Romney Camp Bashes Massachusetts In New Ad

Comments (32)

PeteB wrote on May 23, 2007 11:01 AM:

Dear Republicans--look under the hood before you buy a used car from this salesman.

NJ Lawyer wrote on May 23, 2007 11:03 AM:

I wonder how many abortions he helped promote in Massachusetts with his pro choice position.

Romney's serials flip flops on almost every issue of importanc demonstrate that he has the worst character ever.

Ralph Kramden wrote on May 23, 2007 11:04 AM:

He's been doing this for years, even while serving as governor, as soon as he decided to seek the presidency.

renato wrote on May 23, 2007 11:07 AM:

Remind me again why Massachusetts elected this guy? Did he seem less like a slimy used car salesman a few years ago?

oleeb wrote on May 23, 2007 11:07 AM:

Wow! What a scumbag this man is.

I don't think I've ever seen anyone reach the heights of hypocrisy this guy has. And I don't think I've ever seen a candidate so blatantly willing to say anything necessary to get elected. Remarkable.

br wrote on May 23, 2007 11:21 AM:

Romney was just as slimy then. He won Massachusetts in part because the Dems nominated a miserable candidate named Shannon O'Brien. O'Brien was a machine Democrat who had been in politics her entire life and had nebulous ties to Big Dig corruption. Yet all of the quality candidates (Tom Birmingham, Robert Reich, and Warren Tolman) split the progressive vote in the primaries, and O'Brien walked away with the nomination.

It's awfully similar to the situation that appears to be shaping up in the Dem presidential race.

erikherzog wrote on May 23, 2007 11:22 AM:

Not only is he ceding Massachusetts, he's practically inviting scrutiny of his flip-flops. It's really bizarre.

RandyBastard wrote on May 23, 2007 11:22 AM:

Oleeb: Being, perhaps, a bit older than you are I can remember a better example.

In his first run for president, Nixon promised to end the war in Vietnam. He was elected and promptly escalated the war in Vietnam and began bombing Cambodia and Laos. Both neighboring countries of Vietnam.

For his second run for president he promised... you guessed it, to end the war in Vietnam. He said he had a "secret plan" to end the war.

He was re-elected. And, he escalated the war again before being forced to end it.

Bearpaw wrote on May 23, 2007 11:37 AM:

Yup, he mocked Massachusetts while he was still governor. Classy. It's part of why Massachusetts now has a Dem governor, voted in by a huge margin.

Artful wrote on May 23, 2007 11:42 AM:

How many Massachusetts Republicans have endorsed Romney? How much of this home-state bashing are they going to take before they withdraw their endorsements? I would imagine this could actually be a good weapon for Democrats to use against those Republicans in the next State House elections.

Bearpaw wrote on May 23, 2007 11:42 AM:

No, I thought he was slimy then, too. Damned if I know why so many of my fellow Bay Staters voted for him.

I think some part of it is that there's a belief here that because the Mass legislature is so heavily Dem, it's good to have a Repub governor as balance. (There's something to that, but obviously other factors need to be considered as well.)

Bearpaw wrote on May 23, 2007 11:46 AM:

It's awfully similar to the situation that appears to be shaping up in the Dem presidential race.

Damn. I hadn't noticed that similarity. [sigh] Maybe partway through the process, Edwards will throw his support behind Obama (or vice-versa, if the numbers change) ...

renato wrote on May 23, 2007 11:54 AM:

Imagine you're a woman who's gone out on a date a couple of times with a new guy who used to be married to a woman about whom you'd only heard bad things. He's attractive, successful, and seems like he has his shit together. You're starting to take a shine to him.

Then one night after a few drinks and both of you are feeling relaxed, he pops off with the following:

"You know, I never really liked my first wife to begin with. She was such a bitch. She was lousy in bed. She was a terrible cook. I knew all that going in; I only married her for her money."

How would that make you feel, even if you probably already thought his first wife was a piece of shit?

I hope that Republicans are intelligent enough to draw the correct conclusions about this guy, even if they despise all that Massachusetts stands for.

Bearpaw wrote on May 23, 2007 11:55 AM:

I don't know how many Mass Repubs have endorsed Romney, but I suspect that at least some of them would tell him to piss up a rope if he asked for their support. Romney alienated a lot of people here and it rubbed off on his fellow Mass Repubs, some of whom are actually reasonable.

(I'm thinking in particular of my State Senator, Richard Tisei. Among other good stances, he's been very clear and up-front with his support of equal marriage rights.)

renato wrote on May 23, 2007 11:57 AM:

I don't think I've ever seen a candidate so blatantly willing to say anything necessary to get elected. Remarkable.

