GOP Nominee
Former Candidates
Apparently, in 1992, Mitt Romney (an independent at that time) voted for Sen. Paul Tsongas in the Massachusetts Democratic presidential primary, saying, at the time, that he voted for Tsongas because “Tsongas was from Massachusetts and because?[Mitt] favored [Tsongas's] ideas over those of Bill Clinton.”
However, now, 15 years later, Romney gives the following reason: “[I voted] in the [1992] Democrat primary … for the person who I thought would be the weakest opponent for [George H. W. Bush].”
Only thing is, Tsongas could hardly have been called the “weakest opponent” for GHWB.? Tsongas actually won the Massachusetts primary, and the important New Hampshire primary as well.? If Romney was voting for the weakest Democrat just to spite the Dems, why did he not cast his ballot for Larry Agran or Charles Woods?
And this all raises another problem.? Says political science Prof. William Mayer of Northeastern University in Boston, “If you’re so determined to help George Bush in 92 that you’re willing to vote for Paul Tsongas, it probably means you weren’t an independent.”? Which begs the question: How truthful was Romney being in that 1994 Senate debate when he tried to distance himself from Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush by emphasizing the fact that he was an independent during those administrations?
The problem for Mitt here is not that he at one time did something that could prove to be unpopular in his present-day presidential race.? The problem isn’t even the fact that Mitt’s views have changed in the past two decades.? The real problem at hand here is that Mitt’s story has apparently shifted significantly now that he’s running for the Republican presidential nomination.? Mitt’s two stories are not completely in harmony, and that’s what’s getting Mitt in trouble with primary voters–his seemingly chameleonesque explanations for his political changes, not the changes themselves.
Romney really needs to get a lid on this stuff, and fast.
February 16th, 2007 at 11:26 pm
[...] post by Woodrow Eisenhower and software by Elliott [...]
February 16th, 2007 at 11:42 pm
I like Mitt Romney. He’s not my first choice, but I like him. I cringed when I read this story. It’s just so implausible and silly-sounding that it’s insulting.
Mitt Romney is obviously a brilliant man. But if he’s so brilliant, why did he launch his presidential campaign knowing that he’d have to answer questions about this stuff? You can’t win the nomination against two giants while your foundation is being shaken by constant accusations of flip-flopping.
Makes you wonder what’s going through his mind. Who is the real Mitt??
February 16th, 2007 at 11:43 pm
Why couldn’t Romney just admit that he was an independent in 1992, voted for the Democrat he thought would best lead the country, and leave it at that? He is just digging himself a big hole that he’ll be unable to get out of.
February 16th, 2007 at 11:50 pm
All this does is add suspicion that Mitt Romney will do anything, including lieing in order to win an election.
February 17th, 2007 at 12:09 am
Damarcus,
The only people digging holes here are the ones desperate enough to go back several decades to find the most inconsequential and irrelevant trivia to try and descredit one of the most competent public servants this country has seen.
February 17th, 2007 at 12:15 am
Ahh! Make it stop, make it stop!
This is the most bewildering flip-flop yet. Not only is Mitt blatantly lying (”I thought [Tsongas] would be the weakest opponent for [GHWB]” and “[Mitt] favored [Tsongas's] ideas over those of Bill Clinton”), but it’s just crazy political stupidity. I’ve read several books on the 1992 race and it’s almost universally agreed that during the general, Tsongas would’ve been the hardest Dem for GHWB to beat because he was the most conservative Dem running. So, what in the world is Romney thinking?
He already lost the support of Erick, who’s next?
February 17th, 2007 at 12:17 am
Who cares? Man - these guys are scraping the bottom of the 15 year old septic tank to make this 15 year old crap.
Paul “tax on gas” Tsongas was a loser period. He did implode quickly, he was a weak candidate indeed.
It does seem like the opposition researchers from both the right & the left have been in over drive trying to come up with hit pieces. What are their solutions? What have they accomplished? Have they balanced a budget or have they created deficits?
February 17th, 2007 at 12:19 am
A couple points to kep in mind:
1. This quote at the beggining of the story does not contain words by Romney, but rather they are the words of a Boston Globe reporter, not exactly the most truted source.
