Wednesday, 31 October 2012
Monday, 29 October 2012
Has Mitt Romney evolved?
According to the conservative Christian group Family Research Council, Romney has changed positions on five key issues between the Republican primaries and the general election. Contrary to the conventional wisdom that says candidates tack to the center during general elections, and become more moderate to appeal to independents and swing voters, Romney has apparently strengthened his case with social conservatives since winning the Republican party nomination.
Where once he was squishy, apparently, on the issues the FRC cared about, now he's firm. Where once the FRC judged the Mass. governor to be only 50 percent in line with the positions of "values voters," he now has a perfect score.
Of course it's possible it's not Romney who has changed.
As noted by Christianity Today in a piece on Christian voter guides last week, the FRC guide released during the primaries highlighted significant areas of disagreement with Romney: stem cell research, cloning, the estate tax, employee non-discrimination, and "strict constitutionalist" judges. On half the issues held to be important by the conservative group started by evangelical child-rearing guru James Dobson, Romney was represented as being on the wrong side.
That voting guide showed him to be a less desirable candidate than Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, or Rick Perry. Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul didn't have perfect scores -- both differing from the FRC on the question of a federal ban on human cloning -- but they still were more in line with the group's position than Romney.
Correction: than Romney was.
According to the FRC voting guide being distributed right now as church bulletin inserts, Romney has changed his position on all five of these issues, and is now in complete agreement with the conservative Christian positions on everything that's politically important.
In at least one case, though, Romney has managed this remarkable transformation without actually changing his position. The FRC footnotes their sources for the statements about candidates' positions, and though the earlier guide and the later guide represent Romney as having different positions on stem cell research, the sources cited say the same thing in both cases. He's for stem cell research, but opposed to embryos created specifically for such studies, and opposed to federal funding of these studies.
As Romney himself explained the position in 2007, "There are different levels of stem cell research."
That nuanced position was presented by the FRC as having a "mixed" record on the issue. It is now being presented as opposing the federal funding of stem cell research, which is true, but has actually always been Romney's position. His statements on the issue, cited by the FRC, are consistent from 2005 to today. It's the FRC's representation of that position has changed.
So perhaps it's the Family Research Council that has evolved?
In another case, the records cited by the FRC show Romney has in fact changed his position, but that change happened long before either voting guide was published. Romney's current position on federal protection of gays and lesbians against employer discrimination has been represented in two diametrically opposite ways.
It's true that in 1994 Romney pledged his support for EDNA, the "Employment Non-Discrimination Act" that the FRC calls "SPECIAL EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS BASED ON SEXUAL BEHAVIOR." Romney instituted a non-discrimination policy that included sexual orientation as one of the protected classes when he was organizing the hosting of the 2002 Olympics. In 2007, though, Romney announced that he'd adjusted his position, and now felt that protecting people from discrimination was the states' job, not the federal government's. He told Tim Russert, "I think it makes sense at the state level for states to put in provision of this .... 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."
During the primaries, that 2007 position was characterized by the FRC as support for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act." That same position is now characterized by the FRC as opposition.
The word for this is duplicitous.
Much has been made of Romney's inconsistencies and how his only guiding principle seems to be his own desire for power. Especially when it comes to the social issues that concern conservative Christians. That, it turns out, may not be a problem for those who claim to represent these Christians, but rather a key a point of commonality.
The FRC voting guides show that Romney has strengthened his position with at least some conservative Christian groups -- but only because they too are more committed to political victories than anything else.
According to the conservative Christian group Family Research Council, Romney has changed positions on five key issues between the Republican primaries and the general election. Contrary to the conventional wisdom that says candidates tack to the center during general elections, and become more moderate to appeal to independents and swing voters, Romney has apparently strengthened his case with social conservatives since winning the Republican party nomination.
Where once he was squishy, apparently, on the issues the FRC cared about, now he's firm. Where once the FRC judged the Mass. governor to be only 50 percent in line with the positions of "values voters," he now has a perfect score.
Of course it's possible it's not Romney who has changed.
As noted by Christianity Today in a piece on Christian voter guides last week, the FRC guide released during the primaries highlighted significant areas of disagreement with Romney: stem cell research, cloning, the estate tax, employee non-discrimination, and "strict constitutionalist" judges. On half the issues held to be important by the conservative group started by evangelical child-rearing guru James Dobson, Romney was represented as being on the wrong side.
That voting guide showed him to be a less desirable candidate than Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, or Rick Perry. Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul didn't have perfect scores -- both differing from the FRC on the question of a federal ban on human cloning -- but they still were more in line with the group's position than Romney.
Correction: than Romney was.
According to the FRC voting guide being distributed right now as church bulletin inserts, Romney has changed his position on all five of these issues, and is now in complete agreement with the conservative Christian positions on everything that's politically important.
In at least one case, though, Romney has managed this remarkable transformation without actually changing his position. The FRC footnotes their sources for the statements about candidates' positions, and though the earlier guide and the later guide represent Romney as having different positions on stem cell research, the sources cited say the same thing in both cases. He's for stem cell research, but opposed to embryos created specifically for such studies, and opposed to federal funding of these studies.
