The Trouble With Mitt Romney (Part 3 of 5)
By Dan McLaughlin Posted in 2008 | 2008 Presidential Campaign | flip-flop | Mitt Romney — Comments (73) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The third of a five-part series on why Republicans who are serious about winning the White House in 2008 are wasting our time on Mitt Romney. For background, check out Part 1, Part 2, my explanation of why I'm with Rudy, and my take on Mike Huckabee.
III. What, Precisely, Does This Man Stand For?
In Part III, we take on the issue that has dogged Mitt Romney throughout his campaign for the presidency: the charge that he is a flip-flopper. The fact that he has that reputation is itself damaging, as John Kerry could tell you; it's not as if the Democrats will not know how to make maximum use of it if Romney wins the nomination (I'd advise him to avoid windsurfing in the interim just to be safe). What I'd like to explain here is precisely why it is that the flip-flop label sticks so easily to Romney when it doesn't seem to attach to other politicians who have changed their positions now and again.
Let's start with an obvious point: all politicians flip-flop, hedge and straddle from time to time. Indeed, in a representative democracy, this is arguably a good thing. Let's consider an obvious point: what if a candidate for public office is exceptionally well-qualified for the job and has positions you agree with on a number of important matters, but disagrees on a point that is relatively small, yet important to you personally? Would you rather the politician change his position? Is that better than rejecting a good candidate over one minor issue, or alternatively electing someone who takes a stance that troubles you? For most of us, if we are honest, the answer is yes; we want to be represented by people who will do what we want them to do. Voters like flip-flops; they reward flip-flops, especially when a candidate is moving from a local to statewide, or statewide to national electorates. Even Ronald Reagan, who was probably the most politically principled politician to win the White House in memory, changed some of his positions when he ran successfully in 1980, the most direct example of which was when he dropped his advocacy of repealing the Davis-Bacon Act to appeal to union voters.
That said, however, voters also want leaders, people who announce their commitment to clear, principled positions and stick to them, even if it means having to try dragging the voters away from their current views. As I have written previously, in a representative democracy, it's not necessarily fatal to hire leaders who echo what we want them to say, rather than what they'd do if they had their druthers. Many of our individual druthers, after all, aren't so well thought-out. But what matters more than anything is not a politician's fealty to his own internal principles but his ability to publicly take a principled position and stick to it. What we look for in leaders, especially presidents, is that ability: the willingness to say, "here I stand," let the voters judge the merits of that stand, and keep faith with your promises, even when the going gets rough.
This is doubly important in the presidency, because of the president's unique role in foreign policy - courage and constancy are vital virtues, even when that sometimes means not giving us what we want. Many voters in 2004 were closer in their own hearts to Kerry's studied ambivalence about Iraq than to Bush's stubborn commitment, but they respected Bush's leadership, and rewarded him with another term to carry on the job.
Put simply: flip-flops buy votes, but do so at an escalating cost to a politician's credibility. First, they erode a candidate's reputation as a leader; then, in time, they come to cast doubt even on the candidate's announced positions, creating fear that he will hold them only until a better offer comes along. Voters may not mind if you sold somebody else out to get their vote, but they will not vote for you if they expect you to sell them out as soon as he comes under fire. Which brings us to the four ways in which Romney's flip-flops have extracted a particularly high cost to his credibility, which can't be readily recovered in time for the 2008 election.
A. Frequency
The first problem with Romney's vulnerability to the flip-flop charge is simply that there are so many examples floating around of Romney changing his tune. Abortion is only the most notorious example. I'll pick over a few here and link to other, more detailed treatments of the issue. I can't vouch 100% for each source cited here, but the cumulative effect is pretty damning.
1. Abortion
Ben Domenech has gone into detail here and here about the collision between Romney's 2006 claim, while running as a committed pro-lifer, that he "never called myself pro-choice" and his 2002 position, which included declaring that "If the question is whether I will protect and defend a woman's right to choose, my answer is an unequivocal 'Yes,'" vowing that "I respect and will fully protect a woman's right to choose." and sending his running mate out to declare that abortion should be a non-issue in 2002 because "[t]here isn't a dime of difference between Mitt Romney's position on choice and [NARAL-endorsed] Shannon O'Brien". He even filled out Planned Parenthood and NARAL questionnaires in 2002 pledging to uphold Roe v Wade and support public funding for abortion.
Romney also appeared to change his position on stem cell research between 2002 and 2005, shifting from statements that appeared to suggest a broad, unqualified support to a more nuanced position that supported the destruction of IVF embryos but opposed cloning. But it's arguable that that's more a matter of coming out with a clearer position on an issue he had fudged in the past than actually altering his position.
2. Immigration
Leon Wolf has covered Mitt's immigration flip-flop in some detail. Romney initially supported, and then later became a vocal foe of, the Bush/McCain-Kennedy approach to comprehensive immigration reform. (More here). As I noted in the last installment, he also never did squat about sanctuary cities in Massachusetts, an issue about which he now professes to be deeply offended to the point of calling for federal funding to be cut off to coerce such cities to drop their policies.
3. Guns
Alphecca has a look at Romney's shifts on gun control, having supported the assault weapons ban and Brady Bill in the past and gone from saying "I don't line up with the NRA" to becoming a card-carrying member. Mitt has changed his tune significantly on guns. (More here).
