The Candidates
Featured Archives
This is just getting more ridiculous every week. On Sunday, Mitt Romney launched into the most direct attacks yet of the nascent 2008 campaign. He declared that his raison dêtre is to stop the McCain Straight Talk Express in South Carolina, at all costs. He then proceeded to tick off the usual “apostasies” that McCain’s accused of, but it turns out that, as is par for the course with Romney these days, everything isn’t quite the way he portrays it to be.
When he’s asked about his opinion of the McCain-Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, he replies:
“That’s a terrible piece of legislation,” Romney said. “It hasn’t taken the money out of politics. … (But) it has hurt my party.”
Hurt his party, eh? Interesting that he should say that because in 1994, he struck a remarkably different tone with regards to campaign finance reform:
“I understand Ted Kennedy will spend about $10 million to be reelected he’s been in 32 years, $10 million. I think that’s wrong because and that’s not his own money, that’s all from other people,” Romney said during the 1994 presentation, which was aired by C-SPAN. “And to get that kind of money you’ve got to cozy up as an incumbent to all the special-interest groups who can go out and raise money for you from their members. And that kind of relationship has an influence on the way you’re gonna vote.”
Perhaps Romney was just unaware of what he was advocating and that his position “evolved” overtime. That’s a perfectly justifiable explanation. But it seems that Romney also advocated for CFR laws in 2002 as well (just before BCRA was signed into law):
The Quincy Patriot Ledger and the Worcester Telegram & Gazette reported in the fall of 2002 that Romney proposed taxing political contributions to finance publicly funded campaigns.
“Mr. Romney campaigned in favor of clean elections, which provides public money to candidates for state office who meet strict fundraising requirements,” the Telegram & Gazette reported. “But he suggested an alternative funding method. Instead of providing campaign funds from state coffers, his plan would tap 10 percent of the fundraising of candidates who choose to raise money privately.”
Yikes. Soren Dayton notes that “Romney advocated taxing political contributions to support candidates who stayed within spending limits.” That’s something that goes beyond what McCain supported. Mitt Romney, the CFR radical.
But wait, the fun doesn’t stop there. Romney was also asked about Bush’s tax cuts this past Sunday.
McCain opposed President Bush’s tax cuts, Romney noted.
“I supported them,” the former governor said.
But there are always two sides to a story, or in Mitt’s case, three or four. In 2003, the Boston Globe had this to say:
Romney said he had not publicly opposed the cuts, according to one observer at the meeting, prompting [Barney] Frank to ask, “Will you?” Romney replied that he probably would not. The answer triggered laughter in what both sides described as an otherwise bipartisan session.
“I was very pleased,” Frank said afterward. “Here you have a freshman governor refusing to endorse a tax cut presented by a Republican president at the height of his wartime popularity.”
According to the observer, who spoke on condition of anonymity, Romney told the delegation that he “won’t be a cheerleader” for proposals he doesn’t agree with, “but I have to keep a solid relationship with the White House.”
Ouch! Talk about loyalty. In all fairness to Team Romney, his spokeswoman said that “the governor has neither endorsed nor opposed the tax cut plan because “it’s just not a state matter.” But the Boston Herald weighed in a few days later with a harsh editorial that bashed Romney for not supporting the tax cuts:
Gov. Mitt Romney sure has a bad sense of timing. Last week, he went down to Washington, D.C., hat in hand, to meet with Bush administration officials to press for more generous aid to Massachusetts for homeland security.
So, when you’re asking for a load of cash for your state, it’s not a really great idea to stay mum and by your silence imply opposition to the president’s chief domestic priority – an economic stimulus package centered on tax cuts. But pressed by the always clever Rep. Barney Frank (D-Newton), that’s just what Romney did. And Frank, never one to let political opportunity pass him by, jumped on it: “Here you have a freshman governor refusing to endorse a tax cut presented by a Republican president at the height of his wartime popularity.”
Romney’s position brings him perilously close to joining the Republican Party popularity ranks of U.S. Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) who helped kill the administration’s $ 726 billion plan. No, his neutrality has no DIRECTimpact on the plan, unlike Snowe’s opposition, but it adds fuel to the Democrats’ fire since Romney is viewed as a Republican rising star.
