Romney on Abortion, Then and Now
If this isn't a lie, what would you call it?
Romney today in The New York Times: “There’s no legislation with regards to abortion that I’m familiar with that would become part of my agenda.”
Romney writing in The National Review, June 18, 2011: "I will advocate for and support a Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act to protect unborn children who are capable of feeling pain from abortion."
The Times article doesn't mention the old Nat Rev piece, which I confess I didn't remember but saw in a tweet. Lots of liberals have been complaining about the media not calling Romney on his lies in real time, and the media are lousy at that, but in truth, that is first and foremost Obama's (and Biden's) job.
They have to call him out. If they make an issue of something, the media will go back to the Romney campaign and ask. But the reality of the world is that the media rarely inaugurate such probes.
Now, as it happens, I wrote in the column posted this morning, the one right below this one, a sentence arguing that Obama-Biden need to raise "something crafted to put the pseudo-centrist on the spot, so he has to choose and alienate either the middle or the base." This seems perfect.
"Governor, you once said you'd push for passage of a law that would further restrict abortion as an option for women by as much as four weeks before viability, and that's probably unconstitutional. Now you say you would not push for such legislation. So which is it? Which Mitt Romney would be sitting in that Oval Office?"
My guess is he'd likely take the moderate position at this point, which would leave him disappointing the base. The Dems need six or eight of these. If Romney goes moderate all the way, the base gets angry with him again. If he goes base all the way, he loses swing voters. If he tries to split the difference, which knowing him he'll do, you go with the "who is this joker" line. As I wrote this morning, not rocket science. Chicago, awake!