Mitt Romney: Flipping In The Right Direction.
By Martin A. Knight Posted in 1994 | 2002 | 2008 | Archived | democratic nomination | flip-flop | Massachusetts | Mitt | Romney — Comments (34) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I've seen quite a few folks on the Right attack Romney for moving from Left to Right (I do believe his 2002 campaign was more conservative than the one he ran eight years earlier) at suspiciously all-too-convenient times but ... strangely enough, I'm yet to see anyone show me anywhere where he moved from Right to Left.
Consistent movement from Left to Right is a good thing, I would think. At least, being a conservative, I tend to like it when I see someone coming over from the other side. Like I've said before, Romney is not a "flip-flopper," he's a "flipper" ... and as far as I can see, he only flips one way.
In our direction.
When it comes right down to it, the only knock people have against Romney is that he ran for office in Massachusetts, primarily, his, in retrospect, stupid decision to take on Ted Kennedy in 1994. True enough, he ran somewhat to the Left of the average Red State Republican on some social issues ... but that was FOURTEEN years ago.
What I really find annoying about the "flip-flop" charges coming from the Right is the fact that Romney ran on what I, at least, consider to be a distinctively conservative platform, except on the issue of abortion - now who does that remind anyone of?
For myself, I'm very forgiving of Romney's zigs and zags during both his runs for office because, quite frankly, he was running in Massachusetts, and for all intents and purposes any Democrat could be caught with a live boy and a dead girl at the same time and still have a 60% chance of beating any Republican.
What those YouTube videos fail to capture is that particular context - running in Massachusetts as a Republican is fighting a uphill battle from the get-go. No Republican in Massachusetts actually wins elections in Massachusetts by highlighting the fact that he is a Republican. Sad but true.
For what it's worth, Mitt's 1994 platform was actually pretty much the same Contract with America that won the GOP it's first majority for forty years. But, marketing it as that in Massachusetts would have been foolish.
And if I recall correctly, the 2002 Mitt was rather desperate to avoid social issues, and I believe it had a lot to do with the 2001 Schundler campaign for New Jersey Governor. As soon as Bret secured the nomination, the entire campaign between him and McGreevey, apparently as far as the New Jersey Press was concerned, became about abortion, and how "out of step" Schundler was with the good pro-choice people New Jersey.
It was interesting, to say the least - Bret would give a speech about education; and end up fielding more questions about abortion than education. The same with taxes, transportation, etc. He cites his record as Mayor of Jersey City, the response from the reporterette with the microphone in hand? "what about abortion?"
Either way, I must admit that Mitt's changes in position on abortion, gun control and perhaps campaign finance reform are not confidence inspiring, even if he does have some explanation for most of them. It's not possible to ignore Mitt's many detractors when they point this out.
But ultimately, what most of Romney's detractors also ignore is the fact that he very easily could have sought office the easy way and switched over to the Democrats to seek their nomination for Governor in 2002. Personally, I think he would have won it hands down. Note that Kansas' Democratic Lieutenant Governor (and Governor Sebelius' presumptive heir) was the Chairman of the Kansas Republican Party less than three years ago so it's not crazy to think Democrats would give their nomination to a former Republican.
Romney the Democrat would have easily won re-election in 2006 and carried on to run for President as a two term Governor. With his record in business, the Winter Olympics, life story as a former Republican (which would appeal to a heck of a lot of "moderates"), a near picture perfect family life (in contrast to the Slickmeister), massive media support, unBush-like ability to speak off the cuff etc. Mitt would be near impossible to beat as a Democrat.
But he didn't switch. Despite being in Massachusetts. It would have been the most perfectly calculated flip-flop in history.
But I look and I see he's still wearing that scarlet R.
I don't know about anyone else ... but I think that's very cool.
In 1994, he said that he used to be pro-life but was now pro-choice. Otherwise, good article.
------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.
Leon acknowledges this (didn't he do a story on this once?). The whole point of this post is way off the mark. He (Mitt) was pro-life, THEN pro-choice, NOW pro-life. That's moving in the right direction after having once moved also in the wrong direction (and as Leon has also pointed out, at least he IS trying to flip, unlike Rudy). I read Leon's post as to why he now backs Romney, and understand it. But I can't agree with my favorite RS contributor. Romney is saying what everyone wants to hear, and sounds very Hilleryesque saying it.
