Speaking to Romney's Character
By kowalski Posted in 2008 — Comments (62) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Lots of people have questions about Mitt Romney, ranging from his policies as governor to his Mormonism to his stances on abortion, but the ones most bothersome to me in the past few months have been the questions -- many of which have gone far beyond questions into downright baseless attacks -- on his character. Of all the Romney ads I've seen so far, I hope the eds. will forgive me for being a RomneyBot on this one, because frankly it speaks more to Mitt Romney's character and priorities than anything else his campaign has produced thus far.
Today the campaign released a new TV spot in New Hampshire that touches on how Mitt Romney responded to the crisis of a friend, whose 14 year old daughter went missing in New York City in 1996. Initially, Romney was the only confidante of the man and his family, Robert Gay, who had worked for Bain Capital for more than eight years. Romney decided to share that information with the other 11 managing directors of the firm, who agreed to close the firm down and, with Romney's assistance, organize a successful search for the missing girl.
My father and I have been in business together for more than two decades, and the number of people who I can honestly say would have helped us when the chips were down in a situation like that numbers -- at most -- one or two, out of hundreds of personal business relationships we've had.
By Thursday Morning, Mitt Romney, 56 Bain Capital Employees And 250 Colleagues From Wall Street Were Working The Streets Of New York City In Search Of Melissa. "The executives decided not only to give their time but their money, paying all expenses for the search for the fifth of Gay's seven children. That night, 16 employees flew to New York, turned a function room of the Laguardia Marriott Hotel into a 'war room,' and got printing giant R. R. Donnelly to print 200,000 fliers with a color picture of Melissa. They also hired a private investigator and set up an 800-number hot line. Another 40 employees caught an early morning shuttle yesterday, and later were joined by about 250 colleagues from other Wall Street firms, including Goldman Sachs, Price Waterhouse and Bankers Trust." (Shirley Leung, "Investment Firm Shuts To Help Find Girl," The Boston Globe, 7/12/96)...
...
At An End-Of-The-Year Meeting, Bain Capital Listed The Search For Melissa Gay As Their Greatest Accomplishment. "Last week, the partners of Boston's Bain Capital Inc. drew up their annual list of accomplishments: Number one was the week they spent last July combing Manhattan in search of Melissa Gay, the missing 14-year-old daughter of one of the partners. 'It really overshadowed everything we did from a money standpoint,' said Mitt Romney, the Bain Capital founder who won the 1994 Massachusetts Republican Senate nomination partly on his reputation as a venture capital wiz." (Peter S. Canellos, "Bain Capital Recalls NY Search," The Boston Globe, 12/8/96)
[Emphasis mine.]
The founder of the firm decides to close his billion dollar business in order to pound the pavement in New York in a search for the missing teenage daughter of a business partner. That's the kind of Chief Executive I want as the President.
Even if I were to assume the man had a complete "epiphany" on abortion, he claimed he would be the best friend to gays and lesbians as well, and has seemingly backed away from that in a laughable effort to appease the socons. I've read the record, Mitt has a record he could run on, but his pandering just calls into question his integrity. My fiance finally watched the YouTube debate (full disclosure - she's a teacher and a Dem, but I live in Illinois with a ton of Dems so I forgive her for that). She had NEVER seen the GOP's candidates, and her impressions of Mitt were terrible. Specifically, she thought he was slimy. She liked McCain because the media built him up as a "Maverick". She thought RP was crazy. But the odd thing.....she liked Huckabee, and she completely disagrees with him on a social level. Which is why I am convinced that Huck can win. He is a fiscal populist, and a social conservative. He will appeal to both sides and regardless of the fact that the folks here at RS are far right supporters, most of the electorate is in the middle. My choice is Huckabee followed by McCain, and the only candidates I couldn't pull the lever for are Mitt and Rudy.
I believe Mitt's stance has always been that he is against gay marriage and against gay propoganda in schools and otherwise but he was also against gay people being discriminated in other settings.
