The Candidates
Featured Archives
??????? That is the question posed by Scott Helman of the Boston Globe in today’s editions, where he?makes the case that the Romney position on guns is now vastly different from when he ran against Ted Kennedy in 1994 for the United States Senate.
The list of foundational issues of ideology that Romney has made significant changes on since 1994 now include: abortion, firearms, gay rights, stem cell research, and taxes. The media and voters will continue to properly ask whether true conversion has taken place here or whether Romney is simply telling Republican presidential primary and caucus voters what he thinks they want to hear.
January 14th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
I’ve never seen any evidence that shows he has changed in regards to taxes.
January 14th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
He used to be against no tax pledges and now is in favor. I think am not sure he still says polygamy is wrong.
January 14th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
The evidence that Romney has changed his position on the economy and taxes is that when accused by Ted Kennedy in 1994 of being a disciple of Reagan-Bush when it came to those issues, Romney specifically claimed he did not want to go back to Reagan-Bush in that respect, evidence of which was that in the early 1980s he was an independent. It was a clear repudiation by Romney of the Reagan-Bush economic program, which Kennedy was criticizing for being unwilling to raise taxes on the rich.
January 14th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
Of course he’s changed his position on guns. He knows being a Massachusetts liberal won’t go over well with the Republican base.
January 14th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
My question for contributors like Polar Express and Jacob who, like me, question these fundamental policy position changes from Romney is: Do you think Romney as of right now is truly a Reagan conservative or a Nelson Rockefeller liberal? Are the changes heartfelt or expedient? Thanks.
January 14th, 2007 at 3:34 pm
I think he is Hillary-without principles or beliefs other than the belief he can outsmart us and get into office. No one changes on that many issues that quickly and each timed for an election if it is heartfelt. I was skeptical but willing to keep an open mind until now. I think he’s toast now. Better start to figure out who I can live withas an alternative.
January 14th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
Ask yourself why the Romney staff scheduled him to attend a gun show while in Florida last Friday? They want to build up his bona fides when it comes to guns and get the photo opportunity the Boston Globe provided of him viewing a rack of rifles. If Romney was already solid on guns and not in need of a policy position adjustment there would be no need to schedule him at the gun show.
His staff may want to consider a change in scheduling strategy. They are leaving a trail of bread crumbs for the media down the path of his many policy shifts, and the voters end up viewing such events as stunts. John Kerry was scheduled early in his campaign against President George W. Bush on a hunting excursion, which fooled nobody into thinking he was anything but liberal when it comes to the Second Amendment.
January 14th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
It seems the Boston Globe, as in so many other anti-Romney pieces, attempts to show
Gov. Romney’s position on guns as “anti-2nd Amendment”. But is you really look at his
record, who is he “out of step with”? So the Gov. is in favor of a 5 day waiting period
to purchase a gun…..Poll after poll after poll shows that so are the overwhelming majority
of Americans. So Gov. Romney is in favor of a ban on assault rifles….Again, so are the majority
of the American people.
Will some in the “2nd Amendment” crowd dispute his record and even see it as “anti-gun”? Sure.
But then again, those same people see any attempt to regulate gun ownership as “anti-gun”.
Gov. Romney’s views on gun control may not be exactly “in step” with the 2nd Amendment crowd
in Iowa, South Carolina, or Michigan, but it is in step with the vast majority of the American
people; which is pro gun ownership based on mandatory waiting periods that allow a thorough
background check…and pro ban on assault rifles. A man does not need an AK-47 to defend his
family or to hunt big game. It seems to me that Gov. Romney has been 100% consistent on guns.
Now abortion and gay rights are another story.
January 14th, 2007 at 4:27 pm
Larry King interviewed Condi Rice back in May 2005, and she explained that
she is a Second Amendment Absolutist–also telling how her own father
and other neighborhood men protected their area of town from the
NightRiders burning down more houses and churches back in the 1960’s.
On this issue, I believe Condi would be supported (if they were to endorse a
Candidate for 2008) by the NRA. If I can find the transcript of that
interview, it would be great to put an excerpt from it so that you can
read for yourselves how strongly she supports this Amendment.
