Romney: Why Shouldn't I Change Positions? Reagan Did, Too!
As you know, Mitt Romney has been trying to cast himself as the Ronald Reagan of this Presidential race. But now his immitation of the Gipper has taken a new turn: Romney's pointing to Reagan's inconsistencies to justify his own dramatic change of position on abortion.
Romney -- who's under fire from conservatives who see him as an unreliable ally -- made the comments in an interview with National Review that was highlighted in today's Boston Globe:
Governor Mitt Romney cited the change of heart by Ronald Reagan and a prominent former member of Congress in explaining his decision to oppose aborton rights to a National Review Online interviewer."I’m committed to promoting the culture of life. Like Ronald Reagan, and Henry Hyde, and others who became pro-life, I had this issue wrong in the past,'' Romney told NRO...
Romney was seen as a supporter of aborton rights in Massachusetts until he began readying for a run for president.
Romney's inconsistencies on social issues are the talk of his home state. The Globe notes: "Past stories on his positions have been among the most emailed recently among Boston.com readers." It doesn't seem like Romney's efforts to quell the furor are working.
one less 'm' in 'imitation'.
December 15, 2006 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
sounds like flip-flopping is an epidemic among Massachusetts pols...
December 15, 2006 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Romney is sunk, which is actually too bad. He seemed to be the least loony of the lot of the GOP hopefuls for '08 (other than Rudy, who never had a shot anyway). On the other hand, the closer Newt "repeal the first amendment" Gingrich gets to the nod, the better for all of us - and more hilarious.
December 15, 2006 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
In 1994, Romney said he was better on gay issues than Teddy Kennedy.
I think he's got a serious problem on his hands here. The attack ad pretty much writes itself.
December 15, 2006 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think he's working on becoming more loony, i.e. electable. I don't think he's fully sunk yet, but obviously from my other comments I have some serious doubts. We shall see. He may make enough promises to the far right that they are willing to get over it. Many of them don't like McCain that much either, and the rest of their candidates probably don't have what it takes to actually win. It will be interesting to rubberneck the intra-party dynamics of the GOP race for a change.
December 15, 2006 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
The other thing is that Romney's "change of heart" story on abortion is entirely implausible and pretty much laughable on its face. It supposedly occurred during or just after a meeting with Harvard scientists on stem cell research, and he talks of it as an epiphany or Ah-ha moment. But to have an epiphany like this that is so politically convenient for him, since he'd never get the GOP nomination for the presidency if he was pro-choice, just seems incredibly doubtful, and he's never spoken of it in such a way as to come across as genuine and worthy of being given the benefit of the doubt on it.
Rather, he makes it sound as if he only gave serious thought to his views on abortion, one of the most contentious issues of our time, after this somewhat random meeting on stem cell research. It's almost flip. I would think that would be a pretty much unpardonable sin for the far right voters he is courting. I can't think of anything the scientists could have said that would really have such an impact. They were talking about stem cell research on discarded embryos, which had no chance at personhood anyway. That's what gets you after all those years, renowned scientists not talking respectfully enough about embryos discarded from fertility clinics? Not the big trucks with pictures of aborted fetuses driving all around Boston during the DNC? Not some in-depth thought about the morality of the procedures used?
Hmm...
It just reeks to me of being a phony political decision. He also gets to reject Harvard and science at the same time, so from a conservative political viewpoint, it probably sounded like a great idea at the time for when he should come out as no longer pro-choice in advance of running as a pro-life candidate for President. Well scripted, Team Romney. I give them credit for that at least. Who knows, maybe the GOP primary voters fall for it.
The bottom line is that Romney would not have been elected governor in MA in 2002 as a socially conservative pro-life GOP candidate, and without being governor (for only one four year term, so keep that in mind, all you Experience Police out there criticizing Obama) he would have no shot at the presidency.
On the other side of the coin, even if the wingers give him the benefit of the doubt and think that he just pretended to be pro-choice in order to be elected in MA and then had to make up a cover story for his conversion to pro-life, doesn't his willingness to pull such a stunt for the sake of political expediency suggest some issues with his core values? Are they really willing to take the risk of trusting a candidate who would do such a thing?
December 15, 2006 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you are correct in your supposition that Romney may be able to placate the far right of the GOP. However, by doing so, I think he ruins his chances with the alleged moderate Republicans, and more libertarian types in the GOP. Also, by pandering to the far right he runs the risk of being "Schiavoed," AND taunted by the "flip-flop" label during the general election - should he somehow get the nomination.
On the other hand, attacks from the far right might endear him to sane voters. I've actually found myself symapthizing with him as of late.
By the way if "Schiavoed" isn't a political term yet, I would like to claim credit for it.
December 15, 2006 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm a MA resident who has endured four years of Romney as governor and was also around during his senate campaign. I have no idea what his "core values" are, if any. Other than power, of course.
I think he only ran in MA because he was unelectable (not conservative enough at the time) in Utah, and as ohiomeister says, he needed to show some electoral experience prior to running for President.
December 15, 2006 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Romney has really screwed this one up.
I understand why he's doing this now - he had to wait for a bit after the Mass general election, to give Healy a shot at winning. If he's announced his little flip flops before, she would have spent every day on the trail answering questions about it. As it is, he's just made life even harder for Mass Repubs going forward.
But now he feels he has to start making nice nice with the right wing Republican base, to win the primaries. I think he's screwing up by such obvious flip flops - better to talk about opposing gay marriage than distance himself from other issues, better to oppose some parts of abortion than flip so completely. No one will trust him to keep his word on it now, anyway.
If I were a right winger, I would need an awful lot of convinving to believe that he wasn't going to flip back after the primaries.
December 15, 2006 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think most people knew Romney had pretty massively flip-flopped before the governor's race was decided.
I agree that a more moderated flip-flop would have made more sense. Maybe he should have met some prominent social conservative and allowed their great arguments to "convince" him.
P.S. Good article on social conservatives who hate Mitt at The New Republic.
December 15, 2006 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
The key to a successful flip flop is to do it subtly. Citing another politician's record of doing the same thing is the opposite of subtle.
December 15, 2006 8:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Only if you think Mormons are sane.
December 16, 2006 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink