DOWNLOADS: (123)

PLAYS: (795)

Embed

Modern American politics is replete with what may be called “Asterisk Republicans.” These are conservatives who adhere to the GOP’s ideological orthodoxy* until such time as someone they care about is personally impacted by it. Dick Cheney’s support for same-sex unions, Fred Thompson’s stand for the right of families to make end of life decisions for their loved ones and Orrin Hatch’s conversion on stem cell research are just some of the examples the GOP’s “for me, not thee” approach.

That’s what makes Mitt Romney’s gymnastic reversal on the reproductive rights of American women so unique – and all the more shocking. After all, years before Romney’s statement last week that Roe v. Wade constituted “one of the darkest moments in Supreme Court history,” he told Massachusetts voters he would “sustain and support it.” As it turns it out, Romney no longer mentions the "dear, close family relative" whose death from an illegal abortion once inspired his formerly "unwavering" pro-choice position.

On January 22nd, Mitt Romney marked the anniversary of Roe v. Wade by issuing the following statement:

“Today marks the 39th anniversary of one of the darkest moments in Supreme Court history, when the court in Roe v. Wade claimed authority over the fundamental question regarding the rights of the unborn. The result is millions of lives since that day have been tragically silenced. Since that day, the pro-life movement has been working tirelessly in an effort to change hearts and minds and protect the weakest and most vulnerable among us. Today, we recommit ourselves to reversing that decision, for in the quiet of conscience, people of both political parties know that more than a million abortions a year cannot be squared with the good heart of America.”

But once upon a time, Mitt Romney’s good heart was concerned about the life and health of the mother, one of whom happened to be a member of his own extended family.

As Salon's Justin Elliott documented in "The Abortion That Mitt Doesn't Talk About Anymore," it was his own family story which informed his pro-choice position during his 1994 Senate run against Ted Kennedy. When Kennedy labeled him "Multiple Choice Mitt," during their debate, Romney responded with a tale of personal loss:

"On the idea of 'multiple-choice,' I have to respond. I have my own beliefs, and those beliefs are very dear to me. One of them is that I do not impose my beliefs on other people. Many, many years ago, I had a dear, close family relative that was very close to me who passed away from an illegal abortion. It is since that time that my mother and my family have been committed to the belief that we can believe as we want, but we will not force our beliefs on others on that matter. And you will not see me wavering on that."

Reading Kathleen Parker's account, you wouldn't know of the existence of Ann Keenan, the sister of Romney's brother-in-law who died at the age of 21 in 1963 after a botched, illegal abortion. Of course, as this 2007 exchange with Tim Russert showed, Mitt Romney no longer wants you to know about her, either:

RUSSERT: You talked about your family relative who died from an illegal abortion, and yet President Romney is saying ban all abortion. And what would be the legal consequences to people who participated in that procedure? ... So back to your relative.

ROMNEY: Mm-hmm.

Romney went on to explain the consequences (loss of license and possible prison time for doctors, though not patients) of his new-found anti-abortion views. But he never did get back to his relative.

As it turns out, Mitt Romney also threw his mother under the right-wing's anti-abortion bus.

Continue reading »

Can you believe this is the same man who got an endorsement from NARAL in 2002, because he said the pro-choice organization needed "a friend like him" in office? Boy, was that a big flip flop from today:

Romney made the following statement on the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade:

“Today marks the 39th anniversary of one of the darkest moments in Supreme Court history, when the court in Roe v. Wade claimed authority over the fundamental question regarding the rights of the unborn. The result is millions of lives since that day have been tragically silenced. Since that day, the pro-life movement has been working tirelessly in an effort to change hearts and minds and protect the weakest and most vulnerable among us. Today, we recommit ourselves to reversing that decision, for in the quiet of conscience, people of both political parties know that more than a million abortions a year cannot be squared with the good heart of America.”

What a load of crap, pardon my French. The "pro-life" movement has done nothing to protect the weakest and most vulnerable, because they do nothing to educate mothers, they do nothing to raise the circumstances of these babies they demand must be born, they offer nothing to help the family. They hold the fetus in higher regard than the mother and ignore the child once it's born.

That is the very opposite of being pro-life. I wonder if any of these Republicans have learned the lessons of what happened in Romania after Nicholas Ceausescu outlawed abortion and all forms of contraception and sex education. Hint: it didn't turn out too well for him.

enlarge

Erickson really doesn't appear to be able to help himself. It's a sickness, really. But what does it say about CNN that Rick Sanchez can get fired but Erickson is still working, even after writing such violent prose like this?

CNN's Erick Erickson is also Editor-in-Chief and "Dear Leader" of the conservative blog Red State, so this charming passage posted by "The Directors" is presumably his doing:

Here at RedState, we too have drawn a line. We will not endorse any candidate who will not reject the judicial usurpation of Roe v. Wade and affirm that the unborn are no less entitled to a right to live simply because of their size or their physical location. Those who wish to write on the front page of RedState must make the same pledge. The reason for this is simple: once before, our nation was forced to repudiate the Supreme Court with mass bloodshed. We remain steadfast in our belief that this will not be necessary again, but only if those committed to justice do not waiver or compromise, and send a clear and unmistakable signal to their elected officials of what must be necessary to earn our support.

