Mitt Romney's Public Conversion Problem
It is related to Sam Brownback in only one way.
By Leon H Wolf Posted in 2008 — Comments (66) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
NOW UPDATED WITH 2002 MATERIAL
So over at the Corner today, Larry Kudlow made a positive remark about the possibility of a Brownback Presidential run (disclaimer: I am a full and unabashed Brownback supporter), and this rather nondescript remark was followed (sure as night follows day everywhere except in Alaska) by K-Lo telling us all what this meant for Mitt Romney. Specifically, K-Lo's contention is that, as a recent convert to Catholicism (something about which I just became aware), Brownback will not be in a position to throw stones at Mitt Romney's "conversion" on the pro-life issue. It's a strained comparison, but there is no object in the universe that Ms. Lopez cannot somehow connect with Mitt Romney. But enough on that point, let's move on.
Romney's problem, in this case, is not that he's had a public conversion on the life issue. In fact, a great many Republican politicians were confessed pro-life converts, like Ronald Reagan. The problem for Romney is that this is, in fact, at least his second public conversion on the abortion issue. You see, the problem with Romney is not merely that he claimed to be pro-choice during his 1994 campaign against Senator Kennedy, and during his 2002 gubernatorial campaign, it is that he at that time claimed to have had a public conversion to the pro-choice position because at that time he was speaking to (primarily) Democratic voters who were wary of his pro-choice creds. I've compiled some research from Romney's speeches and debates in 1994 (many of these I've already gone over in a previous diary on the subject), which highlight some eerie similarities between Romney's explanation for why he was pro-choice then and Romeny's current explanations for why he is pro-life now:
More below...
All of these articles are too old to be found on the internet, but anyone with access to Lexis or Westlaw can verify them.
11/10/94 Boston Globe 1
1994 WLNR 2040420Boston Globe (MA)
Copyright Globe Newspaper Company 1994November 10, 1994
Section: METRO
STRATEGIES SHAPED AN EPIC RACE A LOOK BEHIND KENNEDY- ROMNEY
Ben Bradlee Jr. and Daniel Golden, Globe Staff
Both campaigns believed that the Mormon issue ultimately helped Kennedy by contributing to a sense that Romney was culturally alien in largely Catholic Massachusetts. Because the church opposed the Equal Rights Amendment and abortion, the Romney camp felt, his faith hurt him among independent women, a key battleground. "Every time it's brought up, it makes women think, 'Is he really pro- choice?' " said Crowley, Romney's research director.
...
11/1/94 Telegram & Gazette (Worcester) B1
1994 WLNR 4899534Worcester Telegram & Gazette (MA)
Copyright 1994 Worcester Telegram & Gazette Corp.November 1, 1994
Section: LOCAL NEWS
MASS CHOICE KEEPS UP ATTACK ON ROMNEY
BOSTON Telegram & Gazette Boston Bureau BOSTON - Mass Choice, an abortion rights group, resumed its attack on Republican U.S. Senate candidate W. Mitt Romney yesterday, insisting he is not pro - choice .
Speaking in front of the Statehouse, Joyce Cunha, executive director of Mass Choice and a supporter of incumbent Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, referred to the comment Romney made last week during his debate with Kennedy at Faneuil Hall.
"At the debate last Tuesday night, Romney went a step further, saying his life had been personally touched by a death from an illegal abortion," she declared. "If that is true, why has Mr. Romney refused to support, much less champion, a bill that would ensure we never go back to the days of back-alley abortions?"
Romney says he supports Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that declared abortion constitutional, and favors legislation that would codify the ruling in statute.
...
10/26/94 Boston Globe 1
1994 WLNR 2057077Boston Globe (MA)
Copyright Globe Newspaper Company 1994October 26, 1994
Section: METRO
KENNEDY AND ROMNEY BLAST AWAY; ACCUSATIONS FLY ON ISSUES AND ADS CHARGED-UP CANDIDATES TALK CRIME, HEALTH
Frank Phillips and Scot Lehigh, Globe Staff
..
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.
...
American Political Network
Abortion Report
Volume 6 No. 69
Copyright (c) 1994 by American Political Network, Inc.October 26, 1994
ELECTION 1994 MA SEN: ROMNEY TELLS THE ORIGIN OF HIS PRO-CHOICE VIEW
BOSTON HERALD's Miga reports that pro-choice Sen. Ted
Kennedy (D) and mixed-record businessman Mitt Romney (R) clashed over abortion in the first of two debates. Kennedy: "My opponent is multiple choice." But Romney insisted that his personal Mormon beliefs "would not dilute his support for abortion rights": "I will not impose my beliefs on other people. I will not waver on that" (10/26).HERALD's Battenfeld notes that Romney "successfully" answered questions about abortion and women's rights (10/26). In addition, he "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 friend," 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." Kennedy spokesperson Paul Donovan said after the debate that he had no comment on Romney's revelation, but that "choice is another issue where he's been all over the map. He's had a number of positions on that. He's flipflopped on the minimum wage. He's flipflop-flipped on the crime bill."The Romney camp traced the origin of its pro-choice views to '70, when Romney's mother was a pro-choice candidate for Senate. Ex- MI Gov. George Romney (R), Romney's father, said, "Ted Kennedy was pro-life. Ted Kennedy changed his position on abortion long after we had adopted" a pro-choice stance. "I think Kennedy has one standard of conduct for himself and another for others"
...
American Political Network
Abortion Report
Volume 6 No. 39
Copyright (c) 1994 by American Political Network, Inc.September 13, 1994
UPCOMING 1994 RACES MA SEN: PRO-CHOICE GROUP, OTHERS BLAST ROMENY (sic) ON ABORTION
...
ABORTION DISPUTE: Mass Choice, the "leading" pro-choice
group in MA, on 9/9 accused Romney of "exaggerating his pro-
choice views." Mass Choice exec. dir. Joyce Cunha: "He's trying to have it both ways. He's anti-choice at heart. ... Romney cannot credibly call himself pro-choice while accepting the endorsement of the state's largest anti-choice lobby," MA
Citizens for Life (MCFL). Romney spokesperson Ann Murphy: "The
fact is that Mitt does support a woman's right to choose."Romney said that he would support FOCA as long as it did not go beyond codifying Roe and also leaves to the states the decision whether to fund abortions of poor women (Miga, HERALD, 9/10). But pro-choice one-time GOP Senate cand. Janet Jeghelian said that she heard Romney say that he opposed both FOCA and federal funding: "I think he has waffled."
Romney consultant Charles Manning acknowledged a shift in Romney's abortion position: "As Mitt has studied the issues with regard to choice more and more and talked with a lot of people about them, he has become firmer in his position" (Lehigh, BOSTON GLOBE, 9/10).
Folks, this stuff goes on, and on, and on - but if you can't see Mitt using the same exact tactics now to bolster his pro-life creds that he used in 1994 to bolster his pro-choice creds, then I submit that you're just not paying attention.
As I said several months ago - in a three-way race between Romney, Giuliani, and McCain, I'd vote for Romney. Apart from Brownback (who can't win, however much I like him), there are no personally committed pro-lifers on the 2008 slate. While a committed pro-lifer would certainly be the most desirable choice, the second choice would be a guy who knows which side his bread is buttered on. So, if faced with a choice between a guy like McCain, who has a pretty good pro-life voting record, but recently joined Christine Todd-Whitman's "We hate the religious right" PAC, his voting record is less important than the fact that he's historically shown a willingness to spit in the eye of social conservatives just for kicks and press accolades. Mitt, on the other hand, can apparently be trusted to pander to the voters he needs, which in this case is us.
Let's be honest: we all know Bush is personally not very pro-life, but he's got that same quality as Mitt, of being aware when he's pissed too many of his own people off and adjusting accordingly (See Miers, Harriet).
So what is the point of this post? Well, at this point, I'd just like a little intellecutal honesty from Mitt's many committed partisans (of whom Kathryn Jean Lopez is certainly chief). As I said, I like Brownback a lot, but I'm not going to claim that he's been as aggressive on spending as he should have been (he hasn't), or that he's the toughest guy on immigration in the race (he isn't), or that he's the most telegenic or most likely to win (he isn't either of those, either). Romney's got some things going for him, and I'm willing to grant for the sake of argument that his willingness to adapt his abortion position to suit his voters is a good thing - but Romney's supporters should at least be willing to admit that their candidate is a serial panderer on this issue, and stop trying to insult the intelligence of pro-lifers by claiming that this dubious and opportune pandering is anything greater than what it really is. That tactic really only serves to turn off guys like me who might well be persuaded to vote for Romney if all the cards are face-up on the table.
*************************
ADDENDUM
*************************
The following material is from the 2002 gubernatorial campaign:
Copyright 2002 Globe Newspaper Company
The Boston GlobeNovember 3, 2002, Sunday ,THIRD EDITION
SECTION: OP-ED; Pg. D11
LENGTH: 807 words
HEADLINE: JEFF JACOBY;
AN UNBECOMING CAMPAIGN SPAT...
Mitt Romney uttered the U-word after listening to Shannon O'Brien insinuate that his pro-choice stance on abortion masks a secret prolife agenda. It is a suggestion she has repeatedly made, and Romney had finally heard enough. "Your effort to continue to try and create fear and deception here," he said with some asperity, "is unbecoming."
O'Brien mocks Mitt in debate The Boston Herald October 2, 2002 Wednesday
Copyright 2002 Boston Herald Inc.
The Boston HeraldOctober 2, 2002 Wednesday ALL EDITIONS
SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 001
LENGTH: 983 words
HEADLINE: O'Brien mocks Mitt in debate
BYLINE: By JOE BATTENFELD and DAVID R. GUARINO
...
Romney, however, strongly defended his stance, saying that his mother, Lenore, ran on an abortion rights platform during a Senate race in Michigan even though she opposed it personally.
"Let me make this very clear, I will preserve and protect a woman's right to choose, and this should not be made a political issue in this campaign," he said.
