While Mitt Romney was conducting a Q&A session at an event in Florida today, he apparently got some criticism from an attendee who accused Mitt Romney of not knowing the Lord on account of Romney’s Mormon faith.? The man even called Romney a religious “pretender.”
I?believe this shows that there will still be the fringe who refuse to vote for Romney based on denominational preference, but the overwhelming reaction by the crowd in support of Romney shows that the vast majority of Republicans value leadership skills and a general reliance on God instead of self more than which denomination a candidate is.? I thought Mitt handled the heckler very gracefully, however.? While Romney’s faith will definitely be a speed bump to be overcome, I think he will move past it and, probably, open the doors to many more Mormon national candidates in elections to come, much like what JFK did for Catholic candidates.
February 17th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
[...] post by Woodrow Eisenhower and software by Elliott [...]
February 18th, 2007 at 12:06 am
Wow, he just lost my vote with that response!
Oh wait. I’m a democrat. Damn.
Right now, just for a moment, I wish I was a Republican, and a Romney supporter, so I could snatch that support back.
We NEED a person of faith to be president?
I am a non-believer, and I dare say, every bit as decent and moral as Mitt Romney.
Edited: Please refrain from using inappropriate language. Thanks. -Woody
February 18th, 2007 at 12:09 am
Sorry, but this really steams me.
Typical behavior of someone of very bad character, who is part of an unpopular minority.
Deflect the bigotry onto a less-popular minority.
Now I really detest the guy.
February 18th, 2007 at 12:18 am
Every Democrat running for the presidency since Carter has said essentially the same thing Tano. Except instead of faith they say “faith tradition” or “faith belief”. You may not like it, but even the precious Democratic party attempts to wrap themselves in faith and not a soul, who was serious about being president, would admit to being an atheist or agnostic.
February 18th, 2007 at 12:21 am
I was there when that guy made that statement. Luckily he was promptly booed right out of the building. Mitt DID handle him very well; Mitt let him say what he felt he needed to say (didn’t interupt, din’t argue) and let the crowd do what needed to be done. Romney has stated time and again that religion would not play a role in his decisions as President. My vote will not be cast based on religion. My vote will be cast in favor of the person who embodies my beliefs on THE ISSUES. As of right now, that is Romney.
February 18th, 2007 at 12:28 am
Dang… this is case in point why I am supporting Mitt. The way he handled that guy was first rate. The comment from that linked website I found the most interesting was this:
“I’ve had it with the bigots. His campaign will be sent $2300 or what ever the maximum allowable primary contribution is. I’ll also contact my circle of friends and encourage them to do the same. I’m still not sure who I’ll vote for but it may be him.”
Y’all who keep attacking Romney with this ridiculous stuff, keep it up. You’re winning him more votes than he’s losing.
February 18th, 2007 at 12:32 am
I say the following as a Romney supporter, but I feel it must be said:
Is it not just as bigoted of Romney to imply that a person of faith would be a better leader than a person without faith, as he regularly asserts? I’m not coming down on him or anything, I just look for consistency.
If he really believed that religion was not an issue, wouldn’t a qualified atheist be just as acceptable as a theist, assuming that neither imposed their beliefs on others assertively?
February 18th, 2007 at 12:39 am
You dont get it HeavyM, do you.
He is a bigot – as much as those who would not vote for him because he is a Mormon.
And Matt, though I realize that no one can be elected admitting that they are agnostic or athiest – that is just the reality in this country, for now, it is quite another matter to perpetuate, and advocate that bigotry.
I realize that this is a common line amongst politicians – but it is not ubiquitous. They all proudly where their religion on their sleeves, but not all of them come out and say, explicitly, that a non-believer should not ever be elected president.
February 18th, 2007 at 12:47 am
Hey, I hadn’t even seen Tano’s response when I made my point.
Tano, you and I disagree on a heck of a lot, but I see that we agree on this.
February 18th, 2007 at 12:50 am
Sorry for the language Woody.
I hope others won’t think too badly of me – it wasn’t so serious.
I was just urging him to have a timely journey to his final destination.
February 18th, 2007 at 12:53 am
You know, I think we’re dissecting Romney a bit hard here. He just got told by an audience member that his belief in Jesus Christ as his savior is a lie. He let the man have his soapbox moment, handled it with grace, and moved on.
Talk about making someone an offender for a word. Tano, are you this hard on members of your own party when they imply that Obama is the first black candidate who can show up at the capital freshly bathed and string a few sentences together?
February 18th, 2007 at 1:00 am
Is this — http://politicalinsider.com/2007/02/romney_voted_for_tsongas_in_92_1.html — a previously undocumented Romney flip-flop?
Apparently Romney has admitted that he was essentially being deceitful by voting in a party’s primary in an effort to undermine that party. No doubt some people do that, but it’s not something that could be described as a demonstration of integrity, and certainly not something you would expect a presidential candidate to acknowledge. So why did he cop to it? It looks like Romney had previously given a different reason for voting for Tsongas in 1992, one that was intended to convey actual support for Tsongas, and now he feels the need to … revise history.
February 18th, 2007 at 1:03 am
Mike,
This is currently in another post…read down the main page.
February 18th, 2007 at 1:04 am
Tano, I think you need to go to bed and wake up on the right side of it tomorrow morning, bro. You’re reading way to much into this and taking it way too seriously.
February 18th, 2007 at 1:06 am
Well, Tano isn’t really known around here for calm, pleasant discourse (no offense, tano
)
However, the point remains true that Romney is being just as bigoted towards atheists as the heckler is towards Mormons.
February 18th, 2007 at 1:44 am
Murph,
Well scuse me, but what you consider “handling it with grace”, is telling me that people like me should never be elected president. Heh – yeah, I set myself up with that one!
But seriously, if your ideal candidate, on every issue, was agnostic, would you rule them out for that reason?
Why is this considered acceptable, but not against Mormons – or Buddhists (a religion that has no god) for that matter?
HeavyM,
Maybe you should tell the Romneyites that they are taking the Mormon thing too seriously.
Why do you think that I should not take it seriously when a major presidential candidate tells me that I am to be disqualfied from public office because of my faith, or lack of, in his god?
Nusrat,
I was just about to same something nice to you, for seeing clearly on this issue, and being brave enough to say so, even when it regards a favorite of yours.
But then you say I’m not calm and pleasant? Geez, whatever makes you think that?
February 18th, 2007 at 2:00 am
Murphy,
Ah, so it is. I should have guessed that it would not have been missed on this site!
February 18th, 2007 at 2:51 am
Never fear Mike, narry a pebble will go unturned on Romney around here!
Tano, yes I’d vote for the athiest, buddhist, or whatever, provided that candidate satisfied me better than any other candidate on the issues. I consider it a perk that Romney is a man of faith on top of his qualifications…frankly, I find it comforting that a candidate feels he answers to a higher moral power other than the history books.
February 18th, 2007 at 2:53 am
murphy,
Never fear Mike, narry a pebble will go unturned on Romney around here!
Romney’s just lucky that LexisNexis doesn’t have anything on him from pre-1994.
February 18th, 2007 at 9:07 am
I’d suggest that, in this scenario, need is much closer to “prefer” then to “must have”. For instance, I’d say quite truthfully that we “need” a Republican to win in 2008. I don’t mean to suggest that Democrats are unfit for office, or that, simply by virtue of being Democrats, I couldn’t vote for them. I simply mean that I think the future would be much pleasanter with a Republican in office. Applying that to Romney’s statement, I think its a clearly defensible one. Just as my statement about Republicans is premised on the idea that, in some substantie policy manner, Republicans are different, on the whole, from Democrats, Romney’s presupposes that there’s something different between people of faith and those without. I certainly don’t think this is a contestable statement. There is something different between the religious and the secular. That’s the whole point. Now the question is, do we have any reason to expect that this difference might matter in terms of outcome? I think the idea that it might is perfectly defensible, in a way that it likely wouldn’t be in the case of Mormons or Jews. For instance, after rading and analyzing Romney’s speeches and comments, I’m convinced that his foreign policy vision is based, implicitly at points, explicitly at others, on Mark Steyn’s America Alone. For those of you who haven’t read that fantastice tome, one of its many central theses’s is that the increasing secularization of Europe has led to a society 1.) Where people don’t breed and 2.) It lacks the big ideas to counter the big ideas of Islamofascism. One of our strenths is thus our religiosity. Whether you accept that argument or not, I think its more then sufficient to suggest that there might, potentially, be substantive differences between a religious president and a secular president in 2008. And if there are differences, Romney’s perfectly justified in suggesting he’d prefer one to the other. Now if by need Romney actually means “must have”, that he simply couldn’t vote for a irreligious person, you’d probably have a point. But I see no indication that this is what Romney meant. In fact, I’ve seen him address this issue many times, and this is the first time I’ve heard him use the word need. Virtually without exception he says “I’m convinced that the American people want a person of faith leading the country, but they don’t care about the particular brand of faith, as long as they share the same values”. Nothing controversial there. It’s quite clear from polls that the American people do in fact WANT a person of faith leading the country. I’d wager that Romney’s actual beliefs on the issue are not much stronger then that formulation, and that, he simply made a slightly stronger statement when faced with a heckler.