That "only if" construct means that -- according to Erick Erickson's Red State -- "mass bloodshed" will be "necessary" if elected officials don't overturn Roe v. Wade. Again: Red State doesn't say "mass bloodshed" may occur if elected officials don't do what is "necessary to earn our support" -- it says such bloodshed will be "necessary."

Truly, I don't think you could expect the man who referred to Justice Souter as a "goat-f@#$ing molester" and Michelle Obama as a "Marxist harpy" to elevate the dialogue. It's just not within his sad, over-compensating little wheelhouse.

But this kind of carelessly eliminationist rhetoric--especially in the light of the Tucson shootings and the Dr. Tiller assassination--is frightening to see so unabashed. And it would be irresponsible not to speculate if CNN was aware of it when they touted Erickson for their SOTU analysis.

Perhaps you might ask CNN. Politely, of course. Edie Emery is listed as the contact person for CNN's SOTU coverage. Maybe Ms. Emery is unaware of the Son of Erick's body of work.

For the second time in six weeks, John McCain has challenged the press and the public to "name a single issue" where's he changed positions since 2000. Sadly for the supposed maverick, his growing list of reversals, flip-flops and turnabouts now numbers in the dozens.

None of which deterred McCain from pretending otherwise in an interview Wednesday with the CBS affiliate in Washington, DC. Asked, "where is the John McCain from 2000?" and "has something changed," Mr. Straight Talk responded:

"You’ll have to tell me what’s changed. I love it when they say, 'Oh McCain has changed.' And I say, 'What have I changed on?' They can’t name a single issue or they’ll name an issue and it's false. I’m the same guy. I’m proud of our campaign."

Last month, McCain threw down the same gauntlet during his disastrous appearance on ABC's The View. When host Joy Behar lamented, "I don’t see the old John McCain…I understand why - you want to get elected," McCain instinctively went to battle stations:

"I’ve been through this litany before, where I say, 'ok, what specific area have I quote changed?' Nobody can name it...I am the same person and I have the same principles."

As it turns out, not so much.

Continue reading »

The question was the overturning of Roe V. Wade and Rudy Giuliani's response was so bad that Chris Matthews had to go back to him for clarification. Meh, he could live with Roe or without it. "Metronome" Mitt Romney claims that a debate on cloning changed his mind on abortion a couple of years ago, but the kicker had to be the answer from Senator Sam Brownback from Kansas;

Download | play Download | play

Brownback: "It would be a glorious day of human liberty and freedom."

Well...except for women.

"Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito wrote in a June 1985 memo that the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling legalizing abortion should be overturned...read on"

Arlen Specter should have some fun with James Dobson soon

Armando links to a WSJ article that says Mr. Dobson and other religious leaders were assured on a conference call Oct. 3rd:

" ...in which two judges close to Miers assured him that they had spoken with her about Roe v. Wade and that she had indicated she would vote to overturn it."...read on"

If this is true, Dobson lied to everyone about his Karl Rove conversations and methinks Arlen Specter will have his revenge on Dobson when the time comes. As I've stated before, Dobson tried to derail Specter in the past and I'm sure Arlen will have a grand old time calling the dog beater in front of his committee to explain this newest revelation.

Kilgore on Abortion

Joe says: Love it when the right wingers can't answer a simple question....if their opposition to abortion is based on their morals, and if it's supposed to be such a great issue for the GOP

"...But Kilgore faltered under a series of questions by moderator Tim Russert, host of NBC's Meet the Press. Asked by Russert whether he would sign a bill to outlaw abortion if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade , Kilgore refused to answer, calling the question hypothetical."

Check out the video on the WaPo page here

Mayor Bloomberg, breaking with President George W. Bush and other Republicans, said today he opposes Senate confirmation of John Roberts to be the U.S.’s chief justice because the judge declined to detail his views on abortion rights. Bloomberg, who is running for re-election, said in a statement that while Roberts demonstrated a “deep intellect and understanding of the law” during Senate confirmation hearings, “I am unconvinced that Judge Roberts accepts the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling as settled law.” ...read on

It seems that Judge Roberts has wooed some Democrats, but not this Republican.

Rachel Maddow had to bring Tucker Carlson back to earth on the issue of President Bush's anti-abortion judge appointments and the notion that Bush has no litmus test determining judicial nominees. ( Bush denies he has one.) (At least Kerry was perfectly clear about his feelings.)

Carlson:...There's only one issue that Democrats are interested in, and that's protecting Roe v. Wade. And I think it's totally legitimate, and in fact laudable, if the president were to come out and say, “You know what? Roe v. Wade is bad law. I'm not nominating anyone who is for it,” period.

MADDOW: If you flip a coin ten times and it comes out heads every time, do you start to think the coin is loaded? If you flip a coin 50 times—if you flip a coin 100 times, it's heads every time? How about if you flip a coin...

Download | play -WMP

CARLSON: It should be loaded. It should be loaded.

MADDOW: Bush has appointed more than 200 judges in his term. Not a single one is pro-choice. If you tell me he doesn't have a litmus test...

GASPARINO thinks the president should lie about it, well not really lie...just a little spinning of the truth. Rachell is doing a great job on the show and a good reason to tune in even when the game is always stacked two against her.

As John Cole says :It is pretty silly to pretend there is no litmus test for judges, when both sides clearly have them. It is even sillier for the press to play along, as they appear to have.