Mitt Romney has Hollywood in his future, not Washington.
As former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney declared his presidential candidacy Tuesday at Dearborn, Michigan’s Henry Ford Museum, he could not have been more telegenic. With an angular jaw and a head full of slicked-back, dark hair, Romney is the GOP’s George Clooney. Who needs the White House? Romney should fly to Hollywood and become a movie star. He’s already a highly skilled actor.
Romney is either a true, rock-ribbed conservative who played a Rockefeller Republican to get elected in Massachusetts, or he is a genuine, limousine liberal portraying a conservative to win the 2008 GOP nomination. This fine thespian has lost himself so thoroughly in both these roles that no one really knows where the performer ends and the characters begin.
Studying Romney’s lines only muddles things. His present and past statements on abortion, gays, guns, taxes, and Ronald Reagan each conflict diametrically, like pairs of locomotives racing toward one another from opposite directions.
Just listen to today’s Romney on abortion:
“I am pro-life,” Romney wrote in a July 26, 2005 Boston Globe op-ed. “I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother. I wish the people of America agreed, and that the laws of our nation could reflect that view.”
He declared last year: “Roe v. Wade does not serve the country well and is another example of judges making the law instead of interpreting the Constitution.”
But yesteryear’s Romney could not have disagreed more.
“Let me make this very clear,” Romney said in October 2002, “I will preserve and protect a woman’s right to choose.”
During an unsuccessful U.S. Senate bid, he replied to Democratic incumbent Ted Kennedy’s charge that Romney was not pro-choice, but “multiple choice” on abortion:
“Many, many years ago, I had a dear, close family relative that was very close to me who passed away from an illegal abortion,” Romney said in an October 1994 debate with Kennedy. “It is since that time that my mother and my family have been committed to the belief that we can believe as we want, but we will not force our beliefs on others on that matter. And you will not see me wavering on that, or be a multiple choice. Thank you very much.”
He also said in 1994: “I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years, we should sustain and support it.”
Today’s Romney may be America’s most outspoken voice against gay marriage. He hardly seems broadly supportive of gay rights, either.
“In order to protect the institution of marriage, we must prevent it from being redefined by judges like those here in Massachusetts,” Romney wrote then-Senator Bill Frist (R., Tenn.) last June, endorsing a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
“From Day One, I have opposed the move for same-sex marriage, and its equivalent, civil unions,” Romney told South Carolina Republicans on February 21, 2005. As for gay couples, he added, “Some of them are actually having children born to them.”
But yesteryear’s Romney aimed to please gay voters, perhaps even more than could his Democratic opponents.
In 2002, Romney and Kerry Healey, his gubernatorial running mate, produced posters that said, “Mitt and Kerry Wish You a Great Pride Weekend! All citizens deserve equal rights, regardless of their sexual preference.”
In October 1994, Romney said in a debate against Senator Kennedy, “I feel that all people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation.”
As the Boston Globe reported that October 17, Romney told the gay Log Cabin Republicans, “As we seek to establish full equality” for gays, “I will provide more effective leadership than my opponent,” Ted Kennedy.
Romney was even more specific in an August 25, 1994 interview with Bay Windows, a Boston-based gay newspaper.
When Ted Kennedy speaks on gay rights, he’s seen as an extremist. When Mitt Romney speaks on gay rights, he’s seen as a centrist and a moderate. It’s a little like if Eugene McCarthy was [sic] arguing in favor of recognizing China; people would have called him a nut. But when Richard Nixon does it, it becomes reasonable. When Ted says it, it’s extreme; when I say it, it’s mainstream.
Romney also said in that interview: “The authorization of marriage on a same-sex basis falls under state jurisdiction.”
Today’s Romney sounds more like yesteryear’s Romney on civil unions, which both Romneys eventually favored.
“I am only supporting civil unions if gay marriage is the alternative,” Romney told the Boston Globe’s Frank Phillips two days after he decried civil unions while visiting the Palmetto State.
“I have a gun of my own,” today’s Romney said January 10 on the Internet program, The Glenn and Helen Show. “I go hunting myself. I’m a member of the [National Rifle Association] and believe firmly in the right to bear arms. In our state…there are a series of laws restricting gun ownership in various ways. Over the past four years, I’ve worked very closely with the Gun Owners’ Action League here, which is an affiliate of the NRA, and we’ve made some changes which I think they feel have been positive steps.”
Yesteryear’s Romney, however, was quite gun-shy.
“We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts,” Romney said in his 2002 gubernatorial campaign. “I support them. I won’t chip away at them.” In fact, as governor, Romney signed America’s first state-level assault-weapons ban.
