New Mitt, Meet Old Mitt
There are two Mitt Romneys—the one who ran twice in Massachusetts as a moderate-to-liberal Republican and the one now running for the G.O.P. presidential nomination as a red-meat conservative.
When these two diametrically opposite characters end up meeting each other, awkward comedy ensues. Case in point: this weekend.
The 2008 version of Mr. Romney loudly and strategically lashed out at Mike Huckabee—the man whose emergence, more than any other development in this campaign, threatens Mr. Romney’s nomination game plan—charging that the former Arkansas Governor is a disloyal Republican because he criticizes George W. Bush’s foreign policy style.
“It sounds like something Barack Obama or John Edwards would say—not what you hear from someone running for president as a Republican," Mr. Romney said in Iowa on Saturday. On Sunday, he amped up the rhetoric, demanding on “Meet the Press” that Mr. Huckabee apologize to Mr. Bush.
For the record, Mr. Huckabee, in the obligatory Foreign Affairs essay offered by every presidential candidate, knocked the Bush administration for conducting diplomacy with “an arrogant, bunker mentality.”
The naked disingenuousness of Mr. Romney’s outrage, though, was revealed during that same “Meet the Press” appearance, when Tim Russert repeatedly confronted 2008 Mitt with the words and actions of Pre-2008 Mitt, the ambitious and adaptable Massachusetts pol who’d throw Republican leaders and conservative principles under the bus with abandon.
Like during his 1994 Senate campaign when Mr. Romney, concerned that his state’s left-leaning voters might dismiss him as a disciple of Ronald Reagan, pleaded with the public—on live statewide television—to understand that he had little use for the policies of the Reagan Revolution.
Mr. Russert played the clip on Sunday, with Mr. Romney declaring: “Look, I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I’m not trying to return to Reagan-Bush.”
2008 Mitt’s defense? That he “ran as Republican and a conservative” in ’94, disgusted by Ted Kennedy’s liberalism.
But that’s not true. Mr. Romney may have been the Republican Party’s nominee in 1994, but he wasn’t even a member of the party until the end of 1993. And he originally considered entering the race as an independent—a fact that his campaign team and even his wife happily advertised throughout the ’94 race, just as the Romney campaign bragged that he had voted for Paul Tsongas in the 1992 Democratic presidential primary. And Mr. Romney himself declared that he wanted moderates controlling the Senate—“not the Jesse Helmses.” Are these the actions of someone running “as a Republican and a conservative?”
Mr. Russert didn’t bring that up, but he did cite Mr. Romney’s myriad shifts—in position and tone—on abortion, stem cells, immigration, gun control and gay rights, telling Mr. Romney: “You look at all those comments and quotes, on every one of those issues, there has been an evolution—an intellectual journey on all these issues.”
That set off an illuminating exchange. As Mr. Romney scrambled to deny what amounts to flagrant opportunism, an exasperated Mr. Russert interrupted and exclaimed: “You said (in 1994) you’d be a more effective leader on gay rights than Ted Kennedy!”
Mr. Romney replied that what he’d really meant was that he “would be effective in trying to bring greater recognition of the—of the rights of people not, not to be discriminated against.”
Mr. Russert then asked him whether he stood by the promise he made in Massachusetts to support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would provide gays and lesbians broad legal protections against discrimination, at the federal level—legislation that has been championed by Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. Romney admitted that he no longer does, and that he now thinks it’s a state issue.
“Oh, Tim,” he said, “if you're looking for someone who's never changed any positions on any policies, then I'm not your guy.”
It was shortly after this that Mr. Romney issued his demand that Mr. Huckabee apologize to Mr. Bush.
But if Mr. Romney intends to come clean to his new conservative friends, he owes a few apologies as well, starting with Ronald Reagan and Jesse Helms—the conservative icons he served up to run for office in Massachusetts.
- Poll
- Obama (D)
- McCain(R)
- Spread
- RCP Average
- 46.9
- 43.3
- Obama +3.6
- Candidate
- Favorable
- Unfavorable
- Spread
- Obama
- 52.6
- 34.4
- +18.2
- McCain
- 51.2
- 34.2
- +17.0
Flip-Flop Romney is a 100% fraud and a patholigical liar. Someone who hires illegal aliens to work in his mansion and then turns around and runs an anti-illegal immigration campaign is nothing but a hypocrite.
Also, Romney now says he favors amnesty/pathway for citizenship for illegal aliens, he said it in the Meet the Press Interview.