Rudy claims that he will appoint stict constructionists, but has also stated several times that strict constructionists could uphold Roe because stare decisis dictates it.
Great choice. One guy is so wishy washy back and forth on abortion that he has to have legions of people blogging others to "please believe him". Bad enough. Then on the other side we have a guy who openly favors "a woman's right to choose" infanticide, but tells us he'll appoint judges we like anyway (while adding they can be strict constructionists and still uphold Roe).
Romney should just give up his charade and be openly pro-abortion and stick to his Hillary Care / health care solution he brought to his state. It has already been determined (by a previous recommended diary on RS) that those of us who can't in good faith cast a vote for a pro-abortion candidate of ANY party are not welcome in the republican party anymore. Of course, I guess our downticket votes aren't welcome either.
But what are we left with? McCain, who votes against tax cuts (though tough on spending), works with Kennedy to expand torture to mean anything, joined with democrats and liberal republicans to prevent us from ending unconstitutional filibusters, and drowned the first amendment with his so called "campaign finance reform" garbage.
I guess I'm closest to Thompson, but he doesn't strike me as at all motivated to win. I waited for him, and when he showed up he didn't act like he wants to be here.
Huckabee sounds good on social issues, but his fiscal issues worry me.
There's Paul, but he's so far gone in the mental health arena that he's probably shared a padded room with Kucinich at some point. In fact, I wouldn't doubt it if Paul was flying the UFO Kucinich says he saw.
It's a sad year to be a republican. We blew the majority in both houses because we couldn't keep our promises on wasteful spending and we acted corrupt. Our president has low approval because of a war we are winning and should have started, but he (POTUS) never went to the bullypulpit to fight for it on the homefront. And in the third branch, while we gained two stellar justices on the highest court, all of our lower federal courts are suffering from vacancies because the president didn't forward a lot of names, and our (then) republican majority in the senate didn't fight hard for the ones that came up.
Now we have such a bad field of candidates that they have to "beg" us to believe them because of their liberal histories.
At least the democrats are ripping each other to shreds.
In the end I'll probably end up holding my nose and voting for one of these guys (no, I won't vote for Rudy), but I'm finding myself less and less interested in politics and current events than ever. I'm still a conservative, but the party seems to be sending a signal that we don't have to govern like conservatives, and we will put up candidates who are so obviously NOT conservative because they have to try so hard to convince us that they are.
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" - Defoe
This comment deserves a diary response. I'll try to get to it later tonight or tomorrow.
------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.
I've been a RS member for three years (almost to the day). I am terribly distressed as you can read. I have always considered you to be the writer most in line with my thinking on most issues, and have followed not only your work here, but put in my prayers for your work in law school.
As you can see, I don't trust Romney (even after your fine, previous diary). I'm a recovered former Mormon, and passionate about pro-life. I could hold my nose and vote for him so far, but it's tough. I've wavered too much on Rudy, and he has just made too many ironic statements for me to accept any longer.
The recomended diary about people who can't vote for Rudy to "get out" was almost too much. The message was to toss the pro-life movement (a good segment of the party) for a candidate that is supposedly "pro-life", and to attract independents (don't know why, since again the candidate is "pro-life").
Any words of inspiration you have in the diary will be welcome and appreciated. I feel like I'm on my final legs playing politics.
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" - Defoe
.
In 1994, Mitt Romney said he was personally against abortion and that explained his counseling to young girls as a Mormon Bishop and Stake President to go to full term and give their babies up for adoption.
He was politically pro-choice because of a family experience where a fiance of an extended family member died from an illegal abortion and he followed his parents view that they should not "force" their personal beliefs on others.
Although the Mormon Religion allow's it's members to be politically pro-choice, there are rules (a.k.a commandments) for personal behavior. This is what led up to the "Multiple Choice" comment from Sen. Kennedy. From his perspective, claiming to be personally pro-life and politically pro-choice was really multiple choice.
Romney changed his political views in 2005 while researching stem cell policy. His personal views have never changed.
If we start giving credence to this "personally pro-life, politically pro-choice" distinction, we are going to come around to calling Mario Cuomo and John Kerry pro-life. Even Mitt has confessed that he was "functionally pro-choice." And in 1994, he clearly indicated that this was a *change* from his previous position. It's not helpful to insult the intelligence of people who doubt Mitt on this issue.
