A week or so ago, the blogosphere erupted over a quote by Gov. Romney uttered during his 1994 Senate race against Ted Kennedy in which Romney claimed that, during the Reagan/Bush years, he had been a political independent.? As I pointed out during the heat of the debacle, I found the whole thing rather strange, and I felt that Romney owed us an explanation as?to?why he, the son of a GOP governor, chose not to affiliate with the GOP during the 1980s.? I also pointed out that this is hardly a mortal sin, and that many folks have been something other than Republicans before joining the GOP.? Like Ronald Reagan.? Like Rudy Giuliani.? And like Yours Truly.? Converts are always welcome in the big tent.? But if a convert wants to lead the party, he’d better have his story ready.? So far, I haven’t heard any commentary on this subject at all from the Mittster.
Well, today over at The Corner, Rich Lowry?posts an excerpt from WaPo that confirms that Mitt was in fact telling the truth about his party affiliation back in 1994.
“When he challenged Kennedy, Romney was a young businessman with no firm ideological identity, the latest in a line of moderate Massachusetts Republicans that included former governor Francis W. Sargent and then-Gov. William F. Weld. Then 47, he had been a registered independent until 1993 and had voted for Democrat Paul Tsongas in the 1992 presidential primary. He took a tough, more conservative view of crime, immigration and welfare than Kennedy but shared the senator’s liberal tolerance on social issues.”
Lowry’s emphasis.? So what we seem to have here is a member of a highly political, Republican family registering as an independent during the Reagan/Bush years, voting in the 1992 Democratic primary, and then registering as a Republican in 1993.? Again, there are plenty of ways that such behavior could be quite consistent with a political evolution that culminated in Reagan conservatism and partisan Republicanism.? And if that’s what this happened to Mitt, he needs to explain it to us.? But he hasn’t yet.? And until he does, I don’t think it’s so unfair for me to call him on it.
December 21st, 2006 at 4:46 pm
Remember in the primany in Mass you can vote in either primany if you an indpedent. And with Bush running for relection he can calm he wanted to make sure if a dem won it was the best won. I know a lot of dems who voted in 96 in the republican primany so if Clinton lost you did not get a buchanan in there.
December 21st, 2006 at 4:57 pm
Indeed, Tsongas was precisely the type of Democrat who might have been “acceptable” to Romney. Pro-business and fiscally conservative. Socially moderate. Notice they don’t mention who Romney voted for in the general election. I suspect that’s because it doesn’t confirm there “Romney’s a liberal” schtick. There are only 13% Republicans in Massachusetts. And yet, the Republican presidential candidate generally gets upwards of 35% of the vote. This a phenomenon that’s also present in New Jersey, with 57% of people registered as independents. I don’t think Romney being an independent during a time period where he seemed relatively uninterested in politics is anything more then practicality. I’m a registered independen, precisely so I can have a say in the NJ primary process regardless of the individuals involved. But I can’t conceive of a situation where I’d vote for a Democrat for Senate, Governor, or President in the general election.
December 21st, 2006 at 5:08 pm
Even though I wasn’t old enough to vote, I didn’t support Bush 41 back in 1992. Again, I think there are plenty of ways a guy can go from that to being a partisan GOPer and conservative ready to lead the party. But the fact that I can explain my evolution in a paragraph or two (and I’ve done so several times) tells me that a smart guy like Mitt should be able to explain his own without even thinking about it. And the fact that he’s had so many conversions and he’s explained very few of them is what’s really irking me right now. It’s like the George Allen thing; at some point, all the tidbits of circumstantial evidence pile up and reach critical mass. The same thing will happen to Romney if he doesn’t get his arms around all of this.
December 21st, 2006 at 5:41 pm
There are two other factors to consider about Romney. One, perhaps he is not very bright and thinks we aren’t either. He had to know all this would come out and yet he courted the social conservatives early and assiduously. Now his flip floppery seems all the more calculated and foolish. I would have more respect if given his background he made his candidacy about something else like executive competency. That would have shown some savvy. Now I think his modest problem is a much bigger one because he chose to open his campaign the way he did. Second, above all, conservatives want to win. His previous “in” was-I was a conservative who won and governed among liberals. Pretty convincing? Well now the answer is he did that by “fudging” (I will be magnanimous). He has stepped on his own lines, frittering away his advantages over both McCain(legislators don’t generally make good presidents) and ultimately Hillary(same). The fact that NRO, which remain the gold standard for conservatives, has post after post on this today should let us know someone’s campaign needs to be re-tooled. Perhaps he can but the GOP conservative opponents clambering for attention will soon make this an even bigger issue than it is. (He would have saved himself a heap of trouble by originally running in Michigan where being pro-life would have been ok.)