Romney is looking very liberal these days Deseret News (Salt Lake City) September 1, 2002, Sunday
Copyright 2002 The Deseret News Publishing Co.
Deseret News (Salt Lake City)September 1, 2002, Sunday
SECTION: VIEWPOINT; Pg. AA01
LENGTH: 1076 words
HEADLINE: Romney is looking very liberal these days
BYLINE: By Ted Wilson and LaVarr Webb
...
On Abortion Rights: "As governor, Mitt Romney would protect the current pro-choice status quo in Massachusetts. No law would change. The choice to have an abortion is a deeply personal one. Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not the government's."
MASSACHUSETTS: MAKE IT SWIFT, MITT The Hotline March 26, 2002
Copyright 2002 The National Journal Group, Inc.
The HotlineMarch 26, 2002
SECTION: GOVERNOR REPORT
LENGTH: 388 words
HEADLINE: MASSACHUSETTS: MAKE IT SWIFT, MITT
...
Gov. Jane Swift (R) said 3/25 that '94 GOP Senate nominee Mitt Romney (R) should clear up the "confusion" over his abortion stance, urging him to "aggressively tackle the issue to deflect" attacks from Dems. Swift said she was "satisfied"
Romney is "pro-choice," but said he needs to convince MA voters "who overwhelmingly support abortion rights." Swift: "I think it's pretty easy -- talk about what you believe and say it over and over, and say the same thing over and over." Swift said that when Romney met with her last week he was "very clear to me that he was pro-choice." Romney advisers say their candidate is "eager to take on the abortion issue whenever it's raised but said he has no plans to go on the offensive as Swift suggests."
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Romney v. McCain: As Different As They Are The Same — Comments (28) »
Mitt Romney's Public Conversion Problem 66 Comments (0 topical, 66 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Only sometimes it's three months later.
K-Lo never waits that long.
"We could find a speck of dust and scribble down our life stories..." - The Refreshments
But in both Fairbanks and Valdez, there were several months of continuous sunlight - thus, day always follows night, but night does not always follow day, in my experience. :-)
"We could find a speck of dust and scribble down our life stories..." - The Refreshments
does set, at least geometrically, in those places even in mid-summer. You have to get north of the Arctic Circle, sixty miles or so north of FAI, before there are any days where it either doesn't set or doesn't rise. I spent a few years rattling around northern Alaska for the BIA. It is truly eerie there in mid-winter. Did you ever go to the midnight baseball game in Fairbanks?
In Vino Veritas
All I know is, it'd still be broad daylight at midnight. In Valdez, the sun would go behind the mountains, but it would still be almost full daylight no matter the time of day.
I can't remember - I left Fairbanks when I was fairly young. We did go to lots of North Pole Patriots games, though.
"We could find a speck of dust and scribble down our life stories..." - The Refreshments
Even here at 58 degrees N. Lat (FAI is 63), it never really gets dark from mid May until mid-August. Just go like Hell all summer, sleep an hour or two here and there; there'll be plenty of time to catch up in the Winter. 'Course, the price is it's 2:30 pm as I write and the Sun is already below the mountains, and we're still almost a month from the Solstice.
In Vino Veritas
When Romney ran for governor in 2002, he stood up for the Massachusetts' law that requires girls under the age of 18 to receive their parents' consent before receiving an abortion. Romney's opponent, Shannon O'Brien, campaigned on lowering the Bay State's parental consent age requirement to 16 -- the Mass law is more stringent than the parental consent requirement in South Carolina and was under assault by the pro-abortion lobbyists in Boston.
Romney's defense of the tough parental consent requirement was one of the major reasons he won the governorship in 2002. O'Brien made some awkward and offensive remarks on the issue during a big debate at the end of the campaign that was moderated by Tim Russert. After the debate, O'Brien's support from Catholic married women plummeted and her campaign fell apart.
O'Brien also was a public supporter of gay marriage, stating that she would sign legislation into law legalizing gay marriage. Romney opposed gay marriage during the campaign.
The notion that Romney ran as a moderate Republican to win in Massachusetts and now is repositioning himself as a conservative to run for president is false.
On abortion and gay marriage, Romney took the conservative positions during his 2002 campaign for governor in Massachusetts and won. The reason so many conservatives are supporting Romney is because they know he has exerted courageous leadership on issues like gay marriage, emergency contraception, parental consent and stem cell research in the most liberal, conservative Republican biased state in America.
If we're going to debate Romney campaign history, let's get the facts straight.
Yes, by all means - on the one hand, we could look to the contemporaneous news coverage of the campaign, complete with Romney's own words (which he never disputed the accuracy of any of these quotes), or on the other hand, we could just accept your summary here and disregard all that other stuff.
Because it's important to get the facts straight.
"We could find a speck of dust and scribble down our life stories..." - The Refreshments
and while Romney's words in the abortion debate are a hopeless muddle, his actions as governor appear to be solid pro-life.
...except for his promised surrender on abortion, that is. You know, because he's so concerned about clandestine abortions killing his relatives and all.
--
It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones. -- Calvin Coolidge
That tactic really only serves to turn off guys like me who might well be persuaded to vote for Romney if all the cards are face-up on the table.