Are you for discrimination against gay people in the work place? Do you feel like they should be treated differently in all settings? Should gay people be treated as sub-citizens, perhaps as if they are mentally ill?
* PRIESTCRAFT is thus defined: “The stratagem and frauds of priests; fraud or imposition in religious concerns. Management of selfish and ambitious priests to gain wealth and power, or to impose upon the credulity of others.”
have fun voting for Obama. I think comments saying "i will not vote for the Republican candidate, even if the general are ban worthy" Hell, many Paul supporters, who are banned, will vote for the Repub.
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
Because I've got nothing against Romney personally at all...
------------
Daniel 2:20 And he [God] changeth the times and seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding.
I've never disputed that. I just think he has no political principles and will say anything to get elected, and the evidence of that is extensive.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
But I'd go further. I'd say he is an exceptionally good and talented man. I can understand how his supporters can have faith in his judgment, regardless of how his stands may have changed.
...but a tricky one.
Romney is an moral, ethical, generous man of strong character. That makes it a more difficult task to explain his political behavior as selfish and devious.
For instance, you can explain his abortion change in one of two ways: he is sincere in his pro-life support, or he wants to fool people into thinking he is.
Evidence that he is sincere:
- He has staked his claim to the pro-life movement clearly, rather than triangulating on the issue.
- The timing makes sense. The change happened when, for the first time in his life, he was the man behind the desk.
- Flipping for political expedience doesn't make as much sense post-Kerry.
- He is a man of strong character.
- He has passed on opportunities to pander on the issue. For instance, he wouldn't call abortion "murder." He believes that it is immoral and harmful, but not necessarily "murder," based on his own principles.
Evidence that he isn't sincere:
- The change came at a time that could garner him support of social conservatives in a Presidential race he decided to enter, assuming they believed he was sincere.
-His insistence for many years that he had a heartfelt personal family reason to be pro-choice
-An exceptionally long list of other flips in the same direction in the same short span of time.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
. . . he would have distanced himself from one of his biggest obstacles--his religious faith. The fact that he won't is evidence enough to me that he believes was he says--including changing his position on issues.
The first is double counting. There is no question that he was pro-choice. Only by being pro-choice in the first place could he have changed. Further evidence that he was pro-choice in the first place doesn't challenge his claim that he changed - it makes the change possible in the first place.
The second I should have included, but the laundry lists on Romney aren't very impressive. For instance, people bring up gay rights, where his principles never really changed. For equal rights for gay people, against homosexual marriage.
Most of the "flips" are statements of him considering problems in the abstract. There are few to no instances of him flipping in his actions. I think this fits Romney's style. In the abstract, he can see the virtues of all sides of an argument (which he had to do to be successful in the private sector). When it comes down to action, his instincts and his final evaluations have always lead him to conservative solutions.
...that he is a man of such character is a strong piece of evidence against the KnownFact that Romney is unprincipled and power-hungry. Not conclusive evidence, but important.
Its easy to look at the change of Romney's position on abortion from the perspective that he changed from the wrong position to the right position, which I agree with. But what of the many Massachusettes voters who are Pro-Choice and helped him get elected? He could not have gotten elected without them. They have an equally strong sense of right and wrong, and from their perspective, he flip flopped, plain and simple. What issue that I hold near and dear will he support while running and then have a change of heart on when in office?
Governor Huckabee for President.
Yes, he flipped his position on abortion after he was elected by the pro-choice folks. But, he promised during his 2002 campaign a moratorium on the issue of abortion. Even after his change, he kept his promise to the voters until the end of his administration. He changed his views, but kept his campaign promise.
To add insult to injury to those that think he'll dis his campaign promises, Mitt Romney had his campaign draw up all the promises he made during the 2002 campaign and it ended up being around 93, he then added 7 to that list and reported back to the people of Massachesetts towards the end of his administration the efforts he put forth on all 100 campaign promises. Speculate all you want about how he will go back on social conservative issues, but his record proves you wrong.
