I'm Giving Up on Multiple Choice Mitt

Red State ^ | 02/16/2007 | Erick

[Keyes2000mt]

I think I'm done with the campaign of Willard Mitt Romney. I'm tired of it. His campaign and the potential for his nomination has jumped the shark. No Republican candidate for President has ever more deserved the title "Multiple Choice Mitt."

I'm tired of the explanations and I'm tired of the dodges.

First there was abortion. He was for it, then really for it, then really, really for it, then indifferent to it, and now against it. Some of his supporters and people on his campaign have called Sam Brownback pro-choice. At least Sam has never been multiple choice. And when Sam became pro-life, he actually fought the pro-life fight. I'm not aware of Mitt Romney ever passionately fighting the fight for life. He has, at best, been luke warm -- playing it safe, but not actually advocating. And he's played it so safe, that on stem cell research, he's been willing to split the baby with parental consent.

Then there was campaign finance reform. Mitt was for it more than McCain before he was against it more than McCain He's tried to caveat his way out of it, but his caveats have been so nuanced as to be meaningless.

Read on . . .

Let's not forget taxes. Multiple Choice Mitt opposed President Bush's tax cuts and favored a federal gas tax hike as late as 2003.

Oh, there is homosexuality too. Mitt was going to be more gay and more abortion friendly than Ted Kennedy in 1994. Now he's not. At least he's been consistent on gay marriage since he came out in opposition to it in his gubernatorial term.

Finally, there is voting for Paul Tsongas. In 1992, Mitt Romney voted for Tsongas. He explains this now as trying to pick the weakest guy to go up against George H. W. Bush. But, in 1994, Mitt Romney said he did so because "Tsongas was from Massachusetts and because he favored his ideas over those of Bill Clinton."

I'm tired of running into these stories. I'm tired of the hedges. I'm tired of the dodges. And I'm tired of the caveated nuance. So let me put this straight and bluntly. I'm more than happy to support my man Mitt if he is the Republican nominee. But, like Hillary Clinton, he is a political opportunist who I increasingly see as someone without principle, only a weather vane.

Multiple Choice Mitt had me at hello. He lost me on the flip.

[DBrow]

later bump

[MHGinTN]

You're giving up on politicians this early in the too long campaign?

[redgirlinabluestate]

That's interesting.... Jeb Bush is privately talking up the candidacy of Mitt Romney and steering some of his closest advisers to the campaign. Governor Bush said, 'Before you commit, I want you to meet Mitt Romney.

[Calpernia]

>>>>He was for it, then really for it, then really, really for it, then indifferent to it, and now against it.

I think he would be more natural here:
http://www.marklevinfan.com/DNCThemeSong.swf

[magellan]

Cripes I would've voted for Tsongas in the Demonrat primary if he was still in the race when my primary came around. At least he was honest. I ended up voting for Moonbeam Jerry Brown, as he was the only opponent to Clinton left in the race when my primary came around. Anything other than Clinton. Of course I voted for G.H.W. Bush in the general, I planned to all along. Yes, I love pointing out to people I voted against Clinton three times. I know a sociopath when I see one.

Yes, Romney is an idiot for his flip-flopping explanation, but presidential primaries, especially when there is an incumbent running, are a joke for most of the country.

And it is really getting ridiculous we have reached a point where it is not enough to support a particular view on an issue, but one must have always held that view.

Flip flop on abortion? Reagan and G.H.W. Bush both flipped.

Michael Reagan was right. Too many people, for the first time in the Republican party's history, are insisting on a perfect candidate.

[Bob J]

Ouch. That'll leave a mark.

[backbencher]

Here we go dump Mitt Romney, and nominate the most right-wing candidate we can find.

That will get us the government we deserve.

[BlueOneGolf]

Duncan Hunter 2008

[dirtboy]

I'm tired of running into these stories. I'm tired of the hedges. I'm tired of the dodges. And I'm tired of the caveated nuance. So let me put this straight and bluntly. I'm more than happy to support my man Mitt if he is the Republican nominee. But, like Hillary Clinton, he is a political opportunist who I increasingly see as someone without principle, only a weather vane.

As are all the front-runners in both parties. A rather sad statement of where this country is right now.

[dirtboy]

Here we go dump Mitt Romney, and nominate the most right-wing candidate we can find.

As opposed to voting of one of three lying weasels who will tell anyone what they want to hear to gain their vote and not mean any of it?

[Peach]

This is why a lot of people, even a fair number of social conservatives, like Rudy. You may not like his position on 3 social issues, but he doesn't dodge and change his mind every five seconds.

Having said that, I haven't kept up with all of Mitt's changing positions, but if he's doing that, he is really shooting himself in the foot and I think he has/had a good shot at the nomination.