4. The Bush Tax Cuts
Romney's shift on taxes is perhaps more a matter of political strategy than a genuine alteration of his positions. Romney now campaigns in favor of making the Bush tax cuts permanent, but as recently as 2003, during the battle in Congress for the larger part of those cuts, he pointedly refused to support them - sending his press secretary out to say that he would not be taking a position on the issue - and signalled that he was open to supporting a federal gas tax hike, with both positions earning praise from Barney Frank.
One related issue that deserves a little discussion here as well is the minimum wage. Romney has been accused more than a few times by left and right alike (see here and here) of flip-flopping on the minimum wage, especially after he campaigned on a promise to raise the minimum wage in Massachusetts and then vetoed a bill to do just that in 2006. Romney does, however, appear to have been genuinely consistent from 1994 through 2007 in arguing that the minimum wage should be indexed to inflation to provide for annual increases, a position consistent with his veto of an increase from $6.75 to $8/hour and counter-proposal of $7/hour. Romney's position is anything but friendly to business and economic growth, but he has been consistent.
5. Campaign Finance Reform
In 1994, Romney was for a variety of campaign finance reforms (go to about 1:25 in this video), including spending limits, abolishing PACs, and gift limits:
Now, he's posing as a champion of free speech, penning op-eds against McCain-Feingold and cheering the Supreme Court for its WRTL decision striking in part a McCain-Feingold issue ad ban.
The Washington Post details the extent of Romney's transformation on this issue:
"MY FEAR," former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney said at the Republican debate this month, "is that McCain-Kennedy would do to immigration what McCain-Feingold has done to campaign finance and money in politics, and that's bad." Mr. Romney has turned campaign finance reform into one of his stump villains -- which represents a dramatic . . . turnabout from his days running for office in Massachusetts.
Massachusetts Romney called for spending limits on candidates and a 10 percent tax on campaign contributions for state elections to finance publicly funded campaigns. Massachusetts Romney wanted to abolish political action committees because they wield too much power, and he bemoaned the influence of money in politics.
This isn't just a flip since 1994, but since 2002:
The Hill reports that in 2002 Mitt Romney advocated radical campaign finance reform:
"Mr. Romney campaigned in favor of clean elections, which provides public money to candidates for state office who meet strict fundraising requirements," the Telegram & Gazette reported. "But he suggested an alternative funding method. Instead of providing campaign funds from state coffers, his plan would tap 10 percent of the fundraising of candidates who choose to raise money privately."
Romney advocated taxing political contributions to support candidates who stayed within spending limits.
6. Other Issues
I'm not going to wade here - for time and space reasons - into the extent to which Romney's metamorphosis from claiming to be more gay-friendly than Ted Kennedy to battling against same-sex marriage represents a comprehensive change in opinion as opposed to a shift in tone in response to a new issue environment (Mitt has been consistently in favor of civil unions/domestic partnerships, and consistently opposed to same-sex marriage). If you want to examine the Romney record on those and other issues more broadly, Jim Geraghty walks through some key examples as well, including Romney's 1994 efforts to distance himself from the "Reagan-Bush" GOP. And consider the exhaustive laundry list compiled by Brian Camenker, a long-time Massachusetts conservative critic of Romney. Camenker is obviously a guy with an axe to grind and somewhat obsessed with gay rights issues (more on him here and the Romney camp's response to him here, including the necessary admission "FACT: Governor Romney Has Said He Has Been Wrong On Some Issues In The Past And Is Not Embarrassed To Admit It"). From the left side of the GOP spectrum, the Log Cabin Republicans have compiled a similar list covering much of the same ground. More here. Just to give a couple additional examples:
-Romney has reversed his past support for revising the military's "don't ask don't tell" policy.
None of this is to suggest that Romney is alone in shifting his positions - indeed, on each of the major issues above Romney has some company in the GOP field (Rudy and Huckabee on immigration, McCain on the Bush tax cuts, Fred on campaign finance reform, etc.). But the breadth of his portfolio of flip-flops is staggering.
B. Recency
A second problem, even beyond the sheer volume of Romney's shifts, is how quickly some of them have come. In a long career in public life, it's to be understood that some genuine changes of heart will come to almost anyone. A number of presidential candidates have run after abandoning or modifying long-ago positions on abortion (Bush and Gore in the 70s, Reagan in the 60s), just to pick a prominent example. Some even switched parties over time.
But a perusal of the record of Romney flip-flops includes a distressing number of examples of things he did and said as recently as the 2002 campaign, the 2003 Bush tax cut fight, his 2005 position on abortion, and 2006 statements on immigration, as well as conservative positions he took for the first time in 2006 or 2007. For a man with such limited experience in public office, the most charitable thing you can say is that he is learning as he goes along - hardly an endorsement of the man as being ready for prime time as leader of his party and leader of the Free World.
C. Plausibility
This can be intimately tied to the problems of frequency and recency, but in Romney's case it's a particular sore spot with his abortion flip-flop. If a politician expects people to believe that his change of heart on an issue was at least in part something other than naked political expediency, he needs to offer some sort of plausible justification for the change. George W. Bush, for example, ran as essentially a pro-choicer for Congress in 1978; when he ran again as a pro-lifer for Texas Governor in 1994, 16 years had passed, and Bush had undergone a life-changing religious awakening and quit drinking. Whether or not people believed that politics played a role in the initial or later positions or the change, the relevant point is that there were legitimate and plausible reasons to think that by 1994, the position he took was the one he really believed in.