Is it really the tactics of the pro-Romney folks which determine whether you will be persuaded to vote for Romney? I would have suspected it was Romney himself who would do the persuading...
"When it comes to protecting our citizens, there is no place for political correctness" -- Mitt Romney
All of this flows directly from Romney himself, but I'm certainly capable of appreciating a good wink-and-a-nod. I'm also capable of ignoring the thousands of screaming Romneybots while I hold my nose and vote for him (as I just said I would) - others may not be so capable.
"We could find a speck of dust and scribble down our life stories..." - The Refreshments
Don't forget the romneybots, who when you state your not voting for romney scream your a bigot.
Save the planet, Kill yourself
In fact he's down about 4th or 5th. I won't be voting for him in the primary. Does that make me a bigot?
I will vote for him if he wins the primary. He's not a bad guy, he's just not at the top of my list.
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
In my case i don't really know who i'm voting for. I don't have super strong support for any candidate, i will never vote for mccain though. I like rudy, but his personal life is a bit hard to swallow. Romney seems like he knows who butters his bread, but i worry that romney will cave when #W$# hits the fan and "grow" in office.
Sigh, if only tom coburn would run.
Save the planet, Kill yourself
Sen. Sam Brownback. He´s the next best thing. He gets high marks from the Club for Growth and Citizens Against Government Waste, as well as from social conservatives. It´s a late start, but as a conservative, I have a real problem stomaching Giuliani´s support for abortion, gay rights, and gun control, McCain´s willingness to abandon the Party on almost anything, and Romney´s on again off again conservatism.
I don't think brownback is very electable. Not to mention i don't really like his support of amnesty. I'll have to take a closer look at him.
Save the planet, Kill yourself
"When it comes to protecting our citizens, there is no place for political correctness" -- Mitt Romney
As an unabashed Romney supporter, I agree that Romney has some explaining to do on the issue of abortion. I just hope it doesn't detract from the fact that he is the only candidate out there right now who is close enough where it counts to bring together fiscal conservatives, social conservatives and business conservatives to form a coalition to win it all. If Romney successfully navigates the judges question, that should do it.
I completely agree that Romney is using the issue politically and is probably not truly pro-life. I have to say I think the fact that he is playing with the issue to get votes to be more troublesome to me than his actual stance. If he had stuck with his prior stance but simply promised to appoint conservative judges that probably would have been good enough.
Obviously I find Romney to be disapointing in this regard. But I again agree with Wolf that he will probably be the best Republican option. Brownback won't win, Guilini is wrong on all of the social issues, and McCain has stabbed the party in the back far too many times. Im not exactly dancing with joy over Romney but hes got the fundraising capabilities to win and hes a hell of a lot better than McCain and Guilini.
and is probably not truly pro-life
Why would you assume that he is "probably not truly pro-life?" It's a lot more likely, given his faith, that he was "probably not truly pro-choice" but adopted that position to win in a state where Republicans can't win their way out of a wet paper bag. I would guess that if the guy were from Kansas or Nebraska, he would've never been pro-choice.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
That's a bit of a bizarre assumption unclerayray. Whether or not Romney was truly pro-choice in 1994, it's pretty clear to me that he isn't anymore. His 2002 stance was already a repudiation of that earlier position. And I'd say Romney's gradual conversion on the issue is even more believeable in light of his religion. Mormons are, overwhelmingly, pro-life. Harry Reid, the Mormon Democratic majority leader, could only fairly be classified as pro-life (though I'm not sure he's ever characterized himself that way) on the basis of his voting record. Indeed, I believe that tacit position was a source of contention when Democrats were considering choosing him for minority leader. I'd say suggesting that a Mormon Republican, calling himself pro-life, isn't credible or sincere simply because he classified himself as pro-choice 12 years ago, strains credibility. I can't speak to whether or not Romney was lying in 1994 (I certainly hope he wasn't) when he classified himself as pro-choice (I think having been personally touched by an abortion tragedy can certainly color someone's views on the matter for awhile), but everything I've heard from him recently, and everything I know about the man's character and faith, lead me to believe that he is truly and sincerely pro-life now.
He has consistently called himself pro-life. And he votes against the "we agree with Roe" resolution in the Senate when it comes up. He votes mildly pro-life on abortion issues but he obviously led the charge to fight constructionist judges.
It all boils down to the judicial appointments, rather than their personal stand on Life or how consistent they have been on it (and none of the main contenders have a clean record on this). If the POTUS we elected ended up being pro-choice, either secretly or openly, but still appointed the right kind of justices, I'll be happy. I just want the justices that will throw out Roe, throw out Kelo, throw out CFR, and bring us back to Federalism.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Romney has been extremely consistent in opposing activist judges, and all attempts to circumvent popular opinion through judical fiat. That's a good point to remember when we are considering his less than clear messafe on abortion. On other social issues he has shown clear opposition to activist judges.
I just don't understand why so many social conservatives swoon over Mitt Romney.
