GOP Nominee
Former Candidates
I thought of assigning a number for the latest flip-flop of Mitt Romney’s, but since he’s probably done a flip-flop for every dollar he has spent on the campaign, I decided it wasn’t worth the effort. Here is the latest Romneyism.
If the Republican Party nominates this shameless politician, it doesn’t deserve to retain the White House.
January 16th, 2008 at 12:40 am
Right on AKM! This guy is a bigger flip flopper than John Forbes Kerry!
January 16th, 2008 at 12:41 am
Wasn’t this precise comparison posted about 3 months ago? And 6 months ago? And 9 months ago?
January 16th, 2008 at 12:42 am
BTW, Alexander, you’ve left your post in “Uncategorized”
January 16th, 2008 at 12:42 am
That didn’t take long.
January 16th, 2008 at 12:43 am
What do you mean?
January 16th, 2008 at 12:43 am
If Mitt Romney had a dollar for every time he flip-flopped…or, wait, he does…
January 16th, 2008 at 12:44 am
Here we go again!!! Is this really a front page item?
January 16th, 2008 at 12:46 am
#5 if that question was for me, I am referring to the fact that Mitt’s ‘94 statement has been posted on the front page before.
January 16th, 2008 at 12:46 am
Ahhh the smell of desperation in the morning
January 16th, 2008 at 12:46 am
And do you know in what context he said that?
January 16th, 2008 at 12:47 am
I noticed… I just didn’t comment, because everybody knows this. But it bears repeating.
I was more steamed he started his speech immediately after McCain’s.
January 16th, 2008 at 12:47 am
This would have been worthless in the comment section three months ago. As a front page post, it is absurd.
January 16th, 2008 at 12:47 am
TLG, you’re a Rudy guy, aren’t you? Just curious, what would you say is Rudy’s biggest weakness?
January 16th, 2008 at 12:49 am
FredsFigher,
Assuming you can both read, and have a dictionary, you will see that Merriam-Webster defines “tonight” as “on this present night…” Since the remark was made tonight, your remark is quite irrelevant.
January 16th, 2008 at 12:49 am
Rudy’s biggest weakness is the small-mindedness of the typical Republican.
January 16th, 2008 at 12:49 am
Rudy’s biggest weakness lies in the fact that he lives in his own mind. He thinks — well, knows — that he’s brilliant and that’s he’s achieved results and that he wants to do great things as President, but he doesn’t think that he should necessarily have to put in the work to prove it to everyone. It seems like he thinks that everyone else should just understand that from the get-go and just freaking vote for him already.
January 16th, 2008 at 12:50 am
#15 lol
January 16th, 2008 at 12:51 am
What an absurd post. I’ve come to expect more intelligent discourse here on Race42008.
I’ve followed AKM since polipundit and this one wreaks of bias. Come on, you can do better!
January 16th, 2008 at 12:51 am
Well, 15, too.
But I think 15 actually fits in well with what I said in 16.
January 16th, 2008 at 12:51 am
#15 I realize that the question was directed at TLG, but he at least tried to give a response. It’s always a good objectivity test if you can give a good answer to that question.
January 16th, 2008 at 12:52 am
Regardless of reasoning for changing, wouldn’t one be considered intelligent for gaining the wisdom to recognize the benefits of the Reagan values?
January 16th, 2008 at 12:52 am
#14. . . For a front page poster, that comment was a bit harsh. Attacking those who reply to your own posts isn’t really the best way to start a discussion.
January 16th, 2008 at 12:52 am
#16, I hope he is doing that on purpose to decrease expectations and deflect negative ads. And that in the last week before FL, we will see THIS Rudy:
http://www.patrickruffini.com/2008/01/12/missing-persons-report/
January 16th, 2008 at 12:53 am
This you call a flip flop?? LOL!!!
January 16th, 2008 at 12:55 am
Metro, I actually had that Ruffini post in mind as I was writing 16. Like Rudy thinks that people should just know that that’s him and that he shouldn’t be forced to constantly go into that mode, because it’s not the right time and place on the campaign trail…and it’s like he thinks that people should just get that when the time and place comes to be heroic and inspiring, he can do it. But voters aren’t like that. They need to be constantly reminded.
January 16th, 2008 at 12:56 am
FredsFighter: I’ll give a fuller answer to #15.
Rudy turned around a major government unlike anyone has in this country since FDR (who turned it around for the worse). For the better, probably unprecedented in American history. And he did it with the most corrupt entrenched liberal establishment anywhere. With 85% of his electorate Democrats.
He effectively ended the mafia singlehandedly, something nobody thought possible.
He showed more moral clarity regarding terrorism than any politician in the country, PRE-9/11, ejecting Arafat from the UN 50th.