I think Mitt needs to see a good quality shrink, he seems to be suffering from split-personality disorder.
Flippin' Mitt is quite possibly the most unctuous phony in the history of presidential bids. It is delightful to watch his campaign implode. Although listening to him is invariably nauseating, I do look forward to his withdrawal speech.
A leapord can't change it's spots - or can it??
I would take Romney's conversion over Huckabee's still running on liberalism any day.
My first pick is Fred Thompson, but I would never vote for the Huckster. He is a liberal on taxes (His FairTax is a joke), a liberal on government spending, a liberal on immigration, a liberal on foreign policy, a liberal on global warming, a liberal on crime. I could go on forever. Huckabee is not a real Conservative.
After watching Romney on Meet the Press I actually felt that he handled the questioning very well. While on the surface it's easy to lable him a flip flopper I think that his responses to Russert's questions provided a clear rational for his positions. I also found it impressive that as governor he made sure he kept all promises he made to the electorate while campaigning for office, how many politicians can make that claim. I think Romney's sincere and would serve America well as President.
"real conservative" - FairTax is NOT a "liberal" tax policy. Look at FairTax.org. Nearly all of the republican candidates say they would approve it as president if Congress sent it to their desk. Only Mike Gravel - hardly a real democrat - has said he would approve it on the democratic side.
Liberals will never be a fan of massive regressive tax hikes. Never.
I thought Romney handled the questions well and he put the accusations in context and it made sense to me and probably helped him. If he can handle Russert's grilling, it says a lot. Give me a politician that hasn't changed their mind. McCain all of a sudden doesn't like the immigration reform he tried to stuff down our throats a few months ago? Huckabee all of sudden doesn't want to provide tuition breaks for illegal aliens, yet defends his past support for such? Rudy, all of a sudden is going to be strong on illegal immigration after practically inviting illegal aliens to NYC?
I prefer to see where these candidates are now and what they can bring to America. None are perfect. For me, as a Republican, based on Romney's background, he's the only one that hits all areas of the party. Even more than that, I would love to see someone go into Washington and just start getting rid of the inefficiencies, duplication and waste. That is what Romney's great at doing (he did this for the Olympic games and in business), and the only one I would trust to do it, and that's something Dems and Repubs can get behind.
Ask almost anyone here in Massachusetts what Mitt did for the state and the answer will be NOTHING. He spent most of his one term running down to the Carolina's with tall tales about being the govenor of such a liberal state --- "like being a meat eater at a vegetarian convention" that sort of clever quip..... Furthering our suspicion that 1) he only ever used us to run for president and 2) he has no sense of humor & takes himself waaay too seriously and 3) he really is about as cynical and transparent a politician we have today.
Romney will say anything anyone wants to hear if he thinks they hold the ticket to his success.
Did we watch the same program?
"The naked disingenuousness of Mr. Romney’s outrage." I saw no outrage or even discomfort. Are you sure we were watching the same Meet the Press? We are talking about yesterdays program. Right?
You obviously have an agenda. There were no new revelations about Mitt in this interview, we all knew about his past stances and how he has changed - he freely acknowledges this.
As for claiming he was angry or uncomfortable - that's where you are being dishonest.
Mitt will be a great president. If we don't choose him, it's the US that loses and he will continue to be a succesful person at everything he does.
Whats to say Mitt will not change his mind once again if he becomes president. This guy changes his positions like the fall colors ! He sounds like an opportunist
I could never trust this guy.
I'm fed up with those candidates with strong positions, shoot from the hip types. Those who never backed up from wrong policies. Enough of the Clinton or the Bushes. Intellectuals haver a better approach to running our country, at least they show some flexibility. Russia, Europe, China, would have Huckabee for lunch before he can even say hallelujah
The only thing Mitt changed his positions on were from pro choice to pro life. Being called a "flip flopper" is a good comment. I want a candidate who learns from their experiences not stubbornly sticks with an issue. Its a dumb notion that someone is going to have the same belief system all their life. Even though he did change his postions on one issue he kept all his promises when he was governor. This was a poor opinion by the observer because they can't see past the political games (calling names such as "flip-flopper") to see that he is incredibly qualified to lead the country at this time of economic crises. Read the National Review "editor's pick" of Mitt Romney.
The first thing i did when looking into Romney is call my friends in Mass. They are respected individuals and said to a man that Romney was a good governor.
It's about time someone questioned Mitt about his shameful record. I can't believe some people here don't mind that he is such a flip flopper! Do you realize that he didn't just flip flop on one or two issues, but just about everything?
