a news conference where he also made a passionate case for his veto of stem cell legislation that showed a level of disregard for the sanctity of human life.
The McCain campaign’s motives are obviously borne of desperation. Their actions are both sad and unfortunate.”
Kevin Madden, spokesman for Governor Romney
2) Commentary pieceAlso, here is an opinion piece authored by Governor Romney in 2005 where he made the case for taking a pro-life position on stem cell research:
Why I vetoed contraception bill
By Mitt Romney | July 26, 2005
http://www.boston.com/yourlife/health/women/articles/2005/07/26/why_i_vetoed_contraception_bill/3) Here is a link to the full video and transcript
Question: inaudible
Romney: I am glad that you raised that. The United States House of Representatives voted for a bill that was identical to what I proposed. What they voted for is what I proposed. Alright? They voted to provide for surplus embryos from invetro fertilization processes to be used for research and experimentation. That’s what I have said I support. That’s what they have just supported. What I said we should not do is to get into embryo farming, cloning for experimentation and a redefinition of when life begins. That’s what our legislature is doing. What our legislature has done goes well beyond what is done in Washington. What is done in Washington is consistent with what I have said I support which is using surplus embryos from fertilization processes. So it would be helpful if people pointed out that in fact what the US House of Representatives is doing is exactly what Governor Romney proposed. And what our legislature is doing is going in an entirely new direction that goes well beyond the boundary of ethics that has already been established.
Question: inaudible
Romney: Well I am not going to possibly try and describe his position., I will let him do that and he did that very eloquently, but I am pointing out that in my view, what this bill does, and I will veto today the stem cell bill which this legislature has passed, because it does four things actually which by the way the federal government’s bill does not do, it does four things which takes it across an ethical boundary I think we should not cross. Number one it begins embryo farming, it opens the door to embryo farming, which is to literally take sperm and egg and combine them to make new fertilized embryos for experimentation purposes only. That’s not done anywhere so far as I know and its new ethical line. Number two it does the same creation of embryos through cloning, which I believe is also unethical, number three it does not close the door to exploitation of women through compensation for time pain suffering and so forth associated with this process and finally it redefines when life beings which is unnecessary for the purpose of stem cell research. I could not in good conscience sign a bill of this nature. Sure we have got a legitimate interest in finding the cure for disease, and I as much as any other citizen care deeply about finding cures for disease, but at the same time we have a responsibility as a society to respect human life. We have ignored the latter and only talked about the former, and interestingly science can do both and the best scientists in American and the world are saying you can both of those. We can do fine stem cell research and receive the same stem cells from embryonic type sources without having to create new embryos and embryo farming or embryo cloning. And that’s something that has been discussed in this building before.Question: inaudible
Romney: You know, I have said all I need to say on that I believe or all I am going to say on that at least. We may disagree on whether I need to say more. I have indicated that as Governor I am absolutely committed to my promise to maintain the status quo with regards to laws relating to abortion and choice and so far I have been able to successfully do that and my personal and philosophical views about this issue are not something that I think would do anything other than distract from what I think is more critical agenda which relates to the topic we are talking about today and but also jobs education and healthcare.
Kind of makes you think the Romney folks knew it was coming, doesn't it?
• 
• 
• 
Comments
Please this kind of attack on Romney is like shooting fish in a barrel. Romney should rhetorically ask how he, himself became wealthy and successful on his own while John McCain had to marry into it. McCain is a sad, desperate old man.
Posted by: john | June 13, 2007 3:20 PM
It's refreshing, and a bit unusual, to see Frank James (or any Swamp reporter) write about the Republican candidates for president.
Being curious, I did a search in the Swamp search engine for articles that contained the names of the leading presidential candidates of both parties. And the inconvenient truth is that the Swamp (reflecting the bias of its reporters) shortchanges the Republicans. For the record, the Democrats were mentioned 4-5 times as often as the Republicans.
Democrat frontrunner Clinton was mentioned in 136 screensworth of articles. 2nd place Democrat Obama rated a little better--148. 3rd place John Edwards scored a 46.
By contrast, Republican frontrunner (and overall frontrunner) Rudi Giuliani scored 31, 2nd place Republican John McCain scored a 62, and 3rd place Republican Mitt Romney scored 24.
Democrat Chris Dodd, at 1% in the polls, scored 34 articles--more than GOP frontrunner Giuliani.
The internet search is not perfect. But the biases it reveals are unmistakeable.
Posted by: Bruce | June 13, 2007 3:27 PM
Bush's fundraiser ought to be fun!
Put the Repub candidates at the same table.
Food fight!
Posted by: republicanseatingtheirown | June 13, 2007 3:55 PM
Looks like Romney is a flip-flopper. I guess, based on 2004, America can't vote for him.
Posted by: snitramc | June 13, 2007 6:03 PM
"Romney should rhetorically ask how he, himself became wealthy and successful on his own while John McCain had to marry into it. "
A couple a points;
Wealth = success?
Are you sure Willard did it on his own? Didn't the Lord help out somewhere alone the way?
Posted by: C.Morris | June 13, 2007 6:16 PM
Who would care about these two; the only candidate of interest is Congressman Ron Paul (R, TX).
Posted by: Tory | June 13, 2007 6:53 PM
Yes, yes, yes,...this is all well and good, but when are we going to find out Willard's favorite color? Surely he can't flip flop about that.
Posted by: weinerdog43 | June 13, 2007 8:06 PM
Excellent work, Bruce.
I also wonder why the Swamp has completely ignored the two new Hillary books, both of which say she committed crimes and perjured herself. Before backtracking, on the O'Reilly Factor, Carl Bernstein said, "Yes, she committed a crime."
C'mon LIBune Swampers, where's the stuff on Hillary. You know damn well, if it was a book on any of the Republicans, you folks would be all over it!
Posted by: John D | June 13, 2007 10:30 PM
Bruce,
The percentage of stories devoted to one party or another is not necessarily telling. Rush Limbaugh talks about Democrats 80% of the time, but what does he have to say about them? That's the telling part. By your reasoning, Limpbaugh is showing liberal bias favorable towards democrats because he spends an inexorable amount of time discussing them. Somehow, I hardly think that's the case.
Secondly, as I pointed out before, how many republican senators from Illinois are presidential candidates? Surely the home-town boy is going to get more press in the home-town paper. Are the Yankees going to get more coverage in the Tribune than the Cubs?, I think not.
Your crying is really pathetic. You cry if they run an article on republicans that doesn't sound like a campaign commercial from the RNC. You cry if the democrats have more letters in their articles. You count the minutes in between Swamp post on democratic presidential candidates, for crying out loud.
It's obvious you're no longer teaching, but have become the official nag from the RNC. Every time an individual is mentioned as being involved with the Dems you're on here two minutes later with their full history of employment, political party donations, etc. Dude, you are the worst kind of political hack, a paid mercenary who mistakes discussion for a whine-fest.
Posted by: dt | June 14, 2007 12:30 AM
Tony,
My room mate keeps saying the same thing. C. Morris, they're gonna say the Lord had some part in it. That's funny.
Truth is Romney has flip flopped for a long time now. I would think the Republicans would get sick of being lied to by one more multi-millionaire.
Posted by: Mrs. Jesus | June 14, 2007 2:48 AM
What is Jeff's take on this?
Posted by: Catherine | June 14, 2007 8:20 AM