And when our country was attacked, the dust literally fell upon him and he became America’s hero.
To not run THAT man, because of his marital history, is sheer stupidity.
January 16th, 2008 at 12:57 am
To not run that man is the most unfair, unjust thing I have seen in my entire life.
And that is why I shall not be a Republican if that is what happens. I could never respect the party or utter the word as if I belonged to it.
January 16th, 2008 at 12:58 am
METRO DONT U NO DAT RUDYS SON ISNT SUPPORTING HIM HUH????//////2
January 16th, 2008 at 12:59 am
Haha, I made a mocking post in all capital letters with tons of misspellings and such and it’s awaiting moderation.
Maybe all caps is grounds for moderation. What I said was “Metro dont u no dat rudys son isnt supporting him huh????////2″
January 16th, 2008 at 1:01 am
“And what we’re going to see in the next few days is Democrats saying that they’re the party of change. You’re going to hear Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and John Edwards saying that they’re the party of change.”
That is from Romney’s victory speech. Is he actually suggesting that he was the original “change” candidate and that Obama et al are going to try to steal it from him? That takes not only moxy but senility to think the media won’t hammer him for it.
January 16th, 2008 at 1:01 am
Alexander, for the record, I comprehended your post perfectly. Go read my comment again. The reason your post is recycled material is because the same exact quote from ‘94 has been used against Mitt before on this site.
If Mitt states tomorrow that he’s pro-life, are you gonna do another front page post that compares his statement with something he said earlier?
It’s not that your comparison is irrelevant, it’s just that it’s been done to death. One of the things I like about this site is that it generally has fresh material instead of rehashing the same stuff over and over again. (At least compared to other forums…)
January 16th, 2008 at 1:02 am
1. Ted Kennedy had the man in a corner.
2. It was his first run for political office, right?
3. Reagan-Bush meaning the corporate greed that had come to characterize the era.
4. Bank scandals.
I chalk up his statement then to just political newbyism at the time. Nothing more. I’m really not looking for a guy who has been the same person for 30 years. Those guys lose, and tend to not have very innovative ideas.
January 16th, 2008 at 1:02 am
Axel G — I don’t take it that way. I think he was referring to the Democrats speaking that way in general. I don’t think he meant that the Democrats were going to try to take it from him or something.
January 16th, 2008 at 1:04 am
1. Ted Kennedy had the man in a corner … 3. Reagan-Bush meaning the corporate greed that had come to characterize the era.
Oh, okay, so Romney not only couldn’t stand up to Ted Kennedy in a debate, but saw it as a time of “corporate greed” and was willing to pander to those that saw it that way. That makes me feel much better!
January 16th, 2008 at 1:04 am
#28 Not that I’ve followed the Democratic campaign very closely, but I do believe Mitt’s been pushing the “change” message for quite some time. I remember because it was the very first thing that caught my attention about him. I’ve since become somewhat disappointed as to what he considers “change”, but that’s a different matter.
January 16th, 2008 at 1:09 am
14 years is a long time to hold a grudge Alex. Let it go.
January 16th, 2008 at 1:09 am
#32 I think I’d be much much more comfortable with Romney if I felt I could get a better handle on how he would run this country. I know he’s an extremely competent and intelligent individual, but he sure makes it hard sometimes to know where he stands on the issues.
January 16th, 2008 at 1:10 am
Metro and TLG,
Just curiosity but could you support Romney if he “wins” the nomination? I know i could support Rudy, even though I disagree with him somewhat.
January 16th, 2008 at 1:10 am
Alright, Nate, 14 years. Then I hope you don’t criticize Rudy for that quote on immigration or the Cuomo endorsement at all, ever, right? 14 years is a long time to hold a grudge.
January 16th, 2008 at 1:11 am
TLG, again, it was political newbyism 14 years ago, getting hammered by one of the most seasoned politicians in American history. I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt.
Here’s the deal: If Mitt’s ever been disingenuous to anyone over the years, it’s Democrats. Don’t want to return to Reagan-Bush, then decides to cut government jobs, taxes, and balance the budget. Promised a pro-choice agenda, then made tons of pro-life decisions.
I think all of these “inconsistencies” can be resolved through some normal thought, but if they can’t be resolved in your eyes, he’s almost always told DEMOCRATS what they want to hear, and DONE the things Republicans want him to DO.
If he could do for the Republican principles through the power of manipulation what Bill Clinton did for Democrat principles using the same talent, then I say vote Mitt, and vote big.
We’ve had principled (read: stubborn) leadership for almost 8 years now. Give me something else.
January 16th, 2008 at 1:12 am
Just curiosity but could you support Romney if he “wins� the nomination? I know i could support Rudy, even though I disagree with him somewhat.
