• commentary
  • WEDNESDAY FEBRUARY 21 2007 11:00 AM

Mitt Romney: Another Flip-Flopper

Submitted by legionnaire

Edited by legionnaire

Tags: Mitt Romney, Massachusetts, president, abortion, gun control

One of the real problems for all three of the big-name Republicans 2008 presidential hopefuls is that they've needed to be very different things to different people. John McCain wanted to maintain his "maverick" image as the senator who didn't care what the establishment thought, but has since been "repositioning" himself to become more conservative in the hopes of winning the GOP primary where right-wing voters have more pull. Rudy Giuliani needed to woo voters of the liberal stronghold of New York City to get elected as mayor but is now reconsidering his positions on key issues like abortion in the hopes of convincing Republican primary voters that he may from New York City but isn't of New York City. And Mitt Romney, governor of Massachusetts, one of the most traditionally liberal states in the country, had to convince voters there of his commitment to progressive values to gain the governorship, but is now rethinking his positions on two key issues for conservatives, abortion and gun control.

Romney proceeded to expound one of the odder positions I've heard in years of listening to politicians talk about a subject most would prefer to avoid: "I can tell you what my position is, and it's in a very narrowly defined sphere, as candidate for governor and as governor of Massachusetts," he said. "What I said to people was that I personally did not favor abortion, that I am personally pro-life. However, as governor I would not change the laws of the commonwealth relating to abortion.

"Now I don't try and put a bow around that and say what does that mean you are -- does that mean you're pro-life or pro-choice, because that whole package -- meaning I'm personally pro-life but I won't change the laws, you could describe that as -- well, I don't think you can describe it in one hyphenated word."


What the hell does that mean? Well, in reduced politico-speak, it means "I'm willing to change my position depending on the office that I'm running for, because I don't actually have any deeply held principles on that issue. Or maybe anything."

Abortion is the bellwether topic for many conservatives and progressives alike, and keeping his position on the matter ambiguous, to say the least, could at least temporarily work in Romney's favor as the press tries to make heads or tails of his incredibly obfuscated statements. But eventually the hypocrisy will be inescapable as people start doing their homework and researching the way his positions changed as his ambitions grew.

So what about gun control? That seems like a fairly straightforward issue. Or is it?

Spokesman Kevin Madden said Romney did not join the NRA just to court gun owners, who are considered a force in Republican primary politics.

"He joined the NRA because, like millions of Americans, he supports the group's advocacy of the Second Amendment and its commitment to education programs promoting the safe use of firearms by law-abiding gun owners," Madden said.

Asked why Romney joined only a few months before declaring his candidacy, Madden said: "I would argue not many Americans care when you join, but why you join, and I think I've made that clear."

Speaking on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos," Romney said he signed up for a life long membership "within the last year."

"I think they're doing good things, and I believe in supporting the right to bear arms," Romney said.

Not all gun advocates are convinced of Romney's commitment to their cause.

"His past votes have been anti-gun and I feel like it may just be a campaign strategy that we're not going to fall for," said Gerald Stoudemire, president of Gun Owners of South Carolina, an NRA state association. "I've never seen a politician change their way of thinking 180 degrees, except when they were running for office."


Watching centrist politicians like Romney try to bone up on their conservative credentials is about as cringe-inducing as when Michael Dukakis rolled up his sleeves (because he knows a hard day's work!) and rode in a tank. Or the elder George Bush's pathetic attempt to bridge the gaping social chasm between himself (the Yale-educated, effete Northeastern WASP) and regular people by professing his love for pork rinds and his disdain for broccoli.

People can smell a phony from a mile away, and their natural dislike for politicians only puts them more on guard and aware when people like Romney have such transparent "changes of heart" inspiring them to do things like join the NRA months before announcing a presidential campaign. It's true that people's opinions on political issues can and do change, and that's not such a bad thing. But normal, rational people do not generally have rapid, complete reversals on key issues that just happen to give them a slight edge in polling numbers. This may sound like a radical suggestion given today's poiltical environment, and may not even be the best idea considering the way primary elections work, but sticking with actual values and positions on issues would be a welcome change for voters trying to honestly evaluate their candidate in a primary and open election rather than trying to be everything to everyone, all the time.

  • PERMALINK
  • PRINT
  • Digg This
  • Email To A Friend
 
Comments
emotedcreations

emotedcreations

Germany
July 2006

FEB 21, 2007 11:29 AM

That's politics for ya... frown

"I can tell the difference between man who believes what I believe and lies about it to get elected and a man who, well, just doesn't give a fuck, and I'll take the liar". --Primary Colors

hadees

hadees

Austin, TX
December 2003

FEB 21, 2007 11:46 AM

emotedcreations said:
That's politics for ya... frown


That's United States two party system politics where the "base" of both parties get to choose who runs for President. They are like our very own guardian council. puke

DONCARLOS

DONCARLOS

Chicago, IL
January 2005

FEB 21, 2007 12:39 PM

What we need is a strong third party to send this election into a revolutionary spin.
Whenever there has been a strong third party candidate in the USA, the lobbyist and press get all bent out of shape. The large corporations have a hard time funding campaigns and the two parties look for ways to limit third party participation. The book "No Debate" - by Farah - really explains how this is done... But how and why is it that the USA government imposes more than two party systems in Latin America through the IMF, World Bank and Inter-American Bank? And then force these countries to have only one term for the head of state. Except for Chavez who paid off his IMF loans and told the USA to kiss my "arrepas". Good Flip-Flopper piece. smile

brett54

brett54

Australia
November 2004

FEB 21, 2007 01:59 PM

"....... on two key issues for conservatives, abortion and gun control."