2. Those words and what Romney said today are not mutually exclusive. Maybe he thought Tsongas had some better aspects than Clinton and that he would be more likely to loose to Bush.
3. There was no 1992 GOP primary. He got to vote against Clinton twice.
Not that you don’t raise some valid points, but your conclusions should take these points into account.
February 17th, 2007 at 12:19 am
BarkTwiggs,
Mitt Romney is high on my list of Republicans I’d support for President. We need a President who has convictions and isn’t ready to change his positions on the issues at the drop of a hat. This is more than a matter of political opportunism, it is a question of personal integrity.
If Mitt Romney doesn’t really believe this stuff (English as official language, “culture of life” etc.), then why trust him to lead?
I am wondering if Mitt has any battle plan to counter these accusations of flip-flopping. I was ready to accept his “conversion” on abortion, but having a conversion on so many issues, in such a brief amount of time? I hope there is an explanation for all this, because I like the man, I really do.
I will hold Rudy to the same standard if he starts to “evolve”. I for one hopes he sticks to what he believes while emphasizing his conservative credentials.
What is interesting, though, are the explanations of the huge Mitt supporters (who like me probably feel a bit let down by all this). First it is “Mitt is not a flip-flopper! Look at his record!”
Now it is “So what if Mitt is a flip-flopper? That was a long time ago. Let’s just ignore it and hope for the best.”
February 17th, 2007 at 12:20 am
cwpete,
Paul “tax on gas” Tsongas was a loser period.
Romney supported a federal gas tax too.
(OT: Woodrow, could you fix my link above?)
February 17th, 2007 at 2:47 am
The Romney explanations for some of his previous stands on issues and candidates just do not seem credible. He is spinning himself into an early political grave for 2008. He ought to come out with a comprehensive speech about his politics in the 1980s and 1990s and put it behind him while it is still early in the race. The way he is going about it currently amounts to death by a thousand cuts.
February 17th, 2007 at 8:30 am
Republius,
That would be awesome if he did it.
February 17th, 2007 at 8:38 am
Another Romney hit piece. Keep it coming guys. You obviously have nothing positive to say about your candidate so keep bashing Mitt.
February 17th, 2007 at 8:53 am
I agree with Jason. These statements are hardly exclusive. There were only ever six serious candidates for the Democratic nomination in 1992. Kerrey, Brown, Tsongas, Clinton and two other people I can’t remember. By the time the Massachusetts primary rolled around, I’m fairly certain that it was a two-way matchup between Clinton and Tsongas (remember, Tsongas was the early leader after Clinton’s stumbles on Jennifer Flowers and the like). To be sure Tsongas was more conservative then Clinton, but Clinton himself was running a centrist campaign. Furthermore, if it weren’t for his cancer narrative, Tsongas would have had nothing to recommend him personally. He had nowhere near the charisma of Clinton. Considering the fact that Bush’s approval ratings had bounced above 50 by election day, I think its safe to say that a wonky cancer survivor (who might go into remission and die any day) from a deep blue state, would have lost to Bush. So it seems like a no-brainer. Vote for a candidate you might be able to live with, who simultaneously has a poor chance of beating your favored candidate. In fact, had NJ not moved up its primary this year, I might well have done exactly that in 08 (assuming someone on the Republican side had locked up the nomination). I think Hillary will be the weakest Democratic opponent, but I also believe she’d be the most tolerable (scary isn’t it?) serious candidate. As an independent, pretty much a no-brainer.
February 17th, 2007 at 11:20 am
Only thing is, Tsongas could hardly have been called the “weakest opponent” for GHWB. Tsongas actually won the Massachusetts primary, and the important New Hampshire primary as well. If Romney was voting for the weakest Democrat just to spite the Dems, why did he not cast his ballot for Larry Agran or Charles Woods?
Wow, you like totally missed the point on that one.
February 17th, 2007 at 11:26 am
This flip-flop stuff is going to continue until Romney catches fire and it becomes unimportant. Right now Romney’s campaign is largely a blogo-war where we’re debating more and more arcane issues tossed at Romney by the Boston Globe and the rest of the media (who are scared ****less by the concept of having to face him in the general election).
