Ignoring media's treatment of Kerry, Will asserted that "[t]he journalistic rule is that conservatives pander, liberals 'grow' "
In his March 8 column, titled "Three Good Options for the Right," Washington Post columnist George F. Will asserted that, when reporting on politicians' shifting positions on issues, "[t]he journalistic rule is that conservatives pander, liberals 'grow.' " Will claimed that when Democrats "[former Vice President] Al Gore, [Rep.] Dick Gephardt [MO], [Rev.] Jesse Jackson and [Rep.] Dennis Kucinich [OH] changed from being pro-life to pro-abortion, their conversions, a price of admission into Democratic presidential politics, were often described as conscientious 'growth.' " By contrast, Will argued, when Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) reversed his opposition to President Bush's 2001 tax cuts, the media "called [it] pandering," presumably to conservative voters. But in arguing that the media have not previously criticized Democratic presidential candidates for allegedly changing their positions, Will ignored the media's repetition of the Republican smear of 2004 Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John F. Kerry (MA) as a "flip-flopper" on a variety of issues. Further, contrary to Will's assertion, Gore, Gephardt, Jackson, and Kucinich have all been assailed in the media for allegedly "flip-flopping" on abortion in order to get elected.
Throughout the 2004 presidential campaign, the media -- echoing Republican attacks -- frequently labeled Kerry a "flip-flopper." Following are several examples:
- A July 9, 2004, Washington Times editorial echoed GOP talking points by accusing Kerry of "performing an ideological flip-flop," claiming that McCain, not Sen. John Edwards (D-NC), was Kerry's first choice for vice president.
- San Diego Union-Tribune editor Robert J. Caldwell wrote of Kerry in an October 31, 2004, column: "Serial flip-flops are not the hallmark of strong wartime leaders."
- Philadelphia Daily News sports writer Kevin Mulligan referred to Kerry as "Sen. Flip-Flop" in an October 27, 2004, article.
- An October 26, 2004, Boston Herald editorial claimed Kerry had "a propensity for flip-flops."
- A July 19, 2004, Washington Times editorial, offered up several misleading examples of what the Times editorial board characterized as Kerry "flip-flopping."
Further, media figures often uncritically reported Republicans' characterizations of Kerry as a "flip-flopper":
- On the July 6, 2004, edition of CNN Live Today, anchor Daryn Kagan and senior political analyst Bill Schneider portrayed a comment Kerry made about Edwards as a "classic" example of "what the Republicans are trying to get across, that [Kerry is] a flip-flopper, he can't make up his mind, he says a negative thing then immediately he takes it back."
- On the October 25, 2004, and November 3, 2004, editions of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, NBC News chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell uncritically referred to Republican efforts to attack Kerry as a "flip-flopper." On the July 10, 2003, edition of NBC News' Nightly News, Mitchell again uncritically reported that Republicans had attacked Kerry for purportedly committing "a series of flip-flops on the Iraq issue."
- A September 28, 2004, Washington Times news article -- headlined "Bush attacks Kerry's flip-flops" -- uncritically reported "flip-flop" accusations against Kerry.
Kerry was also repeatedly labeled an "opportunist" by those in the media:
- In an October 24, 2004, Slate.com feature, senior writer Timothy Noah stated that, even though he was planning to vote for Kerry, he "disliked" him because "[h]e's pompous, he's an opportunist, and he's indecisive." Noah went on to say of Kerry's service in Vietnam: "I can't suppress the uncharitable suspicion that what drew him there wasn't patriotism so much as a preppy passion for physical challenge and the urge to buff his future political resume."
- According to an October 25, 2004, Associated Press report, in its editorial endorsing Bush for president, The Forum (Fargo, North Dakota) "called John Kerry an 'opportunist' who changes positions when it fits his political ambitions."
- In an October 24, 2004, column, Jay Ambrose, Scripps Howard News Service's director of editorial policy, asserted that "John Kerry is mostly worse [than Bush], an opportunist whose own views are so slippery that just about the time you think you have a grip on one it has squirted out of sight and a new view is being dangled before your eyes."
- In her October 21, 2004, syndicated column, Linda Chavez stated: "Mr. Kerry isn't a mere political opportunist but a man who knowingly engages in deceit and is so contemptuous of those who disagree with him that he underestimates their intelligence and their character."
- On the October 3, 2004, edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol referred to Kerry as an "an opportunist and a triangulator," and accused Kerry of "flip-flops ... inconsistencies," and "weakness."
Additionally, contrary to Will's suggestion, media figures have criticized Gore, Gephardt, Jackson, and Kucinich for allegedly "flip-flopping" on abortion to get elected:
- In a February 14, 1988, Los Angeles Times op-ed, contributor Bill Schneider asserted: "Gephardt's problem is that he has a record of flip-flops on the issues. He has reversed himself on abortion, the 1981 tax cut, tuition tax credits, the MX missile and a freeze on Social Security benefits."
- A 1992 editorial in Georgia's Augusta Chronicle, titled "Gore's Hypocrisy," stated, "For real flip-flops on the abortion issue, opinion-molders ought to look at the record of Sen. Al Gore, D-Tenn." The Chronicle went on to accuse Gore of having "a long history of tailoring his views to suit his career objectives."
- A June 6, 1988, Chicago Tribune editorial alleged that Jackson had shifted positions on abortion for political gain: "[B]y 1984, candidate Jackson shifted like a reed in the wind, so that he now defends federal funding of the very same form of 'genocide' that once seemed to outrage him. On the flip- flop factor, Jesse Jackson is a black Dick Gephardt."
- A March 4, 2004, column by Akron Beacon Journal (Ohio) columnist Steve Hoffman accused Kucinich of engaging in "flip flop[ping]" from "anti-abortion to pro-abortion" while "rehabilitat[ing] his populist image."
From Will's March 8 column:
The journalistic rule is that conservatives pander, liberals "grow." When Al Gore, Dick Gephardt, Jesse Jackson and Dennis Kucinich changed from being pro-life to pro-abortion, their conversions, a price of admission into Democratic presidential politics, were often described as conscientious "growth." But when McCain, who opposed President Bush's tax cuts, concludes on the basis of the humming economy that they should be made permanent, it's called pandering.
Yeah, well, this is all part of the right wing affinity to BLAME EVERYONE ELSE, their propensity to PLAY THE VICTIM, to carry the weight of the world as if they were martyrs. I don't know if the religious fanatics learned it from the hardcore political extremists (or vice versa), but it is a trait they share -- that and hating America, two of their fortes.
George Will is a lost cause, a passive-aggressive wallflower of the kooky right and a truly detached and prissy pundit. The conservatives are crying like infants now and I wonder, will we have to scrape them off the walls come Election Day in 2008?
In the alternate universe in which these rightwingers dwell, negative reporting on Democrats is factual, fair, and deserved.
Negative reporting on Republicans is attack politics, unfair, and the result of the "Liberal Media" picking sides, destroying opponents.
NO AMOUNT OF FACTUAL rebuttal to these notions will deter the rightwinger from constantly playing the VICTIM in their universe, where Republicans are constant VICTIMS, and Democrats always on the attack. And it's always UNFAIR. And the PRESS is complicit.
In the Rightwing alternate universe, Bill Clinton never got any bad press. None of his "scandals" were covered. Hillary gets only glowing praise in the Media. Rightwing voices cannot be heard, while raging LIBERALS dominate the media landscape.
This is their world, where REALITY cannot enter. To be a proper Rightwinger, one must be willfully ignorant and constantly deluded, and most importantly, one must look through the lens of the constant VICTIM, being assailed from all quarters. Makes no difference if your side has the Lion's share of money and power ... the way to get MORE is to snivel and whine and cry "FOUL!" at every juncture. "CLASS WARFARE!" "ACTIVIST JUDGES!" "POLITICAL CORRECTNESS!" Whine, snivel, and complain. Oh, and keep launching those baseless characterizations against those dirty Dems, while blaming them for "fighting dirty".
Don't try to argue this with a Rightwinger ... they BELIEVE their alternate universe is REAL, so they have no basis for a logical discussion. Any discussion must be REALITY FREE.
How's this for the ultimate hypocrisy?
[link to news.yahoo.com]
Yeah, but...
He says it is not hypocrisy (of course) because he didn't lie about it under oath. So you mean to tell me that if Clinton had initially told the truth in his deposition that Gingrich et all would not have had a problem with his indiscretions? Yeah, somehow, I doubt it. They would have been out for his head anyway, regardless.
The "liberal media" canard is part of a calculated strategy (see"The Republican Noise Machine"). But methinks it's wearing thin. If there was ever a particle of truth to it, it's like the Monty Python "Denis Moore/Robin Hood" skit, where the former rich are sitting buck naked in their unfurnished castles, and the bejeweled former poor live in lavishly furnished huts.There's no way Gingrich could run with a story like that hanging over him. If it's in Yahoo news it's already gone mainstream. Liberal or pandering, nobody can resist a good scandal.
I think I have ya beat!!!!!
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/feb/07022807.html
I drive around in my truck with a blurb regarding this on the tailgate. Must bring awarenss ya know.
afraid you haven't got anybody beat:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15081351/site/newsweek
Sorry, I think so. Everyone knows the Republicans are corrupt. But the ACLU? The Goodie Goddies of the bunch? LOLOLOLOL...........
EvilLib, I agree. As a life long member of the ACLU I expect more. I was and still am so very dissapointed that the ACLU didn't even acknowledge this creep on their web site. It lead me to tear up my ACLU card and quit. I never liked their defence of NAMBLA nor other child porn cases, but then again I didn't like them sticking up for neonazis and the KKK but understood that sometimes they had to take unpopular stances to preserve the Bill of Rights. This beats the pants off of the Foley story.
Bing, Don't let your shredded ACLU card story get out......to many here, they are more sacred than tax increases.
;)
Easy now! it wasn't an easy decision and I don't accept that they couldn't take a moment to distance themselves from this creep and to perhaps show some regret. Back in the 50s the ACLU almost split in two because their was a faction that said communism is constitutionally protected and the other faction thought it was anti-liberty and not constitutional. They should do the same with pedophelia and stop representing NAMBLA or any other individual who's been convicted of the despicable act of child molestation. Many have argued how far should the ACLU go, I have come to the conclusion that they are defending rights that harm the liberties of children. The ACLU needs to define without a doubt how they feel about this subject. The fact that their national web site doesn't mention it as a topic is just too much for me. It's a crying shame.
TOMMY:
So you think "tax increases" are "sacred" to Liberals?
I'll add some context to your claim. First, Liberals love America, and wish her to do very well indeed. We became the greatest nation on earth in large part because of our PROGRESSIVE policies ... equality for women and minorities, safety nets for our needy, an abiding belief in JUSTICE and rule of law, that sort of Liberal governance. (Oh, and a Democrat President won World War II.)
Running a nation, especially one which believes in humane treatment for all, is expensive, and we Liberals believe that citizens in this great land are obligated to pay for its maintenance.
As believers in DEMOCRACY, we Liberals accept the system of electing representatives, who then pass laws which address concerns of us all, Social Security for example. The law is passed democratically, by majority vote, and that POLICY becomes part of the obligation of all Americans, just as funding a standing army or building roads is an obligation of government.
So, do we Liberals think "tax increases" are "sacred", as you so sneeringly suggest? Not at all. We Liberals simply think that the obligations of this nation be covered, NOT by deficit spending as Republicans favor, but by taxing citizens at a rate which covers the expenses. This is called "responsible", while the Republican's easy (and gutless) policy of constant tax CUTS (which go disproportionately to the very wealthy) is IRRESPONSIBLE. (The IRRESPONSIBLE is often "popular", because taking responsibility can be a drag ... ask any teenager!)
So, while you attempt to smear and characterize Liberals, you instead reveal YOURSELF. We both sit down for a meal, which we enjoy. The Liberal pays for his meal, and YOU would walk away from the table, not paying for the meal and stiffing the waitress. Somehow, you garner from that, that you have some form of VIRTUE which Liberals lack.
What's "SACRED" to Liberals is taking responsibility. What's "sacred" to you rightwingers? Free Rides? Unjustified wars? Record earmarks and deficits while "cutting taxes"? Scoffing at laws? Virtue my butt.
Brave of you, though, to keep trying to promote the fictional rightwing narratives and talking points, despite America seeing clearly how "Republicans having their way" impacts the nation so badly in so many ways.
I was and still am so very dissapointed that the ACLU didn't even acknowledge this creep on their web site.
What would you have them say? That guy's crimes have nothing to do with the ACLU. They are his and his alone.
Rusty,
Pick yourself up from the floor, but I actually agree with you on this.....the ACLU is not complicit nor do they shoulder any blame for this slimeball's actions. They don't owe their members any mention of it, I agree.......but I do think it would be a commendable gesture if they made a statement.
I suppose they could, but then the Arlington Little League, of which he was also president, would have to issue a statement, and so on and so on.
But when Foley(sp?) had his little thang, everyone here blamed the Republican base. " Why should this be any different?