In Romney's case, he not only hasn't provided a plausible explanation for several of his shifts, he has (1) tried at times to deny his prior positions and (2) provided explanations for his changes of heart that strain credulity to the breaking point.
Leon has been through this before on the abortion issue: it's not just that Mitt says he changed his mind on abortion, or that he tells us what sounds, at first, like a plausible story of having thought through the issue seriously for the first time during the stem cell debate:
Romney said the turning point for him on abortion came when he was looking at the issue of stem cells. In the past, Romney has supported limited government funding for stem-cell research. But Romney said he found stem-cell researchers casually cloning and farming embryos in Orwellian labs.
"The slippery slope was taking us to racks and racks of living human embryos, Brave New World-like, awaiting termination. What some see as just a clump of cells is actually a human life," Romney said.
He came out strongly against any expansion of stem-cell research during Friday's speech at the pro-life convention.
"For me, a bright moral line is crossed when we create new life for the sole purpose of experimentation and destruction. That's why I fought to keep cloning and embryo farming illegal in our state. And by the way, I'm not just talking about federal funding or state funding. I mean illegal."
Romney said the battle over stem cells in Massachusetts made him also realize that abortion is wrong. He says he no longer views abortion as a personal choice but a societal issue. Romney described Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion, as continuing "to work its destructive logic throughout our society."
Yet, Romney peddled an equally plausible story in 1994 of what made him a pro-choicer; I'll excerpt the most damning parts of Leon's piece:
On abortion rights, Kennedy took the offensive. Recounting his sponsorship of the Freedom of Choice Act and the clinic access law, Kennedy said: "I am pro- choice, my opponent is multiple choice."
Demanding an extra rebuttal, Romney revealed that a close relative died of an illegal abortion years ago.
"Since that time my mother and my family have been committed to the belief that we can believe as we want, but we will not force our beliefs on others on that matter, and you will not see my wavering on that," he vowed.
+++
[H]e "opened a window on his personal life, saying that his pro-choice stand developed because a member of his family had died after an illegal abortion." He said that the woman was "my brother-in-law's sister and a very close family hriend," who died in the '60s, when Romney would have been in his teens and early 20s. Romney, on his abortion position at the time: "I hadn't thought about it much." He added that the relative's death "obviously makes one see that regardless of one's beliefs about choice that you would hope it would be safe and legal."
I just don't know how you can read both sets of conversions and consider Romney's account remotely plausible. St. Paul only went to Damascus the one time.
Guns is another example of Romney's efforts straining credulity: Romney sought to gloss over the pro-gun-control elements of his record by boldly declaring, "I've been a hunter pretty much all my life," but had to back down when further investigation turned up nothing resembling a history of hunting. (More here). (I'll go next time in more detail into why this episode bothered me particularly).
And yet, rather than take the Rudy or McCain approaches of acknowledging himself as a less than orthodox member of a conservative party, Romney has had the effrontery to pass himself off as the principled conservative in the race, saying on national TV that besides abortion, "on other issues, my positions have been very consistent with my principles and my views" and declaring that "I do speak for the Republican wing of the Republican Party."
D. Centrality
All of this might be forgivable in a politician who was laboring to avoid having minor issues derail an otherwise strong case for his election, or who was running mainly on a long and distinguished record as opposed to an issue-driven campaign. But the really fatal thing, the thing that more than any other single factor makes me leery of Romney, is that he has shifted positions on issues that he now promotes as being central to his appeal.
If you look at the other major GOP contenders, what you see is candidates with a core of issues that represent their basic reason for being in public life. Rudy started off fighting crime, welfare and the other scourges of big-city liberalism, and after September 11 has been a man on a mission to get back at the Islamist extremists who attacked his city. Fred is a long-time believer in federalism, trying to revive the principles of the 1994 GOP wave that brought him to public office. McCain is first and foremost a patriot and a warrior, a man who stood for his warrior's code even under torture and imprisonment. Huckabee is a former Baptist minister who sells himself as the champion of rural, Christian values. In each case, the pitch works to some extent because there is a lifetime of experience behind it that enables each candidate to say: this is who I am, judge me by the miles I have walked.
What Mitt lacks is that same identifiable core that says "this is why I'm running; these are the things that are really important to me." In fact, if anything he has been placing very heavy emphasis on his social conservatism and hard-line position on immigration - the very issues on which he has flipped most dramatically. The others may be mistrusted by various groups of conservatives, but at least on their core issues, we know Rudy won't sell us out in the battle against Islamic extremists, McCain won't turn his back on the troops, Fred won't buy into some scheme to expand big Washington government, Huckabee won't turn his back on Christian values and the unborn. But there is no faction in the GOP that can say with certainty that Mitt will never sell them out.
In this sense, Romney revives memories of George H.W. Bush, like Romney a man of unquestioned personal integrity, a good family man and successful businessman but also a man wholly without political principles, who campaigned as the heir of the Reagan Revolution but ended up giving us tax hikes, a raft of liberal legislation, an adventure in Somalia, David Souter, and, in the end, Bill Clinton. Bush didn't sell us out again and again and again because he was a bad or dishonest man or a closet liberal; he just kept finding the path of least resistance to be running away from the principles he campaigned on, and lacked the core convictions to push back. The Romney record is nothing if not a series of searches for the positions that will be most convenient and popular for him at any given point in time. It's not that Romney's lying to us; but we really are fools if we believe that he will fight tomorrow for the things he says he believes today.