December 21st, 2006 at 5:47 pm
Even Kathryn Jean “Chief Disciple” Lopez isn’t defending him on this.
December 21st, 2006 at 6:31 pm
Wow, Romney at 4%. That has to be the lowest I’ve seen him polling at in the past year or so. So not only is he not gaining any traction in the national polls but he’s actually going backwards. The nation is just now being introduced to Mitt and this is incredibly bad for him. Tucker on MSNBC just spent two segments discussing his evolution in a negative light. Redstate and NRO are going crazy. The story just keeps growing because people keep finding new quotes. Romney needs to stop the bleeding right now or he really risks destroying everything he’s worked for over the past year.
December 21st, 2006 at 6:35 pm
I am a Republican who preferred Tsongas to Bush 41 in 1992. Tsongas was a great man who might have made an excellent president.
December 21st, 2006 at 6:44 pm
Ravens Fan,
Even the most rabid Giuliani supporters on the forum (and LJ!) would probably acknowledge that Mitt Romney packs a good brain in his head. Not very bright? Really.
December 21st, 2006 at 6:47 pm
“Even the most rabid Giuliani supporters on the forum (and LJ!) would probably acknowledge that Mitt Romney packs a good brain in his head.”
Indeed we would! He’s very smart. No question about that.
December 21st, 2006 at 6:52 pm
His strategy, whether his or someone else’s, was not smart. Perhaps he is smart and thinks we are not. If he were smart, street and political smart, he would have packaged himself differently for the get go. Now he looks slick, not smart.
December 21st, 2006 at 6:56 pm
Methepeople,
Even the most rabid Giuliani supporters on the forum (and LJ!) would probably acknowledge that Mitt Romney packs a good brain in his head.
Ha! Sure, I would definitely acknowledge that. I think he is quite smart, he wouldn’t have gotten this far if he wasn’t.
With that said, Ravens Fan wasn’t calling Mitt dumb or anything. His point was that Mitt had to have known that this would happen and that by portraying himself as a hard right social conservative, he made the damage much more acute. The question then becomes, did Mitt just not anticipate this happening or if he did, why hasn’t he issued a full explanation of his past in order to mitigate the fallout? Whichever one it is, it doesn’t reflect that great on his judgment.
December 21st, 2006 at 7:07 pm
“I am a Republican who preferred Tsongas to Bush 41 in 1992. Tsongas was a great man who might have made an excellent president.”
I am a Republican who preferred Perot to Bush 41 in 1992. Perot was a demagogue who would have made a horrid president. But give me 2 or 3 paragraphs and I can describe my evolution from Perotista to libertarian-conservative Republican and everything in between. Given Mitt’s grades at Harvard, his bulb is at least as bright as mine. There’s no reason why he couldn’t do the same. The fact that he hasn’t suggests that either he doesn’t think we need to know how and why he’s evolved, which is poor form politically, or that he simply hasn’t come up with a good story on the whole matter yet. The former shows that he’s a rookie; the latter is, to say the least, troubling.
December 21st, 2006 at 8:20 pm
Right. Also, the big problem for Romney now is that he’ll have to re-affirm his social conservatism to the voters quite a bit to heal this rift. That may or may not work. But even if he manages to do that and unite the so-cons behind him to win the nomination, I just don’t see how he can win the general unless the Dems nominate Kerry, Vilsack or Dodd. Romney will have to go so far to the right for the primaries that it’d be extremely hard for him to tack to a more moderate general election strategy.