The man has repeatedly stated on record that he is pro-choice, and ran as a pro-choice candidate for Governor and Senator.
I personally do not take his issue with his "I'm pro-life personally, but do not seek to change abortion laws", but really, doesn't this position describe every candidate running for office?
I just hope social conservatives give Giuliani the same benefit of the doubt, as he is a Catholic that believes abortion is wrong, but has not tried to make abortion illegal.
"Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich. "
William F. Buckley, Jr.
"Pro Life"? "Pro Choice"? Am I alone in being sick of the politics of mindless phrases? I'll respect the first candidate, regardless of party, who says: "Roe v. Wade is intellectual garbage. It should be reversed, and I'll try my damndest to appoint Supreme Court judges who will overturn it. And I'll campaign on behalf of state legislators who will vote to keep abortion legal, because it's assinine to pretend we're ever going back to wholesale illegality.
Why not something to offend everybody, rather than trying to please a majority?
I would welcome the politician of either side who would discuss the issue in frank terms. I don't think total illegality is a reasonable goal, but illegality in perhaps half the states would recognize the present state of affairs (where a lack of providers renders it well nigh illegal anyway) and allow residents of those states to live in good conscience under governments that do not expressly permit abortion.
If Roe v. Wade were overturned--and it should be--I doubt there'd be a single state in which abortion would be illegal under all circumstances, few in which it would be illegal even where there was no pretense of the mother's life being at risk. But any regime that reflected the wishes of a majority in each of the states would be preferable than the current usurpation.
I'd imagine a handful would outlaw it under all circumstances, though most that ban it would probably preserve the rape/incest/mother's health exception. I think what people fail to notice is that this does little more than codify the present state of affairs. In many counties across the country, and some states, it is virtually impossible to find someone willing to perform the procedure.
As long as we're speculating, I'll surmise that, if Roe were reversed, there would be many more (legal) abortion providers. True, there would be places where they weren't to be found, but I think that, without Roe, abortion would return to the status of a medical procedure, and cease being such a lightening rod for censure, or worse. The whole political landscape would mellow.
People are latching onto Governor Romney because they keep being told that THIS IS THE 2008 FIELD, they look at Senator McCain and Rudy Giuliani, and so Romney looks really good by comparison.
--
It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones. -- Calvin Coolidge
For me, personally, I'd be a supporter of Romney's candidacy even if there were many other strong likely candidates. He's certainly not the best of a weak group to me. I look at his entire career in business, public service and government, combined with his apparent devotion to his wife and family, and I see a person who is perhaps the best candidate for the White House since Ronald Reagan on the GOP side and maybe Bobby Kennedy (or JFK) on the Democrat side. The only person who comes to mind as equally qualified today would be Jeb Bush, and he's not running.
Whether or not Governor Romney actually believes everything he now ostensibly does on a wide variety of issues (including, but not limited to, abortion), wouldn't it be nice for once to have a Republican candidate and President who can articulate conservative views and policies as well as Romney can?
I appreciate the legwork on this. It is true that a candidate's actual beliefs on the abortion question are minimally important so long as he favors strict constructionist SCOTUS nominees and signs the odd piece of restriction legislation that crosses his desk. Still, it speaks to character; for someone to talk so frankly and personally of his pro-choice views to turn around and talk about his pro-life views suggests that the man and the public persona may not be entirely congruent.
Since none of the viable candidates in 2008 are personally pro-life, it's even more important that we demand total honesty on what their views are.
The worst case scenario for me - and, I suspect, for Leon - would be to support a candidate like Romney full bore, only to have him grow in office to his prior (but not original) position.
but I think he's more likely to undergo a George Ryan-esque epiphany while in office than is Romney, who is at minimum religious and accepts that he will answer to a higher judge long after a career in politics is at an end.
Would Mitt Romney's Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey be our strongest opponant to take on John Kerry in the 2008 race for that senate seat?
I realize this is Massachusetts, and the liklihood of that state sending a Republican to Washington, even over an unpopular senator like John Kerry, is probably even less likely than New Jersey turning out their corruption-prone Democrats...but might Kerry Healy be our strongest candidate to run against John Kerry? A better showing against Deval Patrick would have been nice, but John Kerry isn't quite the candidate that Mr. Patrick is, either.
I was thinking that maybe former Gov. Jane Swift, quoted in the 2002 update on Romney, might be a good choice, but then I read that she wasn't so popular in the 2 years she served as governor.
There are several like Sam Brownback that would make a great President. However, it's getting late to raise money and build organization. I just don't see anyone that can beat Hillary Rotten in 2008. What do y'all suppose our chances are to at least make it a reasonable close race in 2008 AND get the US House back?
I think we have a really minor chance of changing the House back if our Pres candidate has serious coattails. I also disagree about no one being able to beat Hillary. Guiliani and McCain will be able to easily beat her. Romney can as well (though that'd be competitive). In my opinion, the closest analogue to the 2008 election is the 1968 election. 8 years of one party rule and a deeply unpopular war (for which the ruling party was largely responsible). In 1968 the Democrats knew they weren't going to hold the White House with anyone other then Robert Kennedy. Nixon beat Humphrey by over 150 electoral votes. We're a little bit luckier in that we have two extremely strong electoral candidates and another candidate likely to be quite competitive. But make no mistake, the vast majority of Republican candidates would go down in flames in 08 against any Democratic candidate. As these elections evinced, generic polls (which have a generic Democratic candidate beating a generic Republican candidate by large margins) are meaningful unless the candidates are well-known, visible, and likeable.