No; he hasn’t earned my vote. I’d vote Paul third party (he’ll run).
January 16th, 2008 at 1:12 am
Didn’t Reagan (1980) and Bush (1988) both lose the IA caucuses?
Without knowing the context of the above quote could it possibly be that he is referring to their comeback wins later on and drawing upon that for inspiration?
Alexander K. McClure what is the context of the quote?
January 16th, 2008 at 1:13 am
#37 Rudy endorsed Cuomo??!! That’s frikin awesome! I love that guy.
Rudy’s got my vote now!
January 16th, 2008 at 1:14 am
Here’s the deal: If Mitt’s ever been disingenuous to anyone over the years, it’s Democrats. Don’t want to return to Reagan-Bush, then decides to cut government jobs, taxes, and balance the budget. Promised a pro-choice agenda, then made tons of pro-life decisions. I think all of these “inconsistencies� can be resolved through some normal thought, but if they can’t be resolved in your eyes, he’s almost always told DEMOCRATS what they want to hear, and DONE the things Republicans want him to DO. If he could do for the Republican principles through the power of manipulation what Bill Clinton did for Democrat principles using the same talent, then I say vote Mitt, and vote big.
He’s only ever run for Democrats. In other words, you’re saying — and these are your words — that he’s manipulated every constituency that he’s ever run toward.
This is supposed to make me feel better because..?
January 16th, 2008 at 1:16 am
LOL…FredsFighter.
January 16th, 2008 at 1:16 am
I don’t know the context of the quote but he’s probably saying his intentions are not to bring back the Reagan-Bush era for whatever office he was running for. It doesn’t mean he identifies with or agrees with Reagan politics.
But on an even more important note the biggest thing people against Mitt can do is either skew the past (ie 700 million in tax increases) or take quotes from long ago and get them to contradict what he’s saying now (whic btw you can do with ANY canidate).
That’s the worst you can do but you look at other canidates and their worst scandals and it doesn’t even compare. The only one that I know of that doesn’t have a bad scandal or attached to them is Fred and he may have one that I don’t know about.
So if you want to disagree with Mitt and vote against him go right ahead, but stop this childish look what he said 10 years ago and look what he says now! You can do that with any canidate but the thing is you’ve got nothing worse on Mitt.
January 16th, 2008 at 1:17 am
[...] 3: Alexander K. McClure at Race 4 2008 was paying attention too: Tonight:  �I take my inspiration from Ronald Reagan [...]
January 16th, 2008 at 1:18 am
Fred’sFighter,
Have you tried going to Mitt’s website? It’s all laid out there in more detail, covering more issues, than any of the other candidates have come up with. If you don’t want to do that, ask me a question about ANYthing you’re unclear on, and I’ll spell it out for you. BTW, most of Mitt’s platform is extremely similar to Fred’s, only Mitt came up with it first.
January 16th, 2008 at 1:21 am
TLG, you’re so unreasonable. He governed as conservative as possible in an ocean-blue state, and has a long history of being able to solve large economic problems.
I guess you’re a Rudy guy, but in lieu of him, Romney is the only one out there who can actually win the presidency who is really committed to slashing and burning the bureaucracy. McCain makes overtures, and he’s not bad on it, but Romney has, in his history, lived up to every single one of his campaign promises, even while managing to govern as a conservative.
A vote for Paul in the general is a wasted vote. If you’re voting to get a Democrat elected so as to get a rebuilt, re-energized GOP in 2012, then just vote for the Democrat.
Otherwise you’re just making a point about which no one wants to hear.
January 16th, 2008 at 1:22 am
I think this post was excellent and it surely belongs on the front page. Mitt went out of his way to praise RW Reagan and GHW Bush, not GW Bush. I thought exactly the same thing when I heard Mitt’s victory speech.
He’s praising the very administration he didn’t want to return to. If that’s not a flip, well, I suspect Flip Wilson will be Romney’s VP.
January 16th, 2008 at 1:22 am
Lack of a governing principle and core honesty is quite a scandal where the presidency is concerned. And if we should ignore what he “said” ten years ago, should we then also ignore what he “did” in the past as well?
January 16th, 2008 at 1:23 am
#46 I’m aware of the similarity of Mitt’s and Fred’s platforms; what leaves me somewhat uncomfortable about Mitt is mainly the changes in his political views he’s had. I find a lot of political convenience there. Not to say that other candidates don’t change their ideas either, or that change is necessarily a bad thing, but with Mitt it seems… well, based on polls.
January 16th, 2008 at 1:23 am
You have got to be kidding me??? He has been invoquing the name of Reagan since he started this campaign…i’d say he uses
it at least 3 times during every stump speech…this is what you call a flip??? Where the (H, E, double hockey sticks) have you been???
This has been posted before, talked about hundreds of times, and you say “here is the latest romneyism”??? well you might as well
get your next 1000 posts ready for tomorrow, cause he is probably going to say Reagan about 1000 times tomorrow.
This is the stupidest post yet, on race42008.
January 16th, 2008 at 1:24 am
Please remove this from the front page. It’s ridiculous and adds nothing whatsoever. Is this the formerHuckabee reincarnated?
January 16th, 2008 at 1:25 am
#48 Answer the question in #40. What was the context of the quote? Was he drawing inspiration from their campaigns that also lost IA in 1980 and 1988?
January 16th, 2008 at 1:28 am
Romney has, in his history, lived up to every single one of his campaign promises, even while managing to govern as a conservative.
What? According to Kevin, Mitt hasn’t lived up to his campaign promises in the past — that’s his appeal, according to Kevin!
Who’s right?
January 16th, 2008 at 1:30 am
The context of the quote (I’LL answer it) is during a 1994 debate with Ted Kennedy about economic policy. Kennedy was HAMMERING him, HAMMERING him about wanting to return to “Reagan/Bush,” an era which, although it had big booms, also had some big busts toward the end. Romney simply, off the cuff, responded that he didn’t want to return to the boom-bust cycle of the 80s, which included massive corporate greed as well as bank fraud and failures.
It just so happened that he was responding to Kennedy, who had branded it “Reagan/Bush.” Romney unfortunately referred to it in the same manner.
But again…who cares? When he got power in 2002, he cut taxes, reduced government, cut government jobs, and balanced the budget…
WHO CARES.
January 16th, 2008 at 1:30 am
petty bitter vitriol from those whose dreams were dashed with a Romney win tonight.
weak all around post-pathetic comes to mind.
January 16th, 2008 at 1:31 am
FredsFighter,
You need to check out Mitt’s platform when he ran for the Senate in ‘94 against Kennedy….you will be amazed at how conservative it was and how little he’s changed. And you certainly don’t need to worry about him not honoring his campaign promises. Before he even took office in Massachusetts, he had his aides make a list of the 92 or 93 things he had promised in the campaign, and once he took office he honored every one of them. A bum rap is a bum rap. The only issue he’s ever really flipped on was abortion….and he was up-front about it. He governed pro-life throughout his tenure in office.
January 16th, 2008 at 1:32 am
#11 They just announced on the news tonite that there were press releases for a win for both Romney and McCain - they started showing the McCain one first on accident, and then switched over to the Romney Press Release. It was a network error. Calm down.
January 16th, 2008 at 1:32 am
TLG, rhetoric and specific campaign promises are two very, very different things. Bush criticized nation building in 2000, but him engaging in nation building is not a breaking of a promise. Romney had certain rhetoric that appealed to Democrats, and changed his policy from that.
But although he had pro-choice rhetoric, his only promise was to maintain the status quo on abortion. He did. That’s just one example.
It’s like you have a conscious desire to avoid subtlety.
January 16th, 2008 at 1:34 am
And before you say it, signing pro-life legislation does not necessarily mean a derogation from the status quo on the big thrust of abortion law in Massachusetts.
I’m sorry Rudy is toast, but you need to grow up.
January 16th, 2008 at 1:37 am
Quote from Mitt,”the older I get, the smarter Reagan becomes.”
He doesn’t HAVE to have every same opinion, yes ever politically, that he did BEFORE he ever governed anything, or was involved in politics.
Experience governing I would HOPE would awaken some understanding that you can’t get sitting on the sidelines.
WISDOM isn’t decided, its LEARNED!!(You can quote me - I think I just waxed eloquent on that one)
January 16th, 2008 at 1:38 am
Also, greatest political gamester in American history?
Abraham Lincoln. Chastized by his own Republican colleagues for not being abolitionist enough (William Seward comes to mind). Attacked for playing pro-Union, pro-slavery crowds and pro-Union, abolitionist crowds. Played everyone. I mean, EVERYONE.
Won the Civil War, ended slavery, saved the country. Political gamesmanship is not an undesirable quality, especially when we know how Mitt has governed and executed his professional responsibilities.
January 16th, 2008 at 1:39 am
#57 Believe it or not, I think I would vote for Mitt based on his resume and record in office alone, it’s just that what he says often dampens my enthusiasm. I felt he won Michigan by telling voters what they wanted to hear, and McCain lost it by being a “straight-talker” on economic issues.
