Mitt Romney is George Bush trying to be Bill Clinton.
(Chris Kelly is a writer on the Bill Maher show. He also writes a column on the Huffington Post. – promoted by Ben)
by Chris Kelly
TheHuffingtonPost.com
John McCain’s campaign just produced a new internet ad called “A Tale of Two Mitts.” (Get it? It’s a pun. Because “Mitt” and “City” are both words. Must be old people humor.)
The ad features Mitt Romney running for senator in 1994 and saying:
“I believe abortion should be safe and legal in this country.”
And then, when he was running for governor:
“I will preserve and protect a woman’s right to choose.”
But then, in a debate this year:
“You can go back to YouTube and look at what I said in 1994. I never said I was pro-choice but my position was effectively pro-choice and I’ve said that time and time again.”
Now, of course a person is allowed to change their mind, that’s the whole point of abortion. What’s reprehensible is to say one thing, then say another, then claim when you said the first thing you didn’t actually say it. Because, when you said the first thing, what you meant to say was something that sounded like that, but didn’t mean it.
“I didn’t say ‘pro-choice.’ I said, ‘effectively pro-choice.’ Except on those occasions when I flat out said I supported a woman’s right to choose. But cut me some slack. Remember, when I said that, I was trying to lie. The words just came out wrong. And by wrong, I mean right.”
What kind of idiot lies, and in his defense claims that he was trying to split hairs?
Mitt Romney is George Bush trying to be Bill Clinton.
But let’s pretend Mitt Romney always remembered to call himself “effectively pro-choice.” Is there a difference between that and plain old “pro-choice?”
What Mitt means is that he never did anything, in government (and presumably, Staples and the Olympics) to limit a woman’s access to an abortion. He wanted to be pro-life; he just never got around to it.
(“Sorry, Juno, you’re on your own. Go use your cheeseburger phone to call someone who gives a shit.”)
Mitt’s not bragging about this. He’s apologizing. But he’s also trying to make a distinction between endorsing an act and not preventing it; between a sin and a sin of omission.
Thomas Aquinas, of course, says there’s no useful distinction at all. A sin of omission follows from a sin of commission — the act of deciding not to do what’s right. This is why Aquinas tells us that the material difference between a sin of omission and a sin of commission is the same as the material difference between stabbing someone and strangling them. Which is to say, not fucking much.
But what did he know.
When Mitt Romney says “effectively” what he means is “the thing and its opposite.” The way, in the Michigan primary, he could claim his business experience — downsizing companies — gave him the expertise to create jobs.
Related posts: