Even A Broken Clock...
...is right twice a day.
Still, George Will's column today in Washington Post took me by surprise. I'm not used to seeing this kind of analysis from the esteemed Mr. Will. His subject? Moderate Republicans who suddenly start pandering to the Religious Reich wing of the party.
When an otherwise reasonable man starts to make no sense at all, it is standard practice in emergency rooms to test for West Nile virus or encephalitis or a bad reaction to one drug or another. If, however, that man is a politician, then no test is needed. Delirium is caused by running for president as a moderate Republican. No one can do that and keep his sanity.
I offer the recent statements of George Pataki, governor of New York, and Mitt Romney, governor of Massachusetts. Both men are coming to the conclusion that their country desperately needs them, and their thoughts have turned to a White House occupancy, sometime around January 2009.
Will points out that both Pataki and Romney have dramatically changed their positions on birth control (the morning after pill) and abortion just in time to visit Iowa.
Pataki has announced that he will not seek a fourth term, he has recently been to Iowa, and -- after an entire career spent as a pro-choice Republican -- he has said he will veto a bill that would have made the "morning-after" pill available without a prescription. He said he does not like making the drug available to minors, who, come to think of it, are precisely the ones most likely to need it. Go figure.
As [Romney] mulls a presidential run, he has been mulling abortion, too. He has discovered -- maybe in Iowa, where he, too, has been -- that his position has changed. He is no longer pro-choice, as he was during his 2002 gubernatorial race, when he issued a statement commendable for its brevity and common sense: "Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not mine and not the government's." That position has now been amended to something even briefer: Women should not have the right to choose. [Emphasis added]
But it is Will's conclusion that set me back on my heels:
It has become clear that a viable Republican presidential candidate must oppose abortion, stem cell research, the morning-after pill, gay marriage and, for good measure, evolution. At the very least, you have to offer a good word for "intelligent design," as the president did just the other day in the single dopiest statement of his presidency.
As Pataki and Romney have done, these Republicans might think that they can, in the heat of the moment, say whatever is necessary to gain the nomination and afterward revert to who they really are. But to both the left and the right they seem only blatantly opportunistic. It's an image that will stick. In politics, unlike sex, there is no morning-after pill. [Emphasis added]
What has that man been eating for breakfast lately?
Still, George Will's column today in Washington Post took me by surprise. I'm not used to seeing this kind of analysis from the esteemed Mr. Will. His subject? Moderate Republicans who suddenly start pandering to the Religious Reich wing of the party.
When an otherwise reasonable man starts to make no sense at all, it is standard practice in emergency rooms to test for West Nile virus or encephalitis or a bad reaction to one drug or another. If, however, that man is a politician, then no test is needed. Delirium is caused by running for president as a moderate Republican. No one can do that and keep his sanity.
I offer the recent statements of George Pataki, governor of New York, and Mitt Romney, governor of Massachusetts. Both men are coming to the conclusion that their country desperately needs them, and their thoughts have turned to a White House occupancy, sometime around January 2009.
Will points out that both Pataki and Romney have dramatically changed their positions on birth control (the morning after pill) and abortion just in time to visit Iowa.
Pataki has announced that he will not seek a fourth term, he has recently been to Iowa, and -- after an entire career spent as a pro-choice Republican -- he has said he will veto a bill that would have made the "morning-after" pill available without a prescription. He said he does not like making the drug available to minors, who, come to think of it, are precisely the ones most likely to need it. Go figure.
As [Romney] mulls a presidential run, he has been mulling abortion, too. He has discovered -- maybe in Iowa, where he, too, has been -- that his position has changed. He is no longer pro-choice, as he was during his 2002 gubernatorial race, when he issued a statement commendable for its brevity and common sense: "Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not mine and not the government's." That position has now been amended to something even briefer: Women should not have the right to choose. [Emphasis added]
But it is Will's conclusion that set me back on my heels:
It has become clear that a viable Republican presidential candidate must oppose abortion, stem cell research, the morning-after pill, gay marriage and, for good measure, evolution. At the very least, you have to offer a good word for "intelligent design," as the president did just the other day in the single dopiest statement of his presidency.
As Pataki and Romney have done, these Republicans might think that they can, in the heat of the moment, say whatever is necessary to gain the nomination and afterward revert to who they really are. But to both the left and the right they seem only blatantly opportunistic. It's an image that will stick. In politics, unlike sex, there is no morning-after pill. [Emphasis added]
What has that man been eating for breakfast lately?
posted by Diane at 5:15 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home