I think, for example, that the perspective Michigan voters have of what Mitt would do for their economy is different than Mitt’s perspective. Oddly enough, I think Mitt could help them out, but not in the way I think they’ve been led to believe. Listen to them on the interviews…
This NYT piece strikes me as an accurate portrayal of Mitt’s strengths and weaknesses.
January 16th, 2008 at 1:39 am
*Chastised.
January 16th, 2008 at 1:42 am
I found the context. Mitt was saying that his inspiration regarding the strength of America is the same that Reagan and Bush had. That is the American people and not the government.
So what was the purpose of this post?
January 16th, 2008 at 1:43 am
49 Of course you don’t ignore what someone says 10 years ago. But you take in context and not how you want to hear it. Shoot you can take what McCain has said on the Bush tax cuts and what Huck said on almost everything he’s said within the last year and say they flip flop and you can’t trust them. You can do that with any politician.
What you said 10 years ago I bet could be used to contradict what you say today does that mean you have no principle or that you’ve changed as a person?
Here’s an idea people express different parts of their beliefs at different times. I might say to someone I believe that homosexuals should have rights as humans and then to someone else I don’t believe homosexual marriage should be legal. Someone can take that to say I have no principle and I flip flopped–but I believe in both statements and principles. They’re both part of what I believe.
Don’t hold ridiculous standards.
January 16th, 2008 at 1:43 am
65, the purpose was to whine and drink full cups of vitriol. Rudy supporters in particular are pissed off.
January 16th, 2008 at 1:46 am
66, great point. When Mitt said he’d be better on gay issues than Ted Kennedy, that’s 1994, when the issues really didn’t include marriage; it just wasn’t on the table. Romney to this day is strongly against discrimination against gays in hiring practices, etc. His position on gay marriage is not at all inconsistent with what he said back then.
And if it, WHO CARES, people can change their minds.
I used to think invading Iraq was a good idea…
January 16th, 2008 at 1:46 am
#57 I found this comment by somebody who knew Mitt personally:
“When I worked at Bain & Company from 1980-1982, Mitt was the young partner just down the hall from me. I completely support the author’s opinions. While I don’t agree with every position Mitt has taken, I can not think of a person who would be more qualified to serve as President. Even more amazing is the fact that Meg Whitman, the CEO of EBay, and another Bain alum is agressively supporting him even though that is tremendously out of fashion in Silicon Valley. Finally, I have friends who are high ranking operatives in both the McCain and Huckabee campaigns, who worked with Mitt on his earlier races. In off the record comments even they told me they would be voting for Mitt, if their duty didn’t lie elsewhere.
“Mitt’s campaign has been tremendously mismanaged, and sadly America will be the worse for it.
January 16th, 2008 at 1:51 am
TLG, rhetoric and specific campaign promises are two very, very different things. Bush criticized nation building in 2000, but him engaging in nation building is not a breaking of a promise. Romney had certain rhetoric that appealed to Democrats, and changed his policy from that. But although he had pro-choice rhetoric, his only promise was to maintain the status quo on abortion. He did. That’s just one example. It’s like you have a conscious desire to avoid subtlety.
Subtlety? You mean deception?
And then you have the utter hubris to go on to compare his being a manipulator to…Abraham Lincoln’s winning the Civil War!
Do you Rombots know no rhetorical bounds?!
January 16th, 2008 at 1:53 am
66, great point. When Mitt said he’d be better on gay issues than Ted Kennedy, that’s 1994, when the issues really didn’t include marriage; it just wasn’t on the table. Romney to this day is strongly against discrimination against gays in hiring practices, etc. His position on gay marriage is not at all inconsistent with what he said back then.
He wants to write discrimination into the Constitution. He wants to use the Constitution as a political tool.
So much for being “strong on gay issues”! Let alone respecting the role of the Constitution.
January 16th, 2008 at 1:53 am
FredsFighter,
Dean Barnett is a major reason why the public perceives Mitt to be insincere. He has been reiterating the same line since the beginning of the campaign. The truth is that Mitt is a true SoCon and hasn’t lied about any of the SoCon issues he has espoused in the campaign. Another truth is that emphasizing this part of his agenda was a tactical and strategic mistake that has cost him dearly. He didn’t have to be that honest about that side of him, but it would be out of character for him not to be. Mitt should have emphasized his managerial skills and superior grasp of the economy from the beginning. He did that in Michigan, and the result is in the books.
January 16th, 2008 at 2:03 am
You Anti-Romney hack jobs are something else. You can’t even give Romney or his supporters one night to enjoy a hard fought win, and you are not even hours after his victory, back to the same old tired arguments. Give it a rest will you?? At least for 12 hours?? PLEASE?!?!