But I’ve been thinking about this throughout the day. This whole uproar didn’t just magically happen out of the blue. Lots of people (myself included) have been bringing up old quotes by Romney for quite a while now and they never got anywhere. Now all of a sudden it’s the talk of the town. The media had to get this from somewhere, so I’m wondering could this have been a coordinated leak by one of his opponents? McCain would have the most to gain from any Romney implosion, Romney has a very impressive organization and if he’s marginalized, then McCain could co-opt a lot of his supporters and national infrastructure. Now, let me be clear, I’m just speculating (perhaps widely) on this. What does everyone think?
December 21st, 2006 at 9:10 pm
Well, I think this could be seen as a test-run for a Rudy run. Now we KNOW that if Rudy even THINKS about flip-flopping on his past social stances, he’s going to catch heat.
The Romney pseudo-implosion can be seen as what would happen if Rudy tried to pander to the SoCons.
December 21st, 2006 at 9:21 pm
LJ, I think that is pretty conspiratorial stuff. I think there are two mundane explanations. One is that NRO which is the intellectual heart and soul of movement conservatives has woken up to the Romney problem. From them others pick up on it fairly quickly. The other is that this is evidence of the magnifying, churning nature of the blogoshere. In 2004 it would have taken 3 months to get out there. Now it takes 3 days.
December 21st, 2006 at 9:24 pm
DaveG,
Maybe Romney doesn’t need to evolve from a Tsongas vote in the Mass. Dem Primary in 1992. If Tsongas were alive and healthy today, and I (again, a conservative Republican) could vote for Tsongas or George W. Bush, I might very well vote for Tsongas. If one is a fiscally conservative patriot first and foremost, Tsongas would have b eeen very attractive. Plus, Tsongas had a GREAT sense of humor and was very likable.
Also, we shouldn’t forget: Rudy endorsed (and maybe campaigned for) Mario Cuomo in 1994!!!
And Ronald Reagan voted for FDR. As for McCain, I can’t imagine him voting for anybody other than himself.
December 21st, 2006 at 9:35 pm
What is more it only takes one MSM outlet to make a bonfire into a blaze. The Boston Globe didn’t quite do it but the Washington Post did/will. MSNBC( which has a news gathering arrangement with them) then runs with it. As for McCain I don’t think this helps him since all the anybody but McCain voters then start to settle on Rudy.
December 22nd, 2006 at 12:27 am
I wonder who Mitt Romney supported for President in 1980 and 1984?
I would be very skeptical of anyone who calls themself a Republican if they failed to support Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984.
December 22nd, 2006 at 8:43 am
I think that Rudy has lots of good qualities. And I like the fact that he hasn’t so far pulled a Romney and danced all over the political spectrum. But I don’t think voting for FDR in the 1940′s is as eyebrow raising as supporting Cuomo in 1994. Besides, Reagan had a really good explanation for his evolution, “The Democrat Party left me”
December 22nd, 2006 at 10:11 am
This is a hoot.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/politics/candidates/articles/2006/12/22/romney_defends_shift_on_issues/
December 22nd, 2006 at 10:27 am
Picking up where Republius left, isn’t it plausible to assume that if Romney had supported Reagan in 1980 and 1984 he’d be shouting it from the rooftops by now?
December 22nd, 2006 at 10:54 am
Romeny just picked up as his legal advisor Jay Sekelow. A great champion of Harriet Meirs’ appointment. Oh this will help.
December 22nd, 2006 at 11:03 am
Romney never said he didn’t support Reagan in 1980 and 1984. He merely said he had been an independent in the years of Reagan/Bush. A factual statement to be sure, but one meant to deflect, rather then inform. What exactly would a Massachusetts politician running against a liberal icon have to deflect, had he, in fact not supported Reagan/Bush (i.e., not voted for them)? In extremely liberal or extremely conservative states, large percentages of the population are registered independents. I’m a registered independent. My mother is a registered independent. Neither of us vote for Democrats for anything more significant then dog-catcher. Look at Romney’s political donations. Prior to his senate run, the only donations he’d given to Democrats were given in 1992 (and in extremely modest numbers) when he was certainly looking to moderate his image. He gave to the Masachusetts Republican party in 88 and 89. Now I’ll grant that it’s possible, and possibly even likely, that Romney was fairly moderate during that time period, but I think the record indicates he was still very much Republican in orientation, regardless of his independent status. It stuns me that people are unable to recognize that in 1994, being tied to Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich was death to any Massachusetts Republican. It is simply an entirely different universe here. And people who’d lambaste Romney for attempting to distance himself from these figures through, in this case, ambiguous factual statements, simply miss entirely the reality of politics. I’m going to go searching for an old Giuliani quote I saw awhile ago where Giuliani was asked, during his mayorial runs, whether he was a Reagan Republican, and he replied “I’m a Republican”. I’ll post again when I find it.