Indeed. He seems to be giving John "Double Talk Express" McCain a run for his money, and that's saying something.

Fortunately for Romney, there's no pics of him that can quite match the images of McCain giving Bush a homoerotic bear hug or sitting cheek-by-jowls with Falwell.

Jeff R wrote on May 23, 2007 12:06 PM:

Never mind the fact we had 12 years of Republican governors when Romney was elected. They were all fairly progressive on social issues; I think they all were pro-choice. But then so was Romney when he was elected.

mike valentine wrote on May 23, 2007 12:11 PM:

what a dog

Legalize wrote on May 23, 2007 12:19 PM:

What a self-serving scumbag. No wonder GOPers appear to dig him.

Right Fools wrote on May 23, 2007 12:24 PM:

RIGHT FOOLS

And had he run for governor again in 2006, we would have shouted at him, "SIT DOWN."

monk wrote on May 23, 2007 12:30 PM:

The truth about Mitt Romney: Since January 2003, when Romney took office, through the end of last year Massachusetts ranked 46th in job growth, up just 1.1 percent. In the last year, the gap between Massachusetts and the nation has widened, with the state's employment rising only four-tenths of 1 percent, or less than a third the national average of 1.3 percent. That put Massachusetts tied for 44th in the country. If all things in life are measured against expectations, Romney will have a particular problem explaining away the economy. He was going to be our CEO Governor, the state's top salesman who could talk businessman-to-businessman and bring home those good-paying jobs. It was all bunk, of course. But he said it, and he will have to live with it. There are 40,000 fewer people in the workforce than when Romney took over." [Boston Globe, 2/15/06] Massachusetts Lost 10,000 Jobs on Romney Watch. Romney oversaw a net decrease of more than 10,000 jobs in Massachusetts. [Boston Herald, 2/21/07] "With signs emerging that his signature healthcare plan faces hurdles, former governor Mitt Romney has begun to distance himself from the new law.At recent political appearances, Romney has subtly lowered expectations for the law he championed as governor.The plan for statewide, near-universal health coverage was the centerpiece of Romney's administration, and it has become a key part of his presidential resume.Romney's recent comments underscore how sensitive an issue the plan is with conservative audiences, whose support is crucial to his presidential aspirations. Many conservatives view the concept of requiring individuals to purchase health insurance - and penalizing some businesses that don't offer it - as anathema to their principles." [Boston Globe, 2/3/07] Romney Raised $500 Million in Fees, Earns "C" on Cato Institute Fiscal Report Card. "Romney's fiscal policies in Massachusetts have received mixed marks from conservative watchdogs. The tax-averse Cato Institute gave Romney a 'C' on its 2006 fiscal report card, saying the former governor...failed to hold the line on taxes. 'His first budget included no general tax increases but did include a $500 million increase in various fees,' noted Cato Institute budget director Stephen Slivinski." [Boston Herald, 2/8/07] Romney Refused to Sign "No New Tax" Pledge. When he thought he needed to look more moderate to get elected governor in 2002, Romney's campaign mocked the pledge as "government by gimmickry." [Boston Globe, 1/5/07] Romney Signs Pledge to Hide Tax Raising Record. This month, Romney signed the same "no new tax" pledge he refused to sign in 2002 to hide the fact that under his failed leadership, Bay Staters saw their tax burden increase by more than 5 percent, and Romney's cuts to local communities sent Massachusetts property taxes to their highest level in 25 years. [Massachusetts State-Local Tax Burden Compared to National Average (1970-2006), The Tax Foundation; Quincy Patriot Ledger, 12/16/05] Romney's Real Record: Highest Property Taxes in 25 Years. Romney's cuts to local aid forced Massachusetts property taxes to their highest level in 25 years. [Quincy Patriot Ledger, 12/16/05] State & Local Tax Burden Increased 5.1 Percent During Romney Administration. According to The Tax Foundation, a conservative tax research organization, in 2002 (the year before Romney came to power), Massachusetts state and local tax burden was 9.8 percent: the 34th highest in the nation. The Tax Foundation reported that in 2006, Massachusetts state and local tax burden had increased to 10.3 percent: the 28th highest in the nation. Thus, during the Romney administration, Bay Staters saw their taxes burden increase by 5.1 percent in real terms. [Massachusetts State-Local Tax Burden Compared to National Average (1970-2006), The Tax Foundation]

kenga wrote on May 23, 2007 12:45 PM:

MA is a very tolerant state. Well, about a lot of things, anyway.
We even elected a CEO pretty-boy from a fringe Christian sect!