February 18th, 2007 at 9:49 am
Romney needs to get used to plenty of heckling; he’s a Mormon running in the GOP primary! Is this what Republican leaders want to see in the general? Crazed right-wingers trashing their nominee? I don’t think so…
http://political-buzz.com/?p=54
February 18th, 2007 at 10:07 am
Tano, I meant no ill will
Besides, I was just having a jest.
February 18th, 2007 at 11:34 am
Tano,
I don’t think that there is anything any Republican running could ever say that would make a die-hard liberal atheist happy.
How would you have had Romney handle this? What do you think Romney should have said? “You sir, are a bigot for having faith!”
I think Romney handled this matter just fine. I know you will disagree with this, but I think that this nation needs to have a leader of “faith” as Romney explained to uphold the Judeo-Christian that this nation was founded upon – the same principles which have made this nation great.
February 18th, 2007 at 11:37 am
But see, this nation wasn’t founded on Judeo-Christian principles. It was founded on enlightenment principles.
February 18th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
If you want characterize 40% of the electorate as “fringe” thats up to you, I guess.
February 18th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
Nussat–
Judeo-Christian. No ddoubt there. sorry.
February 18th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
well, for Tano and the others, look at it this way
Every president is a person of Faith. Naturally not all people of faith are good presidents. Romney is hearkening to an age old pattern.
If he didn’t have faith in God/Christ, that would be more contreversial.
I am not sure if I would vote for an atheist who shared my views; that situation has yet to come up.
February 18th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
Romney should have stated that this country prefers a person of faith and not that it needs a person of faith. Tanno could run as an athiest but he would lose because, like it or not, judeo-christian values matter to most Americans.
And Nusrat, I respect you a great deal that you socially dont agree with the Romney of today but that you still support him. But I would invite you to read the Federalist Papers, and the writings of our founders, and you will find they sound very similiar to the leaders of the Chirstian right today. The country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles.
In God we trust sir. God bless America.
February 18th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
The flip flopping issue continues to be a discussion by the Romney haters, regardless of what the story is about, and Im quite sure that eventually Romney will address that once and for all in advertising with the $100+ million that he will raise in 07. Until then…
Gay rights: just because he is against discrimination of gays, 10 years ago, and today, doesn’t mean he cant still object to gay marriage. He believes it should be between a man and 1 woman, and has been consistant on that. Not a flip flop
Abortion: as a mormon bishop, and father of 5, I think Romney has always felt that abortion is wrong. Yet as he ran for office, he felt that Roe should remain law (and I would have disagreed with that). We all give a pass to Reagan, a very pro life President who governed pro choice, yet we call Romney’s conversion a flip flop. He legislated as a pro lifer, and admits he was wrong on the issue. Kind of refreshing that a politian admits he was wrong if you ask me. I dont expect Rudy of McCain to do this anytime soon.
Taxes: So what on his alleged comments of the Bush tax cuts. The best form of flattery is imitation and he immitated Reagan and Bush 43 by cutting taxes in his state. Just because he didnt comment on a tax cut from Washington, doesnt mean he is against tax cuts. He is a tax cutter, and sign a “no new taxes” pledge in the campaign already.
And people, look at the other “lipmus” items of a so called conservative (defense, death penalty, etc) and you will find that in many ways Romney has always been conservative.
February 18th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
Jason,
It amazes me how far some people are willing to go to be a Romney apologist. Originally, Romney was my guy. I was initially fooled by his “social conservatism”. However, if you go back and look at some of his past statements, it becomes increasingly difficult to defend his social conservative “conversion”. Personally, I no longer find Romney appealing as a GOP nominee because 1. There is no way he beats Hillary in a general and 2. I find the man to be disingenuous and willing to do or say anything
to get elected. Does this make me a Romney “hater”? Absolutely not. He appears to be a very intelligent, very articulate, kind man. However, I do not believe he is genuine in his beliefs. IF he truly was, I believe he would have found a different time in his life to “re-evaluate” his beliefs on abortion, gay rights, and stem cell research, than two years prior to his run for the GOP presidential nomination. It easy to blame the “liberal Boston media” for having it out for Romney. A lot of that is very true. But it only goes so far. One can’t hide from your previous statements in the youtube age, and neither can Romney.