January 14th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
Romney has not changed his position on guns a whit. The Boston Globe article even acknowledged he still supports the assault weapons ban. Did Romney ever claim to hate gun users or owners? Did he ever say “I wouldn’t be caught dead at a gun convention”? Nope. He said he supported the assault weapons ban. And the Brady Bill. He still supports the assault weapons ban and has yet to comment on the Brady Bill. I see no inconsistencies here. Or does going to a gun event automatically make one dismissive of every conceivable gun restriction, despite statements to the contrary?
January 14th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
The assault weapons ban, by the way, which was going through in Massachusetts regardless and which was actually mildly supported by gun groups in the area, because Romney managed to attach other provisions which loosened gun laws in other areas. He’s also taken some small steps to make the Massachusetts gun control laws a little more bearable. He receives much better marks then Giuliani from the NRA.
January 14th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
One wonders if Mitt will cite his infamous stem cell meeting in 2004 as why he “evolved” on gun control too.
Is there an issue that he hasn’t flipped on? There’s something new every week. This is getting incredibly ridiculous. I can only imagine the ads that are being put together right now. Mitt Romney is an opposition researcher’s dream come true.
January 14th, 2007 at 5:53 pm
While these issues are extraordinarily troubling, I still wouldn’t underestimate the power of the conservative voters’ ability to “forgive and forget,” as with Reagan.
January 14th, 2007 at 6:13 pm
LJ,
I’d like for you to point out where Romney said he disapproved of gun shows. Go ahead. Take your time. And while you’re at it, you might want to cite, and you can use that Boston Globe article (you know, the Boston Glove that’s losing money hand over fist because of a complete inability to produce a paper with even a modicum of journalistic quality) an actual gun-relatedposition that Romney has changed. Again, take all the time you’d like. Or does supporting limited gun control laws (the assault weapons ban and the Brady Bill…both of which our current POTUS supports), automatically disqualify one from attending gun shows and showing support for other aspects of gun rights. Is that sort of like calling a handful of evangelicals “agents of intolerance” makes you a flip-flopper for attending church?
January 14th, 2007 at 6:27 pm
You forgot to mention that as a governor he was given a grade “B” by the NRA and his law that banned assault rifles had the support of sprtsman in Mass because it had many other pro-gun initiatives in it.
It’s all in the article.
January 14th, 2007 at 7:13 pm
LJ is right. One flip is a problem. Two is a trend. More is a disaster.
January 14th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
And yet, there is no flip here. Did you actually read the article? The article which boiled down to “Romney said he supported the assault weapons ban as governor, and he still says he supports the assault weapons ban, but he’s going to gun shows…which…you know…means he’s umm…well, gun enthusiasts supported his assault weapons ban…no that can’t be quite right…wait, I got it, he’s a flip-flopper…phew.” These are the people who sent reporters to Guatemala to trash Romney. Give me a break.
January 14th, 2007 at 8:03 pm
Oh, Matt, get with the program. Don’t you know the action line here?
Seriously, the BloGlo will keep attacking Romney every day for the next two years. I posted my full thoughts here.
They’re red-faced that they couldn’t keep Mitt out of office despite their media monopoly in Boston and the tremendous natural disadvantage a GOP candidate faces there. It’s likely they won’t be any more effective at scaring people away from Mitt now than they were in ‘94 (closest election Teddy had in decades) or 2000, but they’ll certainly die trying.
January 14th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
Whoops, botched that link. Here it is again.
January 14th, 2007 at 8:08 pm
Since Romney is rated a “B” by the NRA, I’d still consider him a gun friendly candidate. Since I’m not into assault weapons, I’m comfortable with Romney’s gun stance. I certainly don’t mind waiting 5 days for a gun purchase.
Just curious, how does the NRA rate McCain & Rudy? I’ll bet they are B or lower. I certainly can’t imagine McCain or Rudy against the assault rifle ban or the 5 day waiting period.
January 14th, 2007 at 8:12 pm
cwpete:
You’re missing the point. It’s not about actual track record on firearms freedom. It’s about calling Mitt a “flipper.”
I’ll tell you, if Mitt’s ‘94 campaign got half as much press in ‘94 as in ‘07, he’d probably have been a Senator (and not in the running this time around!).
January 14th, 2007 at 8:15 pm
THEN:In his 1994 US Senate run, Romney backed two gun-control measures strongly opposed by the National Rifle Association and other gun-rights groups: the Brady Bill, which imposed a five-day waiting period on gun sales, and a ban on certain assault weapons.