EL, because the Republican leadership knew about Foley's transgressions and didn't do anything to stop him (until much later). That's not the case here. This creep's actions had nothing to do with the ACLU.
Fine, good argument.
Um, the Republican leadership was blamed because THEY KNEW ABOUT FOLEY'S HABIT OF CHATTING UP YOUNG BOYS (as early as 1995) AND DID NOTHING ABOUT IT.
So unless the ACLU knowingly harbored a pedophile, the entire story (linking him to the ACLU) is an exercise in slanted journalism. If he was the head of a NRA chapter, I doubt we'd hear a peep about that.
Randy
sorry, but the president of the virginia chapter of the virginia aclu chapter isn't anymore representative of the entire organization than mark foley is representative of republicans in general.
the reason the foley story is notable here is because it is a case of actual hypocrisy. championing efforts to limit privacy and access on the internet because "we gotta stop 'em from preyin' on minors" while actually using the internet to prey on minors....that's hypocrisy. what this aclu idiot did, while disgusting and reproachable, was not hypocritical.
not to mention the fact that mark foley was an actual active member of the u.s. government. somehow that strikes me as kind of important.
you and bing can share your high five and a cookie, though. i can see it's important to you both.
sorry about the typos!!
Damn right it is important to me. Goes to show, no matter who you are, who you represent, there are freaks in the closet you are so proud of. No one is above dishonesty.
You are correct that this one creep doesn't represent the ACLU as a whole. And I'm not fooling that I have been a member for all of my adult life. I've worn pins and put bumperstickers on my car etc. I have stuck up for them here on this board before and in the editorial pages of my local paper. I take no joy in leaving, nor do I wish to high five anyone about it. I simply can't reconcile how the ACLU views child pornography any longer. I do expect them to clarify their position esp. in the light of this jerk getting caught, while sitting on the local ACLU board and fighting against internet censorship. One I find it a morally repugnant act to not address it at all. A press release condemning his actions or a clarification of their stand on child porn is a long time coming. There is also the perception in the public that bothers me. And the ACLU makes no effort to remedy that. I do expect some accountability. Incidentally there is a group called savetheaclu who is miffed at how Anthony romero is running the show. I'm not alone in this.
As far as the press is concerned, the lack of reporting on this is not a symptom of a liberal media bias. Child porn and pedophelia are naturally repulsive and don't sell newspapers or get advertisers. I think it's as simple as that.
I agree, Bing. The ACLU needs to do a better job of educating the public about what it is and what its positions are. It has a serious image problem. It may indeed be time for new leadership, because the current leadership isn't dealing effectively with these issues.
thanks Rusty,
Ironically the head of savetheaclu is actually the ACLUs old boss, Ira Glasser.
Another dead-on whine from Tex; while alledging that "rightwingers" play the vicitm, he subtly injects that they are the ones with the "lions share of money and power" - poor, penniless leftwingers who are fighting the good fight against the mean, reality-devoid rightwingers.....what an uphill climb rich in classic victim mentality.
And this piece by George Will is an opinion piece by an admitted conservative columnist - not some conspiratorial slam against the left. You can disagree with his assessments, fine - but to charge anymore than that is more whining.
As for the pandering/growth by politicians - they are all guilty of it. Any politician that tailors their views and opinions towards who they are speaking to at the moment are panderers, good example is McCain. Those politicians that sincerely alter their views after circumstances or events, are not.
well, there you go again tommy, telling other people how they should think
No, please think for yourself. If my opinion looks like an admonition to you, then how strong are your opinions?
Tommy, you are really getting into your strawman defense these days. I'm a little diappointed, you used to bring more to the table.
I don't see where Tex says there is any sort of conspiracy. He (he?) is merely pointing to a particular tone that suffuses a lot of conservative rhetoric. Tex mentions the wealth of the vast majority of these pundits to point out their hypocrisy.
You don't attack the substance of Tex's remarks but object to a subtext you and you alone assert is hidden there... which seems to be exactly what you accuse Tex of doing.
The substance? Where? It's the same old thing with Tex nearly every post - evil, bloodthirsty, corrupt, greedy rightwingers and the poor pitiful little guy - otherwise known as his liberals. It's his view, fine - just as mine is.
And for him to accuse the right of playing the victim card is laughable. Read his posts, he is constantly whining about the inequities of our system and the right and all their money and power, which is also ridiculous. If you can't see the victim mentality in that, I'm sorry - it's quite obvious to me.
And I most certainly addressed Will's point in his opinion article......so you must have missed that.