What exactly does a moratorium on the issue of abortion mean? To his pro-life voters I am sure that the following vetoes were considered a breach of his pro-life campaigning.
"He vetoed a bill allowing pharmacists to dispense the morning-after pill without a prescription and another streamlining the process for scientists conducting embryonic stem-cell research. Both vetoes, however, were overturned."
reference: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/dont_veto_the_truth.html
Which brings up the fact that over 700 of his 800 vetoes were overturned. Isn't it insane to keep trying the same thing over and over hoping for a different result? Or was he just punching out vetoes to look good for a run to the White House? Like passing on every single commutation request.
Governor Huckabee for President.
just doing his best to fight possibly the most liberal state legislature in the country? You'd have more of an argument against him had he NOT issued the 800 vetoes I'd think.
Wrong, he said he would not move to make any pro life bills and he didnt. He said that he would not take any of the existing rights away and he didnt. However, he was true to what he believed and did not expand or increase pro choice rights. GET IT>
...how strong his character is as Thompson's VP for 8 years while preparing to be president for 8 more! ;0)
Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Editor for The Hinzsight Report
Flip it and you just might have that right.
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
-Winston Churchill
Thanks for highlighting this Alex, it reminds me a little bit of this.
They aren't the same thing by a long shot, but sometimes you get a glimpse into a man's soul.
___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.
But I can't think of anything that he brings to the table that sticks me as "Character." He has no idea what he stands for. The last time I checked conservatives were for the Bush tax cuts, Romney was against them. I musts say a vote for Romney is a vote for bought and paid for.
He must have not got my address because I'm still waiting for my check...
“It is not the possession of truth, but the success which attends the seeking after it, that enriches the seeker and brings happiness to him.”"-Max Planck
Romney supports the Bush tax cuts, and as far as I know, he always has. And as for a bought in paid for vote, I don't think quite see the logic there.
I bought Romney's book "Turnaround," which was about $15 at Books-A-Million. I bought a bumper sticker that was about $5 after shipping. I bought a Romney yard sign which was about $13 after shipping. That's about $33 out of my pocket. How much has Romney spent on me? $0. How many ads did I see that convinced me to vote for him? 0.
Therefore, Romney hasn't put a single dime into buying my vote. But if he wants to give me money, I'd gladly take it.
To say that Romney is buying votes is just plain silly and disingenuous. Get real.
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
-Winston Churchill
Same here. I bought all the stickers, shirts, etc. Romney has not given me a dime. His ads are not going to make me vote for him. His plan and solid history and character are.
I'm sure many of Romney's supporters have been aware of this story for some time now. I believe it does speak volumn about his character. I'm glad to see this story being used as a message of charity during this Christmas season.
Because I hadn't known about it until today. I thought it was a great positive message from the campaign and that's why I posted it here. I think I dimly remember hearing something about it back in 1996, but at the time I was a full-fledged Teenage Moonbat™ and I didn't care much about what venture capitalists were doing.
I am sure that a lot of people who were involved in the search effort will remember, however.
what does it have to do with how he will govern? the picture of W above demonstrates that one can have genuine compassion while still not governing as a consistent conservative...it's a ridiculous waste of time to endlessly debate our opinions of the character of any of the Repub candidates...i think they need to be judged by two criteria:
1) by what principles does he profess to govern?
2) how consistently has he implemented those principles when in a position to do so?
IMO, Fred is the only one of the top five that fits the conservative bill on both...
"Life IS pain, Highness...anyone who says different is selling something..."
1) by what principles does he profess to govern?
2) how consistently has he implemented those principles when in a position to do so?
