MSNBC: Romney on 'Far Right'

NewsBusters ^ | Mark Finkelstein

[Austin Willard Wright]

Since two-faced Romney is now blaming the Democrats for the Massachusetts health-care atrocity, it is instructive to read what he said when he signed the bill about his differences with these same Democrats:

Romney added, "An achievement like this comes around once in a generation. Today, Massachusetts is leading the way with health insurance for everyone, without a government takeover and without raising taxes" (Pugh, Philadelphia Inquirer, 4/13). "This isn't 100% of what anyone in this room wanted. But the differences between us are small," he said, adding that the legislation would be "a big part of the legacy I will have personally for my four years of service as governor. But I have no way of telling if it's going to be a help or hindrance down the road."

[Austin Willard Wright]

And the specific point I got wrong was......?

[NathanR]

The USSR is dead, Jim.

[msnimje]

And the specific point I got wrong was......?

You decided I wrote "Republicans" running for President when in fact, I wrote, "Pack currently running for President."

That includes Democrats, Independents, Martians, etc.

[Austin Willard Wright]

Mea Culpa.

[montag813]

Wonkette Ana Marie Cox

Didn't she gain her initial notoriety from being a Capitol Hill slut?

[redgirlinabluestate]

If pro-life conservatives don't unite behind Romney, I think we will end up with McCain or Rudy as the nominee. I'd prefer someone more conservative than those two, but will vote for either of them nonetheless.

It's too bad the conservatives don't seize this opportunity to nominate someone who is actually more conservative than the current POTUS in many respects.

[governsleastgovernsbest]

No, she got famous reporting on a Capitol Hill slut, Jessica Cutler, also known as "Washingtonienne."

[Unmarked Package]

Romney: "But I have no way of telling if it's going to be a help or hindrance down the road." [Massachusetts healthcare initiative]

I admit, there's the rub, because it will be some time before the savings in public spending necessary to treat the uninsured in the past can be quantified with certainty. The real wildcard will be the illegal aliens showing up at hospital emergency rooms. I fear that the new Governor of Massachusetts, Deval Patrick, will hand out healthcare waivers like candy to the illegals.

One of the first actions taken by Deval Patrick was to rescind the state and federal agreement arranged by Gov. Romney allowing Massachusetts state troopers to arrest illegal aliens when troopers encounter them in the normal course of their duties. That does not bode well for the illegal immigration problem in MA and the ramifications for state healthcare costs.

[hunter112]

If pro-life conservatives don't unite behind Romney, I think we will end up with McCain or Rudy as the nominee. I'd prefer someone more conservative than those two, but will vote for either of them nonetheless.

I'm starting to agree with this. Romney has had to bob and weave to deal with Massachusetts politics, but the Mormon church will hold his feet to the fire if he deviates from the anti-abortion position in any meaningful way.

It's too bad the conservatives don't seize this opportunity to nominate someone who is actually more conservative than the current POTUS in many respects.

I don't think that can happen. I believe that the Iraq war has soured this election, and will be a major factor come Election Day, unless you believe that the militants on both sides will suddenly calm down, and behave themselves.

Mitt Romney really scares the MSM. He managed to get elected as a Republican governor of a hard-left state, he surely has the ability to persuade people in the swing states. Up against Hillary or Obama, the right wing has no place else to go, to sit this one out or vote third party would surely throw the election to someone viewed as pure unadulterated evil. They feel they can help either Hillary or Barry O to beat Giuliani or McCain, mostly by demoralizing the religious right.

[Austin Willard Wright]

Okay, if he felt this way, why did he sign the damn thing? Again, he is trying to hedge his bets all around. At the time, he said the differences between him and the demos were "small." Now, he is saying that they were great. He boasts about the bill when it suits his needs his needs, but then says he doesn't know where it will lead, etc., etc. I want a candidate, like Ron Paul, who takes a stand and sticks by it without apology. I don't trust Romney. You are certainly entitled to trust him, however.