“That’s not going to make me the hero of the NRA,” Romney told the Boston Herald in 1994.
NOW:Romney says he still backs the ban on assault weapons, but he won’t say whether he stands by the Brady Bill. And after the gun show tour, his campaign declined to say whether he would still describe himself as a supporter of tough gun laws.
“He believes Americans have the right to own and possess firearms as guaranteed under the US Constitution,” spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom wrote in an e-mail. “He’s proud to be among the many decent, law-abiding men and women who safely use firearms. Like President Bush, he supports restrictions on assault weapons, but Mitt Romney has also worked with gun owners and sportsmen to ease the gun-licensing laws in Massachusetts.”
In a YouTube world this is a goldmine.
January 14th, 2007 at 8:30 pm
Is it? In a YouTube world or any other that’s a whole lot of fuss about nothing. Nice try though. Where has he changed his position again? I’d really like to here the actual quotes in the interview, to determine what they mean by “declined” to say in response to the Brady Bill? Did they ask him about it, and he deflected the question? Or did he simply not bring it up. Knowing the Boston Globe, it’s very likely the latter. Regardless, there’s absolutely nothing there. Until Romney says “I oppose the assault weapons ban” or “I oppose the Brady Bill”, not even the most anti-Romney individual can call this flip-flopping with a straight face. Are you smiling there Polar Express? You are aren’t you? Maybe just a little grin? Come on, you can tell us.
January 14th, 2007 at 8:39 pm
So if Romney took his earlier positions because he had to run in Massachusetts, Giuliani had to take his positions because he ran in New York City. I guess the Romney people are now in favor of forgiving Rudy.
January 14th, 2007 at 8:41 pm
Fredo,
I get the point. The Boston Globe and other liberals have an agenda to tar Gov. Romney a flip-flopper to influence conservative vote against him. I was pointing out as others have that Romney has not flipped and has a decent rating by the NRA.
I think the liberals understand that Romney can’t be allowed to win the Republican primary as they have the goods on Rudy and John and can take either down with ease later on. I think that helps explain the heavy negative press he’s been getting that you mentioned. His record is strong. Any inconsistencies would be offensive to Republicans and less offensive to independents and liberals which explains the liberals motives. His religion can’t be used against him as their Senate Majority leader is also a member. If the liberals can take down Romney in the primaries they won’t have to deal with him in the general election.
January 14th, 2007 at 8:43 pm
No Rudy hasn’t flipped. He is doing the honorable thing and saying I disagree with some of you but respect you. That is the difference between a leader and a craven politician. Also it is the difference between a savvy pragmatist who realizes it wouldn’t work if he tried and someone who lives in a bubble thinking no one will figure this all out.
January 14th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
I’m certainly a Romney person and adamantly pro-life and Rudy is just fine in my book. What am I forgiving him for again? Has Rudy changed his position on abortion recently? Or gun control? If he has, I must admit I’d be skeptical. I’d want to know how this had come about. Changing positions on the job is one thing, but what has 6 years in the political wildnerness done for Rudy’s thinking on these issues? On gun control, a statement, and I think someone suggested this previously, which essentially said that gun control had been appropriate in crime ridden NYC, but not so much in the broader US would very likely suffice. As to the “art of the possible” argument, I think that can only extend so far. If Rudy (or Romney) were to come out and say something like “I was always against gun control, but I had to trick those mean liberals” I’d say “silly rabbit, tricks are for kids” and move on.
January 14th, 2007 at 9:06 pm
So how exactly is it that he’s changed his views on gay rights? He’s always been opposed to discrimination against gays in hiring, in the military, in terms of hospital visitation rights, adoption, and so on. He still is. He’s always been opposed to gay marriage. He still is. So where’s this change supposed to be?
What’s changed is which issues he’s focusing on, but that change came because the focus has changed in the political realm. Gay rights used to be about the former issues, but almost everyone’s on board with those issues now. They weren’t then. Now the issue is gay marriage, and of course he’s going to sound more opposed to gay rights because it’s the one gay right he’s been opposed to that’s making waves.
