Mitt Romney inconsistent despite flip-flops

Thanks for visiting this blog for the first time. Check out the home page for the most recent posts, or the archives if you're looking for something in particular. Here are some of our favorite posts, which you might enjoy:

If you like what you see, we hope you'll consider subscribing to the RSS feed.

Mitt Romney is being taken to task for changing his stance on many sensitive issues, such as abortion and gay marriage, in order to appeal to conservatives. But even if we take him at his words, his new positions are completely inconsistent. Here he is talking about abortion on This Week:

Mitt Romney: Abortion is taking human life. There’s no question but that human life begins when all the DNA is there necessary for cells to divide and become a human being.

Is it alive? Yes. Is it human? Yes. And, therefore, when we abort a fetus, we are taking a life at its infancy, at its very, very beginning roots, and a civilized society, I believe, respects the sanctity of human life.

Stephanopoulos: So if abortion is the taking of a life, should women who have abortions and doctors who perform them be jailed?

Mitt Romney: My view is that we should let each state have its own responsibility for guiding its laws relating to abortion. … But I’d like to see the Supreme Court allow states to have greater leeway in defining their own laws.

Stephanopoulos: But if it’s killing, why should states have leeway?

Mitt Romney: You know, that’s one of the great challenges that we have. There are a lot of things that are morally very difficult and, in some cases, repugnant that we let states decide. For instance, Nevada allows prostitution. I find that to be quite repugnant as a practice.

Fair enough. He’s a federalist who believes states should decide important questions, even ones he characterizes as the taking of life. So how does he feel about gay marriage? Surely he’ll take a federalist approach on something that’s not a question of life and death.

Mitt Romey: I think every child deserves a mom and a dad, and that’s why I’m so consistent and vehement in my view that we should have a federal amendment which defines marriage in that way.

Feb 19, 2007 | Comments | Tags: , , ,

Related entries

Post a comment