Will the real Willard Mitt Romney please stand up?
Republicans recently have watched multiple Romneys at war with each other over abortion, ethanol, global warming, and more. Alas, this is nothing new. Various Romneys have battled themselves on issues as old as the Vietnam War.
“I longed in many respects to actually be in Vietnam and be representing our country there and in some ways it was frustrating not to feel like I was there as part of the troops that were fighting in Vietnam,” Hawkish Romney said in the June 24, 2007, Boston Globe while running as a conservative for 2008’s GOP nomination.
Advertisement
But Romney sang a softer song while campaigning for Senate in liberal Massachusetts. “I was not planning on signing up for the military,” dovish Romney said in the May 2, 1994, Boston Herald. “It was not my desire to go off and serve in Vietnam.”
Just last week, Romney spooked pro-lifers by refusing to sign the Susan B. Anthony List’s pledge to nominate anti-abortion judges and other federal officials. Romney properly noted that this promise might block, say, a pro-choice spy master from leading the electronic sleuths at the National Security Agency, which does not address abortion. Still, this dustup underscored Romney’s bipolarity on this key issue.
“I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother,” pro-life Romney wrote in the July 26, 2005, Boston Globe.
But less than three years earlier, in October 2002, pro-choice Romney disagreed: “Let me make this very clear. I will preserve and protect a woman’s right to choose.”
Willard Mitt Romney attends a June 1994 Planned Parenthood fundraiser in Cohasset, Mass., while running for the U.S. Senate against then-incumbent Edward Moore Kennedy (D., Mass.).
“Government under President Obama has grown to consume almost 40 percent of our economy,” pro-enterprise Romney said June 2. “We are only inches away from ceasing to be a free-market economy.”
– “I support the subsidy of ethanol,” rent-seeking Romney said on May 27 in Iowa, however. “I believe ethanol is an important part of our energy solution for this country.”
Four days earlier, former governor Tim Pawlenty (R, Minn.) bravely opposed ethanol subsidies in Iowa. Nonetheless, Romney bear-hugged this boondoggle — weeks before the U.S. Senate voted 73–27 on June 16 to terminate the ethanol tax credit.
– “I believe the world is getting warmer, and I believe that humans have contributed to that,” CO2-fighting Romney said on June 3. “I think it’s important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants, of greenhouse gases, that may well be significant contributors to the climate change and global warming that you’re seeing.”
Romney earned a wave of the scepter from none other than the Pope of Global Warming, former vice president Albert Gore Jr.
“Good for Mitt Romney,” Gore wrote on June 15. “While other Republicans are running from the truth, he is sticking to his guns in the face of the anti-science wing of the Republican Party.”
“Governor Romney,” CNN’s John King asked at a June 13 GOP debate in New Hampshire, “constitutional amendment or state decision [to ban gay marriage]?”
Conversely, modern-values Romney, said in an Aug. 25, 1994 interview with Boston’s gay newspaper Bay Windows: “The authorization of marriage on a same-sex basis falls under state jurisdiction.”
Gun-toting Romney called himself a lifetime member of the National Rifle Association in April 2007. (Actually that “lifetime” began in August 2006.)
Gun-controlling Romney declared in 1994: “I don’t line up with the NRA.”
Huntsman Romney said in 2007: “I’ve been a hunter pretty much all my life.” A spokesman clarified that Romney actually had hunted precisely twice: At age 15 and in 2006.
“Ronald Reagan is . . . my hero,” Gipper-loving Romney said in 2005, as the Boston Globe’s Scot Lehigh noted on Jan. 19, 2007. “I believe that our party’s ascendancy began with Ronald Reagan’s brand of visionary and courageous leadership.”
“I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush,” Gipper-bashing Romney said in 1994, while running against the late senator Edward Moore Kennedy (D., Mass.). “I’m not trying to return to Reagan-Bush.”
Actually, Romney is doing Republicans a huge favor by disappointing them now, when they can deny him the nomination, rather than waiting until after being inaugurated, as both presidents Bush so maddeningly did.
Daddy Bush spent eight years riding shotgun beside Ronald Reagan. Surely, two terms as the Gipper’s vice president prepared him to fortify Reagan’s victories. Wrong! Read my lips: George Herbert Walker Bush raised taxes, swelled spending, and wimpishly dissolved when challenged by a young governor of Arkansas making his maiden presidential bid.
Baby Bush “will be nothing like his dad,” his supporters promised. “He’s like Reagan’s grandson.” Wrong again! Tax cuts and the War on Terror aside, George Walker Bush spent America into a hole, nationalized companies like a teenage girl buying shoes, and steered the GOP into a ditch from which only the Tea Party could rescue it.