January 14th, 2007 at 9:14 pm
Before the Romney haters chime in, in 1994 Romney supported ENDA for gays (Employment Non-Discrimation Act). He now opposes it due to, among other reasons, the flood of litigation it would create. That’s the only gay issue he’s changed his position on. I agree Jeremy. This incipient Romney bashing is all very strange and undeserved.
January 14th, 2007 at 9:39 pm
Republius:
I usually appreciate your posts because they stick to the facts, and when you state your opinion you back it up well. Posts of this sort are good for the credibility of the website. What happened here, Republius?
That line of logic for why Romney supposedly “flipped” on taxes was thin, to say the least. It principally rests on your interpretation of Romney’s statement w/r/t fiscal policy. How about some actual quotes from Romney on that topic in 1994…are you saying there isn’t anything explicit out there?
And there’s been no flip on firearms issues. I want quotes or citations, not unsupported regurgitations of the headlines from Boston Globe.
Jacob, LJ, I notice you two are still being rather quiet with backing up your flip-flop accusations on firearms issues. Got anything except rhetoric, fellas?
January 14th, 2007 at 10:00 pm
Guys,
Rule #1: Take anything you read in the Boston Globe about Romney or any other Republican with a healthy grain of salt. They will twist, spin, mutalate, chop, dice, you name it — anything they can do to put their target in a bad light, they will do and with great gusto.
January 14th, 2007 at 10:25 pm
Governor Mitt Romney and Firearms Policy
According to his 2002 gubernatorial campaign, Romney “is a supporter of the federal assault weapons ban. Mitt also believes in the rights of those who hunt to responsibly own and use firearms.” July 1st, 2002 Mitt Romney signed a permanent ban on Assault Weapons. “Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts,” Romney said, at a bill signing ceremony with legislators, sportsmen’s groups and gun safety advocates. “These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.”
Governor Mitt Romney and Firearms Policy
2007
* “Americans should have the right to own and possess firearms as guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution. I’m proud to be among the many decent, law-abiding men and women who safely use firearms.” – Governor Mitt Romney, 01-12-2007, Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney Visits Firearms Industry’s Trade Show
2005
Also, in 2005, Romney designated May 7 as “The Right to Bear Arms Day” in Massachusetts to honor “the right of decent, law-abiding citizens to own and use firearms in defense of their families, persons, and property and for all lawful purposes, including the common defense.”
2004
* “Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts. These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.†Romney said, at a bill signing ceremony with legislators, sportsmen’s groups and gun safety advocates. 07-01-2004 Press Release
* “By making this common-sense change to the law we will enable target pistol manufacturers to do business in our state and allow enthusiasts to practice the sport they love.†– Governor Mitt Romney, 07-01-2004 Press Release
* “Mitt Romney supports the strict enforcement of gun laws. He is a supporter of the federal assault weapons ban. Mitt also believes in the rights of those who hunt to responsibly own and use firearms.” – http://www.romneyhealey.com/issues/, no longer active, see Web Archive
* “Stun guns have proven time and time again when used by law enforcement officers in other states that they are an effective tool in stopping suspects. It is high time for our men and women in blue to utilize this modern crime fighting technology.†Governor Mitt Romney 07-15-2004 Press Release
2002
In 2002, even as he was pledging to uphold the state’s strong gun laws, Romney still garnered a “B” grade from the NRA.
Governor Mitt Romney and Firearms Policy Press Releases
2004
07-01-2004, Romney signs off on permenent assault weapons ban
* The bill enjoyed the support of Massachusetts gun owners because it also encompassed several measures they favored — including a lengthening of the terms of firearm identification cards and licenses to carry. (Asked about the bill Friday, Romney described it as a “consensus measure” and a “positive step.”)
2006
07-26- 2006, Governor Romney Approves Exemption for Target Pistols
2006
01-12-2007, Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney Visits Firearms Industry’s Trade Show
January 14th, 2007 at 10:25 pm
That why the Globe is an excellent predictor of what Dem campaigns and MSM coverage will look like. It isn’t going to be pretty. It’s Romeny morphing into Kerry. It’s I was for stem cell research before I was against it, against Reagan before I was for him, for federal gay anti-discrimination legislation before I was against it,etc. etc.
The way GOP candidates win elections is by making the other guy look like he has no principles not defending our own guy against the same charge.
January 14th, 2007 at 10:42 pm
Polar Express,
The Dem campaign is going to use that exact same tactic against whomever the GOP nomineee is.