As for Mayor Giuliani not being “honest”. Who says he hasn’t been? Just because the Mayor has held the same beliefs about abortion and gay marriage consistently, even though I and many others disagree with him, doesn’t mean he hasn’t been honest. Mayor Giuliani is polling so high because many people admire the fact that, even though they disagree with his core values, he sticks by them and refuses to change based upon running in a conservative primary.
February 18th, 2007 at 3:51 pm
Geoff,
IF he truly was, I believe he would have found a different time in his life to “re-evaluate” his beliefs on abortion, gay rights, and stem cell research…
What more obvious time for Romney to thoroughly evaluate these issues than when he was faced with them as Governor. He didn’t ask for the gay marriage or embryonic stem cell research debates…they were handed to him. As a result, he has become a leader against gay marriage and defined his views on embryonic stem cell research…and consequently on abortion as well.
I find it hard to understand how you could be critical of Romney for re-evaluating his beliefs when faced with issues in office. Yet you give Giuliani a free pass for his 180 degree flip on pro-partial-birth-abortion, which he offered without acnowledgement of his past position or explanation for the change, at the commencement of his campaign for the GOP nomination? Sounds like a serious double standard you’re carrying here, Geoff.
February 18th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
Geoff, Please tell me where I ever implied that the mayor isnt being honest. I never did!!! I like Rudy as a person but on social issues, he is wrong and I wont support him for that. As for the “Romney couldnt beat Hillary comment”, not true at all. Honestly I think Rudy, Romney, or McCain can all beat Hillary. She is shrill and polarizing. Dont show me polls either because they will look very different one year from now.
The abortion thing, tell me please why you would give Ronald Reagan, pro choice governor of California, a pass when he changed his position prior to his run for Pres in 75. Romney said he was wrong on the issue, and holds a different opinion today. Refreshing really when a politian admits they were wrong on a position. Honestly, abortion isnt the only value that matters to me and many other Americans. I see in Romney a family oriented, never divorced,pro life, faith centered, fiscially conservative, CEO type who, for all the reasons stated is the best candidate.
Save the “go to youtube to see what he said in 94″ BS because I dont care. If someone was “saved” at church this morning, is it a flip flop from there previous actions? He was wrong on some issues, has admitted it, and you and a few others can beat him up about it. Many more people will applaud him for his values, and support him to the White House.
February 18th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
Youtube also has Rudy marching with gays in a gay pride parade, to show his support. Yet R42008 will do a hit piece from some flier where Romney lent his support to there cause many years ago, and implies that he is a flip flopper. Anti gay discrimination to support for gay marriage is a leap. A huge double standard if you ask me.
February 18th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
JasonH,
Youtube also has Rudy marching with gays in a gay pride parade, to show his support. Yet R42008 will do a hit piece from some flier where Romney lent his support to there cause many years ago, and implies that he is a flip flopper.
I think that that’s exactly because (fairly or unfairly) Romney is perceived as a flip flopper. Whereas, everyone already knows about Rudy’s social liberalism and he himself makes no effort to hide it.
Like I’ve said dozens of times, it comes down to whether or not you believe that Romney’s conversion was genuine. I don’t, you do. If you think it’s a true change of heart, of course the flip flopper label makes no sense. If you think his conversion from a social moderate to a social conservative was done for the purpose of winning the Republican presidential nomination, it’s more likely to view him as a flip flopper and opportunist.