Like I said, I'll try to have a diary up on this soon.
------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.
it's important to note when this shift from pro-life to pro-choice (pre-1994) occurred. please include this in your next diary.
i don't deny this first "flip" as a possibility, but like remington steele, we just haven't been shown anything that proves mitt was a committed pro-lifer at any point before his 1994 run.
sure, he was "personally" pro-life, but like you, i still count that as pro-choice. and yes, mitt has acknowledged this as an "effectively pro-choice position."
so if he was "effectively pro-choice" following the death of his relative, then are you counting this as the first "flip?"
That did more to convince me about Mitt's disconnect between whetever he may "think or say" and whatever he may "do". I don't think you really want to defend Mitt's flipping with those four paragraphs.
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" - Defoe
1.
When it comes right down to it, the only knock people have against Romney is that he ran for office in Massachusetts, primarily, his, in retrospect, stupid decision to take on Ted Kennedy in 1994.
No, there's also his relative lack of experience, among other things. I've explained before why I don't trust him on foreign policy.
2. Schundler's race was also largely, perhaps even moreso, about guns; NJ has a big anti-gun faction and McGreevey killed him on his opposition to the assault weapons ban.
3. Unlike the Kansas Dems, the Mass. Dems would not have welcomed Mitt. Why settle for Mitt when you could have a real liberal like Deval Patrick elected?
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
3. Unlike the Kansas Dems, the Mass. Dems would not have welcomed Mitt. Why settle for Mitt when you could have a real liberal like Deval Patrick elected?
I was imagining Romney running for Governor in 2002 as a Democrat. Considering their bench then (or even now), I think he could have won their nomination easily. He would have been the perfect Democratic Candidate for President now in 2007.
PS: I agree on Schundler VS McGreevey; guns were a close second to abortion in what killed the Schundler campaign - that, and a very bad general election campaign following a brilliant primary campaign for the nomination. {sigh} I had a huge amount of hope invested in Bret ...
Why would Romney want to run as a Democrat in 2002, when the Democratic party was utterly on the ropes back then?
In 2002, bipartisanship was all the rage post Sept-11. What better way to establish your bipartisan credentials than to be a Republican in liberal Massachusetts?
The sad thing is, a Romney flip to be a "D" is conceivable, but nobody seems to mind.
The Democrats are never on the ropes in Massachusetts.
The point I'm making is that if Romney was the thoroughly dishonorable dishonest opportunist so many desperately want to believe he is because of the differences between his positions on some social issues since 1994 then he would have switched just in time to run for Governor in 2002.
PS: Ask the Democrats if bipartisanship was really all the rage in 2002. The 2002 MA Governor's election was very tough - but Romney ran well, caught some lucky breaks and his campaign parlayed them into victory.
That he won on the back of some national spirit of "bipartisanship" a year after 9/11 is just ... well, not true.
Why would Romney want to run as a Democrat in 2002, when the Democratic party was utterly on the ropes back then?
This is 2002 your talking about? You mean, the year Jean Francois Kerry ran unopposed for re-election to the Senate? And the GOP made precisely no gains in the State House and Senate? And the year we were, once again, shut out at the congressional level? That 2002?
Oh yeah, the Democrats sure were on the ropes back then. Amazing they survived the election at all.
In 2002, bipartisanship was all the rage post Sept-11.
Yep - "can't we all just get along" sure was "the rage" post-9/11. Pity it didn't last the winter of 2002. Guess you missed the vigils that were held in and around the Beautiful People precincts of the Commonwealth protesting our involvement - in Afghanistan (no links, unfortunately - for some reason, the news didn't think that newsworthy).
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
Nationally, the democrats were on the ropes in 2002, and nationally there was a desire to be (or appear) bipartisan. You think Romney cared about the state? Romney always had an eye on running for president.
As for being elected a Republican governor in Massachusetts as some kind of accomplishment, the last Democratic governor before Deval Patrick was that funny little man riding the tank back in the late 80s. Romney ran in the mold of William Weld, which was a proven winner.
And no, I didn't miss the vigils. I saw professors walking around with black armbands at UMass Amherst when we attacked Afghanistan.
Where governors in Massachusetts are elected by voters in, well, Utah and Texas, I suppose.
Erm, what was your point again?
