About Us
Mission Statement
Rules of Conduct
Remember Me

The Undecider
Author: BobR    Date: 10/10/2012 13:42:10

I've made the joke that Romney changes his policy positions more often than he changes his underwear. I can understand a person slowly evolving in their viewpoints as they absorb more data, but the whiplash is getting tiresome and disturbing. How can anyone truly understand what he stands for?

This was a problem for President Obama during the debates, in that Romney was arguing positions that did not match up with his previous stances. How do you prepare for that? This graphic here (currently making the rounds) shows one example:


Romney on abortion is a whole 'nuther story. When governor of Massachusetts, he was decidedly pro-choice. By the time the 2008 presidential race rolled around, he was anti-abortion, but with exceptions for rape and incest. By the time this campaign rolled around, Romney decided he was "severely" conservative. He started talking about no exceptions for incest or rape, and supported a "personhood amendment" which would effectively make all abortion illegal. He also came out against birth control. Romney has supposedly come back from the cliff on that and decided that the exceptions are back on the table.

Yesterday, however, he took yet another stance by claiming that anti-abortion legislation would not be part of his agenda:
"There's no legislation with regards to abortion that I'm familiar with that would become part of my agenda," he told the Des Moines Register in an interview posted on the newspaper's website.

The former Massachusetts governor said he would instead use an executive order to reinstate the so-called Mexico City policy that bans American aid from funding abortions. President Barack Obama waived the order soon after taking office.
Romney's statement to the newspaper represents an apparent shift on a topic Obama's campaign has tried to use against him, particularly with female voters. Soon after the comments were posted on the Register's website, the president's campaign pounced.

"We know the truth about where he stands on a woman's right to choose: He's said he'd be delighted to sign a bill banning all abortions, and called Roe v. Wade 'one of the darkest moments in Supreme Court history,' while pledging to appoint Supreme Court justices who will overturn it. Women simply can't trust him," Obama spokeswoman Lis Smith said.

Before the ink was even dry, the Romney campaign released a statement coming out against Romney's statement:
The Romney campaign walked back the remark within two hours of the Register posting its story. Spokeswoman Andrea Saul told the National Review Online's Katrina Trinko that Romney "would of course support legislation aimed at providing greater protections for life."

This isn't the first time the Romney campaign has contradicted "clarified" Romney's remarks - it's happened time and time again.

He contradicts himself, he contradicts his campaign, his campaign contradicts him... At this point, it's impossible to determine whether one should vote for Romney based on specific issues. That determination can only be made based on what sort of person you think he is and whether he would be a good leader for the country. He seems to me to be a person that can't decide on anything, and will lie or say whatever he thinks people want to hear, depending on who is in front of him. That doesn't seem like leadership to me.

82 comments (Latest Comment: 10/11/2012 00:56:53 by BobR)
   Perma Link

Share This!

Furl it!