January 16th, 2008 at 2:05 am
Romney Girl Debut!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSrBrefcrUY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REKlkwPJ7CY
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=RomneyGirl
January 16th, 2008 at 2:14 am
BTW, Final Delegate Totals for Michigan:
Romney: 23
McCain: 6
Huckabee: 1
These totals will probably, in the end, get doubled, because the pressure will mount, once the race is decided to restore penalized states delegate allotments.
January 16th, 2008 at 2:22 am
This post is merely grasping for straws. Those who do so, could write books on any of the candidates. Sadly, any quotes or legislations are ammunition for subjective logic.
January 16th, 2008 at 2:36 am
Didn’t Mr. McClure use to be on polipundit a few years back?
January 16th, 2008 at 3:22 am
I don’t believe it’s very honest to use out of context quotes like this. Let’s put this in the context it belongs in. Romney was responding to an accusation that his fiscal policy was the same as the Reagan-Bush era, which lead to huge deficits. Arguably, Romney’s done much better in the area of deficits than either Reagan or Bush did. Also nobody wants to be linked to a recent administration, and take on all their controversies.
Ann Coulter said something that applies very well to this subject:
“I looked up who people were citing — who the Republicans were citing in 1988. They were not citing Ronald Reagan then. Everyone was — you know — the mainstream media was so ginned up about the sleaze, the sleaze, the sleaze factor, and on [former Reagan administration Attorney General Edwin] Meese, and Iran-Contra, and so I think the lesson of this is just do the right thing, be a right-winger, and in 10 years they’ll be citing you.â€?
Nowadays Reagan is remembered for his conservative values, not Iran-Contra, “I forget�, or huge deficits. Romney’s, understandably, changed his views on a few things, but he ran on a conservative platform as governor, he governed conservatively, and he is running on a conservative platform again. It’s really kind of sleazy and easy to take old quotes out of context, just to try and throw mud on a candidate. We should be better than that.
January 16th, 2008 at 3:49 am
This is old news. Thats the problem with all the flip flop arguments. There is only a few, Romney
has admitted to the few ie - abortion and so the same stuff keeps getting regurgitated.
Who cares, so what, get over it.
January 16th, 2008 at 5:57 am
This is a valid post and I’m sure you will see this brought up again and again. This statement by Romney was done very carefully and purposefully to draw a contrast between his position now and his position in the past. But it is not a flip-flop. It is a change for the better.
When Kerry was running for president, talk radio played his speeches on the sentate floor in the run-up to the Iraq war. All of the points he made were the same ones that the Bush administration was making, and most of them had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction. It was that Saddam had not complied with a single item of the agreement after the Gulf War, that he was continually inciting his people to destroy the US and its allies, and that he was supporting terrorism by supporting suicide bombers in Israel. But then Kerry changed his tune to pandering rhetoric of the left, which was the wrong position. This is why he lost.
Romney is taking the exact opposite course. He is moving away from the pandering rhetoric of the left and taking the right, correct positions. I like what he said last night, and also reflected on his past statements as he said it. He did this on purpose. People will look at this and conclude that he indeed has changed. It is left to every individual to decide whether this is a sincere or even a good change. But this is why I think he will win.
January 16th, 2008 at 7:58 am
Hmmm, for the conservative Rush Limbaugh makes him out to be Romney sure does sound a lot like John Edwards in his victory speech. “Those lobbyists and politicians”, “they promised you healthcare and you didn’t get it”. Who’s gonna give it to ya?
These sure don’t sound like conservative principles.
January 16th, 2008 at 8:03 am
Yes, I was at Polipundit.
Keven, it’s a matter of trust.
January 16th, 2008 at 9:17 am
The Republican party nominating a shameless politician? Shock horror!
In case you didn’t notice, we are nominating a politician whoever we pick, and most of the others in the race haven’t shown much shame so far.
January 16th, 2008 at 9:38 am
Who is saying that Romney wants to return to Reagan/Bush? The era of Reagan/Bush is OVER, but conservatism lives on
We now live in the 21st Century. Abraham Lincoln did some wonderful things and his philosophy lives on in the fabric of our country, but we don’t want to return to the era of Lincoln.
Let’s move on. America has to find it’s place in the 21st Century, and it isn’t going to happen by trying to return things to the way they were during the Reagan years or the Clinton years.
January 16th, 2008 at 9:42 am
OH MY GOSH!!! Romney’s gotten more conservatism as he’s gotten older! What a flip-flop! That’s it, no more support for Romney. Alexander, thank you for sharing with us this oh-so-incredible information. Why don’t you now try to find something worth talking about, you biased chump? I’m sure Al Gore could use some help with his global warming campaign.
January 16th, 2008 at 9:45 am
John Simple #80:
These sure don’t sound like conservative principles.