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
Imagine you are in the year 2002 and building a resume for a 2008 presidential run, which party do you choose to run for a governorship in?
The Republican party was the most popular nationally, with a large advantage on the most important issue (GWOT). The alternative would be to throw in with a party which is in the political wilderness and has no tenable position.
The Republican party was the safer bet for a 2008 bid, and winning as a Republican in Massachusetts was a well-established possibility which could be touted as a proof of bipartisanship.
If you can show that Romney was, at some point during his public life, ever a Democrat and switched to the Republican party to win the Governorship (or whatever office) of an overwhelmingly Democrat state.
Otherwise, not so much.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
The argument made was that Romney was a true Republican because it would have been better for him to run as a Democrat in Massachusetts than a Republican. Thus he must have deep Republican convictions.
I pointed out that if you had an eye on the 2008 elections back in 2002, being a Republican was the safer bet.
So making a claim that Romney made some kind of sacrifice running as a Republican in Massachusetts is, in my opinion, hogwash.
Because it is NEVER safer to run as a Republican in Massachusetts.
And hasn't been since about 1992.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
Just that it was possible, and if you could do it, you'd be better off running for president.
But apparently the last three governors before Romney were some kind of political dynamos, because they were all Republicans in a place where a Republican couldn't win.
I did say it was safer, in terms of running for president in 2008.
Still, the three Republican governors in the state since Dukakis proves it is possible to win as a Republican in MA.
See below...
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
Weld, who took over in 1990 after people realized the "Massachusetts Miracle" wasn't all it was cracked-up to be - was a politically skilled RiNO who destroyed Roosevelt in 1994 - arguably a pretty good Republican year. (Arguably, Roosevelt was the worst major-party candidate for MA GOV in 2-generations, but he would have lost anyway.)
Celuch was Weld's LtGov - running as a virtual incumbent for Weld's 3rd term (as Big Red had grown bored with Boston and decided to leave to be Clinton's flak in - Mexico, right?) who beat Harshbarger by, what, 10K votes in 1998. Harshbarger was a pinko - and even MA voters rejected his overt socialist themes. Unfortunately, he was only about 10-years ahead of his time. Scotty would be considered center of political mass in 2006 MA.
Swift - who was, well, not very - took over in 2000 after Celuch fled to Ottowa. She never faced the voters.
In the interim, we'd lost both GOP US reps (Blute and Tork) and had gone from a 2-1 Democrat legislature to about a 6-1 Democrat legislature.
So, I'm still not seeing why rolling the dice on your political future by running for MA GOV in 2002 as a Republican was such a brilliant move unless, well, you're a Republican and have been one all your life - but to each his own.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
I think it is likely that Mitt Romney isn't fired up on social issues and, for that reason, is willing to adjust his views on these issues based on the political topography. Still, at least he believes that the conservative base of the Republican party is worth pandering too. Some of the other Republican candidates take a Chistee Todd Whitman view on social or economic conservatives or both. Compare William Weld with Mitt Romney. William Weld was in a position similar to that of Romney: a Republican governor of Massachusetts. Weld stood by his social liberalism. Romney has turned his back on his.
...ran for president in this party don't you think he would, as you put it, "adjust" his views too to get the nomination?
What's wrong with having a principled candidate who won't "adjust" their views? What's wrong with someone who will vote on principle?
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" - Defoe
I think you're right on. I've seen a little flipping, but virtually no "flip-flopping" in Mitt's record. Since when is giong right a bad thing?
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
-Winston Churchill
Do you believe any of his various policy positions are deeply held at the time they were stated? Do you believe that he will say and do anything he thinks will get him elected?
Has Mitt Romney convinced you that he is serious?
Do you believe his myth that Ronald Reagan was "adamantly pro-choice" as governor of California?
These are important questions and I think we all should answer them if Romney has even the slightest chance of winning our party's nomination.
Do you believe that he will say and do anything he thinks will get him elected?
No.
As far as I'm concerned, a Massachusetts politician who runs for any office in the state as a Republican would register a very low reading on the Opportunism-meter.
but his "flips" don't factor in at all. I agree that he's moving in the right direction and that's a good thing. I also think that the same thing can be said for...
Rudy... judges & 2A statements;
McCain... build the ****** wall;
Fred... BCRA 2nd thoughts.
Good things all around!
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.