I would argue that Governor Huckabee cleary has the advantage here. With 10+ years in elected office (and outside of the beltway to boot) His principles are clear to see, clear that is if you don't look through the distorted lense of his rivals. He consistantly served the interests of his constituants as Governor, unlike Romney switching on abortion and not commuting a single sentence, not even the war hero who wanted to be a police officer and who's only offense was a BB gun fight long ago. Romney clearly was Governor because he wanted to be President. Huckabee was Governor because he wanted to be Governor. Hence Huckabee suggesting a lifting of the trade embargo with Cuba, that would have been in the best interests of his constituents, and as he has said, when President he will support NOT lifting the embargo because that is in the best interests of America. That's not flip flopping, that's being of service to those you serve, not serving yourself to get a better job.
Governor Huckabee for President!
b/c you say Huckabee governed by principle, but the only one you list is an alleged fidelity to the interests of his constituents...did they want a net $500 million in new taxes? did they want multiple pardons for convicted killers? did they want the children of illegal aliens granted the same access to education as those here legally? and did Huck campaign for governor promising to do those things?
my complaint is this...he is professing to be a conservative in fiscal, social and defense matters...and the record says otherwise...his own statements say otherwise...echoing the dems' attacks on W's foreign policy...stating that Iran will come around if we just talk to them, or that militant Islam will like us better if we throw money at them...
either he is NOT a conservative, or he is incredibly uninformed...
"Life IS pain, Highness...anyone who says different is selling something..."
The people of Arkansas did want those things, because any increase in taxes and fees were brought before them in referendum, they wanted better roads so they accepted the responsibility to pay for them, they wanted a Governor who would balance the budget, but their elected officials in the legislature, being overwhelmingly democrat, caused a stalemate in further budget cuts, so Governor Huckabee turned the tables on them and publicly requested a tax from them, resulting in a 1% overall increase above inflation over 10 years.
He is unapologetic for treating children of illegal aliens as children in our nation, as Governor it is not as important how they got here as it is as President. Any elected President, Republican or Democrat, who doesn't secure the border should know that they will be run out on a rail. Huckabee has taken socially conciencious positions on the chldren of illegals, but not on the border. All the talk of what to do with the illegals currently here is just a red hearing argument anyway, because with a secure border there will be no more illegals here in a few generations.
Regarding commutations, what the people of Arkansas wanted was more criminals put in prison, and that is what they got. Huckabee had the same ratio of granted commutations to prisoners as any predicessor or neighboring state Governor, he just put more people behind bars. Once again Huckabee engaged in his job, he did not do the politically expedient thing and commute no one.
"...echoing the dems' attacks on W's foreign policy...stating that Iran will come around if we just talk to them, or that militant Islam will like us better if we throw money at them..."
I have heard no such echo, if you read Huckabee's latest Foriegn Policy article in Foriegn Affairs you will see that he "echoes" none of the Democrats bush bashing.
I would vote for Bush again in a heartbeat, but I don't agree with everything he has done, nor with how hw presents America to either it's citizens or the rest of the world, but nobody thought he was a great communicator, Huckabee is a great communicator.
We haven't even touched on the FairTax, the single greatest promise to turn this country around, that has a difficult but plausible likely hood of passing.
Governor Huckabee for President!
The gas tax was raised without asking the public and then three months later the state voters approved a bond issue to fix the roads. Approving a bond is not the same as approving a tax increase. Also, an economic conservative understands that increasing taxes is bad idea, no matter how many moderates and liberals like the idea. This country is full of people who want to raise taxes to get more stuff from the government, but I believe they are wrong. Huckabee justifies tax increases with the good stuff he pays for with them. I think he should have found another way to pay for them.
But if you'd like to take it into the realm of governance, and especially leadership and influence, the fact that so many of the people in Romney's network were willing and able to join him in the search says a lot about the kind of respect people have for his abilities, not to mention his integrity. It isn't just that Romney all but shuttered Bain Capital to dedicate his personal resources to the search, but that so many other people in the business community at similar echelons were willing to accompany him.