Yes, you did address Will's opinion with the same argument you've made many times before, i.e., it's an opinion, not misinformation. However, Will actually states his opinion as being a journalistic rule.
In any event, you over-use the "opinion, not misinformation" defense. Stating something as an opinion does not automatically preclude all challenges, especially when the opinion is grounded in dubious assertions. Also, some opinions are actually nothing more than assertions hiding as an opinion.
The "journalistic rule" is within his opinions. And I agree with you, opnions are very much open to challenges - they are just not necessarily misinformation; as they are not presented as facts in an unbiased article or on a broadcast that is pushing a certain point of view.
What they are, are the opinions of one writer based on his view of a certain political issue or topic of the day. Challengeable?, absolutely. Intentionally misinformation of facts?, No. Facts and opinions are not the same thing.
In this case, Tommy, Will states his opinion as a fact. However, even if his assertion was clearly stated as opinion, his basis is a biased presentation of evidence. The omission of contrary evidence is not only misleading, but completely relevant to the point of which Will is attempting to convice the reader.
Right on, Tex. 100% accurate.
Ann Coulter's recent blather:
"[Libby's recent conviction on perjury and obstruction of justice] makes it official: It's illegal to be Republican."
is a good example of what you just wrote. I am not one for generalities, but sadly what you said is apparently more true than not these days.
Tabkhan, your analysis of Will is right on. Back in the David Brinkley days (not the current show) I actually thought he had something to say, but that respect was broken when he "pandered" to Bill Gates because he owned Microsoft stock. Passive-aggressive and prissy are perfect adjectives to this toothless lion in winter. Fade away, George.
What an idiot. George Will can only be hoping we haven't seen a single news program or newspaper in the past twenty years, and if that's the case, then we aren't reading his column.
"Calculating", "flip flopper", "doesn't know who he is", "insincere" -- Hillary, Kerry, Gore, Bill -- every pundit, every day.
Gosh, I am glad George cleared up for me the reasons that the Corporate media reverberate with the insinuations that Democrats vacillate endlessly seeking the political sweet spot, while Repugnants are decisive.
I NOW wonder why none of that media ever highlight the fact that the Repugnants were demonstrably wrong in every one of those firm decisions, while the indecisive Democrats landed on "Correct" almost every time?
the whole flip flop thing was just another gop talking point taken out of context and promoted by the media. they all ran that 10 second clip of kerry saying "i voted for it before i voted against it". he was speaking to a campaign rally and used it as a little joke. he went on to explain that there were two versions of the exact same bill, except one bill was paid for with a tax increase on the wealthy, and the other was not. so every senator did exactly the same thing. they voted for one and not the other.
WHAT???
Was Will in a coma during 2004?
"Flip-flopper! Flip-flop! Kerry the waffle!" There wasn't anything the man could say with any complexity without the "mainstream" media portraying it as a "flip-flop".
And the "waffle" reference was one from Clinton's Administration, as it was hurled at him so often, it even became Doonesbury's cartoon icon for him.
And what don't we hear near daily about Dem votes on the authorization to use force in Iraq? Clinton's? Edwards'?
I wish the liberals would grow a set. Heaven forbid we need it.
Snoopy, if you happened to pass by the No Spin Zone tonight,there was another pitiful "fair & balanced" set-up. Bernard Goldberg and Jane Hall (?), the "liberal.
They both agreed that Bill Mahers remarks about Cheney (factual observations) were disgraceful. Goldberg says he's "getting tired" of Ann Coulter, but she made her foggat remark with a "twinkle in her eye".Same with her saying the Jersey girls were happy their men were dead. Both of these things "made him laugh". Jane Hall responded that Ann Coulter "always has a response". Ouch!
I'm not saying the Fox liberal patsys are the left, but they're what a large audience has been convinced is the left, and unfortunately, they don't seem too far off from some actual representatives of mainstream liberal thought in their timidity.
I must have been feeling masochistic today, besides BilldO, I listened to Hugh Hewitt on the way home from work.I recently linked to his interview with General Wm. Odom, and how nice it was to hear somebody out of the military and not in politics give some straight answers to a GOP loofah boy like Hewitt.Odom just smacked Hewitt like an old rug.
Today Hewitt played parts of his interviews with L.A. Times OP-Ed writers (Joel Stein, Jonathan Chait, Rosa Brooks, I think), and it was embarrassing. I don't know if it's politeness, or just being so much more complex thinkers than Hewitt, but as these writers hemmed and hawed around Hewitt's childish loaded questions, I could actually imagine his target audience seeing them as wimpy.