I could see Hillary winning the Presidency if:
1. The Republicans nominate someone with a lot of personal baggage (i.e. Newt)
2. Enough Americans unfortunately take issue with Romney's Mormonism (Count on the MSM helping out with this)
3. Some ridiculous conservative, third-party candidate emerges because of McCain's nomination, and once again gives the White House to the Clintons.
As much as I dislike McCain, if he wins the nomination, I hope Conservatives don't hand the White House to Hillary Clinton.
At the very least McCain will nominate better judges than Hillary.
"Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich. "
William F. Buckley, Jr.
nomination, but I honestly don't see him rebuilding the bridges he burned quickly enough (and without burning more) with the base to garner the nomination. I would support McCain if he was the nominee over Hillary, but I won't even consider voting for him in a primary.
I think the primary season kills Rudy, although there are certain aspects about Rudy that I like, I think his current support is based solely on him being the faceof 9-11 and I think his opponents will tear him apart from all sides in a primary over his more liberal stances.
Which brings me to Romney-I can honestly say I don't trust him-I think mostly because his positions on life seem to be attached more to political expediancy than a real heartfelt belief on the issue. I am scared of the politically expedient, because they are motivated by polls and opinion rather than what is right. I haven't ruled him out, but I am not so sure I want to attach my wagon to his candidacy either.
I actually like a lot about Newt, but think he comes with tons of baggage that would make winning the presidency difficult, but the man has been in NH enough to make me think he definately wants to run.
I keep hoping some other candidate will show up that appeals, but so far it hasn't happened.
My "will not vote for" list is pretty long, and I haven't yet found anyone I even remotely feel passionate about.
and while he will struggle in the conservative states he could still squeak through if a 3-4 candidate field splits either individual votes in primaries or victories in primaries. Pencil him in for strong support in the Northeast and likely resonance with moderate Republicans elsewhere, perhaps resonance enough to convince them to vote in the primaries.
"Will Never Vote For" list. If he is the nominee against HRC, I'm looking forward to her Presidency although I won't vote for her either.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
Today's poll shows that Giuliani enjoys the broadest support, though it remains pretty shallow. However, if he can make a strong case on judges and how they would trump his social liberalism, I think he gives his weak spot some protection.
there is no object in the universe that Ms. Lopez cannot somehow connect with Mitt Romney.
for Christmas? A la the "Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon" game, where the object is to show someone's relation to Kevin Bacon in the fewest possible steps?
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
While past decisions and actions are the best indicators of future actions, a key element is how effective and successful the nominee will be in persuading Americans and Congress to legislate according to conservative ideals.
2008 is not a "who is the most conservative candidate" contest, but it's finding "who is the most conservative candidate that can win the general election and be the most effective at promoting and enacting a true conservative agenda."
Will they articulately and convincingly advocate pro-life ideals in office, and can they CONVINCE others? Romney will, of course, just like he did in MA where he didn't just take a passive stance a proactive, vetoing stance.
My point is don't waste your energy debating the exact context of a statement 10 years, and use that as a reason why you wouldn't vote for them. The whole picture matters, the whole package matters (advocacy skills, brains, decision making ability, proven ability to manage and push issues, etc.). I think Romney has the best "package", and is strong in all areas where Bush is weak, but I'd happily support any conservative candidate in the general election.
For Romney to succeed, Giuliani needs to fade. The MSM will continue to play McCain as the front-runner until events prove otherwise. That means McCain will be toasted by the good and great until at least the night of the Iowa caucuses. In the meantime, Giuliani probably will stay #1 or #2 in almost all the national polls unless Romney can begin to whittle him down. And whittle him down he must because a third place finish for Romney in Iowa (where he must prove he has grassroots appeal) would leave him crippled for Nevada and for his favorite son candidacy in New Hampshire.
Ironically, Romney might have been in better shape with George Allen in the race, with lower percentage thesholds for candidates to exceed expectations.
Look for Romney to go after McCain and Giuliani really hard throughout 2007. Romney can't afford to wait.
I don't agree that Rudy must fade early for Romney to win the nomination, although I suppose early is a matter for interpretation. Though I believe consecutive third-place finishes in Iowa and New Hampshire would make it very difficult for Romney to win, if McCain flops in Iowa and doesn't crush Rudy and Mitt in New Hampshire then McCain will fade and it will likely be a two-man race between Rudy and Romney for the nomination. In such a dynamic, Romney will be able to capitalize on Rudy's long history of social liberalism (Rudy "supports" partial birth abortion, for example) and other controversial issues to win the more-conservative states. In other words, if McCain is a non-factor fairly early, Rudy and Romney could go down to the wire with Romney as the ultimate victor. Romney at the top of the ticket with Rudy as VP is a distinct possibility in such a scenario. Personally, I think the GOP could do a heck of a lot worse than those two.