In the next installment: How Romney campaigns like a Democrat, and why that's a problem.
Great post, of course!
This is the best piece I have read about Romney. It details the problem many of us have with Mitt, and it gives multiple sources.
The only thing I'm left with is this: Do I go with Romney (a stealth candidate if we ever saw one), or an unapologetic liberal like Rudy (whom you endorse). What a sad field we have this year. I still haven't found anyone I can feel proud of voting for.
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" - Defoe
How many parts would need to be in THAT series? LOL :-)
is the haters that can not get over themselves. The only candidate right now with a "problem" is Fred. The reason he has a problem is that his platform is the most acceptable, yet he is under performing. That is the deffinition of a political problem. Rudy has no problem, Huck has no problem. They may not get the nomination, but both are over performing.
Molon Labe!
As in, he doesn't have one for me. I could happily and proudly vote for him in a general election (He is however my 4th choice as of today), but he certainly doesn't inspire me, give me great confidence, or make me want to hit the pavement for him.
And I think that in 2008, we need someone who will really generate some enthusiasm across the board - someone people rally to for positive reasons, as opposed to the general negative rallying that will come from the anti-Hillary movement (heaven help us if the Dems throw her to the curb and eliminate one of our big motivational factors).
we can fuse various attractive attributes into one Super Candidate.
Alas, the technique is not covered under HillaryCare.
"I can't vouch 100% for each source cited here, but the cumulative effect is pretty damning."
That statement is pretty damning of your piece.
The worst kind of attack is a laundry-list of "maybe this is true." A lot of could-be doesn't add up to much. I also notice that some things are your list aren't even position changes, he just hadn't made a statement on it before.
That aside, there is something to be said for Romney's method for staking out positions. He doesn't equivocate. He comes out and says what he's for, what he's against, and why. True, that makes him an easier target for flipping charges, because it generates more solid quotes, some of which will contradict each other in the space of a few years. On the other hand, unlike other candidates he doesn't have to waffle, prevaricate, and flip-flop mid-sentence ("strict constructionists!" vs. "another Roe decision would be fine either way"; "HLA would be terrible! It would violate states' rights!" vs. "HLA would be great, but it's just not practical"; anything Clinton says; etc.).
A conversion (especially after experience as a governor in a liberal state) is much more credible than moment-to-moment flip-flopping.
Certainly the cites to other RS sources, and for the most part the MSM sources, are well-grounded. It's more things like the Camenker piece that I haven't 100% verified. You can never know when you are working with this much material if there's a lurking objection to something in the list.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
Did you just critisize Giuliani for flip-flopping on abortion right after defending Mitt Romney's position?
O_o
I give him a pass on not taking a stance on the Bush tax cuts, switching to support NCLB as many conservatives did, and deciding to support employer mandates.
Unfortunately, I don't see a single issue where the problem is that he states things very plainly. He completely changed his position 180 degrees on abortion, civil unions, the awful immigration bill, the Brady Bill, and campaign finance reform. And what does he bash Giuliani for? His position on abortion, civil unions, and guns! The only reason he lines up better with social conservatives is because he changed his positions from 2003 to 2005 to better line up with social conservatives.
It's not a "problem" that Romney states things very plainly. It's that it leaves him more open to initial attacks.
The short it is that Romney made a one-shot, clean change before this campaign. On the other hand, see my examples of Giuliani and Thompson, who waffle around mid-campaign, and even mid-sentence! That is real flip-flopping. It's what Kerry did, and what Clinton is doing.
That Romney is fighting over these issues now - dedicating himself to these positions in the context of this campaign - is a good thing. It's a reason to trust him more on these issues.
.....advocated the "new tone", signed Teddy Kennedy's federalization of education, signed into law a HUGE entitlement expansion, pushed for amnesty, and appointed (or attempted to appoint) a liberal to the supreme court?
That's the guy most people here voted for twice and maybe even campaigned for. Bottom line, people need to quit splitting hairs and wake up to the fact that we actually DO have a field of pretty solid candidates. Probably the best field since 1980 to be honest (and 1980 was only great because of one person).
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
and yes, I have my problems with Rudy, even though he remains my guy in '08.
The issue is, how bad are a candidate's problems and what are the offsetting strengths he brings to the table? And a big part of what I have been trying to accomplish here is collect all the problems with Romney and explain why he doesn't have the strengths to offset them - it's not just that he lacks a rock-solid record on the issues, or that he lacks experience in public office, etc., it's that when you add those things up you have a guy who doesn't have the core base of reasons to like him to overcome all the baggage. I view each of the other Big Four candidates as having more significant things going for them than Mitt does, which is why I'd probably prefer any of them to him, despite their various flaws.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
Fred: Running a terrible campaign, doesn't have the fire or passion to win. This guy is just going through the motions. He's right on the issues, but he doesn't have what it takes to run a NATIONAL campaign against the Clinton machine.
Rudy: I like him - I can stomach is pro-choice and pro-gay stances. I'm not so sure about others though. Plus, now we find out that the Kerik trial may likely be going on during the middle of the general election and Rudy may be called to testify - not good.
Romney: I disagree with you. I DO trust him and DO believe he will govern as he is campaigning. He has the money, energy, and organization to compete with Shrillary too. Why would STAUNCH conservatives like Paul Weyrich, Judd Gregg, Jim DeMint, Pete Hoekstra (on and on and on) support him if they didn't believe he was genuine?