…
So what’s a governor to do? At the very least Romney could throw a bone of support to his own party’s president, who has put forward a responsible economic plan that will, according to one study, create more than 900,000 jobs. And maybe next time he goes to Washington, he can bring a copy of his own economic stimulus plan to read on the plane. If he has one by then.
Isn’t more than a little hypocritical for opposing Bush’s tax cuts and then pretending a few years later that you always had supported them?
Dayton says:
So far, Mitt has flip-flopped on abortion, gay-rights, taxes, guns, embryonic stem-cell research, Ronald Reagan, the Contract with America, and, now, campaign finance-reform.
At this rate, Mitt makes John Kerry seem like a beacon of clarity. I’ve never seen someone riddled with such internal contradictions. Mitt Romney truly is an opposition researcher’s dream come true. I wonder what kinds of ads Terry Nelson already has in the works?
Finally, buried in the middle of the Boston Globe article from 2003, comes this juicy nugget:
After his session at the White House, Romney headed for a meeting with Tom Ridge, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, and a session with Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona.
So Romney and McCain have meet before. Huh. I would love to know what was said in their meeting.
February 8th, 2007 at 2:26 am
For the last time, these are FLIPS, not Flip-Flops. It’s a U-turn, not a 360. If Mitt despised CFR before he suggested those ideas and now despises them once again, I could consider that a qualifiable Flip-Flop. Same goes for if he proposes any other creative ideas to tax or limit free speech in campaigns.
As for the not ‘cheer-leading’ Bush tax cuts enough to satisfy some Republicans, it’s just like the Grover Norquist tax pledge all over again. It seems like the smallest perceived omission is blown up to be full out rebellion against conservative principles when in reality, Romney accomplished more than anyone else could have done in Massachusetts in regards to limiting taxation.
But once again, I am happy that people are bringing these past comments to light. It shows that people within the Republican party are not necessarily upset with what Romney’s platform is, but with how he got there. If that’s all the trouble they have with him and they essentially agree on most talking points now, it shouldn’t be too hard to win them over in the primaries.
February 8th, 2007 at 2:39 am
LJ,
What did McCain do? He got a law passed making it illegal to buy an ad that criticized a candidate within 60 days of an election. In plain english, he denied us our constituional right of freedom of speech when it might do the most good. He insisted that it would get money out of politics. Didn’t work so well, did it.
What did Romney do? At the worst, he complained about political corruption in 1994, and in 2002 (before he was elected, BTW) he suggested a tax on political contributions that would go towards public financing of campaigns. I’m confused. When did he connect the two?
Now I don’t necessarily agree with the public financing through a new tax, but it hardly approaches an attack on my constitutional right of freedom of speech, unless you wish to claim that taxing someone’s income from political contributions is unconstitutional.
And you are comparing the two?
February 8th, 2007 at 3:49 am
LJ, where to start with this one?
Misquoting:
Nope. Wrong. You may be thinking of the author of the article, but Romney didn’t say anything of the sort.
CFR:
Regarding your comments about his position on CFR, he never supported the McCain bill. Like marK said, complaining about political corruption is not the same as cutting off 1st amendment rights 60 days prior to an election.
Tax Cuts:
Regarding your accusation that Romney flipped on taxes, you’re quoting Boston newspapers which were quoting liberal Democrats who were paraphrasing Romney’s remarks. Here’s some more quotes from Romney to clarify:
“I very much support an economic stimulus,” he said. “An economic stimulus is a good thing for Massachusetts.”…Pressed further, he said, “I don’t wade into national politics. I will let our delegation sort that out.”
Refusal to endorse is not equivalent to opposition. Romney even claimed at the time that regardless of his feelings (supporting or opposing) on the tax cuts he would not endorse them. There’s nothing Romney said that contradicts his recent remarks, and if you look at his record for clarification you’ll see a fiscally conservative dream candidate. I’m especially surprised to hear this criticism coming from you, considering tMcCain voted against the tax cuts before he voted for them. That’s right there in his voting record.