With the notable exception of abortion, pretty much every time one of these things has come up, the anti-Romney forces have had to back down and admit that he’s been consistent afterall.
February 17th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
Great points from Matt and Jason. The only minor thing left to address is Woody’s accusation of Romney being dishonest:
Woodrow: How truthful was Romney being in that 1994 Senate debate…emphasizing the fact that he was an independent during those administrations?
Woody, face up to this one. You left out the quote from Romney in the very same article you linked to which explains this. Did you not read the article, or did you intentionally leave out the quote?
There you have it. Not only validation that Romney was a registered independent, but an explanation as to why. This ought to satisfy any fellow Republican who isn’t bent on smearing one of his own. Incidentally, this is a great example of the gymnastics Romney detractors go to in order to further their fabricated flip-flopping meme. (How’s that for alliteration?)
February 17th, 2007 at 6:32 pm
Another Romney hitpiece!
February 17th, 2007 at 6:34 pm
Matt: I don’t know when the Mass. primary took place, but I do know that Tsongas dropped out before Jerry Brown, so if Tsongas was viable, Brown was too, and if Romney was really interested in saddling the Dems with a marginal candidate, he couldn’t have done any better than the thoroughly unelectable Brown.
Really, this isn’t about who Romney voted for in 1992. Hell, Rudy publicly endorsed Mario Cuomo in 1994 and nobody seems to be holding it against him (though it probably helped that Pataki turned out to be such a tool). This is about how Romney is currently making claims that fail the “smell test” to justify past actions and positions. None of his past “skeletons” (campaigning as a pro gay rights Republican, supporting abortion rights, registering as an independant, voting for Tsongas) bother me in the least, even collectively, but his increasingly fantastic explainations for his inconsistent statements bother me greatly. Put me down as a definate “no” for Romney.
February 17th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
Sean P,
…I do know that Tsongas dropped out before Jerry Brown, so if Tsongas was viable, Brown was too…
Electoral non-viability is NOT always correlated with dropping out of a race, as every single recent election will tell you.
Romney’s explanation is perfectly reasonable to me, considering that I’ve registered as an Indy before here in CA simply so I could have access to both primaries. Furthermore, it explains why someone who donated over $90,000 of their personal funds to GOP candidates over the last two decades would not be registered in the GOP. Failing the “smell test” would be if MA hadn’t have had an open primary.
People are asking an impossibly high standard of Romney, and then rejecting out of hand any explanation he offers. Put this one in the pile along with immigrant lawn workers, a $250 campaign contribution to a mormon politician from 14 years ago, and the rest of the spaghetti pile of rubbish attacks that the MSM is digging up.
February 17th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
I have never voted for a Democrat in my life, but it isn’t for want of trying.
I remember the 1992 election very well. If Tsongas had become the Democratic nominee, I would have voted for him over George Bush Sr in a heartbeat.
Papa Bush was not that good of a President. His signiture issue, the first Gulf war, was only fought because Lady Thatcher came over here and gave him a quick kick in the seat of the pants.
Tsongas was one of those rare Democrats that come along every once in a while that I would vote for. But as always happens, the ones I like never survive the primaries.
February 17th, 2007 at 8:42 pm
Mitt Romney is good at talk. Talk is cheap.
February 17th, 2007 at 11:08 pm
murphy,
That quote you mentioned doesn’t change anything. The fact is, the reason Romney gave for voting for Tsongas back in 1992 was because Tsongas was a fellow Massachussan and because Romney liked Tsongas’s views more than Clinton’s. And the fact is, the reason Romney gave for voting for Tsongas in 2007 was because Romney was really trying to help Bush by voting for the worst Democratic candidate of the whole lot.
The problems with this are the following obvious ones:
* Tsongas was obviously not the weakest candidate. If Romney was solely voting as a primary raider (raiders votes make up only about 4-5% of the votes in a primary, at most) just to spite the Democrats, then he should have voted for a weaker candidate like Larry Agran or Charles Woods.