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
Rudy and McCain have many fine endorsements too.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
...why would my conservative governor Matt Blunt endorse him, along with Jim Talent? Would these people stake their reputation on a "phoney flip-flopping hack?" The fact is, when Romney actually goes somewhere, he wins people over.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
I'm not sure that Romney can win over the voters he really needs--independent voters. In most polls he trails Hillary more than any of the other GOP candidates. Probably they are most aware of his flip-flops--running to the left to win Massachusetts, then to the right to win the GOP presidential nomination.
As a pro-life Catholic, I have a lot of trouble with Giuliani's pro-choice stance, but he did govern as a conservative in a very liberal city, and knows how to deal with a hostile press. He can win!
The bad news: Conservatism is hard to sell. The good news is that it works.
First, the numbers. Most of these people vaguely recognize Romney's name from the MSM, which isn't exactly kind to any Republican candidate (with the possible exception of the largely liberal Huckabee). The difference between Romney and Giuliani, Thompson, or McCain is that people are more familiar with those three, and so are less affected by MSM attacks.
As people get to know Romney, they'll form their own opinions of him. The pattern so far has been that people have liked him as they've learned more about him (unlike other candidates such as Thompson).
As for independents. For better or worse, independents are unhappy with Bush, and the MSM has stuck Bush with a terrible image. Romney has the advantage of having a nearly opposite image. The MSM image of Bush is folksy, dumb, and inarticulate. Romney is obviously professional, intelligent, and articulate. The MSM has tied itself in a knot in its portrayal of Bush, and has inadvertently set Romney up nicely.
that I voted for McCain in 2000.
That said, Bush had been a much more successful governor than Mitt, and had a much more consistent conservative record, and a great and detailed policy platform.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
and thus constantly generates cognitive dissonance in the age of You Tube, because as Dan points out, the flip flops are on core conservative issues.
He should have run on executive competence, a lead-by-example approach to family values and his undisputed vigor. (Vi-GAH, as another noted MA candidate used to say).
Since you're in the business of candidate critic, have you been watching Rudy today? Like it or not the MSM are going to saddle him with this long drawn out legal battle. This was a business partner? Now that is "trouble."
You may have some issues with Romney. You've outlined some of these issues.
But how does that make Romney anything other than what every other presidential candidate is: a politician?
I believe that the Romney that is running for president is the genuine article. In the past, he has worked hard to keep his views on controversial issues somewhat vague. That is acceptable to me. I don't even know what is meant by the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" and I don't think that there is a clear consensus on what those terms mean.
I hope that Republican voters next year choose someone based on what they will do as president and not based on some semantical issue.
I don't care whether Mitt said in the past that he is "for" or "against" gun control. That's a broad issue and it is possible to be FOR some types of controls and AGAINST others.
I feel the same way about abortion, gay rights, and all of the other issues that you mentioned.
Romney/Thompson 2008
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
The Trouble with Trouble
Personally, I don't care about the shifts between running for office. I care about what they say when campaigning and then what happens after the election. The abortion issue was a big shift (rightly so) after an election, yet he still maintained his pre-election promise to the voters by maintaining his moratorium on the issue. As Dan said, "voters like flip-flops; they reward flip-flops, especially when a candidate is moving from a local to statewide, or statewide to national electorates."
Trust is about keeping campaign promises. Did Romney break a bunch of campaign promises? I only know of one big one he shifted on (abortion) while in office, and yet he kept his moratorium promise even with that shift.
Dan, you lay out your points nicely, but you're just recalling a lot of what voters find when they go to research Romney except you fail to point out the positives that outweigh the negatives you list. That's OK, it's your prerogative to say why you don't like Romney, and I'd say you write your criticisms in a very balanced light. For me though, without listing his accomplishments which won the bots over, it's just a rag on Romney list. I do give you credit that your post is titled correctly :)
Ask the editorial board at the Wall Street Journal.
Dan mention's "including Romney's 1994 efforts to distance himself from the "Reagan-Bush" GOP". This is a hard clip for GOP folks to watch, but when you give Romney time to address your concerns in detail, you understand his reasoning better:
At any rate, his response to a question about his former disdain for "Reagan-Bush" is consistent with that version of the man. "Reagan gets a lot smarter the older I get," he allows. He then explains what bothered him then: 'I was concerned about what seemed to be looming deficits and inability to rein in spending in those days. And as time has gone on, I've recognized that he was brilliant and did the right thing for our economy. And so I may not have been entirely in sync with Reagan-Bush back at the time, but as time has gone on, I think what they proposed was smarter and smarter.'
Framed in that way, what was a flip-flop becomes an openness to reconsider former positions. That may not do much to mollify those who worry about his ideological reliability--he's changed his views before, so what's to stop him from changing them again? But it is a kind of Romneyian consistency--belief in what works, belief in praxis over abstract theory or ideology.
This is the trouble with Mitt Romney. At face value, he's is too pragmatic a consultant to be the perfect politician. Ironically, this is why I want him in Washington.
I intend to hold Mitt Romney to an answer to a question that I asked. And believe me, as an NRA member if he's not sincere I'll let everyone know how displeased I am. I'm not beholden to Mitt -- I happen to give him the benefit of the doubt on certain things and I also think he's a great politician, and someone I'd be proud to have as President -- but I'm not going to let that answer slide, and his online reps. can count on it. Steve Smith, are you listening?