LJ, this is getting rediculous. You just keep piling on the laundry list of things to accuse Romney of flipping on, most of them being completely empty rhetoric. You’ve even admitted to me in the past of not being serious about your attacks, yet attacking all the same!
I happen to think Mitt Romney is an opposition researcher’s worst nightmare. People have been attacking him for over a year now in expectation of 2008, and it just keeps coming back to a dusty 13 year old campaign debate. They avoid his pristine record of accomplishment like the plague. What’s gonna happen when the 2008 campaign shines the focus on candidate’s records and actions while in office? Rudy’s skeletons have skeletons, and McCain can’t run from his record fast enough. He’s even pulled McFlips on issues over the course of a single commercial break!
February 8th, 2007 at 6:19 am
Indeed, murphy. Romney has never, to the best of my knowledge, disavowed campaign finance reform. He’s criticized McCain-Feingold in particular. All campaign finance reform laws are not of a piece. One that attempts to limit contributions is unconstitutional and wholly ineffective in accomplishing its goals, while one that taxes campaign contributions is, at wosrt, silly. And the idea that because Romney has supported one and disavowed the other, he’s “flipped”, is like suggesting that a person who likes baseball must like football, because they’re both sports (I can assure youpersonally that’s not the case). As murphy said, ridiculous.
As for the opposition to the tax cuts, Jim posted this about ten times yesterday in a hysteria, and I’ll tell you, they haven’t become anymore compelling since then. I’d be interested to find out how many Republican governors weighed in on the tax cuts (I actually have no idea), but I can’t imagine the purpose of such support. Especially when there’s no persuadeable Senators in the state that Romney might pressure to support them (does anyone think Romney could conceivably bring Ted Kennedy to vote for tax cuts EVER?).
February 8th, 2007 at 8:13 am
LJ,
“At this rate, Mitt makes John Kerry seem like a beacon of clarity.”
What a skewed comparison! Mitt has changed his opinion ONCE on the issues. Most of his positions changed more than a decade ago. John Kerry did 360 turns on the issues in the two years leading up to the election. There is quite a difference.
February 8th, 2007 at 8:25 am
LJ:
I’m waiting for Romney to flip-flop on an issue that social conservatives disagree with. I will then know it’s a true change of heart.
Romney is smarter thank Kerry so he knew he had to change sooner. I’ll give you the fact Kerry would flip-flop in the same sentence though.
February 8th, 2007 at 9:35 am
Wow. If HeavyM had to issue a “mitigation update” on his Giuliani/Ginsburg post the other day, I think it would be decent for LJ to do likewise here. This is argument is all conclusion with no support. Merely trying to load up a page with words and make it look there’s support for using the word “flip-flop.”
Complaining about how well-financed an opposing candidate is means you’re in favor of Feingold/McCain or similar legislation? I guess it might be possible, but you sure didn’t prove the case here. Just leveled a flip-fop charge ’cause it’s easy and convenient.
I see the part where he wanted political contributors to fund public financing through a special tax, rather than having everyone forced to taxed to fund it through the state general fund. That sounds to me like getting further away from McCain/Feingold, not closer (or past it), as you’d have us believe.
Then there’s the straight-up misquote.
Guess Romney’s improving poll numbers and McCain’s sinking poll numbers have the McCaniacs a little spooked. Just wait until this fall, when the candidates really start to get some TV face time. We’ll see some real poll movement then…
February 8th, 2007 at 9:59 am
This is just getting more ridiculous every week.
LJ,
The only thing ridiculous about this is how the right side of the blogosphere continues to parrot the left-wing MSM attacks on one of OUR candidates with inconsequential and unsubstantial rumors, misquotes, and quotes taken out of context.
The fact that you play right into their hands saddens me.
This is worse journalism than my Giuliani/Ruth Bader Ginsburg piece – and I apologized for that one.
February 8th, 2007 at 10:07 am
Romney never flip-flopped on guns – he has always been a B graded NRA candidate, which is fine with me and most of America.
He never flipped on taxes – he simply did not sign a no new taxes pledge because his state was facing a huge deficit; the way he governed was inherently and at every level fiscally conservative (infinitely better than McCain or Giuliani, which is probably what has you spooked).