“These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense,” Romney said in 2004. “They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.”
Yesteryear’s Romney also backed a federal assault-weapons ban and the national Brady Bill, which created a five-day wait for handgun purchases. “That’s not going to make me the hero of the NRA,” Romney said in 1994. However, he added: “I don’t line up with the NRA.”
Today’s Romney signed Americans for Tax Reform’s Taxpayer Protection Pledge last New Year’s Eve. Romney said February 7 that it was “absolutely critical” to “make the tax cuts permanent,” referring to President Bush’s 2001 and 2003 tax reductions.
But yesteryear’s Romney smiled more on taxes.
In an April 10, 2003 meeting with the Massachusetts congressional delegation in Washington, Romney failed to endorse President Bush’s $726 billion tax-cut proposal then before Congress.
“I was very pleased,” Rep. Barney Frank (D., Massachusetts) told the Boston Globe’s Wayne Washington and Glen Johnson after the pow-wow. “Here you have a freshman governor refusing to endorse a tax cut presented by a Republican president at the height of his wartime popularity.”
Romney also reportedly signaled potential support for a federal gasoline-tax increase. “He wants it dedicated to transportation construction,” Rep. Michael Capuano (D Massachusetts) told the Globe.
While Romney did not raise income taxes, he hiked and created $501.5 million in fees and closed business-tax loopholes to collect another $140 million.
As for the pledge, Romney said in 2002 that he would not “sign a document which would prevent me from being able to look specifically at the revenue needs of the Commonwealth.” A Romney spokesman dismissed taxfighter Grover Norquist’s pledge as “government by gimmickry.”
Today’s Romney speaks glowingly of America’s 40th president.
“Ronald Reagan ismy hero,” Romney said two years ago, as the Boston Globe’s Scot Lehigh recalled January 19. “I believe that our party’s ascendancy began with Ronald Reagan’s brand of visionary and courageous leadership.”
But yesteryear’s Romney was much cooler toward the man who, justifiably, is a veritable saint on the American Right. As Romney said in his 1994 debate with Kennedy: “I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I’m not trying to return to Reagan-Bush.”
Mitt Romney should warm up to Reagan. After all, he made it big by moving from acting into politics. Mitt Romney’s best bet for fame and fortune may be to follow Ronald Reagan’s footsteps in reverse.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
This article originally appeared in the National Review Online on February 16th, 2007. It is reprinted here with the author’s permission
February 16th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
[...] post by Deroy Murdock and software by Elliott [...]
February 16th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
I am surprised someone as smart as Deroy Murdock cannot differentiate between support for gay rights and gay marriage. Just because Mitt opposes same-sex marriage doesn’t mean he has to hate gays. And why is he trotting out that quote from Barney Frank again? I hate Barney Frank; why would I trust him?
February 16th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
Deroy Murdock may be smart, but this hit piece borders on dishonesty. His love of Rudy apparently makes him feel comfortable completely distorting facts and spinning liberal hype about Rudy’s opponents. Hopefully someone will have more time than me at the moment to give this piece a thourough fisking…
Abortion: This is the oldest news of the campaign. Romney’s been perfectly candid about the switch in his position on RvW in 2004/2005. How does Deroy feel about Rudy’s recent unexplained flip on PBA?
Gay Marriage: Just like David pointed out, Romney’s always been against gay marriage and civil unions, and always in favor of non-discrimination and equal rights for gays. The only time Romney ever backed a civil union deal was specifically to avoid gay marriage.
Guns: Excuse me? Where’s the flip? Romney’s always been in favor of the assault weapons ban, which doesn’t please certain people in the NRA. He’s always supported 2nd amendment rights (sans AWB). He was rated a B from the NRA.
Taxes: This is one of Deroy’s more rediculous attacks. Romney is unimpeachable on this issue. Comparing the state level no-new-taxes pledge in 2002 during a financial crisis to the federal level pledge in 2008? Apples and oranges. Furthermore, Romney has constantly fought for lower taxes, and Deroy is intentionally leaving out quotes from Romney’s record in favor of tax cuts. Instead he quotes a Boston newspaper quoting Barney Frank who was himself paraphrasing Romney’s remarks.
Reagan: Again, Romney’s status as an independent 13 years ago should prohibit him from our nomination now?
Four out of five of Deroy’s attack points (gay marriage, guns, fiscal responsibility, and party affiliation) are exagerations, dishonest, or irrelevant. Only abortion was a geniuine flip, and that’s old news. It’s part of the effort to paint Romney as a flipper so that Giuliani’s more liberal positions will somehow seem ok.
