Day: 6/13/2012

THE VETTING: Mitt Romney’s Brush With A Tragic Back Alley Abortion

Posted by on June 13, 2012 at 7:08 pm. 1 Comments :

One of the best known components of Mitt Romney’s Etch-a-Sketch candidacy is his epic flip-flop on the issue of abortion. In his 1994 campaign for the senate in Massachusetts, Romney was an ardent pro-choice advocate. It was a position he vigorously defended in a debate with his opponent Ted Kennedy. His remarks could have come straight from a Planned Parenthood pamphlet:

“I have my own beliefs, and those beliefs are very dear to me. One of them is that I do not impose my beliefs on other people. Many, many years ago, I had a dear, close family relative that was very close to me who passed away from an illegal abortion. It is since that time that my mother and my family have been committed to the belief that we can believe as we want, but we will not force our beliefs on others on that matter. And you will not see me wavering on that.”

So much for wavering. Romney is now a staunchly pro-life conservative, but the catalyst for his original opinion is worthy of exploration. Romney has never publicly identified the “close family relative” to whom he referred in the debate, but Salon published an article last year that recounted her sad experience as an unwed, pregnant woman in the years prior to Roe v. Wade. She was the younger sister of Romney’s brother-in-law, and was engaged to be married. However, her pregnancy was likely a source of shame and the whole matter was hushed up presumably to preserve the reputation of the family, including Romney’s father who was governor of Michigan at the time.

After the debate, Romney affirmed the position he had taken by saying that it “obviously makes one see that regardless of one’s beliefs about choice, that you would hope it would be safe and legal.” Apparently that observation is not so obvious anymore.

The matter might not have made much of a stir but for the fact that it was raised again today by the National Enquirer, whose typically sensationalized headline screamed “Mitt Romney Backstreet Abortion Shocker.”

Mitt Romney Abortion Shocker

Regardless of the hyperbole of the source, the facts were all present in Salon’s earlier article. Now that the story is out there, it is fair to inquire as to how Romney feels today about the ordeal of his deceased relative. While the loss of a loved one should never become fodder for political gamesmanship, how such experiences shape the values of a candidate are highly relevant. If her loss had such a profound impact on him, even thirty years later when he was running for the senate, does he no longer feel that she, or any other women in her position, ought to have access to safe and legal medical attention?

Since Romney’s current position is to turn back the clock to a time when women had no alternative but the back alley procedures that were often fatal, can he say today that he is satisfied with the fate that his young relative suffered; that it was merely the consequence of her choice; that a young woman today, perhaps another relative, should be subject to the same fate were she to make the same choice?

Romney was once driven by his grief to make an unwavering commitment to never force his beliefs on others. Is he through with grieving? Is he comfortable with the grief that other families will suffer if his promise to repeal Roe v. Wade is fulfilled? Someone should ask Romney these questions.

What The Media Left Out Of The Senate Hearings With Eric Holder

Posted by on June 13, 2012 at 3:57 pm. 3 Comments :

Yesterday the Senate held a hearing on the excruciatingly overwrought pseudo-controversy known as “Fast and Furious.” The featured witness at the hearing was Attorney General Eric Holder, who has already appeared at nine previous hearings on the same subject. Despite never having produced the slightest bit of evidence of any malfeasance by Holder, Sen. John Cornyn delivered notably vacant harangue that climaxed with this demand:

“In short, you’ve violated the public trust in my view and, by failing and refusing to perform the duties of your office, it’s more with sorrow than regret, than with anger, that I would say that you leave me no alternative but to join those who call upon you to resign your office.”

That tasty soundbite was broadcast incessantly in the media for the remainder of the day, and into the following day. Never mind that there was no substance behind it and no context to explain it. But there was something even more egregious that the media omitted: The response from Eric Holder. For some reason, that information was not deemed relevant to the story. So, in an effort to level the playing field, here is some of what Holder had to say in response to Cornyn’s request:

“With all due respect, senator, there is so much that is factually wrong with the premises that you started your statement with, it’s almost breathtaking in its inaccuracy.”