He never flipped on Bush’s tax cuts – in a state that is 85% Democratic, he told the state Congressional Democrats in a private meeting that no one has on record that he would not publicly comment on the tax cuts. And now you trot out… Barney Frank! for an attack on Romney’s character. Nice. This sentence might give you pause before you start eating your own: “And Frank, never one to let political opportunity pass him by…”
Mitt never flipped on gay rights. You know and I know that gay rights in 1994 did not mean gay marriage – it meant fighting against discrimination and for basic rights.
He changed his mind on abortion and stem cell research, but has been very clear and very public about that transformation.
And it certainly does not sound from this article that he ever flipped on CFR. Just because he wants a different kind of CFR (one that does not violate the first amendment) all of a sudden means he can’t attack the horrific bill that was McCain-Feingold? Y’know, “CFR” does not automatically equal “bad”. Just McCain’s CFR that limits our Constitutional rights.
I really expected a lot more from you, LJ. The quicker we on the right side of the blogosphere start defending our own candidates, the quicker the MSM will drop this ridiculous meme that Mitt is a flip-flopper.
February 8th, 2007 at 11:13 am
Heavy M,
That interesting what you say about Romney and guns, since I have an article here in my hands that quotes him saying “I don’t line up with the NRA.”
February 8th, 2007 at 11:16 am
And interestingly enough, Iowa deer hunter, the NRA still gave him a B grade while he was governor of Massachusetts. Funny how that works out, isn’t it?
February 8th, 2007 at 11:19 am
LJ,
The more I think about your post, the more I am puzzled by it. The post has all the hallmarks of someone who is grasping at straws. The arguements are not particually well thought out. The logic doesn’t flow very well. Statements made at different times about different subjects are taken out of context and thrown together in attempt to paint a picture that unsupportable. Hearsay by opponents is presented as unassailable fact.
You have proven many times here that you can do better than this. It begs the question, why didn’t you?
McCain is slipping in the polls. He has fallen behind Giuliani in almost all of them. So why the desparate attacks at Romney and not Giuliani?
How many times have you stated here that Giuliani and Romney are fighting over the same voters? The strategy was to let them split their people and McCain would scoop up the rest, remember?
But if that is the case, why are you attacking Romney so desparately? If you are successful, would that not mean that Romney’s support would naturely flow to Giuliani (the man who is already ahead of you in nearly all the polls), making him even stronger?
Do you not see the illogic in this?
I guess it is true what people are saying. All campaigns on both sides are frightened of Romney.
February 8th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
I would like to echo Barktwiggs’ post. Romney has changed positions, but he has not flip-flopped. All the positions he has changed he has stuck with. There is a difference. Is it really so hard to believe that a novice (1994) political candidate would not grow and mature in their understanding of the issues? Is it really surprising that a Republican candidate in Massachussets would pretend to be more moderate than they really were? If you are going to accuse Romney of flip-flopping you need to establish that he is either not really a conservative and will govern as a liberal in office or that he is a complete phony and will say anything to get elected. Otherwise, beating him up for being willing to change his mind on issues is pointless.
February 8th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
murphy,
Like marK said, complaining about political corruption is not the same as cutting off 1st amendment rights 60 days prior to an election.
I often hear lots of people make this argument, but it doesn’t seem to be borne out by reality. It’s true that political ads are subject to disclosure requirements in order to air 60 days before an election, but it in no way stifles free speech or prohibits ads from airing. For example, there was a multitude of ads in my market alone in the weeks before the 2004 and 2006 elections.
I’m especially surprised to hear this criticism coming from you, considering tMcCain voted against the tax cuts before he voted for them.
True enough. I was opposed to Bush’s 2002 tax cuts as well. My point in the above post, which admittedly would’ve been much more effective if it was less snarky, was to show that Romney didn’t support the tax cuts even though he claimed to have. I do not dispute that when he was in office that he governed very fiscally conservative.
You’ve even admitted to me in the past of not being serious about your attacks, yet attacking all the same!
Heh. I was not serious about a specific attack on Romney that I made (which I can’t recall at the moment), not that all my attacks were unserious.