Republicans should expose a potential nominee’s fatal flaws before, not after, the primaries.
For a change, Republicans should heed a top Democrat. Like the proverbial busted clock that is right twice daily, Senate majority leader Harry Reid of Nevada was correct Tuesday when he said of Willard Mitt Romney: “The front-runner in the Republican stakes now? Here’s a man who doesn’t know who he is.”
— New York commentator Deroy Murdock is a nationally syndicated columnist with the Scripps Howard News Service and a media fellow with the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford University.
Wow Murdock is really reaching and desperately trying to hold onto a 2008 narrative.
Not a surprise given he was Giulani's toady in 2008, and now his undying love has transfered to Giulani's buddy: Rick Perry...who by the way was Al Gore's state chariman in Texas.
Beware of hit pieces by this author. He's working for the unconservative Giulani and the RINO Perry.
Actually in my conversations with Deroy, he has voiced support for Chris Christie.
But, like many Republican voters, he is unsatisfied with the current crop of candidates and is looking to Perry as the "game-changer."
That being said, I disagree with him on Romney. I think Mitt is the best man for the job and the one with the best chance at beating Obama. In this economic climate it would be suicide to try and increase spending, as Deroy seems to suggest he'd do. And I like the position he has taken on the Susan B. Anthony pledge. Honestly, the one thing he's done to disappoint me is voice support for a federal marriage amendment. I think it's a state issue and I think he has changed that position to pander to social conservatives.
But in his defense, the ultra-conservative wing of the Party has really started to take over the primary process. You have to court them at least somewhat if you want the chance to compete in the general election. I'm not excusing it (ok, maybe I am), but that's what you have to do nowadays.
Thanks Paul for your observation. I do recall Mr. Murdock stumping for Giuliani in 2008. I didn't understand his logic then and I don't now. It seems like his motto is "anybody but Romney." Maybe he prefers another four years of President Obama because that is where we are headed unless Romney is the GOP nominee.
I kinda learned something in high school about Congress authoring legislation. It takes two to tango. If you want conservative legislation, you need conservatives in the House and Senate.
The Delay/Blunt paradigm has been proven a disaster. The W domestic agenda was made possible by poor leadership in Congress.
All POTUS' like to spend (Reagan included). The battle is sending him the right bills.
That’s right Paul; shoot the messenger, but not the message. Name just one un-factual point in the Murdock article. You can’t. Murdock simply uses Romney’s record and his own words to build the case against Mitt Romney. This is a scathing indictment. The truth of the matter is, Romney is a faux conservative. And as such, is unelectable.
What Murdock does is what many reporters do, they parse parts of Romney's (or other candidates) statements together to make an argument or case pro or con for a candidate. What that does is remove the context and original meaning of a person's statement. For example, Romney's support for a woman to have the right to choose whether she has an abortion is in line with his long held belief that abortion should only be use in the cases of rape, incest, and endangerment to a mother's life. A woman's choice and his personal conviction are two separate matters. Murdock's splicing of Romney's quotes makes Romney sound contradictory in his support to uphold Mass voters preference while stating the conditions he prefers for abortion.Reporters, journalists, and visual media use this method to make an argument. You could use each quote from Romney in this piece and make it appear that Romney is by far the most consistent politician America has seen.
Parse? Nice try,but he didn't parse -he exposed him bit by bit on issue by issue, showing his flip-flppin unprincipled soul to be one of "any means to an end" the same theology of Saul Alinsky.
Parse, indeed, that would be as bad as calling our destruction in Libya a non-war...oh wait -two of a kind?
Thank you for this article Deroy. The supporters of Romney claim that we should overlook his flaws because, in this time of economic crisis, he is the most "electable" candidate and also his business experience covers a multitude of sins.
I think these are flawed reasons for supporting him. The left will have a great deal of ammunition against Romney in the general- I don't need to list all the potential problems here, but they are many. And as for his business experience, that may be all fine and good for a business, but getting government under control requires something else: a person with strong core principles with the strength to do the right thing under tremendous pressure. We haven't seen anything from Romney to indicate that he would be anything more than a please everyone kind of crony capitalist. That is not going to get our economy out of the ditch. Romney is a non-starter, and as soon as Republicans as a whole figure this out the better.
Some of these quotes are taken out of context. Now I don't know the context of all of them, but when you misrepresent yourself once, I don't trust you for the rest of the article.
One in particular misquote is Gov. Romney's promise to protect abortion while Governor of Massachusetts which was not a general policy statement but an agreement with the people of Massachusetts.
Whatever real changes to accommodate the electorate he may have made, the fact that he agreed to govern MA differently than he would have liked is not a strike against him to sensible people.