“If you want to talk about Fast and Furious, I’m the attorney general that put an end to the misguided tactics that were used in Fast and Furious. An attorney general whom I suppose you would hold in higher regard was briefed on these kinds of tactics in an operation called ‘Wide Receiver’ and did nothing to stop them. Nothing. Three hundred guns, at least, ‘walked’ in that instance.

“I’m also the attorney general who called on an inspector general to look into this matter, to investigate this matter. I’m also the attorney general who made personnel changes at ATF and in the U.S. Attorneys office that was involved, have overseen the changes of processes and procedures within ATF to make sure that this doesn’t happen ever again.

“So I don’t have any intention of resigning.”

“I am willing to sit down and talk about the provision of more materials. I have sent letters in that regard, the deputy attorney general has sent letters in that regard, and have not had responses. Which leads me to believe that the desire here is not for an accommodation but for a political point-making.”

There’s quite a bit there for excerpting in the nightly news, but most of the media declined to do so. And yet, the rightist punditry still whines about what they think is the “liberal” media. It would have nice if the news that Holder had wiped the floor with Cornyn had reached more than a few liberal bloggers. The right has no problem blasting its radically slanted message across the airwaves. The left has significant room for improvement in this regard.

Glenn Beck Reviews Black-Themed Obama Campaign Ad

Posted by on June 13, 2012 at 10:59 am. 3 Comments :

If you were looking for an authoritative analysis of an Obama campaign advertisement targeting an African-American constituency, who better to consult than homeboy and O.G. (Original German), Glenn Beck?

That’s who Bill O’Reilly turned to last night on the O’Reilly Factor, and he got his money’s worth. The segment included pleadings from Beck for O’Reilly to use the “M” word (Marxist) about Obama. O’Reilly giggled flirtatiously but succumbed only so far as to declare Obama the most liberal president in America’s history (which is news to liberals).

After listening to the new ad, the pair expressed their shock upon seeing an overt appeal to a targeted demographic group, something they seem to think never happens in advertising.

Beck: I’ve never heard anything like that, Bill.
O’Reilly: In a campaign ad, I haven’t either. I would love to see Mitt Romney’s backup singers though. They probably look like the Osmonds.
Beck: Here’s the problem with that ad. I mean it’s two-fold. In that ad they talk about, you know, we’ve got your back, Mr. President. Isn’t the President supposed to have our back? Isn’t he supposed to be that guy that insures that he’s watching our liberty and our life so nobody comes and kills our family or kills us, and nobody comes and scoops us up off the street in the middle of the night?

First of all, I find it interesting that O’Reilly would surmise that Romney’s backup singers would look like the Osmonds, a quintessentially white family of Mormons. I wouldn’t argue with that, but it’s Beck’s commentary that really demonstrates a fundamental ignorance and hypocrisy.

Beck seems to have missed entirely that the ad is a litany of all the ways in which Obama “has our back,” by enumerating the policies he is pursuing. The only thing that Beck hears is the Motown-like chorus. Even worse, Beck seems to be confusing the role of the president with the role of a bodyguard. His assertion that the President is supposed to protect us from some unidentified assailants is downright looney, however, it fits nicely into Beck’s patented formula of fear mongering. To Beck there is no dark corner of the room that isn’t filled with stalking demons.

Glenn Beck

Seeing as how Beck is also one of the biggest proponents of right-wing criticisms of the so-called “nanny state,” it is curious that he has now assigned the President the responsibility for policing our neighborhoods and protecting us from whoever it is that Beck imagines is threatening to “scoop us up off the street in the middle of the night.” That duty might distract the President from trivial matters like the economy, jobs, and foreign affairs. It might also piss off Spiderman who will surely regard it as an intrusion into his jurisdiction.

Watching O’Reilly and Beck analyze an Obama ad aimed at African Americans is not unlike watching Rick Santorum and Pat Robertson reviewing the DVD release of “Brokeback Mountain.” There is very little of value that one could extract from their analysis. But what’s truly frightening is that Fox’s viewers will sop up their bile and regard it as credible. At least until they are scooped up off the street in the middle of the night.