Fluffy Gregory, NBC's Press the Meat anchor and the former backup dancer for Gangsta Karl Rove, asked multiple-choice Mitt Romney what he would do as president when it came to a woman's right to choose.
Those things I think are consistent with my pro-life position. And I hope to appoint justices for the Supreme Court that will follow the law and the constitution. And it would be my preference that they reverse Roe V. Wade and therefore they return to the people and their elected representatives the decisions with regards to this important issue.
Anyone see the RomneySpeak part of Mitt's answer? Extra credit if you do.
Mitt hopes to appoint Supreme Court justices who will do what? "follow the law and the Constitution." But Mitt's preference (which just might determine his judicial nominations) is to reverse Roe. That is classic RomneySpeak. Roe is "the law." Roe has survived 38 years of anti-choice attacks...and it's still "the law"...just as it should be. But, and at the same time, Mitt prefers reversing Roe....which, call me crazy....would be not following the law, instead....it would be overturning law.
Mike Huckabee, former governor of Arkansas, former presidential primary candidate....and now, like Sarah of Wasilla....currently drawing a paycheck from Fox's recycle-of-losers bin....asked Mr. Romney a year ago a similar question....
HUCKABEE: Would you have supported a constitutional amendment that would have established the definition of life at conception?
Perhaps Romney answered "absolutely" because he knew that passing a constitutional amendment....of any kind...in our polarized political era........would be akin to snowballs not melting in the Gehenna of Fire (look it up).
Perhaps Mr. Romney simply had a change of heart from his position on choice 18 years ago....
"I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. [...] I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years, that we should sustain and support it and I sustain and support that law and the right of the woman to make that choice. [...] And you will not see me wavering on that."
The "you will not see me wavering on that" part is especially rich, don't you think? Parsing that phrase is even better....Is it that Massachusetts voters would not "see" Mitt "wavering" on Roe because he would have hid his flip-flop by wavering behind closed doors? Or, parsed another way....would Mitt have simply denied that he wavered after he....umm.....wavered? See how complicated it gets with the oily Mittster?
But....further complicating our "Desperately Seeking the True Mittster" quest ....Mitt Romney gave a justification for his support of Roe in 1994. He said "since Roe..has been the law for 20 years...we should sustain and support it...."
Now, it's 2012....Roe has been the law for 38 years....which if one discounts the need to flip-flop, I mean, mature and grow, for political reasons....would only strengthen Mitt's enthusiastic defense of Roe in 1994.
What does Mitt really believe about Roe? Quite frankly, I haven't a schmucking clue. Furthermore, is there anyone, anywhere who believes anything Romney is saying in this campaign? If that person is out there....please....can you explain where to buy the super-secret code thing that enables listeners to decipher RomneySpeak?
The Reverend takes pride in his fluency with WingerSpeak.....and all accomplished without a Rosetta Stone to boot.
But RomneySpeak? Seriously folks....it's entirely unintelligible.
About This Blog