As a supporter of limited government i find it difficult to vote for somebody that wants to increase the size of Guantanamo imprisonment camp.
As long as you've got two more to go, you might want to check out this. This makes him the only Republican candidate actually promising judges who "respect precedent." That's supposed to be the Democrats' line, but it is being trumpeted as a good thing for conservative Republicans. I don't think so. I also don't like the assumption that Roberts and Alito were excellent choices for the court.
I don't know about anyone else, but that article really made me rethink my opinions of Romney even more than the flip-flops. A "maybe, maybe not" approach to precedent could be preferable.
For right now, I'm still a Duncan Hunter supporter.
Your money line says it all: all politicians flip-flop. The public will be so tired of hearing this tiresome phrase they will gag, if they don't already, when they hear it. It is just a silly can some people are trying to tie to Romney's band wagon as it picks up steam. Bill Clinton was the master flip flopper of all time. Changed from a liberal Democrat to a moderate Republican in order to get reelected. If Democrats want to run flip-flop ads Republicans can match them tit for tat.
The best thing that can be said about changing one's position is that it shows a willingness to thoughtfully consider other positions and change them if circumstances and facts warrant it.
Where Romney is today concerns me more than where he was in 1992 or 2002 for that matter. I am comfortable with where he is today on most major issues and I think that he can be trusted.
I really like the fact that he is seemingly free from scandal. With Hillary as the Democratic candidate I think that anyone who is not ethically challenged and free from shady things in their past can win. Clinton is one of most corrupt candidates ever to run for president in the modern era and if this is not capitalized during the campaign it will be a major political tragedy. Obama and Edwards have waited too long to take off the gloves. She had better not have that luxury during the campaign.
Romney has a lot going for him:
- optimistic
- scandal free
- intelligent
- is a problem solver
- has successful managerial experience (organizing, planning, motivating, and working through others)
- is basically conservative
- is highly organized, energized, and motivated
- runs a vastly superior campaign organization
- understands that bigger government is the problem and not the solution
- has a realistic shot, because of his experience, attitude, and intelligence, of solving a lot of our nasty problems like healthcare and social security
- is a political outsider
- won an election as a Republican in the most liberal state in the US
- has a solid, supportive family that is a great asset
- has a good sense of humor
- is self-confident
- has never been a Senator
I cannot conjure up a similar list for the other Republican candidates. Can you?
Who - of the people that voted for George W. Bush in 2004 - will not vote for Mitt Romney or vote for Hillary in 2008?
I don't see many people who voted for W in 2000 & 2004 not voting for Romney in 2008, but I can see some folks Romney may pick up that W didn't - specifically voters in the upper midwest and northeast. I think Romney has a good shot at winning Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisonsin - along with Maine & New Hampshire.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
That will vote for him.
He has been on every side of the marriage question
He is dishonest on the abortion issue.
Given his positions on abortions you have to question his faith in his own religion. Whatever you may believe about the validity of mormonism, its hard to respect someone who professes faith but clearly doesn't place God's commandments before his personal ambitions.
Then there is the Gun Control etc.
W was at least a compassionate conservative. Just what kind of conservative is Romney ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
Who will NOT vote for him and/or vote for Hillary Clinton in 2008 that voted for W in 2000 & 2004. Furthermore, please make the case that these alleged people (if they exist) exist in large enough numbers to make a difference. I contend that Romney will pick up voters that W didn't get too.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
intervention!
just kidding joli
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
Well I will hold my nose and vote for him. Thats even though I don't think I will even get a Fiscon out of him. He will be more competent than Hillary. If he wins he will have been elected by the republican party, so yes we will be better off.
I will say this though the people that say they won't vote for Rudy because of his positions need to rule out Romney as well. Otherwise whats really eating them is a bias against New Yorkers or something similar. If you can vote for Romney you just aren't all that concerned about a candidate being consistent on Right To Life, marriage, etc.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
if a GOP prez breaks promises, they don't get re-elected.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
I tend to believe Rudy's more because he is more consistent.
Mitt strikes me as a guy who picked a side because he could use it not because he has any great belief in it.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
First, there are the voters who went to re-elect Bush because they preferred his steady hand in national security. Romney's inexperience with national security issues (see #2 of this series), combined with Hillary having at least lived in the White House for 8 years, will make it harder to sell him as having superior experience and judgment in that arena.
Second are the people who turned against Kerry because he was a flip-flopper with no visible principles.
Third are the people we lost in 2006, at least some of whom will require aggressive courting to get them back. We can debate who they are and why they left, but clearly folks who voted Dem in 06 can't be taken for granted.
Fourth, which I will get to in part 5, are the people who won't vote for a Mormon.
Also recall that there's a second variable, the people who will just stay home. Each of the candidates presents a different challenge in that regard, but with Romney I'd be worried mainly about him just not exciting people or not convincing them that he is a winner - people like to vote for the winner.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
anyone answer the altar call, make a profession of faith and then get called a flip flopper on the way out the door!
smile
praise God
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
Joli,
I know you were needing coffee at the time you commented on this, but really, "Whatever you may believe about the validity of mormonism, its hard to respect someone who professes faith but clearly doesn't place God's commandments before his personal ambitions." You respond later that Giuliani is a better choice, but he is more supportive of abortions than Romney currently is. Is Giuliani's Catholic faith in question too?