What a weird country. On one hand, a misguided attempt to save "potential" humans AND on the other, open slather choice of weapons to kill kill kill, enshrined in the constitution.


ericwine

ericwine

Charlotte Hall, MD
January 2007

FEB 21, 2007 02:00 PM

I hope Giuliani sticks to his guns and runs as Rudy and not as Dubya II. I like the libertarian Romney a lot better than the cultural conservative he's remaking himself into. Romney's 180 reminds me of Dick Gephardt's 180 twenty years ago, which cost him the Democratic nomination after Dukakis ran that ad featuring a red haired man doing backflips.

JDPatriot

JDPatriot

Fort Lauderdale, FL
January 2004

FEB 21, 2007 02:50 PM

And the fucking democrats are doing the exact same shit... only with less attention and more bullshit ambiguity.

Fuck this, i'm voting libertarian. Libertarian is turning into a four letter word for me, personally. Not because I disagree with their points.. in fact I think they are too moderate most of the time, but because they are the worst political party. They just suck at winning people over to their cause... because libertarians spend so much time pissing people off that they begin to enjoy it lol.

So on that note... if you can blame guns for murder, can I blame my pen for misspelled words?

James_

James_

United Kingdom
March 2003

FEB 21, 2007 03:04 PM

JDPatriot said:

So on that note... if you can blame guns for murder, can I blame my pen for misspelled words?



nope, but without your pen you'd be forced to use something less drastic, like a pencil, which is far less permanent and has a rubber on the end.

Gillionaire

Gillionaire

Manchester, NH
February 2007

FEB 21, 2007 04:12 PM

Being from Massachusetts originally, I will attest that Mitt Romney winning election here then traveling the country talking shit about the state made me hate him very very much.

Priest_

Priest_

USA
January 2007

FEB 21, 2007 04:36 PM

Well... hmm, ya know, aren't the people we elect supposed to be our representatives? Let's assume so. Now, that means that if they want to represent say... Republicans... they've gotta espouse Republican ideals... yes? When politicians do a 180 on their ideas it's because they're trying to show that they will be a representative of whatever constituents they're hoping to represent. Hence why I rarely find it all that shocking.

But then, when they fail to uphold their stated ideals once they get into office, that's fraud to me.

ItwasDuke

ItwasDuke

New York, NY
March 2004

FEB 21, 2007 04:51 PM



People can smell a phony from a mile away, and their natural dislike for politicians only puts them more on guard and aware when people like Romney have such transparent "changes of heart" i



I'm not so sure about this one dude.

I wonder how popular votes would work.

dempsey

dempsey

Seattle, WA
June 2003

FEB 21, 2007 04:53 PM

I'm just shocked to read a story on Romney that didn't focus on (or shit, even mention) religion. It would seem he's stocking up on conservative points to counteract the hit he'll take in bible-belt primaries.

allergic

allergic

Saint Petersburg, FL
October 2004

FEB 21, 2007 05:32 PM

DONCARLOS said:
What we need is a strong third party to send this election into a revolutionary spin.
Whenever there has been a strong third party candidate in the USA, the lobbyist and press get all bent out of shape. The large corporations have a hard time funding campaigns and the two parties look for ways to limit third party participation. The book "No Debate" - by Farah - really explains how this is done... But how and why is it that the USA government imposes more than two party systems in Latin America through the IMF, World Bank and Inter-American Bank? And then force these countries to have only one term for the head of state. Except for Chavez who paid off his IMF loans and told the USA to kiss my "arrepas". Good Flip-Flopper piece. smile



a strong third party sounds good in principle but in reality it only seems to slice off a significant enough chunk of progressive votes to guarantee a victory for whatever asshole is pandering hard enough to fucking christians. the fact is I don't think you would find a 100% for or against opinion on gun control or abortion in either party, but fucking "political strategists" cannot stop framing it that way and actual politicians won't show the fucking guts to vote what they actually believe.

malkav11

malkav11

Saint Paul, MN
July 2003

FEB 21, 2007 11:45 PM

Sphinxter said:
Well... hmm, ya know, aren't the people we elect supposed to be our representatives? Let's assume so. Now, that means that if they want to represent say... Republicans... they've gotta espouse Republican ideals... yes? When politicians do a 180 on their ideas it's because they're trying to show that they will be a representative of whatever constituents they're hoping to represent. Hence why I rarely find it all that shocking.

But then, when they fail to uphold their stated ideals once they get into office, that's fraud to me.



The point is to elect an individual who already aligns with your beliefs, not a spineless chameleon. Because spineless chameleons aren't going to be around you when they're in office, they're going to be around Congress. And so they're not going to mimic you, they're going to mimic other people in their political party.

featured interviews