Right now he is all things to all people and his support comes from across the spectrum. He will have to take positions on issues and alienate large chunks of his supporters once he actually starts campaigning for the job... or certainly once he has to start debating the other contenders. If he says things to please the conservatives, he will lose the liberals. If he says things to please the liberals, he will lose the conservatives. He has no where to go but down right now. I think his candidacy is highly overrated at this point.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
According to recent polls, the only Republicans who can beat Hillary now are McCain and Giuliani. Yes, there is still lots of time left, but other candidates need to get out in 2007 and make their case, not only to the conservative base, but also to those "swing voters" we got in 2004 and lost in 2006.
If either McCain or Giuliani makes a convincing case for appointing "strict constructionist" judges who won't legislate from the bench (despite Giuliani's personal convictions), he can become an effective President, especially Giuliani, who is likely to be stronger on national security than McCain.
I was particularly impressed by Newt Gingrich on Fox News last night. I don't think Gingrich could ever win the Presidency, but he does have some good ideas about what the Republican party should stand for in 2008. He could become a strong force on the campaign trail, especially in helping Republicans win back the House, if enough people listen to him.
The bad news: Conservatism is hard to sell. The good news is that it works.
Remember: It was HER plan to nationalize health care that helped us take the house in 1994, along with numerous other factors, true, but that was one of them.
And how about that vaunted Clinton machine? Let's go to tape: 1992: Clinton 43, Perot + Bush 56. 1996: Clinton 49, Perot + Dole 49. Some force.
And let's not forget: Clinton does not have the unquestioned support of her party's base. She has hedged well on the war, criticizing the administration without calling for a pullout. The left will remember that.
--
It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones. -- Calvin Coolidge
I really don't see any other Democrat candidate winning the nomination against her. Kerry is washed up after his comment against the military, Gore has drifted too far left with his inconvenient "truths", Edwards is fading, Feingold isn't running, Obama is too young and inexperienced. Who among the Democrats really has enough support to beat Hillary?
We should not underestimate her, though. She is capable of opening mouth and inserting foot, but she has learned well from her husband the art of political lying, being all things to all people, a hawk among hawks and a dove among doves, a liberal among liberals and a moderate before everyone else.
Any Republican candidate for President has to be prepared to face her, and will need to study everything she has said in order to debunk her lies, of which there will be no shortage. We can't count on the "left" abandoning her if she moves to the center (or fakes it well)--the "left" would still be excited about a woman president, and many women on the left will vote for her ONLY for her gender. She needs to be defeated in the center, where voters who CAN be swayed need to be persuaded that Hillary can't be trusted with power.
She can be defeated only by being shown to be the lying hypocrite she really is, but that will take lots of digging and hard work, to overcome the adulation she receives from the MSM. We take her lightly at our own peril, and we need a strong candidate who is ready and able to pick her apart with her own words, while maintaining his own integrity.
The bad news: Conservatism is hard to sell. The good news is that it works.
It is far, far too early to be looking at polls or even to be thinking about the general. We simply need to choose the best candidate to put forward. Whoever we choose, no matter how low his name ID happens to be now, will have very good name ID by October of 2008 when the mushy types start to figure out who to vote for. Name ID is a non-issue and is no reason to support anybody in the primary.
I'm not all that concerned about HRC. I'm not convinced she is going to be the Democrat nominee. And even if she is, she's not the most fearsome competitor on that side. She has very high negatives. A whole lot of people really can't stand the woman, including some on her own side. She would in a much better position if she didn't have any name ID.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
I sure hope that all of you Senator Sam Brownback supporters do understand that Sam Brownback is pro-amnesty for illegal immigrants, and that he voted for that "very terrible" U.S. Senate immigration bill! I'm also no fan of Mitt Romney either. For references to many of Mitt Romney's continuing problems, see http://www.alainsnewsletter.com/s/spip.php?article325 The devil is in the details.
right or wrong, is that his support for immigration (even the illegal variety) is principled and not pragmatic. I can respect that a good deal more than someone whose sole justifications for such myopic programs are short-term economic and electoral gain.
1. I already made reference to the fact that Brownback wasn't a Tancredoite in the OP.
2. Unlike most people who decry the "very bad" Senate bill, I've actually read it, and it's not so "very bad" as its often claimed to be. Nonetheless, this is a threadjack, and it needs to end now.
"We could find a speck of dust and scribble down our life stories..." - The Refreshments
If you mean that it strays from the original topic, isn't that what conversations naturally do?
If you want to go off topic simply write a new blog on that subject.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
Since you've clearly looked at lexis nexis, you should post some of romney's articles where he takes shots at the contract with america, reagan, and bush (41). He was taking shots at them when he ran in '94 because he wanted to come off as independent, now is an uber conservative. I posted them once over at free republic and was derided by the romney folks as making things up.
You think a little intellectual honesty on their part would be nice.