February 18th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
The difficulty I have with the notion that Romney is some sort of political opportunist is three-fold. 1.) His changes since 1994 haven’t all been in the same direction. In 1994 Romney supported eliminating the department of defense. He no longer does. In 1994 he was entirely against any sort of universal health care. He’s now very much in favor of certain proposals in that regard as you well know. What sort of idiot Republican political opportunist wanders around promoting Universal Health Care in front of conservative audiences? I mean, I’m perhaps more privvy to information on this issue then many here are. I’ve personally heard from people like Charles Joffey Halpern (a member of the connector authority) and even they admit that Romney is very much responsible from rescuing a collapsing deal in early 2006. By early 2006 Romney already knew he was very likely running for president. And he certainly knew that this issue was going to give him difficulties during the primaries. So why’d this brilliant, “poltically-opportunistic”, man do it? Was he suicidal? I mean, I’m willing to virtually dismiss opportunistic charges on this issue alone. 2.) Romney’s actions support his words. 3.) You won’t be able to find a single candidate in the history of the world that didn’t find their positions shifting when they enter political office for the first time. This is what I find so ludicrous. A few months ago I was watching a video of John McCain where he said, positively gleefully, that he supported a consitutional amendment banning abortion. What? The man who, 8 years ago, said, anf this is nearly verbatim “I certainly don’t support overturning Roe in the short term, or even in the long term.” So before he didn’t even think the states should have the option to ban abortion, now he thinks they should have no option but to do so? That’s not a flip, its a double back spring. And not a peep from, well, anyone. Then during Rudy’s announcement, he disavowed support for partial birth abortion and parental consent laws, without even acknowledging that his position had been entirely different 8-years previous. DaveG and Kavon praised him relentlessly. I’d truly like to know what occurred during 6 years of speechmaking that caused Rudy to disavow two deeply held positions, for the first time on the eve of his announcement, that was so significant that he felt it unnecessary to explain his conversion. And these are politicians who have spent their entire lives involved in politics, or political processes. Their opinions should be rightly expected to be stable. Yet, Romney, a position change or two, with a few shifts in emphasis, after being elected to his first political office and he’s political opportunist extraodinaire? How does that work precisely? No offense, you of Romney-doubting persuasion, but I find this all positively hysterical.
February 18th, 2007 at 9:02 pm
I have read the federalist papers, and I really do not perceive that our nation was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. I get the sense that the founding fathers weren’t huge fans of organized religion. They were more deistic than anything, really, but here isn’t the debate for that.
JasonH, thank you for your kind words regarding my support of Romney. As the past few days, I’ve started to shift towards Rudy, but I would still vote for Romney.
February 18th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
Nusrat,
As the past few days, I’ve started to shift towards Rudy, but I would still vote for Romney.
It seems like a lot of Romney supporters are shifting to Rudy’s side lately. All the more reason that Romney has to start contrasting his beliefs with those of Rudy’s, because if Rudy’s popularity keeps growing, Romney won’t be able to develop any sort of momentum.
February 18th, 2007 at 11:30 pm
Matt,
In 1994 Romney supported eliminating the department of defense.
Wow. That’s a new one. I’ve heard people argue that we should get rid of the FDA, Education Department and the IRS, but never the Defense Department. I wonder what his rationale at the time was.
What sort of idiot Republican political opportunist wanders around promoting Universal Health Care in front of conservative audiences?
Eh. That’s not that hard to believe. It’s certainly possible that Romney knew that a new health care system would be enacted with or without him. This way he can claim to have included various market mechanisms and having the plan supported by Cato isn’t bad either. Anyone who’s remotely politically in tune knows that a massive federal overhaul of the health care system (most likely universal) is more likely in the near future than at any time in the past 15 years. The fact that the US spends more per capita on health care than the European socialists, yet we still have 47 million uninsured is just untenable in the long run.
he supported a consitutional amendment banning abortion.
Do you have a link for this? I know McCain’s on record as saying that he’d like to see Roe overturned, but I haven’t heard that he would support an amendment banning it outright. That would be a pretty egregious flip flop on his part, I agree.
I’d truly like to know what occurred during 6 years of speechmaking that caused Rudy to disavow two deeply held positions, for the first time on the eve of his announcement, that was so significant that he felt it unnecessary to explain his conversion.
If nothing else, we are in complete agreement here. I think that Rudy unnecessarily opened himself up to some bad attacks on PBA if he continues to act like his position never changed.
Yet, Romney, a position change or two, with a few shifts in emphasis, after being elected to his first political office and he’s political opportunist extraodinaire?
It’s moreso that I don’t buy his conversion story. He says that all because he met with Doug Melton in November of 2004 he realized “just how much the sanctity of life had been cheapened by virtue of the Roe v. Wade mentality.” He says that Melton talked about killing embryos but scientists would never openly talk like that. In fact, Melton is disputing Romney’s characterization of the meeting. So it comes down to a he said, he said argument. I hardly buy that that meeting alone was the impetus for such a radical change in personal beliefs.