December 22nd, 2006 at 11:12 am
What kind of Republican? Is [Giuliani], for instance, a Reagan Republican? [Giuliani] pauses before answering: “I’m a Republican.”
–Village Voice
January 24, 1989
« Comment Comment | Main | The Weiner Freelancers »
The Quotable Rudy
Someone kindly forwarded us a complete version of “The Quotable Rudolph W. Giuliani,” which, as we reported, has been making the rounds in the conservative circles that are currently focused on kneecapping Rudy.
For most New Yorkers, the compilation of quotes is basically another reminder of why we elected him twice. Conservative true-believers may not see it that way, however.
Anyway, here are some extended bits from the document that has all those GOP opposition researchers licking their chops:
The Quotable Rudolph W. Giuliani
The New York State Liberal Party on Rudy Giuliani:
Some ask, How can the Liberal Party support a candidate who disagrees with the Liberal Party position on so many gut issues? But when the Liberal Party Policy Committee reviewed a list of key social issues of deep concern to progressive New Yorkers, we found that Rudy Giuliani agreed with the Liberal Party’s stance on a majority of such issues. He agreed with the Liberal Party’s views on affirmative action, gay rights, gun control, school prayer and tuition tax credits. As Mayor, Rudy Giuliani would uphold the Constitutional and legal rights to abortion.
–N.Y.S. Liberal Party Endorsement Statement of R. Giuliani for Mayor of New York City April 8, 1989
On the Republican Party:
Mr. Rockefeller represented “a tradition in the Republican Party I’ve worked hard to re-kindle – the Rockefeller, Javits, Lefkowitz tradition.”
–Rudy Giuliani
New York Times
July 9, 1992
Giuliani was running in an extremely liberal environment and he attempted to distance himself from extremely conservative figures? And now he’s willing to re-embrace them now that he’s running in a more moderate environment? That tears it. Clearly he’s not a real Republican and must be, immediately, thrown under a bus.
December 22nd, 2006 at 1:09 pm
Thanks for finding that last quote Matt. I was getting a lot of grief around here last week for claiming that Rudy was a 21st century version of a Rockefeller Republican.
I don’t know why you people are so afraid of that. You have had a generation or so of extremism driving your party, and that thread is pretty played out by now. You are going to need some new allies if you hope to be successful in the future.
If you guys dont want the big-city, socially liberal, economically conservative forces in your party, then we Dems will take them, no problem.
December 22nd, 2006 at 1:19 pm
I believe Romney had a remarkable revelation that led him to change his mind about his liberal take on social issues: It happened 6 months ago when he realized “Holy crap! I could be President if I can fool the social conservatives into voting for me!”
December 22nd, 2006 at 1:48 pm
pretty funny if it weren’t so true
December 22nd, 2006 at 2:54 pm
Tsongas was viewed as social liberal and economic conservative.
He was especially known for his pro-business economic policies that have come to be embraced by many in the modern Democratic Party. In particular, he focused on the United States budget deficit and its harmful effects, a cause he continued to champion after his primary campaign ended by co-founding The Concord Coalition.
He served as a Peace Corps volunteer in Ethiopia in 1962-64, and as Peace Corps Country Director in the West Indies in 1967-68.
“I have been referred to as a pro business liberal. I have always been referred to that way. That is what I am. On traditional Democratic issues, human rights, civil rights, women’s rights, the environment, I am a liberal, and I make no apology for that. But in terms of energy policy and in particularly in terms of economic policy I am a realist. I may sound like a Republican but if it works, I am for it. I am not locked in to the ideology, sort of the class warfare, corporate bashing that Democrats find attractive. That is not me it has never been me.”
December 23rd, 2006 at 7:27 am
Anybody want to win the election or is this an exercise in political orthodoxy