[EternalVigilance]

Michael Reagan was right. Too many people, for the first time in the Republican party's history, are insisting on a perfect candidate.

Sorry, but that's BS. Perfection is not the criteria. But these candidates who have pushed the Dem agenda for the last couple of decades and now want us poor ignorant masses to somehow overlook that, are far from perfect. In fact, they are far closer to perfection for a Democrat than for a mainstream conservative Republican.

[Soul Seeker]

And it is really getting ridiculous we have reached a point where it is not enough to support a particular view on an issue, but one must have always held that view.

Is that what the editorial said?

Infact, it did not. It stated essentially that Mitt has altered his views dependent on the political climate he was operating within. Not merely once. Usually when people convert to a view they do not change their mind 3-4 times. It tends to cast doubt on one's convictions, for good reason.

it also states he has done little on the ground level to suggest this conversion was genuine. Yes, Reagan changed his mind. 20 years before he was elected. And he was in the trenches fighting for it. he didn't change his mind on eve of jumping into the primary race, which Mitt did. I would think in an environment where politicians calculate their positions base upon their projected voters and polls, that we've earned the right to be cynical he believes what he's saying.

41 flipped as well. On eve of running. And I doubt this day you'll convince many he is pro-life. he said it to get elected, then governed as a moderate. Exactly what people fear Mitt is doing. Maybe we'd like to learn from past mistakes. Like when we insisted on vetting the SC nominee rather then taking their word Miers would be a conservative. We've been burned by politicians that say one thing, do another. this has resulted in further scrutiny then we've given before. I don't think that's a bad thing. better to dig up the truth then fall for another focused grouped profile.

[EternalVigilance]

As are all the front-runners in both parties. A rather sad statement of where this country is right now.

I find it interesting that most of the media anointed "frontrunners," at least Clinton, Obama, McCain and Giuliani, have some sort of connection to Soros money.

[samm1148]

"Here we go dump Mitt Romney, and nominate the most right-wing candidate we can find.

That will get us the government we deserve."

You mean lower taxes, less government, more personal freedoms and a border fence? Yikes that would be terrible!

[DBrow]

"but one must have always held that view."

No, I don't think that way. But for someone to change so many things in so short a time is unusual and worth scrutiny.

Here's a guy who banned ugly guns and channeled Sarah Brady saying something like "Massachusetts will be safer without these evil high capacity magazines that are only used to hunt and kill people" then a few years later goes to his first gun show with Wayne Lapierre* and says that he's always supported the Second Amendment, says he owns a gun, says he does not own a gun, and tells some story how he could not shoot rabbits with a bolt action so he switched to the more lethal semiauto .22 to do the job.

Part of an interview he gave in 1994 when running for governor of Massachusetts:
...........................
On whether he supported the civil marriage rights of same-sex couples:

“I line up with Gov. Weld on that, and it’s a state issue as you know — the authorization of marriage on a same-sex basis falls under state jurisdiction. My understanding is that he has looked at the issue and concluded that certain benefits and privileges should be offered to gay couples. But he does not feel at this time that he wishes to extend legalized marriage on a same-sex basis, and I support his position.”


On whether he’d want more studies done on the marriage issue:

“That will occur at the state level. I’ll let the governor in Massachusetts, and the governors of others states, as well, study it, evaluate it, discuss the alternatives with psychologists and social workers and health care specialist and so forth to gather information and consider it in a very reasoned way. I have confidence the governor will take the right action.”
....................................
Now he apparently does not feel that homosexual marriage is a state's rights issue. He fought as hard as he could to stop it, even letting Tom Riley run the State gay marriage case before the Supremes of Massachusetts.

If he had had these conversions a little longer ago and not quite so many I'd feel more comfortable about him. I have not rejected him completely but I am looking at his record critically because of the sudden changes.

*Did he ever go to a gun show in Michigan, Utah, or Massachusetts? Do they even have them in Massachusetts (if they did we'd have film of Kerry shaking hands there I'm sure). Anyone in these three states ever see Romney there? Heck I met lots of politicians at shows in Nevada and California and New Mexico.

[backbencher]

According to the San Diego Union-Tribune, "Hunter was an ally and friend of former Rep. Randy 'Duke' Cunningham, whom Hunter helped get elected in 1990.Cunningham is serving more than eight years in federal prison after pleading guilty to conspiracy and tax evasion and admitting to taking more than $2.4 million in bribes from defense contractors. Hunter has received more than $40,000 in campaign donations from two of the contractors in the Cunningham scandal, Brent Wilkes and Mitchell Wade, and their associates." [San Diego Union Tribune, 10/31/2006]


Maybe, If hunter gave back his "campaign donations", you would feel better about "lying weasels".