Can we get a Unitarian next time?

JMo wrote on May 23, 2007 12:48 PM:

JMo

If the Republicans actually end up nominating this guy we'll know they've lost their mojo for sure. They'd be better off putting a Reagan mask on Fred Thompson.

Jeremy Goodwin wrote on May 23, 2007 12:49 PM:

I don't think any "Mass Repubs" have backed Romney. There really aren't that many actual Republican politicians left here. Plenty of misinformed Republican evangelical voters, but no one in any significant position of power. Certainly no one that voters would listen to.

And the right hanging columnists pretty much all branded Romney and his anointed Republican successor traitors and incompetents. Howie Carr certainly did. I can't see them changing tacks on that just because he's running for president.

They're too busy sniping at the current Massachusetts administration.

Blue in IA wrote on May 23, 2007 1:32 PM:

Yes, it is a disturbing parallel. But I'm not sure that Obama voters and Edwards voters make up a unified progressive bloc that could be consolidated. If you look at the polls on pollster.com where they have second-choice breakdowns by candidate, my recollection is that the majority (or near majority) of both Edwards and Obama voters select HRC as their second choice, while only about 20% opt for either Obama or Edwards. So, having one or the other drop out would actually increase HRC's cumulative lead over whoever remained. I don't know how you get around that...

rowan wrote on May 23, 2007 1:55 PM:

This man is a complete whore. He will obviously say or do anything to get this nomination. Unlike the young women ( or young men) who may be forced to prostitute themselves he has no excuse -- not lack of money, surely not low self-esteem or a history of abuse, or being alone in the world with no options. Hopefully there are enough sane Republicans to see through this blatant pandering. It isn't his Mormonism that should bring him down, it's his complete lack of morals or any sense of ethics. Did he sleep through his civic's class or just think it didn't apply to him?

Agateman wrote on May 23, 2007 2:22 PM:

I thought it was wise to try to win as many states in the Union as possible. This guy is as soft as a sneaker for of manure.

Ward8Mahatma wrote on May 23, 2007 2:23 PM:

Romney can't "cede" Massachusetts, because it ceased being his long ago.. Had Willard stood for re-election, even Foster Furcolo raised from the dead would've beaten his sorry butt like a drum. Jim Nuzzo, a longtime Republican operative in MA, called him "all hat & no cattle" last week on the NPR call-in program "On Point." During his four years in office, the state Republicans lost seats in the House & Senate and were unable to field any candidates in the majority of races. Even those they managed to find were laughable, like Jack E. Robinson, who tried to run for everything but is best rembered for getting into a car accident live while being interviewed on his cellphone.

NH Dem wrote on May 23, 2007 3:05 PM:

I'm reposting monk's comment from 12:30 in a legible format below. (Pssst... paragraphs are good things....so are preview buttons.)

Normally I wouldn't bother reposting sloppily cut-and-pasted oppo research, but I think his ex-Excellency's record merits it.

***

The truth about Mitt Romney: Since January 2003, when Romney took office, through the end of last year Massachusetts ranked 46th in job growth, up just 1.1 percent. In the last year, the gap between Massachusetts and the nation has widened, with the state's employment rising only four-tenths of 1 percent, or less than a third the national average of 1.3 percent. That put Massachusetts tied for 44th in the country.

If all things in life are measured against expectations, Romney will have a particular problem explaining away the economy. He was going to be our CEO Governor, the state's top salesman who could talk businessman-to-businessman and bring home those good-paying jobs. It was all bunk, of course. But he said it, and he will have to live with it. There are 40,000 fewer people in the workforce than when Romney took over." [Boston Globe, 2/15/06]

Massachusetts Lost 10,000 Jobs on Romney Watch. Romney oversaw a net decrease of more than 10,000 jobs in Massachusetts. [Boston Herald, 2/21/07]

"With signs emerging that his signature healthcare plan faces hurdles, former governor Mitt Romney has begun to distance himself from the new law. At recent political appearances, Romney has subtly lowered expectations for the law he championed as governor.The plan for statewide, near-universal health coverage was the centerpiece of Romney's administration, and it has become a key part of his presidential resume. Romney's recent comments underscore how sensitive an issue the plan is with conservative audiences, whose support is crucial to his presidential aspirations. Many conservatives view the concept of requiring individuals to purchase health insurance - and penalizing some businesses that don't offer it - as anathema to their principles." [Boston Globe, 2/3/07]

