Romney Follow-Up: Abortion Rights

From •Jonathan Martin’s blog at Politico.com•

February 20, 2007

The Abortion Wars

The campaign of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, whose stance on abortion has often been hard to pin down, now is attacking Sen. John McCain on the issue, accusing the Arizonan of ducking the debate over the right to life since his 2000 presidential bid.

“Ask the pro-life movement where his leadership has been in the six years since 2000 that he’s been running for president,” says Gary Marx, who is charged with handling conservative outreach for Romney. “What has he done?”

But isn’t it a bit audacious for the campaign of a candidate who was, in his own words, “effectively pro-choice” as late as his 2002 gubernatorial run, to now take shots at the record of a consistently pro-life opponent?

“We’re making sure that all primary voters and [conservative] leaders have full picture on all the candidates,” responds Marx.

Which is why Marx sent an e-mail (pasted in full below) last night to more than 100 influential social conservatives highlighting various news clips about McCain’s stance on abortion, bolding and italicizing those lines that call into question the senator’s commitment to ending the practice.

Romney’s views on social issues, and particularly abortion, have received sustained scrutiny over the past few months and it’s time that the other candidates face a similar examination, Marx says.

McCain, for example, “votes pro-life,” Marx concedes, “but he still doesn’t get it on what to do” to end the legalization of abortion.

Matt David, spokesman and rapid response guru for McCain, responded by noting his candidate’s long record of opposing abortion.

“Senator McCain ran as a pro-life candidate, was elected as a pro-life senator and serves as a pro-life senator,” he said.

McCain said Sunday on the campaign trail in South Carolina that, as president, he would support overturning Roe v Wade.

And what about Romney’s own conversion on what conservatives call “the sanctity of life”?

Marx points out that Romney as governor vetoed funding for embryonic stem cell research, an emergency contraception bill and a measure that would change the defintion of when life begins.

While Romney’s rhetoric was consistently pro-choice before being elected, his gubernatorial record “is 100% pro-life as a record,” notes Marx.

That may be the case, but as long videos like this continue to appear on YouTube, it will be difficult for Marx and Co. to keep the focus on anybody’s record on the issue but their own.

Here is the video that Martin referenced, from the 2002 gubenatorial election. Note that this 2002 (4 1/2 years ago) not 1994 (13 years ago)!

Mitt Romney is a Liar and a Flip-Flopper

From Politicalwire.com:

Romney Joined NRA in August

Mitt Romney, “who has touted his support of gun owners since launching his presidential campaign, yesterday acknowledged he did not become a member of the National Rifle Association until last August,” the Boston Globe reports.

“A former advocate of gun control, Romney during his 1994 run for the US Senate backed measures the gun-rights group opposed, such as a five-day waiting period on gun sales and a ban on certain assault weapons. The former Massachusetts governor has been criticized for changing his positions to appeal to social conservatives voting in Republican primaries. In a nationally broadcast interview yesterday, he also had to explain his switch to a conservative stance on abortion and why he once voted for Democrats in Massachusetts primaries.”

Meanwhile, Romney was a guest on ABC News’ This Week with George Stephanopoulos where his revised positions on key conservative litmus test issues were the main topic of conversation.

I have the “This Week” interview (through iTunes) and I just might have to do a ShawnCast about it, because I think this guy is so awful. If I have time….

**UPDATE: Please be sure to read the comments attached to this post, and the “Personal Political Statement” page that I have added to this site!

***UPDATE #2: I posted this video before, but it seemed appropriate to put it here.

When Romney ran against Ted Kennedy for the U.S. Senate in 1994, he espoused rather liberal views — as he did when running for governor in 2002. Now, of course, he’s running for president and running away from his earlier stands.

Below is Romney’s response to this video which is found on his campaign website. I think it speaks for itself, and I stand by the title of this post:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Kevin Madden
January 10, 2007
(857) 288-6400

GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY ON HIS 1994 DEBATE WITH SENATOR TED KENNEDY

Boston, MA – Tonight, Governor Mitt Romney appeared on the “The Glenn and Helen Show” and responded to video clips that have resurfaced from his 1994 U.S. Senate debate against Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA). Because Governor Romney has made strides with conservatives based on his strong record as governor, opponents have focused attacks on ancient footage from 13 years ago. Governor Romney’s call into the show and comments on the 1994 debate can be viewed in a new posting at Mitt TV:

“Well, I just got a look at the excerpts from my debate against Ted Kennedy in 1994. It reminded me of why I ran against him in the first place. Someone had to give him a run for his money.

“Now, it also shows what 13 years will do. I’m grayer. I’m a little heavier. And I hope I’ve grown a bit wiser as well.

“Of course, I was wrong on some issues back then. I’m not embarrassed to admit that. I think most of us learn with experience. I know I certainly have.

“If you want to know where I stand by the way, you don’t just have to listen to my words, you can go to look at my record as governor. Frankly, in the bluest of states. Facing the most liberal media in the country. I’ve led the fight to preserve traditional marriage. I’ve taken every legal step I could conceive of, to prevent same sex marriage.

“I have also taken action to protect the sanctity of life. I vetoed bills that authorized embryo farming, therapeutic cloning, Plan B emergency contraception, and of course a redefinition of when life was going to begin as well.