You don't get that kind of response from people in the financial industry who don't think you have a good head on your shoulders.
I'll have more over the next few days.
The flip flopping on abortion doesn't inspire confidence. He also distanced himself from Ronald Reagan in order to cozy up to the liberals in his state. I worry about his lack of integrity.
This even goes beyond his character. It speaks to his leadership skills and ability to act quickly. I am voting for Romney for his policy and extensive fiscal experience. However, I love the fact that everyday we learn of some little detail that speaks to Romney’s solid character and just being a good human. This is refreshing amidst all the scandal surrounding most of the other candidates. Romney and Thompson seems to be the only two that are not overrun with skeletons. Bravo, author.
Romney is a really good guy, no doubt about it.
I'll take him over Huck anyday, but when it comes down to it, Rudy's character is better suited for a Republican president facing a Democrat Congress. Romney I feel will be too willing to get along with Democrats and compromise on issues of foreign and economic policy. Rudy will fight Congress tooth and nail using the bully pulpit to haul their miserable behinds in front of the American people and expose them for the big government, high tax, doves that they are.
If Rudy gets elected I am confident that America's direction will be towards privatized healthcare, American geopolitical dominance, and economic strength.
With Romney I am not nearly as confident.
But yea, Romney over Huckabee anyday. And ANY Republican (except Ron Paul) over ANY Democrat ANY day.
... I have one quibble. Yes, Romney's personal character and values are solid. His family loves him, and he appears to be a very good father and husband. He's not a cheater, a liar, or an abuser. Other than that, we don't really need to know much about his personal life.
Here's my quibble. I don't think the example you've given is a very good one:
The founder of the firm decides to close his billion dollar business in order to pound the pavement in New York in a search for the missing teenage daughter of a business partner. That's the kind of Chief Executive I want as the President.
I'm hoping, really hoping, that you don't mean that. The president of a company might be able to justify doing something like this, but it's unthinkable for the President of the United States to do so. No president can afford to become too wrapped up in the fate of one person, or even a small group of people. Not for a week, a day, or even a couple of hours. The business of one corporation might wait, but the business of the U.S. government never will.
(That being said, I'm sure Romney understands the distinction. I'm just not sure if you do.)
Hang all traitors and secessionists! Hang them high!
- Me
Obviously I'm not making that comparison. What I am saying is that instead of doing what a lot of people might have done, which amounts to saying:
"Well, we'll give you an off-the-books loan and a few weeks off. Good luck, and you might not have a job when you get back, because we'll have to give your work to someone else."
Instead of doing that, he realized that the first days after a disappearance are the most crucial and he mobilized everything he reasonably could to help his friend.
I had not heard this. If Fred drops out, Mitt gets my wholehearted support.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
Always make me want to take a second look at the guy. He has done some very good things for people personally without really wanting media recognition for them.
I agree this ad / story is a great look into the man's heart (and I am admittedly not a fan b/c i think he is untrustworthy). But how do those of you who say this ad changed your mind (or almost changed it) account for the recent falsehoods in his attack ads. The girl ad says a lot for his heart; but the lying attack ads show a different side of the man. A slimy politician side. The only way I am able to square it...is by remembering people change.
(like changing from doing a selfless deed INTO a man who exploits one)
...or are they ads that are inconvenient for Huck? I've seen Romney's ads, and they are not personal attacks - quite the contrary. Actually, it has been Huckabee who has personally attacked Romney about having illegals on his lawn and rhetorically asking if Mormons believe that Jesus is the brother of Satan. Huck was so disgraced for that personal attack that he had to go over and apologize to Mitt after a debate.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
No their definately attack ads. I say this b/c the attack are distorting untruths. As other threads have pointed out Factcheck.org ran an article on BOTH of Bishop Mitts attack ads and explained the untruths. (For example you may be surprised to learn that Arkansas's minimum and maximum penalties for manufacturing meth are 4 TIMES HIGHER than Mitt's state.