The better way to pick a candidate is based on their platform.
January 14th, 2007 at 10:51 pm
No I think they are smart enough to say this guy is unprincipled and use a different less effective arguments against McCain and Rudy which is why they are electable. My point is GOP voters themselves hate an unprincipled Clinton types and will tolerate other deficiencies which let’s face it every candidate has. But when you can so easily write the attacks for the other side without an effective response(he was only lying to get elected in that G-d awful state?) you are in big trouble. What is more deep down I know he was either spinning then or spinning now and I hate the hypocrsiy of it. I’d rather just disagree with someone like McCain on finance reform or Rudy on abortion. An issue is just one issue but your character and credibility permeate everything you do.
January 14th, 2007 at 11:13 pm
Polar Express,
“If you look for the bad in people expecting to find it, you surely will.” (Abraham Lincoln)
You’ve convinced yourself “deep down” that Romney is a flip-flopper. Therefore as you look through his record expecting to find flip-flops, guess what you find?
January 15th, 2007 at 1:34 am
murphy,
Jacob, LJ, I notice you two are still being rather quiet with backing up your flip-flop accusations on firearms issues. Got anything except rhetoric, fellas?
Sorry about that. I was watching the 24 premiere earlier and then decided to do about two hours of digging into Romney’s past comments, specific on the gun issue. I managed to read a couple dozen articles leading up and after the Kennedy/Romney ‘94 debates in the Boston Globe, New York Times and Washington Post. I learned a whole bunch of interesting things (bizarrely, the NYT had an article stating that since Mormons don’t like caffeine, Romney claimed to never have had coffee before in his life, yet at the end of the article his aide gives him hot chocolate…) , but as much as it pains me, I must say that Romney’s position on guns has be relatively consistent over the past 13 years. His rhetoric, though, is much different due to the fact that he openly opposed the NRA in 1994 and is openly courting them today. Plus, according to the Hotline, the NRA doesn’t really have a problem with Mitt.
This just underscores Mitt’s problem though. While McCain has his fair share of people calling him a flip-flopper, they’re mostly on the left and are trying to use it to derail him. For Romney, he’s getting dangerously close to “Kerry territory” here. What I mean is that the notion that Kerry was a flip-flopper became so ingrained in the American conscious that even when Kerry didn’t actually flip-flop on anything, his critics pounded him for it. So when Romney becomes more accommodating to the 2nd Amendment folks the media latches onto it as a flip-flop. As you should know, in politics, perception is reality and the facts have little relevance. The average voter isn’t going to bother spending hours of research to dig up the truth, they’ll be heavily swayed though by a 30-second ad detailing Romney’s real and perceived flip-flops.
Given the ad that Terry Nelson put together that pretty much single handedly ended Harold Ford’s campaign in November (and that was just off of a random visit to the Playboy mansion), one can only guess as to what he has in store for Romney. I tell you, the primaries are going absolutely vicious.
January 15th, 2007 at 2:00 am
LJ,
Great job hunting down the facts. I expect you’ll trim your littany of flip-flops down to everything on the planet except guns. Actually, I’ll even give you some fresh material. According to Romney’s biography on http://www.mittromney.com, when he first met his future wife as a young boy, he threw rocks at her. Later, he completely flipped on the issue of the public stoning of women and married her!
Anyway, it doesn’t take long on the right wing blogs to realize that McCain’s critics accusing him of flip-flopping are not limited to lefties. I think you may be sugar coating reality there. As for media perception being reality, that is only true until you get a talented candidate in front of a camera who lays out the facts. If Mitt can do this persuasively and calmly (as he has done so far) in front of large audiences, the facts will win.
January 15th, 2007 at 3:39 am
murphy,
I expect you’ll trim your littany of flip-flops down to everything on the planet except guns.
Haha. Yeah, that’s pretty much right.