Romney Raised $500 Million in Fees, Earns "C" on Cato Institute Fiscal Report Card. "Romney's fiscal policies in Massachusetts have received mixed marks from conservative watchdogs. The tax-averse Cato Institute gave Romney a 'C' on its 2006 fiscal report card, saying the former governor...failed to hold the line on taxes. 'His first budget included no general tax increases but did include a $500 million increase in various fees,' noted Cato Institute budget director Stephen Slivinski." [Boston Herald, 2/8/07]

Romney Refused to Sign "No New Tax" Pledge. When he thought he needed to look more moderate to get elected governor in 2002, Romney's campaign mocked the pledge as "government by gimmickry." [Boston Globe, 1/5/07] Romney Signs Pledge to Hide Tax Raising Record. This month, Romney signed the same "no new tax" pledge he refused to sign in 2002 to hide the fact that under his failed leadership, Bay Staters saw their tax burden increase by more than 5 percent, and Romney's cuts to local communities sent Massachusetts property taxes to their highest level in 25 years. [Massachusetts State-Local Tax Burden Compared to National Average (1970-2006), The Tax Foundation; Quincy Patriot Ledger, 12/16/05] Romney's Real Record: Highest Property Taxes in 25 Years. Romney's cuts to local aid forced Massachusetts property taxes to their highest level in 25 years. [Quincy Patriot Ledger, 12/16/05]

State & Local Tax Burden Increased 5.1 Percent During Romney Administration. According to The Tax Foundation, a conservative tax research organization, in 2002 (the year before Romney came to power), Massachusetts state and local tax burden was 9.8 percent: the 34th highest in the nation. The Tax Foundation reported that in 2006, Massachusetts state and local tax burden had increased to 10.3 percent: the 28th highest in the nation. Thus, during the Romney administration, Bay Staters saw their taxes burden increase by 5.1 percent in real terms. [Massachusetts State-Local Tax Burden Compared to National Average (1970-2006), The Tax Foundation]

ohiomeister wrote on May 23, 2007 3:17 PM:

There was a tough primary race, and Dems were splintered. The eventual candidate, State Treasurer Shannon O'Brien, was not a very good campaigner. She seemed too machine Dem and not-ready-for-prime-time.

He ran as an absolute moderate, saying he wouldn't change abortion laws, etc. He only governed for 2 yrs and then ran off to campaign for President.

Bearpaw wrote on May 23, 2007 4:05 PM:

For me it wasn't the fact that they were hugging. (Anyone who's got some kinda problem with two guys hugging has a problem with me.)

But there was something about the body language that was just ... wrong. I mean, photos can be deceptive, and if one has hundreds of photos of someone to choose from, it's easy to pick one that makes them look bad. But still ...

SanPasqualCA wrote on May 23, 2007 8:40 PM:

As a Mass. resident: that election was really all about the man who really ran the state, state House Speaker Tom Finneran.

Finneran ran the state legislature with his cronies/clique of Corruptocrats- a bunch of lazy, corrupt pro forma Democrats but more conservative than the Republican caucus, who basically shunted every state contract they could to their buddies, put remaining hacks from the Bulger days into patronage jobs, etc. It wasn't that their corruption and abuses were great compared to other state legislatures, and it was small potatos compared to their predecessors. They were just out of step with the demographic and political changes in the state since the late Eighties and really looked it- and tone deaf, or unable to deal with it. There was a constant sense of crude culture clash between the state legislature and voters. The run of Republican governors all got elected running against them, proving themselves more relevant and more like the average suburban voter than the legislature.

The Finneran House and what it did was the halfway house (so to speak) from the Billy Bulger-led Old Democrat decrepitude in the place in the late Eighties and early Nineties. The Bulger machinery and crowd then was the obsolete remains of the ethnic political machines (principally the Irish one) that dominated the state in Sixties and Seventies.

Romney got elected in '02 with 48-49%, Shannon O'Brien got 43-44% (the Democratic baseline vote), progressive Jill Stein got ~8% (basically a protest vote). The only issues in the race were (a) taxes and (b) whether O'Brien was buddies with Finneran. O'Brien said after the election that she "was surprised" that taxes were "such an important issue"!!!! (She was very likeable, but never really answered charges she would raise taxes. Duhhhhh!!! Everyone knew taxes were the only objective issue.)

Romney then let the legislature do the dirty work on the deficit in early 2003- they cut some spending on social services and raised some taxes by closing loopholes, taking money from the Rainy Day fund, etc. Romney pretended it was all his doing. Actually, Finneran and his fellows did most of the real work, Travaglini (the state Senate majority leader) and now-SSML Patty Murray most of the rest.