“I’ve also fought for family. I’ve promoted abstinence education in the schools.

“I fought for English immersion in our schools and school choice. And of course as you’d expect from a Republican, I’ve held the line on taxes and I’ve worked to re-instate the death penalty.

“And I’m proud that at the same time, I’ve fought discrimination. I believe every American deserves equal opportunity.

“Now, that’s my record. And maybe that’s why people on the other side are dredging up 13 year old history and attacking me now.”

While I recognize that people can change their views (I’ve certainly changed some of mine), it seems clear to me that the timing of these changes of heart is awfully convenient, and therefore suspect.

Newest “Simpsons” Movie Trailer!

I confess that I’m really looking forward to seeing this!

Jimmy Kimmel Live: George Takei takes on Tim Hardaway

…so to speak. Way to go, George!

AP: Terrorist Activity Data Flawed

From the AP via Yahoo! News.

 

Audit: Anti-terror case data flawed

By LARA JAKES JORDAN, Associated Press Writer

Tue Feb 20, 4:35 PM ET

WASHINGTON – Federal prosecutors counted immigration violations, marriage fraud and drug trafficking among anti-terror cases in the four years after 9/11 even though no evidence linked them to terror activity, a Justice Department audit said Tuesday.

Overall, nearly all of the terrorism-related statistics on investigations, referrals and cases examined by department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine were either diminished or inflated. Only two of 26 sets of department data reported between 2001 and 2005 were accurate, the audit found.

Responding, a Justice spokesman pointed to figures showing that prosecutors in the department’s headquarters for the most part either accurately or underreported their data — underscoring what he called efforts to avoid pumping up federal terror statistics.

The numbers, used to monitor the department’s progress in battling terrorists, are reported to Congress and the public and help, in part, shape the department’s budget.

“For these and other reasons, it is essential that the department report accurate terrorism-related statistics,” the audit concluded.

Fine’s office took care to say the flawed data appear to be the result of “decentralized and haphazard” methods of collection or disagreement over how the numbers are reported, and do not appear to be intentional.

Still, the errors led Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., to question whether the department had exaggerated the number of terror cases.

“If the Department of Justice can’t even get their own books in order, how are we supposed to have any confidence they are doing the job they should be?” said Schumer, who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which oversees the department. “Whether this is just an accounting error or an attempt to pad terror prosecution statistics for some other reason, the Department of Justice of all places should be classifying cases for what they are, not what they want us to think them to be.”

Auditors looked at 26 categories of statistics — including numbers of suspects charged and convicted in terror cases, and terror-related threats against cities and other U.S. targets — compiled by the
FBI, Justice’s Criminal Division, and the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys.

It found that data from the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys were the most severely flawed. Auditors said the office, which compiles statistics from the 94 federal prosecutors’ districts nationwide, both under- and over-counted the number of terror-related cases during a four-year period.

The office has since agreed to change the way it counts and classifies anti-terrorism cases, said department spokesman Dean Boyd.

Boyd denied suggestions that the department pumped up its numbers. He said Criminal Division prosecutors at Justice headquarters and the FBI have overhauled their respective case reporting systems since 2004 for a more accurate picture of terror-related workloads. Both agencies, he said, were strained to accurately report terrorism data in the flood of cases immediately after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

“The notion that the Justice Department intentionally inflated its statistics is false and flatly contradicted by the OIG report itself,” Boyd said.

In all but one area, Criminal Division prosecutors either accurately stated or underreported their data — the ones the department usually uses in public statements about its counterterror efforts, Boyd noted. He said the Justice Department has already completed most of the fixes recommended in the audit.

Much of the problem stemmed from how that office defines anti-terrorism cases.

A November 2001 federal crackdown on security breaches at airports, for example, yielded arrests on immigration and false document charges, but no evidence of terrorist activity. Nonetheless, the attorneys’ office lumped them in with other anti-terror cases since they were investigated by federal Joint Terrorism Task Forces or with other counterterror measures.

Other examples, according to the audit, included:

_Charges against a marriage-broker for being paid to arrange six fraudulent marriages between Tunisians and U.S. citizens.

_Prosecution of a Mexican citizen who falsely identified himself as another person in a passport application.

_Charges against a suspect for dealing firearms without a license. The prosecutor handling the case told auditors it should not have been labeled as anti-terrorism.

“We do not agree that law enforcement efforts such as these should be counted as anti-terrorism,” the audit concluded. Even if those cases were not taken into account, the audit said, the U.S. attorneys’ office had overstated statistics in all other categories it reported.

Zalandria’s Best Day Ever!

Today — 20 February 2007 — Zalandria scored 126 unique visits! I know that this is peanuts compared to many sites, but I am excited about it! (Forgive my exuberance). Thanks to everyone who stopped by.

I added a “Personal Political Statement” page to this site, which you can access via the link at the top of the page (next to the “About” link). Please take a moment to read it, and be sure to let me know what you think. It is a little rambling, because I kept thinking of things to add to it, after I had already published it (many, many times!). Perhaps I will try to make it more coherent in the future.

Thanks to everyone for reading Zalandria, especially those of you who are regular visitors!

Unreleased Ad: PC Delivers a Message from Steve Jobs!

Giving Christianity A Bad Name #2

No comment.