Some good posts here. Let's just say it the way it is: flip-flopping or RINO, there is only ONE of the current crop of Republican Presidential candidates that is electable over Obama (that means gaining moderates and independents): Mitt Romney.
Republicans need to be realistic. Do you want to be disappointed by Romney or Obama?
The critiques of Deroy's critique of Romney are unconvincing if not a little shrill. Every flaw Deroy cites is true and backed by the candidate's own words.
The problem with Romney is not that he has occasionally changed positions. The willingness to change one's mind when faced with a better set of options, a different set of circumstances or evidence that your original position is unsupportable is a strength, not a weakness.
The disturbing thing about Romney's flip-flops is that they all involved matters of what should have been deeply held principle on some of the most important issues of our times. I have no problem with him refusing to sign the Susan B. Anthony pledge and accept the logic behind his reasons for doing so. I have a great deal of trouble believing that his current pro-life assertions are any more deeply held than his previously deeply held pro-choice assertions. While this is not my primary issue -- the proper role of the federal government and its power over our lives trumps everything for me -- it is a disquieting reality that leaves one wondering if Romney has any convictions at all, other than the desire to collect votes.
The same thing can be said about his views on Reagan, Vietnam, global warming and other issues about which a person of conviction could be expected to exhibit some passion and consistency. Even now, having initially tacked right to attract GOP votes, Romney appears to already be tacking back left for the general election; a maneuver that smacks of both presumption and expediency.
This is not just a matter of nominating someone who will be a cipher once in office; it begs the question of how Romney can take the fight to Obama if he is already blurring his differences with him. We have already watched one GOP nominee hamstrung by his inability to distinguish his own positions from that of his opponent, whether on cap-and-trade, TARP, or a host of other issues that, properly argued, might have led to a different result in 2008. We do not need John McCain Part II.
My personal belief is that Romney's frontrunner status is an illusion based on nothing more than name ID and fundraising prowess far in advance of the actual vote. I think he is likely to be quickly eclipsed, particularly if Perry enters the race. In the meantime, I cannot for the life of me understand why a deeply principled, articulate, consistent, experienced and highly qualified candidate like Rick Santorum continues to be overshadowed by, not just Romney, but other conservative candidates with far fewer credentials and far less mastery of policy, history and world events.
One quick side item in response to another post -- Ronald Reagan did not want to expand spending other than on the military. Every budget he sent to a Democrat congress was dismissed as "dead on arrival" and his proposed spending restraints were denounced as "Draconian cuts" designed to starve old people and babies and usher in a new age of darkness. Reagan did what he could, but even the Great Communicator could not convince Tip O'Neill to change his liberal stripes and embrace small government. Remember -- particularly you Tea Partiers -- that it takes three to tango in Washington. You not only need a President; you need a senate and house to go with him.
Mitt is a complete put-z, and this article is spot-on. What good was the Tea Party revolution if he is going to be our presidential nominee? It depresses me that he is the current front-runner. Heck, it depresses me that he is even being considered.
Integrity is, to an extent, written in the face for those who care to look. I see none in Romney. Palin and Bachmann, on the other hand, are the gen-you-wine article(s).
MReed53: you make many good points, but like some of the other Republican candidates, Rick Santorum is perceived as too extreme and therefore has no chance. It's quite noble to be principled and all that, but ultimately you are answerable to the electorate. Obama has actually had to move toward the center on many issues for this very reason. Romney's "flip-flops", especially as Governor of a liberal state (Mass.) speak to that as well. Dubya is lambasted for his "compassionate conservatism" but that helped him with moderates. No matter how bad Obama is, hard-right conservatism will NOT win in 2012.
I beg to differ that a hard-right conservative will not win in 2012. Will it be an uphill battle? Yes. Will the candidate be vilified? Yes. But there is a lot of energy and excitement pointed toward restoration of core values and principles and a candidate who speaks frankly, passionately and over the MSM media directly to the American people will go a long way. I believe 2012 is an epic battle in the war of ideas. We need a candidate to force Obama to articulate his ideas by exposing what he stands for (if only by forcing him to disagree with someone who stands by and for the Constitution).
My resistance to Santorum’s candidacy is based on the fact that he comes from the Legislative branch not that he is too far to the right. But that said, I saw Santorum last night on Beck and I was impressed. Santorum's honesty and candor during the interview have made more open to the idea of his candidacy.
I’d love to see is Santorum as Sec of State. His foreign policy analysis on the ME was dead on and having someone who is unbendable in their defense of Israel with a religious understanding of Good vs. Evil is going to be paramount to dealing with the problems in the region over the coming years.
“I longed in many respects to actually be in Vietnam and be representing our country there and in some ways it was frustrating not to feel like I was there as part of the troops that were fighting in Vietnam,” Hawkish Romney 