After that all the Romney people did was squeeze a few Democratic patronage hacks out and pushed in a bunch of Republican hacks into state patronage jobs. And Romney began to pick big PR fights with Finneran over small stuff. Finneran didn't come off too well. And there were the Democrats that went to the feds in late 2002 about the state House redistricting that Finneran pushed through in 2001- which gave him a very nice white-dominated district and his white cronies nearby the same, completely shortchanged black voters, and laid together a bunch of his major opponents into districts (forcing a bunch to primary each other out, e.g. Kate Kahn).

The Goodridge verdict came down in November 2003. That dominated everything, along with Romney shooting a couple of arrows and other dirty Republican interference at John Kerry, for about eight months. Let's just say that Finneran was not a total enemy of gay people, but not willing to sacrifice any political capital for them either and personally conservative. His circle of House Reps were all bad on the issue, too. So all these awful Constitutional Convention sessions came and went, and all the ugly court cases and hearings and verdicts. And Romney pretended to stand over the fray. I think all the gay marriage ban effort manouverings and machinations did burn out Finneran's remaining cred with the electorate, ultimately.

All the federal and state court cases and appeals went nowhere, gay marriage was legal on May 17, 2004, and Romney then went to bigoted enforcement of 'the 1913 law'- preventing out-of-staters from getting recognition of ss marriages. (Though bigotry, it was arguably a good thing that it was done in the long run. The delay it created was necessary to the states now a year or two or three from legalizing gay marriage.)

Romney spent all of 2004 ginning up Republican candidates and money for state legislature seats- and mostly anti-gay marriage sorts. (He was figuring on a second run of 2002, clearly.) In the summer the feds got Tom Finneran's deposition on the 2001/02 state House redistricting in which he obviously perjured himself. It was starting to look like Romney was going to get a political victory out of it, an election victory that was going to kill Finneran (at that point the most reviled politician in the state).

Finneran beat him to the punch and suddenly, utterly unexpectedly, resigned in September 2004. Two or three of his House Rep inner circle also resigned or walked away from reelection in the next few weeks. (Everyone went to 'the private sector' and got their payoffs for their crookery those 8-10 years.) But that left Romney punching into thin air. Without Finneran in the picture the set of Republican state leg candidates were obviously just a bunch of low rent bigots and opportunists of no use, and in November Democrats beat and whipped them- picked up a bunch of the remaining Republican-held seats too.

Without Finneran in the picture and the state leg leaders (Travaglini and DiMasi) with supermajorities and de facto running the state, the fiscal picture okay, gay marriage legal but still tenuous, Republicans/bigots repudiated on the issues and character, his own numbers falling to Republican baselines, Kerry not elected but not touched by him...Romney realized voters saw him done with the job he was elected to do and there weren't any real opportunities left. It had been all about the 2003 tax fixes and using him to get Finneran out, and nothing more. There wasn't any political rationale or political capital left to his position, or need. December 2004 he stopped bothering with the office and very rapidly became The Absentee Governor Who Bashes Massachusetts.

Kerry Healey (his Lt Governor) struggled mightily to come up with a political rationale for making her Governor after him. She tried all the old Republican buttons- taxes/'over'spending, corruption, crime, evil Libruls, race, John Kerry/Ted Kennedy. She ended up with 35%, essentially the Republican baseline plus a 3% female sympathy vote, and a marred reputation from her racist appeal/scare ad involving a young white woman and evidently black assailants in a dark parking garage. A Republican running as protest 'Independent' candidate, Christie Mihos, focussed on how the Romney people (i.e. the national-level careerist partisan Republican tier in the state, who completely glommed onto Romney in 2002) as standard operating procedure lied to, fobbed off, ignored, and mistreated the little guy Republicans and rural conservatives of the state in the name of telegenic faux "accomplishments". He took 10% from Healey, not that she would have won if he had stayed out. But that reflects the breakup of the Republican-small town conservative alliance in the state.

Romney was quick to leave the sinking ship of the Massachusetts state Republican Party after getting it to help his career as much as was possible. The prize, I think, amounts to be taken on board a ship also now sinking, just a bit later and for most of the same reasons- the national Republican Party. He may make Captain of it yet, just as water runs over its decks. Couldn't happen to a more deserving guy :-)

Nancy Irving wrote on May 24, 2007 1:02 AM:

It's almost enough to make you prefer mad-dog Rudy.

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)