February 19th, 2007 at 2:21 am
LJ,
I think if Melton was seriously disputing this, you’d see him making some kind of hay. The reason he’s not? Romney’s chief of staff is a witness…she was present during the meeting, and confirmed Romney’s description.
All Melton might be contesting is that he used the word “destroy” or “dispose of” instead of the word “kill”. I’d buy this, since any pro-lifer views it as killing, and any scientist views it as throwing away “lifeless tissue”.
February 19th, 2007 at 6:23 am
I meant the Department of Education….As for health care, as I’ve said, I’ve talked with some of the players involved here in the course of a health care class I took. They were, without exception, liberal Democrats and they credited Romney with the plan. Chuck Halpern said that the Massachusetts House and Senate wanted vastly different things. One wanted a Single Member Payer system, while the other wanted to do nothing fearing it would end up like Dukakis’s failed attempt in the 80′s. Like it or not, and I’m sure most conservatives won’t like it, universal health care wouldn’t be present in Massachusetts at all right now if it weren’t for Romney. So again, is he an idiot? On McCain: ask and yo shall receive. STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me ask one question about abortion. Then I want to turn to Iraq. You’re for a constitutional amendment banning abortion, with some exceptions for life and rape and incest.
MCCAIN: Rape, incest and the life of the mother. Yes.
Here’s the link to the story from our very own race42008 http://race42008.com/2006/11/20/credit-where-its-due/ We had a thread on it and not a single person pointed out McCain’s massive, unbelieveable, entirely unexplained flip-flop. No one bothered to search for the thing, though I remembered that this hadn’t always been McCain’s position. Why? Do people only care when the Mormon flip-flops? Since that’s the only conclusion I could come to when Giuliani and McCain are changing significant positions which they’ve held their entire political careers, with nary a word as to why. And yet, Romney, who’d never held political office, finds a few positions changing, and emphasis shifting, most of which he provides a very reasonable explanation for, and he’s the devil incarnate. Double standard much?
February 19th, 2007 at 7:04 am
As to Romney’s abortion conversion, indeed the only thing Melton is disputing is that he used the word killing. And I’ve only heard Romney use the word kill to describe the meeting once or twice. He generally says destroy. And I don’t think this is as much of a radical change as you believe. Here’s a man who’s routinely counselled women against abortion in his capacity as a private citizen. Someone who has been deeply troubled by the abortion issue, and has held deeply conservative personal beliefs his entire life. Even in the 1994, at his “liberal” best, he refused to describe himself as pro-choice and was labeled multiple-choice Mitt because he seemed to sincerely believe that abortion was a great moral wrong. In 2002, prior to running for governor, a paper described him as pro-choice and he wrote an angry letter to the editors saying that he didn’t want to be described as a pro-choice politician. This is a man who very clearly has never been comfortable in the pro-choice camp. And you don’t think, when governing the most liberal state in the country, a state that has had more cultural issues arise then any other state in the country over the last 4 years (gay marriage, gay adoption, embryo cloning, embryo farming, somatic cell nuclear transfer, a re-definition of when life begins, catholic adoption services, plan B contraception, etc), someone so obviously deeply personally conservative and so tenuously in the socially moderate/liberal camp, couldn’t react against the fringes of these movements? What does it take then? Does 7 years as a senator, after a decade of previous political experience, without dealing with the abortion issue at all suffice for a radical shift in position? How about 7 years on a speaking tour?
February 19th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
I usually go by my gut – - a lot. My opinion and gut feeling about Romney is that he is a too “packaged”,
a classic, phony and hollow politician that will say whatever it takes, or switch positions
in order to get elected.
February 19th, 2007 at 1:14 pm
KT,
What are you basing your “gut” feelings upon? What’s your evidence that Romney will “say whatever it takes, or switch positions”?
My “gut” feeling is that you’re applying a high level of criticism to Romney while simultaneously giving the other candidates a free pass for performing both greater flips and more of them. Matt is making a good case on the evidence. I keep an open mind, but I find concrete reasoning and equal comparisons between the candidates to be more persuasive than the “guts” of Romney detractors.
February 19th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
My evidence is there for all to read in the everyday blogs. His flip-flopping, and his constant
molding, bending and artful shaping of his positions. To me that is the work of a “typical politician”
and not a man of true strength, leadership and conviction. Yes I support a different republican
candidate and yes other candidates have some issues with which they have to clarify, but not to the
extent in my opinion of Romney who has been “planning” to run for president all his life. I do not
mean to offend if he is your guy..