[william clark]

This is why Romney is not the guy to go with in a general election. Much of the Republican base doesn't believe him to be genuinely conservative, and the mere fact of his Republicanism is enough for the left to paint him as an extremist. Also, regardless of whether any on the right have a problem with his being a Mormon or not, the stereotype of the Mormon is that they're very conservative - Harry Reid notwithstanding - so that's all the ammo they'll need to convince those predisposed against conservatives to withhold their votes, especially if Hillary or Obama (or Richardson) try to paint themselves as moderates for the election cycle.

[x]

The concept of right, left and middle is RELATIVE to the others.

That's true.

So far, Romney is pretty far right of most the pack currently running for President.

I don't think that's true. You can argue that he's to the right of other announced candidates. There are candidates who may not have announced -- Tancredo, Hunter, Brownback, etc.

And whether or not Romney is to the right of other candidates, you don't get elected Governor of Massachusetts being "far right." If you've been Governor of Massachusetts you'd have to move quite a distance to be accurately described as "far right." And if Romney is "far right," then Bush is too (and we know that's nonsense).

What the MSNBC guy called "far right" might be more accurately described as "social conservatives" -- pro-life, anti-gay-marriage, pro-immigration-reform.

It looks like a lot of left wing bloggers are trying to make the same connection. Nobody reads the blogs or watches MSNBC, but this propaganda technique is going to percolate down to other media.

[Colofornian]

One of the best things Mitt Romney has going for him is that the media seems genuinely unhinged about him, and their RINO-radar is better than ours.

Anybody to the right of other mainstream candidates is who they're going to be "unhinged" about. Being to the right of Rudy in & of itself isn't exactly a cause for celebration or an automatic endorsable quality.

[NeoCaveman]

Being to the right of Rudy in & of itself isn't exactly a cause for celebration or an automatic endorsable quality.

I agree but it's a start.

I'm just looking for the most right of Rudy candidate that can win.

[Unmarked Package]

You made some interesting points in your voter analysis, but I keep going back to the 2004 election map.

I don't see red states that went for President Bush in 2004 going to the Democrats with Romney as our candidate. I don't think Republicans should fear running a candidate who is to the right of GWBush on immigration. The barely red states of NV, NM, IA, OH could be at risk, but Romney's strong stance against amnesty and in favor of border control is likely to hold those states for Republicans and place him in a stronger position in all the other red states; especially if the Dem candidate is Hillary.

On the other hand, Romney has a good chance of taking one or more states among five barely blue states in 2004 (MN, WI, MI, PA, NH). We must not forget that Romney managed to win in ultra-liberal Massachusetts where less than 0.5% of the electorate are members of his religion.

[MEGoody]

To the MSM, there is no such thing as 'far left'. They are already as left as one can get, yet they are so blind they do not realize it. From that position, all other lefties appear 'moderate'.

[william clark]

I don't see red states that went for President Bush in 2004 going to the Democrats with Romney as our candidate.

I'm not necessarily saying they will go Democrat this time either, though if we run a candidate that is distrusted by the base, I wouldn't rule it out.

I don't think Republicans should fear running a candidate who is to the right of GWBush on immigration.

Neither do I, and that's not where Romney's largest weakness lies.

The barely red states of NV, NM, IA, OH could be at risk, but Romney's strong stance against amnesty and in favor of border control is likely to hold those states for Republicans and place him in a stronger position in all the other red states; especially if the Dem candidate is Hillary.

Here I disagree. I think any barely red states have to be considered endangered due to Romney's other, more liberal, positions. I think this is the case regardless of who the Dem nominee is. However, as I think there is a good chance of Hillary self-destructing and Richardson jumping in to snatch the nomination, the immigration issue will be hammered on like we've never seen before, and I don't know that Romney will be able to sustain any strength from his position on it. To overcome that, he would need to be much stronger in other areas, which he is not, given his reversal of positions.

On the other hand, Romney has a good chance of taking one or more states among five barely blue states in 2004 (MN, WI, MI, PA, NH). We must not forget that Romney managed to win in ultra-liberal Massachusetts where less than 0.5% of the electorate are members of his religion.

He did it by being liberal in practice. Now, he's turning away from that for the sake of the national run, so there is virtually no chance of him retaining states that lean blue.