THE FLiP SIDE OF MITT
Multiple Choice Mitt not only "changes" his positions, but he does so multiple times, waffling back & forth. On the position of whether business owners should be forced to hire alternative sexual preference employees, what do you think the chances are of a given candidate having three (count 'em, 3) pre-Christmas positions over the past 14 Christmases? (Well, Mitt has managed to do that...and his latest position is have the states do the dirty work of pro-homosexual activists.
Pre-Christmas 1994 (October): “We have discussed a number of important issues such as the Federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which I have agreed to co-sponsor, and if possible broaden…” Oct. 6, 1994 Romney for U.S. Senate letter to Log Cabin Club of Massachusetts
Pre-Christmas 2006 Interview (mid-December): Lopez: And what about the 1994 letter to the Log Cabin Republicans where you indicated you would support the Federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) and seemed open to changing the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in the military? Are those your positions today? Gov. Romney: No. I don’t see the need for new or special legislation. My experience over the past several years as governor has convinced me that ENDA would be an overly broad law that would open a litigation floodgate and unfairly penalize employers at the hands of activist judges. Source: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MmY1MTQyMTk0Yjk2ZDNmZmVmNmNkNjY4ODExMGM5NWE=
Pre-Christmas 2007 Interview (mid-December): December 16, 2007: The following is excerpted from Romney's "Meet the Press" interview December 16 with Tim Russert: MR. RUSSERT: You said [in 1994] that you would sponsor [Sen. Ted Kennedy's federal] Employment Nondiscrimination Act. Do you still support it? GOV. ROMNEY: At the state level. I think it makes sense at the state level for states to put in provision of this. MR. RUSSERT: Now, you said you would sponsor it at the federal level. GOV. ROMNEY: I would not support at the federal level, and I changed in that regard because I think that policy makes more sense to be evaluated or to be implemented at the state level. Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22273924/page/6/
THE FLoP SIDE OF MITT
Me: He took three positions on embryonic stem cell research
You: Not true. On this issue, he's only had one. He's always opposed embryo farming, i.e. cloning embryos for research, and that is what sparked his conversion on abortion. However, he's always supported giving parents the choice donate "surplus" embryos for research. I wish he would flip on this, but he hasn't.
June 15, 2007 (National Review article he wrote): "Some advocates told me that only the creation of human embryos for purposes of experimentation, otherwise known as cloning, could help them better understand and perhaps someday treat a series of dreaded diseases. But they ignored the importance of protecting human equality, dignity, and life. Almost 6 months later: December 5, 2007 Romney is interviewed by CBS' Katie Couric: ...surplus embryos...Those embryos, I hope, could be available for adoption for people who would like to adopt embryos. But if a parent decides they would want to donate one of those embryos for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable. It should not be made against the law."
A vocal pro-life nurse named Jill Stanek, up until this last quote from Romney, "was trying hard to give this pro-life convert the benefit of the doubt." Stanek's assessment of Romney's conclusion? "No. A parent cannot authorize killing a child. A parent cannot donate his/her living child for scientific experimentation. Romney understood this when discussing abortion earlier in the interview. He just need to apply that logic to human embryo experimentation...I don't get Romney's disconnect, but he has disconnected. And he has disqualified himself...Turns out he's not completely converted." Source: http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2007/12/mitt_romney_just.html
As Deal W. Hudson has said in his blog, Romney has a "lingering problem" in being only opposed to creating clones for stem cell research--not opposed to using "discarded" or "donated" frozen embryos: "...frozen embryos have been the primary source of embryonic tissue for stem cell research. How can you declare yourself opposed to this research when you are not opposed to the way it is actually carried out?...My question is this: How can you consider a frozen embryo a moral entity capable of being adopted, while at the same time support the scientist who wants to cut the embryonic being into pieces? Even more, if Romney's conversion was about the 'cheapened value of human life,' how can he abide the thought of a parent donating 'one of those embryos' to be destroyed?" Source: http://dealwhudson.typepad.com/deal_w_hudson/2007/12/the-problem-wit.html
So, just on embryonic research, we go from a...
...Mid-2002 Romney singing the praises of embryonic research: June 13, 2002, where he: ...spoke at a bioethics forum at Brandeis University. In a Boston Globe story filed the next day, he was quoted as saying that he endorsed embryonic stem cell research, hoping it would one day cure his wife's multiple sclerosis. And he went on to say: "I am in favor of stem cell research. I will work and fight for stem cell research," before adding, "I'd be happy to talk to [President Bush] about this, though I don't know if I could budge him an inch." When pressed, however, Romney and his aides declined to offer an opinion on "therapeutic" or embryonic cloning. Source: weekly standard http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/013/222htyos.asp?pg=1
...To a...
...Late-2004 Romney undergoing his pro-life "conversion" due to this very issue: Nov. 9, 2004: Romney meet with Dr. Douglas Melton from the Harvard Stem Cell Institute: 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. Source: Time Mag, March 9, 2007 http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1619536-2,00.html
...To a...