Hewitt also mumbles asides that I don't think his guests can hear (They're talking over the phone), creating this weird scene where their thinking about a lame question( from a series of pre-written loaded questions) and trying to answer without providing an out-of-context sound bite paints them as "indecisive" or "soft".
I realize most liberals are aware of the media being ready to jump on them at any moment, but I'd like to see some of them just say "screw it" and start laying into these righty buttheads like they didn't care about newspaper subscriptions or votes.
I had to change some spelling. Let's see if "foggat" is profanity.
Chicago Tribune " Jesse Jackson is a black Dick Gephardt."
Black Dick Gephardt ? Isn't that the new Samuel Jackson/Christina Ricci flick? And why does that get by the censors, and quoting "f*gg*t" in context doesn't?
Those 3 options?
Lead, follow, or get the he-l-l out of the way.
They screwed up the 1st one, and refuse to do the 2nd one.
I think we can say "hell," we just can't say "f*ggot."
Who takes Will seriously anyway? Just because he states his opinions skillfully and civilly doesn't make him any less full of crap.
He does write, and opine for a well respected, and well read newspaper, so I'm thinking that there are people who do take him very seriously.
Oh, I agree. I meant my question rhetorically.
George Will lost any credibility he had when he lamented the great strides in treatment for AIDs because it lead to more homosexuality. I know what he was trying to say, and don't agree with it, but he really came off as a hateful person who didn't mind the suffering of AIDs patients. This was just a month or so ago.
The proof of the double standard is the treatment of Mitt Romney vs. John Kerry. Romney has flip flopped on stem cells, gay marriage, abortion, gun control, and even Bush's tax cuts. Yet, Romney is a golden boy in the media. Examples:
1) "Romney was unmistakable in his support for gay equality in 1994 and that he would now come out in favor of laws that explicitly ban gay equality indicates one of two possibilities: that his views about the rights of gays underwent a complete and utter transformation in a four-year period or that Romney did the math and figured that he would have a better chance of winning his party’s nomination if he ran to the right of John McCain."http://www.washblade.com/2006/12-22/view/columns/kirchick.cfm2) Brownback campaign: Romney's 'flip flops are enough to make John Kerry blush'WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Claiming "Mitt Romney's flip flops are enough to make John Kerry Blush," Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback's presidential campaign sharply criticized the Massachusetts Republican's record on abortion Monday evening.The attack from Romney's camp is the latest sign the race for the White House has already reached a feverish pitch eleven months before the first wave of voters weigh in.In a press release circulated Monday evening, Brownback's campaign claimed a Romney staffer falsely accused the Kansas Republican of once supporting abortion rights."This false allegation by the Romney campaign comes in light of recent evidence that Romney has switched positions on abortion at least three times," the press release said as it catalogued past statements Romney has made on both sides of the issue.http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2007/02/brownback-campaign-romneys-flip-flops.html3) After refusing to endorse President Bush’s tax cuts when he was governor, Mitt Romney has now made them a central part of his presidential campaign, stirring accusations that he is changing his position to appeal to GOP primary voters. In 2003, Romney stunned a roomful of Bay State congressmen by telling them that he would not publicly support Bush’s tax cuts, which at the time formed the centerpiece of the president’s domestic agenda. He even said he was open to a federal gas tax hike. “For a Republican governor, I thought it was interesting,” U.S. Rep. Michael Capuano (D-Somerville) said. “I don’t prejudge people, so I thought he might have the courage of his convictions, but I guess I was wrong.”http://polipundit.com/index.php?p=168194) In addition to abortion rights, in 2002 Romney sang the praises of embryonic stem cell research, showing no concern that such research resulted in the destruction of embryos. On June 13, 2002, Romney spoke at a bioethics forum at Brandeis University. In a Boston Globe story filed the next day, he was quoted as saying that he endorsed embryonic stem cell research, hoping it would one day cure his wife's multiple sclerosis. And he went on to say: "I am in favor of stem cell research. I will work and fight for stem cell research," before adding, "I'd be happy to talk to [President Bush] about this, though I don't know if I could budge him an inch." When pressed, however, Romney and his aides declined to offer an opinion on "therapeutic" or embryonic cloning. Two years into his governorship, in February 2005, Romney announced his opposition to stem cell research. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/222htyos.asp?pg=2