* It’s not that Romney has done things slightly out-of-line with other conservatives, or that Romney has changed to become more in-line with conservatives in recent years… it’s that Romney’s stories/explanations for those changes are changing. The first two don’t necessarily mean Romney is a bad person, they just mean his views have evolved, and that’s perfectly acceptable. The third one, however, means that Romney is either being a bit dishonest, or is a very, very forgetful person. Neither is an attractive quality in presidential candidates.
As far as Romney’s party independence, I don’t think anyone disputes that Romney was technically an independent during the Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations. What bothers people about this situation is that someone who was THAT determined to help Bush Sr. win in 1992 couldn’t have been THAT wholeheartedly independent at the time. However, in 1994, Romney seemed to want people to think he was a wholehearted independent who felt little for Bush Sr. during his presidency. Yet, if that was the case, it seems funny that Romney went to so much trouble to help out Bush Sr. in 1992.
February 17th, 2007 at 11:35 pm
LJ,
Gotcha covered.
February 18th, 2007 at 12:36 am
Woodrow,
Romney’s reasons for voting for Tsongas in the primary are not mutually exclusive. You seem to be assuming they are. Did Romney say in 1992 that raiding played no part of his decision? Did Romney say in 2007 that he didn’t like Tsongas views more than Clintons? You’re trying to make a contradiction out of thin air.
Secondly, a raider who votes for the very weakest candidate in a primary with more than two candidates is not a very effective raider. A vote like that may as well be thrown away. The smart raider votes for the weaker guy who is seriously challenging the strong front-runner. In this case it was Tsongas challenging the stronger Clinton. Your suggestion that Romney should have voted for Agran or Woods would defeat the point of voting for an anti-Clinton Dem in the primary.
Regarding the Indy affiliation, are you really upset that Romney answered a question during his Senate run by citing his party affiliation? Come on…you know as well as anyone the necessity of diffusing certain questions during a debate.
February 18th, 2007 at 1:09 am
I guess I don’t see the big deal of this, but maybe it’s because I’m so used to the idea of “raiding” (never knew it had a technical term). My parents, who are die hard liberals, are registered Republicans for that very reason: so they can vote for the weakest GOP nominee they think can get the nomination to make it better for the Democratic challenger.
So Romney doing this just doesn’t mean much to me. The main thing is, the guy voted for Bush 41 twice. Shouldn’t that be more important than why he voted for Tsongas in the primary? If he voted GOP in the general, what difference does it make?
February 18th, 2007 at 1:31 am
Agreed Heavy. Romney’s vote against Clinton in the primary arguably did more for the GOP in MA in the 1992 election than Republicans who voted for the incumbant Bush in the primary.
His opponents are trying to take him to the cleaners over everything. Giuiliani supporters in particular should remember that their candidate flirting with voting for Clinton in the general election before casting stones.
February 18th, 2007 at 2:17 am
HeavyM,
the guy voted for Bush 41 twice.
Do you have a link/quote to this? I don’t remember seeing this before.
February 18th, 2007 at 10:01 am
* Tsongas was obviously not the weakest candidate. If Romney was solely voting as a primary raider (raiders votes make up only about 4-5% of the votes in a primary, at most) just to spite the Democrats, then he should have voted for a weaker candidate like Larry Agran or Charles Woods.
I can’t believe you repeated that. Primary raiders don’t vote just to spite the other party. They vote in order to propel a weaker candidate onto the ticket.
Hence, in 2004 a primary raider would have voted for, Dean not Kucinich.
February 18th, 2007 at 10:55 am
Forget Larry Agran. The weakest candidate who had a chance to win in 1992 was Jerry Brown. Brown won several primary states, including Connecticut.
February 18th, 2007 at 5:31 pm
Here’s a quote from the ABC interview, LJ:
“Let me tell you, in the general election, I don’t recall ever once voting for anyone other than a Republican.”
That ought to put all those naysayers who said he didn’t vote for Reagan at ease as well.
February 20th, 2007 at 9:23 pm
[...] Romney, the James Bond of political maneuvering. Woodrow Eisenhower of race42008.com disputes the claim that Tsongas was the weakest opponent in the field. As Matt Mackowiak noted, Romney gave a [...]