Come on, I would have thought that you saw this youtube interview of Romney that addresses this issue. It's almost at 200,000 views and you can see why Romney can be personally against abortion, but his "faith" allows him to choose otherwise. You may think Mormonism is way off kilter here, but this video explains why Mormon politicans are allowed to represent people differently than their own personal beliefs.
Although I recommend checking out the whole video, you can skip to the abortion fireworks at timesplice 7:00 minutes. The good debate occurs after Romney takes off his headset.
Joli,
I know you were needing coffee at the time you commented on this, but really, "Whatever you may believe about the validity of mormonism, its hard to respect someone who professes faith but clearly doesn't place God's commandments before his personal ambitions." You respond later that Giuliani is a better choice, but he is more supportive of abortions than Romney currently is. Is Giuliani's Catholic faith in question too?
Come on, I would have thought that you saw this youtube interview of Romney that addresses this issue. It's almost at 200,000 views and you can see why Romney can be personally against abortion, but his "faith" allows him to choose otherwise. You may think Mormonism is way off kilter here, but this video explains why Mormon politicans are allowed to represent people differently than their own personal beliefs.
Although I recommend checking out the whole video, you can skip to the abortion fireworks at timesplice 7:00 minutes. The good debate occurs after Romney takes off his headset.
Given his positions on abortions you have to question his faith in his own religion.
You can argue whether he is honest and sincere in his position on abortion, but why does it have to have anything to do with his or anyone else's faith?
WHEN are people going to wake up and see the obvious that one's position on something like life is NOT religious or faith-based; if it is, it is invalid as far as I'm concerned.
It's not about "God's commandments," period. If it were, one would have to support a law requiring people put nothing else before God.
I like that Romney seems to get that faith is not and should not be part of that position. It seems bizarre to think it is or should be.
That said, Romney's judicial team for his campaign has me very disappointed in him. I do not trust he will make good judicial appointments.
and if you have links, please send
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
He has gotten people who were involved in the Roberts and Alito nominations (neither of whom is yet reliable and both of whom may still turn out to be huge disappointments), and they have explicitly promised someone who "respects precedent." It was part of a NRO article here.
That is what liberals and Democrats are supposed to be looking for. We are at a point where we need a form of judicial activism. Maintaining the status quo is not good enough.
Anyway, at least the others give some chance of not appointing someone who has a judicial philosophy centered around "respecting precedent."
Yes and no. Not sseeking judicial activism would imply leaving things as they are, on the side of the left. To that extent, yes, the left has indeed already won. In particular, if we seek people who are committed to precedent, the left has won.
turing precedents per se
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
Judical arrogance must be minimized. Running roughshod over the law is where activism came from.
As far as I'm concerned, there's nothing wrong with waiting until you HAVE to reverse yourself, to do so. Keeping your decisions humble and narrow is perfectly reasonable, and I think in fact favorable.
shows judicial arrogance. I'm not sure what Feddie's take on it was, but this is mine: The Constitution is preeminent. Laws passed by Congress that do not violate the spirit and word of the Constitution come second.
Some decision arrived at previously by a Supreme Court as (at best) an interpretation of #1 and/or #2 -- this comes in a far, far, distant 3rd. If I'm a justice, and I give stare decisis near-equal status with the Constitution, then I'M guilty of judicial arrogance, IMO.
Stare decisis is fo' suckas -- Feddie
The problem with this reasoning, though, is that the Court at any time only has in front of it one particular case. The times when we get the most trouble, are when the court decides to rule with as broad a scope as possible, trying to effect sweeping change in the country.
Stare decisis is the counter to such judicial arrogance. Our judges should make their decisions as narrow as possible, deciding the case in front of them but no more.
problem with 'this' reasoning.
Stare decisis is, simply put, a deference given to previous judicial decisions. Correct? Yes? No? If we don't agree on this, we're just talking past each other.
So assuming we agree on SD, I'll say first that I agree TOTALLY with what you're saying -- a SC decision (or ANY decision by ANY court) should ALWAYS construe as narrowly as possible, as narrowly as the scope of the case before it would permit.
But here's the problem. SCOTUS has not, and does not do that, and so we have as the law of the land a whole BUNCH of crap called case law that essentially subverts the Constitution -- just off the top of my head Roe, Casey, Kelo, Roper.
So tell me again, o smart one, why I should give any respect to judicial precedence? I am not and have not been an advocate of 'conservative activist' jurisprudence. No, I simply say that giving any nod to stare decisis [when it contradicts the Constitution and any legitimate legislation] is dumb, short-sighted, and ultimately un-Constitutional.
Stare decisis is fo' suckas -- Feddie
Stare decisis is the principle that the law shouldn't change every time there's a case on it.
So if you can decide a case the right way without changing the law, you should do it. That, to me, is the ultimate in conservative jurisprudence. Not attacking every bad case with a wrecking bal at the drop of a hat.
That's what politicans are for, not judges.
“stare decisis et non quieta movere,” which translates to stand by decisions and do not move that which is quiet. People, and judges, tend to foget the second phrase. If the original decision does not "quiet" the issue, then the doctrine of "stare decisis" should not apply.
In Vino Veritas
You assume what the court says is "law." I would disagree with that statement. They issue opinions and rulings. They are nothing more, despite the treatment they get by some people.
Opinions and rulings should be subject to should change with every case (including very similar cases) because every case is still a little different and often involves different circumstances or arguments. Most importantly, other judges can be wrong.