Save the planet, Kill yourself
Here's what I found:
The Washington Times October 6, 1994, Thursday, Final Edition
Copyright 1994 News World Communications, Inc.
The Washington TimesOctober 6, 1994, Thursday, Final Edition
SECTION: Part A; NATION; INSIDE POLITICS; Pg. A5
LENGTH: 1359 words
BYLINE: Alan McConagha; THE WASHINGTON TIMES
In Massachusetts, Republican Mitt Romney, who is opposing Democratic Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, distanced himself from a GOP leadership move to rally candidates behind a " Contract with America."
The Boston Globe reports that the 10-point manifesto is already a hot issue in two state congressional races in which freshman Republicans Rep. Peter G. Torkildsen and Peter I. Blute are defending the document.
Romney aides, hoping to keep their candidate out of the controversy generated by the proposal and as far from Washington politics as possible, said he has not read it and has no plans to support it, the Globe says.
Romney silent on GOP plan;House group's 'contract' is issue in 2 Mass. races The Boston Globe October 1, 1994, Saturday, City Edition
Copyright 1994 Globe Newspaper Company
The Boston GlobeOctober 1, 1994, Saturday, City Edition
Republican US Senate hopeful Mitt Romney yesterday distanced himself from a GOP leadership move to rally congressional candidates behind a " contract with America " - a 10-point manifesto that embraces welfare cuts, tax cuts and a beefed-up military.
The contract, promoted by Rep. Newt Gingrich of Georgia, is already a hot issue in Massachusetts' 6th and 3d congressional districts, where Republican freshmen Peter Torkildsen of Danvers and Peter Blute of Shrewsbury are defending their support of the document in the face of charges from Democratic opponents that it would inflate the federal deficit.
Romney aides, hoping to keep their candidate out of the controversy the contract has generated and as far from Washington politics as possible, said the GOP hopeful, who is seeking to unseat US Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, has not read the document and had no plans to support it.
Yet the document contains a number of proposals that Romney has made a centerpiece of his campaign, including welfare reform, a balanced budget amendment and a line-item veto for the president.
Rick Gureghian, Kennedy's press secretary, said that, while Romney may try to distance himself from the document, its contents represent the GOP candidate's views.
"Mitt Romney is afraid the people of Massachusetts will realize he truly is the candidate of Jesse Helms and Phil Gramm and Newt Gingrich," Gureghian said
"We could find a speck of dust and scribble down our life stories..." - The Refreshments
Here's another
Copyright 1994 Boston Herald Inc.
The Boston Herald
October 27, 1994 Thursday SECOND EDITION
SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 038
LENGTH: 482 words
HEADLINE: Conservative group yanks its support for Mitt
BYLINE: By Joe Battenfeld
BODY:
A national conservative group yesterday attacked Republican U.S. Senate candidate Mitt Romney for espousing a "left-wing agenda" and urged its followers not to support his candidacy.
The group said Romney's nationally televised debate performance against Sen. Edward M. Kennedy showed he is "anti-family" and running away from conservative Republican themes.
"It makes no difference who wins (the Senate race)," said L. Brent Bozell, executive director of the Conservative Victory Committee, a fiercely conservative fund-raising group.
"Romney is not going to be a fighter for a conservative agenda."
The group's attack is not likely to hurt Romney in Massachusetts, where he is trying to appeal to the critical voting group of moderate independents.
Romney adviser Charles Manning last night dismissed Bozell's group as a right-wing organization that has not been involved in Romney's campaign.
"This is the type of gimmick that groups like this use to try to get publicity and it's really silly," Manning said. "There isn't anyone, anywhere who could ever say that Mitt Romney is anti-family."
Manning said Bozell's group has not contributed to Romney because he does not accept political action committee money.
Bozell said in an interview that he helped collect more than $ 3,500 in individual donations for Romney over the last few weeks.
He said he now regrets asking his group members to contribute to Romney because the debate "demonstrated very clearly that (Romney) has more in common with liberal Democrats than he does with conservatives."
Bozell's group is one of the most conservative in the country, and has been a constant critic of Kennedy's record in the Senate.
"I'm sorry we ever raised a penny for his campaign," Bozell said in a statement.
Other conservative leaders in Washington also were reportedly upset with Romney for voicing support on Tuesday night for gay rights, abortion rights and forcing employers to release information on their hiring record of women and minorities.
"Any man who runs on quotas for women is not one of us," Bozell said.
Kennedy attempted to link Romney several times during the debate to conservatives such as Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) and accused him of trying to return the country to the policies of the Reagan-Bush administrations.
Romney objected to the characterizations, saying: "I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I'm not trying to return to Reagan-Bush."
Romney has sought throughout the campaign to portray himself as a "Bill Weld Republican" who is is liberal on social issues and conservative on fiscal matters.
One conservative strategist, however, said a Romney victory would hurt Republicans who are attempting to appeal to conservatives in the 1996 election.
"In their minds, if Romney is elected, that's a disaster to the future of the Republican Party," the strategist said.
Save the planet, Kill yourself
just as surely here; it just does it with a little different rhythm.
In Vino Veritas