My problem with Mitt is more nuanced than that. In general, I don’t have a problem with flip-flopping per se, I’ve studying politics enough to know that sometimes you have to go back on your word in order to get elected or whatever. Politicians do it all the time. Where I object to Mitt doing it is that from 1994 until around 2004, he ran and governed as a moderate. In 2004, after he decided he wanted to become President, he started to fashion himself as a darling of the social conservatives. Thus, he changed, redefined and clarified the policies he promoted that would best endear himself to the So-cons. I do not view that as a genuine conversion. Others, including yourself, will surely disagree, but that’s where my great dislike of Mitt Romney comes from. I also do not consider myself a social conservative which is why Mitt’s newfound views have very little resonance with me. Although, if I was a So-con, I would probably be more inclined to well, overlook, his past positions and except that he evolved on them. That’s primarily why there is so little overlap between voters who say they’d vote for McCain and voters who say they’d vote for Romney.
I should also note that there is a big difference between Reagan’s conversion and Romney’s. Reagan was a New Deal Democrat until he came to see the bankruptcy of liberalism. This evolution happened over the course of 10 years. Romney’s conversion was from a Republican to…a Republican. There was no major event that cause Romney’s increased conservatism besides a looming election. It is certainly possible that Romney’s conversion was truly genuine, but I find it very doubtful that a 50-something politician who grew up surrounded in a political culture could have such a change out of the blue.
January 15th, 2007 at 3:58 am
“Where I object to Mitt doing it is that from 1994 until around 2004, he ran and governed as a moderate. In 2004, after he decided he wanted to become President, he started to fashion himself as a darling
of the social conservatives”.
Could not have said it better.
January 15th, 2007 at 9:38 am
I think those arguments are simply not borne out by the facts LJ. Unquestionably the most “moderate” or “liberal” action, at least in goal, Romney took during his entire governorship happened THIS year. He passed universal health care. Has he been backing away from this position? Has he been trying to foist it off on the legislature, since after all he’s planning to run for the Republican Party nomination, where that sort of plan is a potentially serious liability? Nope. He’s made it the centerpiece of his campaign. The campaign that’s going to have to go through a horde of Republican primary voters before it becomes an asset. I’ve seen numerous speeches in front of very conservative audiences where he’s passionately defended it. During his big fundraising gala he talked about 4 main goals for America, with “getting all citizens cheap affordable health care” among them. This, more then anything, indicates to me that when Romney actually BELIEVES in ideas which hurt his prospects, he says so and explains his reasoning, trying to win converts. And it’s working in some instances. I listened to a recent interview with Jim Demint (Mr. Conservative) where Rpomney had convinced him of the need to try to get all individuals insured and that Romney’s plan had been a reasonable solution. Admittedly Mr. Demint has become a supporter of Romney’s, but it was an astonishing sight to see someone as fiscally conservative as Demint actually sincerely advocating some sort of universal health program. In regards to Romney’s initial governorship, I struggle to understand how it represented “moderation” in any way. His entire first year as governor was almost exclusively dedicated to closing the 3 billion dollar deficit (including nearly 2 billion in spending cuts), without raising taxes. And there were signs even prior to his 2002 run, that indicated that Romney was becoming uncomfortable with, for instance, his pro-choice position. Like when he wrote a letter to a paper insisting that he “did not want to be classified as a pro-choice politician”. You can even see it in the subtle framing differences between his 94′ abortion position and his stated 2002 abortion position. Both were pro-choice, but the former was decidedly less so, promising a “moratorium on abortion laws”. All of this reads to me, and I think has to read to any unbiased unobserver, as a man who had lived in an extremely blue state for 40 years, and who hadn’t previously been involved in politics at any level, honestly coming to re-evaluate some questions when he was actually confronted with the business of government.
January 15th, 2007 at 11:55 am
If you want a candidate with a clear position on guns and protecting second amendment rights, why not look at Huckabee?
January 15th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
Peter- I am, I am but he has to kick his campaign up a notch. He has to make the argument that when conservatives are consistent, firm and courageous and do not hide from their views or blow with the wind then they win elections. When they go native either in Mass. or Congress they lose their political souls.
January 15th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
Peter:
Is Huckabee running? I have not seen any concrete action from him to indicate that he is running. All I’ve seen is unsubstaniated rumors on blog sites.
If he is going to make a move, he better make it quick. The longer he waits, the harder it will be.
January 15th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
LJ,
Where I object to Mitt doing it is that from 1994 until around 2004, he ran and governed as a moderate.
Could you provide some concrete examples of Mitt governing as a moderate at any point during his term? I think you are once again light on the facts. Kris, feel free to jump in here.
If you can’t provide the facts, can you retract the statement as you so wisely did with regards to the guns accusation?