It's not being "political" to disagree with a previous ruling and thus rule differently so long as the reason is one based on Constitutional or statutory interpretation in light of the facts of the case. That's why I was very disappointed with Roberts's nomination after his hearings.
Conservatives are doomed if they seek out justices who prioritize a respect for precedent.
In the courts, it is law. Lower court judges have to follow the higher courts' interpretations. These decisions effects lots of cases every day.
In the long run, liberals would benefit far, far more from abandoning stare decisis than conservatives would.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
"...in five years, you'll be blown away" Granholm and democrat tax hikes, Michigan will be in play to Republicans in 2008. We might be SLOW, but we ain't stoopid, and as I have said many times:
IF YOU LIKE WHAT GRANHOLM HAS DONE TO MICHIGAN, YOU'LL LOVE WHAT HILLARY CAN DO TO THE UNITED STATES!
Have you seen state-by-state polls? As it now stands, Hillary is consistently ahead of Romney in most states Bush won and just about every state in the south, even here in Texas! She gets a majority in several of them. While I believe that would likely change in some of the states as Romney became better known, I think it would be very close in the south.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
Yes she is. It is a consistent trend across all the polls. Check them at SurveyUSA and Rasmussen. As I said, it could change. Hillary is very close though in nearly all the southern states, especially against Romney.
thru all this from the losing end as a dem from 1980-2000. It is all so predictable.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
Both my voice and my money (as meager as both are) have been with Fred until recently, and am very reluctant to endorse Romney (tho I am increasingly tempted). I was involved in pro-life activities and living in Boston in 1994, and remember bitterly how the Republican nominee for Senate seemed downright eager to prove that he loved abortion as much as Senator Kennedy. And I suspect that his position on abortion, both then and maybe now, was and is dictated by not just political, but mere electoral expediency.
Still, I think you grossly overstate the case against Romney.
1. First, all of the changes you highlight represent, at most, flips, not flip-flops. The difference is significant--as a flip flop suggests an even greater malleability of principle.
2. Second many of the changes you highlight do NOT represent changes in principle, even if they do represent changes in emphasis in tone. In particular:
a. On immigration--I don't see the flip. I think it would be fair to characterize Romney's position on immigration as favoring a generous policy--one that favors limiting deportations to gang members and thso committing crimes (other than any crimes related to their unlawful presence, residence, trade, or employment)--and favors giving many of those currently unlawfully present the opportunity to acquire lawful residence, if not citizenship.
BUT a generous policy, to be generous, must procede from STRENGTH. We can't be generous until we control our borders. We can't be generous until we develop a reliable employment verification system, and more generally maintain reliable records of those entering and exiting our country.
(By the way, one of these days, I'll blog on how we can avoid any national ID card, and instead biometrically track those entering our country without work authorization, and track those exiting. In effect, the employment verification system will check whether you affirmatively do NOT have a right to work in our country).
The eventual McCain-Kennedy law was a disaster, and was opposed by all of us who favored a truly generous immigration policy for multiple reasons: (1) the empty promise or border enforcement, (2) the "Z" visa that was grossly unfair to lawful immigrants, by giving better benefits to illegal aliens precisley because of their illegal status (as opposed, e.g., to their merely having a boring-old H visa).
b. On guns. Don't see the flip. I've been a member of the NRA, and even while a member, my position did not necessarily match that of the NRA in every detail.
c. On campaign finance reform. I don't think he's flipped here either. He has opposed the most obnoxious portion of McCain Feingold--that proviiosn that limits not the transfer of funds to a campaign nor the use of those funds, but the speech of the American people at large--that is, the limit on non-candidate advertising during the last two months before and election.
In the clip you posted, he suggested he did not have a problem with donations. He favored greater control over PACs, lobbyists, and spending caps for campaigns.
I disagree with him on the spending caps, but I don't think he flip-flopped simply because he favored some aspects of McCain Feingold but opposed others.
I have not studied the details of his past statements closely. And maybe in some issues other than abortion Romney has truly changed his position. But your criticism of him fails to make distinctions between supporting SOME provisions of legislation and supporting ALL provisions, and fails to appreciate the difference between a change in tone--which is necessary and proper in politics (and life in general)--and a change in position.
I'm still suspicious of Romney. But your style of criticism leaves little room for a statesman who has a discriminating mind, who seeks to build alliances without adhering mindlessly to a party line and a party tone, and who can change his mind once genuinely persuaded.
"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke
Very well done article. Looking forward to reading more. People can see right through this guy. There is no way Mitt win's. A Mormon, flip-flopping liberal. You just can't change your personal views, for what ever position you run for, and expect people to think your one bit credible. Romney should drop out after he plumits to third in Iowa. People are starting to realize how fake this guy is. I know the good people of Iowa will reconsider where they put there support. Mitt is a joke and should save his money. Mitt if you drop out soon you can save a little face and save a lot of family pride.
Let me ask you this guys: Does anyone think John Kerry would have been anything but a reliable lefty as President?
As a Romney supporter, I find his evolving positions to be the most troubling, but his record looks pretty good in my view. The Club for Growth rates him as acceptable (at least on par with Giuliani) and gives him some leeway because he had to deal with liberal supermajorities in the state legislature. How exactly did he govern as a liberal? Even the NRA gave him a "B" rating, despite all the talk about how he is "anti-gun". As far as I can tell, he governed pretty much how he said he would. Why should we expect any different now?
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”