The Abortion Obsession
Mitt Romney appeared on Fox News Sunday and predictably once again was asked about his shift on abortion. It seems that the abortion question has become an obsession with almost every reporter out there covering Romney.
What's remarkable is that a pro-life conversion is deemed worthy of almost constant questioning. Even if one conceded that Mitt Romney had decided to become pro-life in order to render himself more palatable to religious conservatives (not necessarily true, but even hypothetically), why does he face so much more scrutiny and question than pols for whom the door swung the other way?
A number of prominent Democrats -- including Jesse Jackson and Dick Gephardt -- were notably pro-life before becoming pro-choice, presumably to remain competitive in Democratic politics. Yet neither has ever faced the skepticism and second-guessing reserved for those who move the opposite way.
Why is it, in the media universe, that support for abortion is deemed to be the norm -- and any deviation from it suspect -- while support for life opens a candidate to constant scrutiny and attack?
What's remarkable is that a pro-life conversion is deemed worthy of almost constant questioning. Even if one conceded that Mitt Romney had decided to become pro-life in order to render himself more palatable to religious conservatives (not necessarily true, but even hypothetically), why does he face so much more scrutiny and question than pols for whom the door swung the other way?
A number of prominent Democrats -- including Jesse Jackson and Dick Gephardt -- were notably pro-life before becoming pro-choice, presumably to remain competitive in Democratic politics. Yet neither has ever faced the skepticism and second-guessing reserved for those who move the opposite way.
Why is it, in the media universe, that support for abortion is deemed to be the norm -- and any deviation from it suspect -- while support for life opens a candidate to constant scrutiny and attack?
posted by LadybugUSA at 2:48 PM
5 Comments:
A number of prominent Democrats -- including Jesse Jackson and Dick Gephardt -- were notably pro-life before becoming pro-choice, presumably to remain competitive in Democratic politics. Yet neither has ever faced the skepticism and second-guessing reserved for those who move the opposite way.
Are you suggesting that pro-life people failed to criticize these politicians for their changed position? Whatever caused the pro-life people to be so lax?
Why is it, in the media universe, that support for abortion is deemed to be the norm...
Is support for abortion deemed to be the norm on this blog? Is it deemed to be the norm by Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, and other conservative commentators?
while support for life opens a candidate to constant scrutiny and attack?
Are pro-choice candidates NOT exposed to constant scrutiny and attack by pro-life activists?
The point regards those candidates, or politicians, who's position on the subject changed. By MSM standards, it appears that one direction provokes more scrutiny than the other. My guess would be because the one direction, pro-abortion, is the preferred direction by liberal elements of the MSM, which is the larger element. In addition, when a GOP candidate flips on the issue, it is assumed that he's merely flipping for personal gain, in this case, more votes. Whereas for the lib candidate to flip TO a pro-abortion stance, in the opinion of lib media people, he's seen the light.
Mr.Art, I reject your reasoning as entirely subjective. It is your impression that all of the MSM are biased in favor of a liberal point of view. It is my impression that some of the MSM are biased in favor of a conservative point of view. So, are we reduced to butting heads over our "impressions"? Without any solid evidence here, we're all just blowing smoke.
It would be more subjective if there haven't been polls taken of journalists asking for their party of choice. Thus far, it shouldn't be news that a very large percentage are Dem voters. Thus, they ARE more likely to grill a GOP candidate in a different manner than a Dem. This is only human nature and journalists are, for all intents and purposes, humans.
Yes, it's true that journalists do lean towards the left in their personal politics. But remember, the owners of the media, such as Rupert Murdoch, exercise high-level control over editorial matters, and their political preferences overrule the political preferences of the journalists. I believe that these owners bias the overall result to the right. Can you gainsay me?
Post a Comment
<< Home