He has run the most unethical and deceitful campaign I've ever seen- he lies about his opponents records to take the spotlight off of his horrible record in Massachusetts and his sketchy business dealings (selling technology to China and questionable business ties with Iran).
Mitt is the product of the extreme right that is only concerned about their wallets and helping the rich get richer. Fox News is doing their best to fool us that Romney is a stand-up guy. We need to take our country back and stop letting the Republican Establishment choose our President. I'm voting for Mike Huckabee--he is a man of true conviction and will bring our country back together. Wall Street and other members of the Establishment are doing everything they can to ruin him because they know they can't buy him.
Michelle, you should try watching the interview that the NY observer is speaking about (Meet the Press with Tim Russert). You will see that this article is only a "hit-job" and misrepresents Romney.
Mitt Romney- the Jawn Kerry of the GOP.
Both Rudy and Mitt had tough questions, but Mitt filibustered (giving long answers to short questions) while Rudy answered the question with a long (if necessary) awesome one. For example, Rudy's answer on why he left the Iraq Study Group, or why he did consulting with Qatar were awesome.
Ann Althouse and National Review gave high marks to Mitt vs. Rudy on Meet the Press, but it just shows they've already made up their mind, don't want to admit the truth, or are stupid.
I think it's funny when I hear people say that Romney is a phony. Here's a guy who's had tons of success in the past with family, business, and government. You think he could do all that if he were a liar and a phony? The truth is he's not as good a politician as Huckabee or Rudy, thus he has less "likability". I would say that there isn't a single phony in the race, republican or democrat. Vote on the issues not your perceptions because perceptions can be shaped by the media and propaganda. Only Stupid people vote for someone because they "like" him or think he's "a nice guy/gal".
A vote for Huckabee is a vote for Hillary.
To all those who asked to see a politician who HASN'T changed his view, I say "GOOGLE RON PAUL"
To those who are glad that the steaming pile of Mitt is on the "right" side of issues now, I say, wouldn't you rather support a guy who was right, THE FIRST TIME?!
America needs a Doctor!
Anyone who actually watched this interview saw a well informed and calm Mitt Romney. Romney answered all of Russet’s questions politely and intelligently, even though many of Russet’s questions were absurd.
When asked about the statements made against Mike Huckabee, Romney stated very clearly that he thought Huckabee’s specific rhetoric calling Bush’s foreign policy “an arrogant, bunker mentality” was wrong. Romney also made clear that he (Romney) disagrees with some of the President’s foreign policy decisions, but that is no excuse to sink to the level of Huckabee’s comments when he calls the President arrogant and narrow minded. Mitt’s right—that’s the type of rhetoric Democrats use against Republicans, not something that we should be supporting, regardless of our views. I doubt Kornacki even watched this interview before writing this hack piece.
I was more worried about Romney until I saw the interview. I thought his responses bridged the gap that the media has been painting in his character for the past couple weeks. He has a fantastic business record, the SLC Olympics is great on his resume, running a decent campaign against a Kennedy, and his willingness to adapt are all impressive.
Ron Paul would never get anything done in Washington because he'd be to stuck in idealism to gain support or come to an agreement. Just look at his voting record. Thus he would quickly lose support in a general election. A vote for Paul is a vote for Hill.
A vote for Mitt is a vote for Hillary.
Sorry Dustin, times have changed.
Got MITT?
My extended family will be voting for Romney in the Florida primary on January 29 and for POTUS in the November 2008 general. Go Mitt, Go!
So let it be written, so let it be told.
What impress me about Romney is that he has a tract record with PROVEN results, both inside and outside government. He fixed big companies that were failing, key player in saving the 2000 Winter Olympics, and was elected in a state where 85% of the people are democrats to reign in their spending. So many times our only choice has been life-long politicians, actors, or people with unproven ideas / experience.
It would be hard for me to vote for a close minded person who clung to the notion that they never change their thinking.
MITT did an excellent job during his interveiw, I wish people could stop talking about religion and start talking about his record. success, success, success. he has a strong presence and will bring respect back to the office of president.
Romney was an excellent governor. His record proves him to be a man who has learned, grown, and developed the sound judgment required to lead our nation. Above all, he is impeccably honest!
I take Mitt Romney's "flip flopping" as a good sign. It shows he is open-minded and willing to admit he was wrong. I think he would make a great president because he would listen to people of both parties to get things done.