Why does Murdock avoid a real look at Romney’s record in 1994? http://www.politico.com/pdf/wmr_1994_senate_flier_side_1.pdf Everything on that list is hard-ribbed conservative principles, with the exception of the stance on RvW.
February 16th, 2007 at 4:44 pm
Murdock, Murdock, Murdock. Where to begin? First, on gay rights. In 1994 Mitt Romney said, and I quote, “I do not believe gay marriage is appropriate”. In 2002, Mitt Romney said, and I quote, “Call me old fashioned, but I do not support gay marriage nor civil union”. Gay rights in 1994 simply weren’t about gay marriage and for urdock to imply that they were is intellectually dishonest. Second, on guns. Romney still supports the exact same gun measures he supported in 2002: The Assault Ban and Brady Bill. He even said as much (at least in reference to the assault weapons ban) during his stop at the much touted gun convention. In what universe does this constitute a fli-flop? Or does Murdock somehow contend that an individual who expresses disagreements, on the margins, with an organization, is never allowed to court the favor of that organization? I wonder what his hero Rudy Giuliani is doing in the Republican Party in that case, as he’s publicly expressed, among other things, a desire to change the Republican plank in regards to abortion (perhaps the most significant issue in the Republican canon in recent years). Or perhaps Murdock believes that a candidate is obliged to focus every campaign on the same issues and interest groups? That’s theres to be no difference between your emphasis (as opposed to actual substantive positions) from state to national or from primary to general elections. Third, on taxes. Romney’s praised, as far back as 2003, economic stimulus plans. His only publicly expressed position on the issue, as opposed to denied back innuendo’s by radical Democrats, is that he didn’t have a position: to wit, that federal taxes simply weren’t an issue a newly minted governor ought to involve himself in. Fourth, on Ronald Reagan. This again goes back to my response to gun control. Different campaigns, different districts, states, counties, etc, require a different emphasis. It is hardly a contradiction to, in front of an extremely liberal electorate, use an essentially meaningless, though factual, statement like “I was an independent in the times of Reagan,” to deflect a difficult question, any moreso then it was for Giuliani (Murdock’s hero) to say, when asked whether he was a Reagan Republican, “I’m a Republican”. Fifth, on abortion. Romney has been quite candid about his position change here and why, as opposed to Rudy (Murdock’s hero) “I now oppose partial birth abortion, and won’t even endeavor to bother explaining how I came to that position change during my 6 year speaking tour” Giuliani. Nothing to see. Awful piece by Murdock. I’ve noticed increasingly how flailing Romney’s critics are, and I think when he gets around to responding to these issues in depth, they’re going to look awfully silly.
February 16th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
Does Murdock have some financial tie with Rudy, or is just auditioning?
Serious question.
February 16th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
Wow. It seems a little early for the genuine hit pieces to be making there way out there. Since murphy has already thoroughly debunked the original post above, I’ll move to the next most interesting question: does Romney need to directly and forcefully rebut these kind of smears, or is it in his interest to remain above this level of personal attack?
As a Mitt supporter, I’m really thinking he needs to address these flip-flop smears himself, and do it forcefully. Sunday on This Week provides him a forum to start a counter-attack. These types of hit pieces aren’t merely policy disagreements or biographical information: they’re smears against Mitt’s integrity. Mitt serves in the public sector despite the fact that he could be earning tens of millions per year as a CEO in the private sector, and his opponents are claiming he’s a selfish deceiver out for advancement rather than service. If he was out for himself, he’d never have left the private sector (same goes for Rudy, BTW). My only fear is that Mitt’s too nice a guy to hit back.
February 16th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
That’s what I’ve worried myself Fredo: that while Romney is much like Clinton in sheer personal skills, he might not have the “how dare you attack me on this” attitude that made Clinton so effective. I mean, I think the notion that he’s self-serving is simply laughable. He hasn’t taken a salary for his work in a decade. He gave his entire inheritance to charity. He’s volunteered one day a week for his entire life (at least prior to becoming governor). And he’s chosen to thrust himself into public life, when he’d had all the success one could conceivably wish for outside of it. And this is a man with character problems? How about someone who has spent the last 6 years making money off of 9/11 (Rudy)? Or someone who wrote a book on school shootings, and kept the profits for himself, immediately after they occurred in his state (Huckabee)? I have very little problem with either these actions, or those of McCain and others, but in terms of sheer weight of life-decisions, Romney’s the last one people ought to be questioning character-wise.