[YOU WOULDN"T GET THAT IMPRESSION FROM THE AD...in fact you'd get the opposite]
Thats why they are attack ads.......and that's why it reflects poorly on Mitt's character.
Can you point me to the responses Romney has given to the claims set forth in Thompson's press release from over the weekend.
http://www.fred08.com/NewsRoom/PressRelease.aspx?ID=6edbafef-d7ce-4bec-8...
In particular, I want to know Romney's explanation of why he did not veto the $50-abortion provision and what his position was and is on forcing Catholic hospitals to provide abortifacients.
This is a FRIENDLY request. I am a Thompson supporter but want to support Romney if Thompson flops in Iowa.
Thanks!
"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke
As far as the abortifacients in Catholic hospitals, the "morning after pill" was specifically for the case of rape victims, as can be read in the article you have linked there.
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
-Winston Churchill
Catholics have no business killing small homo sapiens--otherwise known as children of God--even if their fathers are rapists. And it is unjust for the government to compel them to do so as a condition of their being able to treat the sick.
"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke
and here is where the rubber hits the road for a lot of conservative women.
If a woman is raped you are saying she cannot in your world have the option to terminate the pregnancy? She must not only relive the rape through 9 months to give than give it up for adoption?
I personally am against abortion as a means for any other reason but how dare you tell a woman who has been traumatized by rape that she must carry the rapist baby? There has got to be this small gray area because there are gray area's in every other damn issue in the Republican Party.
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion
Is it the baby's fault? And where do you get off saying I have no right to voice my opinion? In your world I have to sit idly by and shut the hell up while people get murdered?
Look, it obviously isn't fun to get raped or to carry the baby to term, but if you believe that thing inside you is actually a living human (which you apparently do), it is absolutely wrong to kill it because of somebody else's sin, even if that sin was against you. That's straight-up Christianity right there. You may not like that answer, and you may think because I'm a man I have no right to speak on this issue, but that's a truth.
In my world, we go after the criminial - the rapist. And we help the girl through with counseling and try to ease her suffering as much as possible, without resorting to killing anybody else.
When Romney ran in 2002 he promised during his campaign that he would hold a moratorium on the issue of abortion. He would neither strengthen the laws nor weaken the laws. Even with his switch on the issue, he maintained that campaign promise. The $50-abortion was established law and vetoing the new provision would have resulted in him breaking his 2002 promise which went both ways in regards to the issue, no change, no strengthening or weakening of the law. That was his campaign promise.
Ironically, folks worry about how Romney may switch on positions he is campaigning on after he is elected. If you look at the record of what he said on the campaign trail in 2002, he was much more faithful to his campaign promises than to any change or flip in his positions. He took it a step further and had his campaign draw up the list of his campaign promises he made in 2002 and reported back to the people of Massachusetts the efforts and successes he achieved in the enumerated list. Wishy washy, flippity floppity, Romney kept his campaign promises to the best of his ability and circumstance as Governor.
Ad or no ad, stopping work or not, I don't trust Romney. I think he is a pandering, two-faced creep. Every time he talks I can just hear the gears whirring and the relays opening and closing in his head as he calculates what you want to hear.
Right now, he's playing Hugh Hewitt like a fiddle. It's sickening. He's Hillary-Lite.
Visit The Scratching Post!
And just who do u trust or like? Huckabee with his Im Christian so ignore my unethical behavior and dem. views?????
or
Rudy Mr. 9/11.....but the firemen in NY support McCain??????
or
McCain who has been loud and clear he will not do what it takes to keep us safe...ie waterboarding.....ie amnesty.
or
Ron Paul who will kill us all.
I had read that in the NewsMax article on Romney, but I didn't know that the campaign had released it in an ad. That's a wonderful story. And I agree. That's the kind of guy I want in office.
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
-Winston Churchill