As Romney himself explained the position in 2007, "There are different levels of stem cell research."
That nuanced position was presented by the FRC as having a "mixed" record on the issue. It is now being presented as opposing the federal funding of stem cell research, which is true, but has actually always been Romney's position. His statements on the issue, cited by the FRC, are consistent from 2005 to today. It's the FRC's representation of that position has changed.
So perhaps it's the Family Research Council that has evolved?
In another case, the records cited by the FRC show Romney has in fact changed his position, but that change happened long before either voting guide was published. Romney's current position on federal protection of gays and lesbians against employer discrimination has been represented in two diametrically opposite ways.
It's true that in 1994 Romney pledged his support for EDNA, the "Employment Non-Discrimination Act" that the FRC calls "SPECIAL EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS BASED ON SEXUAL BEHAVIOR." Romney instituted a non-discrimination policy that included sexual orientation as one of the protected classes when he was organizing the hosting of the 2002 Olympics. In 2007, though, Romney announced that he'd adjusted his position, and now felt that protecting people from discrimination was the states' job, not the federal government's. He told Tim Russert, "I think it makes sense at the state level for states to put in provision of this .... 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."
During the primaries, that 2007 position was characterized by the FRC as support for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act." That same position is now characterized by the FRC as opposition.
The word for this is duplicitous.
Much has been made of Romney's inconsistencies and how his only guiding principle seems to be his own desire for power. Especially when it comes to the social issues that concern conservative Christians. That, it turns out, may not be a problem for those who claim to represent these Christians, but rather a key a point of commonality.
The FRC voting guides show that Romney has strengthened his position with at least some conservative Christian groups -- but only because they too are more committed to political victories than anything else.
Friday, 26 October 2012
Wednesday, 24 October 2012
Lu Lobello, a former Marine who was involved in the killing of three civilians in the early days of the war in Iraq, approached the family, now American immigrants, asking for forgiveness.
The family is Jehovah's Witness.
As recalled by the journalist who reported the story, that made a difference:
The family is Jehovah's Witness.
As recalled by the journalist who reported the story, that made a difference:
"She spoke and she said, 'We want to help him.' [...]
"One of the oddities in the story, and there are so many, and I'm really -- I'm not sure what it means -- but they're Christian, for one thing, which makes them a minority in Iraq. Something like two percent of the population or probably a lot less now because so many have left. And they're Jehovah's Witnesses, and they're very religious, and I get -- certainly as anyone would be after something like this, but, it was just, every time I asked them about forgiving Lu or what had happened or how they feel about it or why are they not bitter, because they're not, they kind of of -- they would just default immediately to the Bible or they would start talking about religion and God and forgiveness.
"It was really amazing.
"I mean, you could just see the power of religion at a really really micro level. I mean, they, you know, believe deeply in their religion. And they said, she said, over and over again, we have to forgive him, you know, this is what God commands us to forgive. He's forgiven us and we have to forgive. We must.
"And there was no doubt in their mind about that."
Tuesday, 23 October 2012
A new study suggests that the Affordable Care Act, i.e., "Obamacare," may be "the single most effective piece of 'pro-life' legislation in the past forty years," reducing abortions by up to 78 percent (!). The study tested the effects of Obamacare by covering the costs of birth control -- particularly more expensive but more effective methods -- for poor and currently uninsured or under-insured women.
The results:
The study -- done by Jeffrey F. Peipert, Tessa Madden, Jenifer E. Allsworth and Gina M. Secura at the Washington University School of Medicine -- concludes that this is a "a clinically and statistically significant reduction in abortion rates," supporting the idea that "Unintended pregnancies may be reduced by providing no-cost contraception and promoting the most effective contraceptive methods."
Providing "no-cost contraception" is exactly what Obamacare would do, if not gutted or repealed by Republicans.
The results:
"Between 2008 and 2010, abortion rates in CHOICE [study] participants ranged from 4.4 to 7.5 per 1,000 after adjusting for age and race. These rates are considerably less than the rates in St. Louis City and County for the same years and far below the national rate of 19.6 per 1,000. Using these data, we then estimated the difference in abortion rates and number of abortions prevented each year if CHOICE were available to the entire population of the region. Based on the number needed to treat, one abortion could be prevented for every 79–137 women and teenagers provided the CHOICE intervention.In the first year of the study, providing birth control for more than 9,000 women prevented an estimated 3,000 pregnancies that would have likely resulted in abortions. In comparison to women from the surrounding area in the same socio-economic bracket, the number of abortions in subsequent years was reduced by nearly 2,000 per year.
".... changes in contraceptive policy simulating the Contraceptive CHOICE Project would prevent as many as 62–78% of abortions performed annually in the United States."
The study -- done by Jeffrey F. Peipert, Tessa Madden, Jenifer E. Allsworth and Gina M. Secura at the Washington University School of Medicine -- concludes that this is a "a clinically and statistically significant reduction in abortion rates," supporting the idea that "Unintended pregnancies may be reduced by providing no-cost contraception and promoting the most effective contraceptive methods."
Providing "no-cost contraception" is exactly what Obamacare would do, if not gutted or repealed by Republicans.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