February 16th, 2007 at 5:55 pm
Personally, I find it difficult to defend Gov. Romney. Yes, yes, I am aware of his social
conservative conversion, but to me it is something other than genuine. Many often point out, as does Gov. Romney, that Ronald Regan wasn’t always a social conservative. Granted. However, I personally see Ronald Reagan’s conservative transition as one of deep conviction, whereas Gov. Romney’s is one of pure political opportunism. If its one thing GOP primary voters cannot stand, it is a man without deeply held convictions.
Why is Mayor Giuliani consistently polling so high? Well, 1. Because most people only really know of his 9/11 exploits but 2. Rudy Giuliani will not change his beliefs simply because he is running for the Republican nomination. Even is people disagree with a candidate’s personal convictions, all fully respect that candidate for standing by those convictions.
That is why I find Gov. Romney to be non-credible when he speaks on abortion, gay rights, and stem cell research. How can one be pro all those things as early as 2002 in a run for Governor, and then, low and behold, two years later, the man has “seen the light” on all three issues. I find it to be political opportunism, rather than a “Ronald Reagan-like conversion”.
February 16th, 2007 at 6:23 pm
TO KAVON:
Though I enjoy it, you’re website is getting worse and worse. Your bloggers are completely agenda-oriented and biased. Hit pieces like this are completely uncalled for on a site that does not “endorse a particular candidate”. This isn’t open healthy discussion, it’s feuding bloggers who are using it as a medium to promote their candidate and attack the others. There have been many attack pieces on Romney (my candidate of choice) but none, that I can recall, on Rudy. Now why is that? It’s because Deroy and Dave put much effort into writing trash like this post, and the only Pro-Romney candidate you have, HeavyM, is genuinely fair and would not spend the time to write a blatant anti-Giuliani piece. Is it possible to ask them to tone down the rhetoric in effort to make a balanced website, or is retaliating necessary?
February 16th, 2007 at 9:26 pm
WOW, Total hit piece…
Geoff, “Reagan’s change was genuine and Romney was a political opportunist?” yea right! Another opinion without fact!
Kavon,
I 2nd NateG who said this trashing of Romney is getting out of hand. Its becoming entirely too Rudy
BIASED!!!!!!!!!
Ridiculous!!!!!!
February 17th, 2007 at 12:04 am
C’mon guys.. I’ve been on this site long enough to read both pro & negative pieces for nearly all major candidates.
I do agree that there are more anti-Romney pieces than pro Romney pieces in the media in general. As such, more anti-Romney pieces are blogged about. That tells you Romney’s opponents from both the right & the left fear him as they should. I think the managers of this site do a fine job keeping the tone civil.
Let it be known that I’m a Romney supporter. Therefore, debunk their thesis, expose their fallacies, and win the debate with honest facts. These articles only provide opportunities to do that as Murphy & Matt have very clearly demonstrated.
February 17th, 2007 at 12:19 am
Jason,
Geoff, “Reagan’s change was genuine and Romney was a political opportunist?” yea right! Another opinion without fact!
“The real problem at hand here is that Mitt’s story has apparently shifted significantly now that he’s running for the Republican presidential nomination. Mitt’s two stories are not completely in harmony, and that’s what’s getting Mitt in trouble with primary voters his seemingly chameleonesque explanations for his political changes, not the changes themselves.”
It seems difficult to come up with any “facts” when all you have is past statements from a man
who seems willing to do and say anything if it willget him votes. There is a reason why the
“flip-flopper” name tag has stuck on Mitt, because it seems to be true. Granted, one can argue
that “oh he really believed this in 1992, and this in 1994 and was this all the way back to 1975″
but when Mitt’s comments don’t back that up, its impossible to prove. THOSE, are the facts. The
rest boils down to wether or not you believe in the sincerity of his conversion. I, like many other
social conservatives, do not.
February 17th, 2007 at 8:50 am
I echo the comments of JasonH and Nate G. This is becoming ridiculous. I would love to see Deroy come up with anything at all positive for his candidate. Seriously – I would.
February 17th, 2007 at 1:24 pm
RayB,
Actually, Deroy has come up with several positive things for Giuliani. If I remember correctly, he credited pro-partial-birth-abortion Mayor Giuliani with reducing the abortion rate in NYC. He also wrote an shining article about Rudy’s economic policy which conveniently side-stepped the fact that Rudy skipped town with a glaring $43 billion debt hanging around his city’s neck.
So Deroy does actually say positive things about his candidate. Unfortunately, they’re just as contorted as his negative hit pieces on Rudy’s opponents. His level of double standards, spinning, and fact omission hurts my brain.