February 19th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
The idea that Romney has been planning to run for president all his life is simply laughable. He didn’t even return to Michigan to aid his dad’s presidential campaign he was so little concerned about politics. He moved to the bluest state in the union, and possibly the worst conceivable jumping off point for a would be Republican Presidential candidate, when he could have stayed in Michigan and had any political office he wished by the time he was 35. Indeed, in 2002 there was a big discussion as to whether Romney planned to run in Michigan, against Granholm, Utah, or Massachusetts. He would have taken Granholm to the cleaners and been much better situated to grab the Republican nomination at this point. Not only that, but his electoral viability would be greatly increased. A opular Republican governor from Michigan might very well flip Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconin, and hold Iowa. In short, he would have been an electoral firewall. But he returned to Massachusetts, presumably because he believed that many things, such as his family’s happiness, were decidely more important then political office. You’re letting the MSM sell you a line which can’t be rationalized by even the most imaginative objective observers. Bill Clinton was running for president his entire life and you could tell that because, well, his decisions were the sorts of decisions one makes when they’re planning on becoming president. If this whole moving to Massachusetts, avoiding useful family connections, and not running for your first political office until you’re 47 was pursued with some sort of design on the presidency, then its the most labrynthine, idiotic plan that’s ever been conceived by man. I think a significant flaw in the conservative movement has been the inability or unwillingness of some individuals to debate ideas, on their merits, in the public arena. Part of this likely stems from the monopoly liberals have over media, and thus our reluctance to expose ourselves to hostile terrain, but whatever the reason it needs to end. We should have won the abortion debate a long time ago, but instead we’ve allowed the media to convince the public that without Roe v. Wade abortion would instantly be made illegal, under all circumstances, everywhere. Honestly, that’s what the public thinks and it our fault. So when I see conservatives making arguments from their gut like “Romney’s clearly been running for president his entire life as opposed to, you know, these people who’ve actually BEEN involved in politics their entire lives” or “Romney’s uniquely a flip-flopper because after dealing with political issues firsthand for the first time, he altered a few positions and explained the rationale behind those changes, while everyone else, after decades of political experience, changes their positions with nary an explanation” I become very despondent about the future of the conservative movement.
February 19th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
Matt you clearly have a handle on your guy, Romney and I do not hold it against you. I just believe that my guy is more authentic, and real and DOES discuss the issues instead of changing his positions. I know this is the slightest little tidbit and of very little importance, but did you see the latest bit of news about Romney? He just signed up as a member of the NRA six months ago. I find that another example of his plotting and pandering.
February 19th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
Its certainly plausible for you to call Romney joining the NRA pandering, but to what effect if his substantive positions remain the same? The NRA was perfectly fine with Mitt before he joined, and despite opposing the assault weapons ban he signed, gave him a B overall. I don’t know who your candidate is, so I can’t comment on his position changes. My point on this issue isn’t that you’re begruding me my support of Romney. It’s that neither you, nor others, have articulated in any sort of rational manner, why Romney’s political changes are somehow of an entirely different character of John McCain’s and Rudy Giuliani’s. Ineed, when I point, I think in a very logical manner, why out of all the candidates in the race, Romney would be the one a sane person would most expect to come to natural position changes, the general retort is either silence or “I just don’t like him” or “I just don’t believe him” or “it just seems like posturing”. It’s incoherent. And its led me to conclude that either those in the Republican party are, as a group, incoherent (or perhaps all the coherent people already support Romney) or they have other, alterior reasons for grilling him unrelentlessly, while giving everyone else a free pass. I have my suspicions, and they don’t reflect well on the party. But I’d caution individuals to at least attempt to use the forces of reason and to apply one standard across the board. Because we’re not going to have any chance of besting the Democratic nominee if the holes in our intellectual armor are this gaping come November 08′.
February 19th, 2007 at 4:45 pm
Just because people don’t like Romney, does not mean the party is fractured. Thats what the campaign battle is all about. The republicans will unite behind the nominee, who will be on the right side of the important, critical issues (for me at least) such as….illegal immigration, the supreme court judges, low taxes, the right to bear arms, etc. etc.
February 19th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
Every religious debate eventually boils down to this -
My invisible friend is better then your invisible friend.