...Late-2007 Romney who doesn't mind frozen embryonic life being "cheapened" or doesn't mind if they are excluded from his so-called "importance of protecting human equality, dignity, and life"...well that is, with this caveat: As long as Mom & Pop say it's OK for them to be sacrificed in such an experimental research manner!
You provide no evidence for a multiple changes. Let's look at the evidence you provide:
Pre-Christmas 1994 (October): “We have discussed a number of important issues such as the Federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which I have agreed to co-sponsor, and if possible broaden…” Oct. 6, 1994 Romney for U.S. Senate letter to Log Cabin Club of Massachusetts
Yes, he was for a Federal ENDA 14 years ago. We know all that.
Pre-Christmas 2006 Interview (mid-December): Lopez: And what about the 1994 letter to the Log Cabin Republicans where you indicated you would support the Federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) and seemed open to changing the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in the military? Are those your positions today? Gov. Romney: No. I don’t see the need for new or special legislation. My experience over the past several years as governor has convinced me that ENDA would be an overly broad law that would open a litigation floodgate and unfairly penalize employers at the hands of activist judges.
Okay, so now he opposes a Federal ENDA, which we already know. So we have exactly one change in position. A flip, made over the course of 14 years, and a pretty minor one at that, but no flop.
You said [in 1994] that you would sponsor [Sen. Ted Kennedy's federal] Employment Nondiscrimination Act. Do you still support it? GOV. ROMNEY: At the state level. I think it makes sense at the state level for states to put in provision of this. MR. RUSSERT: Now, you said you would sponsor it at the federal level. GOV. ROMNEY: I would not support at the federal level, and I changed in that regard because I think that policy makes more sense to be evaluated or to be implemented at the state level. Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22273924/page/6/
So he continues to oppose a Federal ENDA, but supports it at the state level. Where's the second change? He supported a Federal ENDA, but now opposes it. There's no change in his position on state-level ENDAs. That's one change.
Or did your mother never teach you to count?
I don't like this position any more than you do. I wish he would change it, but unfortunately, he's consistently stuck to it.
Let's now look at your citations:
Some advocates told me that only the creation of human embryos for purposes of experimentation, otherwise known as cloning, could help them better understand and perhaps someday treat a series of dreaded diseases. But they ignored the importance of protecting human equality, dignity, and life
So here he says he opposes cloning. Not surprising.
Romney is interviewed by CBS' Katie Couric: ...surplus embryos...Those embryos, I hope, could be available for adoption for people who would like to adopt embryos. But if a parent decides they would want to donate one of those embryos for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable. It should not be made against the law
So he supports allowing couples to donate their "surplus" embryos for research. A repugnant position, to be sure, but there is no change here.
A vocal pro-life nurse named Jill Stanek, up until this last quote from Romney, "was trying hard to give this pro-life convert the benefit of the doubt." Stanek's assessment of Romney's conclusion? "No. A parent cannot authorize killing a child. A parent cannot donate his/her living child for scientific experimentation. Romney understood this when discussing abortion earlier in the interview. He just need to apply that logic to human embryo experimentation...I don't get Romney's disconnect, but he has disconnected. And he has disqualified himself...Turns out he's not completely converted."
Everything said above is true. Romney's position on allowing parents to donate their embryos to research is not morally sound. However, nothing above indicates that he changed his position one iota.
...Mid-2002 Romney singing the praises of embryonic research: June 13, 2002, where he: ...spoke at a bioethics forum at Brandeis University. In a Boston Globe story filed the next day, he was quoted as saying that he endorsed embryonic stem cell research, hoping it would one day cure his wife's multiple sclerosis. And he went on to say: "I am in favor of stem cell research. I will work and fight for stem cell research," before adding, "I'd be happy to talk to [President Bush] about this, though I don't know if I could budge him an inch." When pressed, however, Romney and his aides declined to offer an opinion on "therapeutic" or embryonic cloning.
Nothing new here. He supports research on non-cloned embryos. At this point he didn't say anything about embryo cloning, probably because people were just starting to talk about the possibility in 2001. There's nothing inconsistent with his later positions.
...Late-2004 Romney undergoing his pro-life "conversion" due to this very issue: Nov. 9, 2004: Romney meet with Dr. Douglas Melton from the Harvard Stem Cell Institute: 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. Source: Time Mag, March 9, 2007 http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1619536-2,00.html
Okay, so we know he opposes cloning. No change in position.
...Late-2007 Romney who doesn't mind frozen embryonic life being "cheapened" or doesn't mind if they are excluded from his so-called "importance of protecting human equality, dignity, and life"...well that is, with this caveat: As long as Mom & Pop say it's OK for them to be sacrificed in such an experimental research manner!
Yes, well, we know that. He hates cloning but doesn't mind if Mom and Dad give away an embryo junior for experimental research, a morally unsound position, but a consistent one nontheless.
So where exactly is his change in position? I see no change at all. Exactly zero changes.
Oh, but I forgot, you don't know how to count.