This is even funnyer comming from a Huckabee supporter. The Jesus-juice induced hallucination that Huckabee represents conservative values simply hasn’t been substantiated either in Huckabee’s own record, or even Huckabee’s present political stances, the voter turnout for Huckabee (which ONLY shows one thing; evangelicals like Huck, but not very many other people).
This is like McCain attacking Romney for not supporting the Bush tax cuts right at the start even though McCain has repeatedly voted against those tax cuts and is still against keeping them permanent.
January 16th, 2008 at 9:49 am
This is like McCain attacking Romney for not supporting the Bush tax cuts right at the start even though McCain has repeatedly voted against those tax cuts and is still against keeping them permanent.
Hm, kind of like Romney attacking McCain for supporting a path to citizenship when Romney himself used to support such a measure, right?
January 16th, 2008 at 10:00 am
Romney was asked about his earlier comment about not wanting to return to Reagan/Bush. He said that he was referring mainly to the deficeit spending of Reagan/Bush. He also said that as more time has passed, the stature of Reagan/Bush has gone up a lot (in comparison to the other presidents we have had).
The funny thing is that Romney’s changes have been from positions that he held from 4-5 years ago up to 20 years ago. Contrast that with Huck who has flipped on many of the positions he held last week. Same for straight talk, no amnesty, McCain. Although I for one do not believe McCain has changed one bit on amnesty.
January 16th, 2008 at 10:05 am
The funny thing is that Romney’s changes have been from positions that he held from 4-5 years ago up to 20 years ago. Contrast that with Huck who has flipped on many of the positions he held last week. Same for straight talk, no amnesty, McCain. Although I for one do not believe McCain has changed one bit on amnesty.
Ah, justifying bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior.
Are we children now?
Romney has also flip-flopped on, well, everything, while Huck is at least running on issues that he’s been consistent on. He’s the so-con candidate. He’s always been a so-con. Rudy’s running on fiscal issues and terrorism — his natural strengths. He’s always been good on those issues.
Romney’s running on…um…whatever the flavor of the week is…I guess it’s “change” right now. Back in Iowa, it was social conservatism, which was never his strength in the past. In Michigan, it was pandering to the max about getting manufacturing jobs back (what a f’ing liar), but with some vague connection to his business experience. But isn’t he for capitalism and globalization..? So how will the jobs come ba — Oh, no matter.
January 16th, 2008 at 10:25 am
That statement is 14 years old. This is not a story or a point. If you have to dig that far back AND claim that no one should change their viewpoint / sentiments in 14 years time, you are seeking for either a foolish, shallow audience or one that is desperately clutching at straws. By the way. Romney has the most delegates, the most wins, the most money and the most brains. But what really matters, he is the only one that has a shot at bolstering the long-term economy. It’s the economy, guys. If you want to turn anyone on to your favorite candidate, they better start addressing the most grievous problem to date.
January 16th, 2008 at 10:48 am
And the reaching really begins.
January 16th, 2008 at 11:47 am
TLG is at it early this morning. Talk about losing the forrest for the trees. Your petty attempts to define Mitt as a “flip flopper” aren’t working. People see right through the charade. Frankly, all it does is shinethe light on the fact that he has actual conservative views, as opposed to McCain, Rudy and Huckster. But don’t take my word for it, watch as McCain falls like a stone over the next two weeks, and Huckabee drops out after consecutive losses in SC and Florida.
January 16th, 2008 at 11:47 am
Romney flip-flopped on immigration reform from what he said in November, 2005 - all of 2 years and 2 months ago. However McCain, Giuliani and Huckabee don’t want to remind voters of their record on immigration reform so they can’t go with it. Massachusetts has for many years been a haven for illegal aliens and until then Governor Romney decided to run for President, he did nothing about it.
January 16th, 2008 at 11:53 am
You know, after reading this more closely, I’m trying to understand how you consider this to be a flip flop. When he was running for the Senator from Mass, he said he didn’t want to return to Reagan-Bush, which, given the era and the fact that Bush had just been decisively ousted 2 years earlier, was the clearly the right idea. The nation didn’t want anything to do with Bush at the time. Now, looking back to Reagan is clearly the mantra for Republicans, buecause the spending in government is out of control, and tax cuts, the war on terror, etc, are all problems that look to be best solved by going back to Reagan era policies. Times have changed, the world has changed, the problems this country faces have changed. He draws his inspiration from Reagan because that’s what we need today. In 1994, no one wanted a return to George H.W. Bush. To claim he wanted to go back to the recession started under Bush’s watch would hvae been ludicrous, and you know it. Heck, even Republicans voted for Perot in droves because they’d had it with Bush. Are those Republicans now flip floppers as well because they too draw inspiration from Reagan?
