Mitt Romney's campaign has been circulating a video online today. It's his first TV advertisement, schedule to begin airing in early Primary states shortly. I found it thoroughly unremarkable, other than it's the first aired ad of the GOP Primary.
There is another Romney video that has gotten my attention though, and this one would have never been viewed widely as recently as a few short years ago. This is Romney in 2002, while campaigning for Governor of Massachusetts:
I'm not a single-issue voter on abortion - as clearly evidenced by my current support of Rudy Giuliani, who is Pro-Choice* but has overcome my concerns with pledges to appoint constructionist Federal judges.
Romney's taking multiple positions on fundamental issues, as if the voters are too stupid to realize what he's doing. He's clearly pandering on the abortion issue, taking one position, quite forcefully and undoubtedly, while campaigning in liberal Massachusetts, and taking the completely opposite stance, just as forcefully, now that he's running in a GOP Primary.
He's associating himself with questionable characters, especially Bob Kjellander, Illinois' Republican National Committeeman and a guy who specializes in putting his own financial interests ahead of building the grassroots GOP.
Watching this video, I just don't know how anyone can take anything he says seriously, knowing that he's probably taking exactly the opposite position at the next event, in front of the next group.
He has no principles, but he's obviously talented, intelligent and ambitious. To me, he feels just like our version of Hillary Clinton.
EDITED: *I had originally written that Rudy is Pro-Life before someone corrected me in comments.
Did you mean to say Rudy's Pro-Choice?
Doh! Fixed.
Hmm. This seems to be a trend amongst Republican presidential candidates this time around. McCain's latest flip-flop is also on abortion.
McCain in 2007:
"I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned,"
McCain in 1999:
"I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations."
I believe people can change their minds, even on very important fundamental issues. But if they do, they should be explaining it as such, not pretending they never said the opposite before. Lay out the reasons for the change of opinion.
More, including references are here: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/2/18/222416/002
If you do not like all the canidates doing flip flops to get your vote look to Ron Paul. There is a man who stays the course of small federal government unlike the current GOP administration.
"If you do not like all the canidates doing flip flops to get your vote look to Ron Paul. There is a man who stays the course of small federal government unlike the current GOP administration."
I prefer candidates, even if imperfect, who can win. Ron Paul is compelling, but hasn't done anything to put together a serious campaign and he's not a serious option.
Romney will have to continue answer, but the ultimate question is "can you trust what he says, as a voter"?
As the Gov of Mass, did he break his promises to those who believed he would support Roe v. Wade?
Abortion is a huge issue, and the President is more involved with it than just appointing judges. Embryonic stem cell funding, public abortion funding via medicaid and military, funding of 3rd-world aid agencies and programs - the Pres has influence on all these life issues.
"Abortion is a huge issue, and the President is more involved with it than just appointing judges. Embryonic stem cell funding, public abortion funding via medicaid and military, funding of 3rd-world aid agencies and programs - the Pres has influence on all these life issues."
No offense, RSW, but to me those other issues are very tangential compared to judicial appointments.
McCain also said this in the SAME speech:
"“I am proud of a 17-year voting record of pro-life positions. And I adhere to that position. I believe this issue of the repeal of Roe v. Wade is important. I favor the ultimate repeal of Roe v. Wade. But we all know, and it's obvious, that if we repeal Roe v. Wade tomorrow....""
Daily Kooks...er, I mean Kos, may not be the best source for factual information, curious. This alleged flip-flop is just another liberal myth. Next.
no offense taken. Those issues are tangential, but they are real issues that are part of the country's view on the sanctity of life. If Rudy becomes Pres, would his stance put him on the pro-life side of them? I would not be confident of that.
"If Rudy becomes Pres, would his stance put him on the pro-life side of them? I would not be confident of that."
Would McCain or Romney? I'm not confident of that, either.
This from an NRO article today:
There is still a lot to be hashed out - I am not ready to write off Romney yet.
The video above is from his 2002 campaign, in which he states emphatically that he never sought nor accepted any endorsement from the MCFL. He also states, just as emphatically, that to portray him as Pro-Life was an attempt to frighten people.
I must admit, I have written off Romney. I have doubts that any position he takes is born of sincerity. I'd like to see some explanation for why, in 2002, he considered being called pro-life by his opponent has a scare tactic.
I just watched the full video - he looks very much like Bill Clinton, parsing words very precisely, knowing that being pinned down as "pro-life" would make him unelectable.
"Pro-life" in Mass is a scare tactic.
If he was really Pro-Life in 2002, when this video was made, then he's a coward for trying to hide it by pretending otherwise.
If he was really Pro-Choice in 2002, as he claims repeatedly and clearly in this video, then he's an unprincipled opportunist now.
Either way, I don't know if there's any explanation that would make me willing to consider his candidacy. At this point, I just don't believe he's sincere.
I vote "coward". He repeatedly claimed he wouldn't change Mass law on a woman's right to choose. He didn't give the impression of a hard-core pro-choicer.
Do I wish he would have been more upfront? Sure. He could have said, "personally, I believe abortion is wrong, but I will pledge to the Mass voters that I will make no efforts limit its availability to Mass citizens". But, had he not been elected in 02, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
This from Maggie Gallagher - an outspoken social conservative. She has not even been willing to vote for Rudy for Mayor, but is dearly afraid of a Pres. Hillary.
I keep reading arguements on both sides. But it is mostly a moot point, because the decision will be made by others long before we vote in Illinois. Maybe Hillary and Obama will still be slugging it out :-)
"But it is mostly a moot point, because the decision will be made by others long before we vote in Illinois."
I would bet on Illinois having a Primary sometime in early February 2008, so we'll have an impact.