People have been attacking him for over a year now in expectation of 2008, and it just keeps coming back to a dusty 13 year old campaign debate.
But there’s something to this, murphy. It could seriously damage Mitt’s credibility. If he gets labeled a flip flopper before the nation reals gets a taste of him, his message will be a lot less effective. News articles are already including the litany of perceived flip-flops (both true and imagined) into every profile they do on Romney. It would be less of a big deal if it was just McCain attacking him, but Huckabee, Brownback, Tancredo, even Gilmore(!) have just dug into him. Lots of conservatives are really starting to question him. Remember that in 2004, after Kerry was permanently attached to the flip-flopper label, every single thing that he said that was even remotely different from a previous statement was called upon. If it gets to that point with Romney, he’ll be much more guarded and scripted to avoid making a damaging gaffe.
HeavyM,
This is worse journalism than my Giuliani/Ruth Bader Ginsburg piece – and I apologized for that one.
Sorry you feel that way. My post was, as I said above, not very effective. I apologize that it was snarky and overly focused on “gotcha!” politics. But as you know, perception is reality. Why do you think the Hill article was written in the first place? Or that so many in the conservative cause are taking pains to attack Romney? Romney is perceived to be a flip-flopper and the general public doesn’t “do” nuance very well.
What shocks me is why the Romney campaign was seemingly unprepared for this. Even after the abortion fiasco happened, that should’ve sent off alarm bells among them and they needed to prepare to forcefully combat this. Now, there seems to be new stuff coming out every week (again, fairly or unfairly). They should seriously think about doing a “data dump” and just get everything out there because right now, it’s death by a thousand cuts. Even if it turns out to be a non-story, they are still spending more time defending their record instead of getting their message out nationally.
marK,
So why the desparate attacks at Romney and not Giuliani?
Hm. Have you not been reading this site for the past month or so? I’ve had several posts critical of Giuliani (and another later tonigt or tomorrow). This was my first Romney bashing post in a while, I can’t even remember my last one.
How many times have you stated here that Giuliani and Romney are fighting over the same voters? The strategy was to let them split their people and McCain would scoop up the rest, remember?
But if that is the case, why are you attacking Romney so desparately? If you are successful, would that not mean that Romney’s support would naturely flow to Giuliani (the man who is already ahead of you in nearly all the polls), making him even stronger?
Exactly. That’s the reason that while I was skeptical about whether Rudy was running and if he would stay in the whole time, I said that I thought that if Giuliani didn’t run, it’d be much more likely that the ABM (Anybody But McCain) voters would end of unifiying around Romney. And actually, I would rather McCain battle it out with Giuliani to the end (despite polling now, I think McCain could win). This way, it would be much easier to contrast his conservative beliefs with that of Giuliani’s social liberalism. This would cause a lot of so-cons who distrust McCain to vote for him in spite of that, over Giuliani. If Romney and McCain duke it out at the end, the tables would be turned on McCain a bit and it would be easier for Romney to point to his social conservative stances and McCain’s past record. So-cons would probably find it easier to vote for Romney in such a situation. But in order for that to happen, Romney has to start attacking Giuliani. He is the person standing in Romney’s way in order to get to McCain. Romney attacking McCain gets him “street cred” but it doesn’t do anything for his poll numbers, because McCainiacs and Romneyites have almost no overlap in theri bases of support. But look no further than this site, to see the numbers of Rudy fans who like Romney as their top 2nd choice and the number of Romney fans that have Rudy as a 2nd choice.
Hopefully that answered your questions.
February 8th, 2007 at 7:37 pm
murphy,
I should also add, since I didn’t above, that Romney’s position on CFR is far, far more radical than anything in McCain-Feingold. He advocated abolishing PACs altogether and placing much stricter limits on the amount that campaigns could raise.
February 10th, 2007 at 4:57 pm
There is no “Straight Talk Expess” today. It left the track in SC in 2000 when it was discoverd that McCain spoke with crooked tongue. McCain no engineers an “establishment annointed one, inevitable, electable Express” which won’t even make it out of Live Free or Die state in 2008.