January 16th, 2008 at 11:59 am
Your attempt to smear this man is as detestable as anything I’ve seen on the recent political scene. First off, drawing your inspiration from these people and taking the country (or state) back to their time is clearly not a contradiction. It may have been a change in tone, but how can you not expect that given that he was running against KENNEDY in MASSACHUSETTS!?!?! It is not a flip flop, just a change in tone, and if you don’t like him, don’t vote for him. Stop spewing your hate.
January 16th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Actually, here’s the latest flip-flop…
http://www.newsweek.com/id/94518/page/1
January 16th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
“Hm, kind of like Romney attacking McCain for supporting a path to citizenship when Romney himself used to support such a measure, right?”
Except you have your facts WRONG. Romney never supported a special path to citizenship. Ever. Never-ever. Once he said McCain’s proposals were “reasonable”, though he didn’t endorse or support them. Basically he said McCain’s original proposal wasn’t complete insanity, and McCain’s trumped this up to supporting his ideas. We’ll I’m going on the record and saying that McCain isn’t completely insane. He’s usually reasonable-I guess that makes me a McCain supporter.
January 16th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
“Massachusetts has for many years been a haven for illegal aliens and until then Governor Romney decided to run for President, he did nothing about it.”
You guys need to start using actual facts. It gets really frusterating hearing the same falsehoods.
FACT: As Governor Of Massachusetts, Governor Romney Took Action To Enforce Immigration Laws.
ENFORCEMENT: In December 2006, Governor Romney Signed A Memorandum Of Agreement With The Federal Government To Allow State Troopers To Enforce Federal Immigration Laws. “Governor Mitt Romney and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Assistant Secretary Julie L. Myers today announced the signing of a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and ICE, which will give specially trained Massachusetts State Troopers the authority to administer and enforce federal immigration laws in the Commonwealth. ” (Office Of The Governor, “Governor Romney, ICE Sign Immigration Enforcement Pact,” Press Release, 12/13/06)
IN-STATE TUITION: Governor Romney Vetoed In-State Tuition For Illegal Immigrants. “Romney also vetoed a number of outside sections of the budget, including:…A plan that would have permitted illegal aliens to pay the same in-state tuition rate at our public colleges and universities as Massachusetts citizens.” (Office Of The Governor, “Romney Signs $22.402B Fiscal Year 2005 ‘No New Tax’ Budget,” Press Release, 6/25/04)
ENGLISH IMMERSION: Governor Romney Fought Efforts To Weaken Massachusetts’ English Immersion Law. “But yesterday, Romney press secretary Shawn Feddeman said the governor will fight all attempts to slow the implementation of English immersion, known on the ballot as Question 2. … ‘He will veto anything that weakens or delays English immersion,’ Feddeman said.” (Anand Vaishnav, “Romney Firm On English Timetable,” The Boston Globe, 1/24/03)
- In June 2002, Mitt Romney Said “The Approach Of English Immersion Is One That I Support. … I Would Make English Immersion The Educational Norm For All Non-Native English Speakers.” (John McElhenny, “Mitt Romney Endorses ‘English Immersion’ Education Plan,” The Associated Press, 6/4/02)
DRIVER’S LICENCES: Governor Romney Opposed Efforts To Give Driver’s Licenses To Illegal Immigrants. “‘Those who are here illegally should not receive tacit support from our government that gives an indication of legitimacy,’ the governor said, echoing arguments that opponents have voiced in the Commonwealth and in other states considering similar license measures. ‘If they are here illegally, they should not get driver’s licenses,’ he said.” (Scott S. Greenberger, “Romney Stand Dims Chances Of License For Undocumented,” The Boston Globe, 10/28/03)
January 16th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
“Romney’s running on…um…whatever the flavor of the week is…I guess it’s “change� right now.�
I’d like to introduce you to Romney’s announcement speech. You only need to listen to the first 10 seconds where he’s introduced to catch the theme of change.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xm5kyGnohzk
“But isn’t he for capitalism and globalization..? So how will the jobs come ba — Oh, no matter.�
Maybe you missed this debate, and maybe you don’t follow Romney very closely, but here’s you answer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXURUzSMiIU
January 16th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
Just more flip flopping from Romney who will do and say anything to get elected. He gets me so angry.
January 16th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Grrr, I’m getting angry. lol :p
January 16th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
#101 - You didn’t read anything here except the title, it isn’t “more flip flopping”, it’s the same worn-out fodder because they don’t have anything better than a 14 year old quote to hack at.
Read this
http://www.newsweek.com/id/94518/page/1
And get a grip.
January 16th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
“and is still against keeping them permanent.”
wrong. He supports making them permanent.