[Duke Nukum]

I never understood the appeal of Mitt to conservatives being as he's the former governor of Massachusetts, a state who's name I can barely pronounce, let alone spell.

It's the same state were John F. Kerry and Ted Kennedy are senator from, it seems highly dubious that such a state could produce a conservative Presidential candidate that has also served as its governor.

But when it comes down to it, there don't seem to be many conservative candidates on the field. Certainly none in the spotlight. Rudi isn't a conservative, McManiac isn't a conservative. I think these are the big three in the spot light.

The only thing that's certain is events are cyclical so maybe by this time next year Conservatives will be more in favor again and some of the guys on the outer edge will move into the spotlight.

I think about a year ago I favored Allen, and of course he has since been macaccaed. I still don't know what that word means. Maybe Brownback or Tancrado will be out in front a year from now? Or maybe we'll be so in fear of Hilary that Romney or even McManiac will look good. Who knows?

[DBrow]

Here is a 2002 article that discusses Romney reaching out to Mass homosexuals in 2002. You can see the same tortured logic- he does some things strongly indicating support, then other things showing non-support. He did state in 2002 that he does not support homosexual marriage, but he offered support in many other areas- "But throughout his campaign, Romney has articulated consistent positions on gay rights that his supporters say are worthy of a second look."

.......................

Don't dismiss Romney, gay Republicans say


Laura Kiritsy



Republican candidate Mitt Romney


It's 9:15 a.m. and Republican gubernatorial nominee Mitt Romney is in good spirits. He's just wrapped up a meeting with the Massachusetts Log Cabin Republicans at Mario's restaurant in Boston, where he won his first endorsement from a gay organization.

"We had a very good meeting today," Romney said in an interview with Bay Windows immediately after the gathering.

"I was very pleased to hear that the Log Cabin Republican club has endorsed my candidacy and I came away with some contributions today, so that's a good day."

The endorsement will likely come as no surprise to gay political observers. The state LCR worked with Romney's unsuccessful campaign to unseat U.S. Sen. Ted Kennedy in 1994. Romney won the LCR endorsement primarily based on his support for the federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), a pro-gay piece of legislation that at the time had little Republican support. Soon after Romney entered the race earlier this year, LCR President Chris Ferguson told Bay Windows the group would likely endorse Romney for governor.

According to Mark Goshko, a former LCR president, the group's 15-member board of governors, the body that votes to endorse candidates, made the unanimous decision after meeting with the Romney campaign and holding extensive discussions.

The question gay voters may be asking is why.

To be sure, from a gay standpoint, Romney's campaign got off on the wrong foot when he was perceived as having edged gay-friendly Gov. Jane Swift out of the race. Her handpicked gay running mate, Patrick Guerriero, bowed out soon after, when Romney refused to support his candidacy. At the same time, Romney's wife and son signed a petition in support of the anti-gay "Protection of Marriage" ballot initiative. His campaign responded that they signed the petition "without reading the fine print." Though Romney hadn't signed the petition-in fact, he immediately came out against the initiative-seeds of mistrust were planted.

Additionally, the 45-year-old Belmont resident recently weathered criticism for contributing $1 million dollars to his alma mater-Brigham Young University, an institution that expels students for being gay. And he angered gay activists when he chalked up his opposition to gay marriage and civil unions to being "old fashioned" in a recent debate. Activists also complain that he's been largely absent from the gay community on the campaign trail.

Romney understands gays and lesbians aren't rushing to his camp. Asked how he feels about the level of support he's received from the gay community, he responded, "It's hard for me to measure exactly what that might be in that I know that Republicans tend to have a smaller showing among the gay and lesbian community. The Log Cabin Club is not as large as its Democratic counterparts, but I'm appreciative of the support I have from those who lean towards an independent voice."

But throughout his campaign, Romney has articulated consistent positions on gay rights that his supporters say are worthy of a second look.

"I think he's staked out some ground on a number of issues that by any sort of general standard puts him in a pretty progressive light and it shows that he's thought about it, he's thought about details, he's answering things in a thoughtful way and in a way that he's committed to act," says Goshko.

One of those areas is his support for a set of legal protections for same-sex couples Romney calls domestic-partnership benefits and he's ready to joust with House Speaker Tom Finneran, long a foe of pro-gay legislation, in order to implement them.

"Basically I see the provision of basic civil rights and domestic partnership benefits [as] a campaign against Tom Finneran. I see Tom Finneran and the Democratic leadership as having opposed the application of domestic partnership benefits to gay and lesbian couples and I will support and endorse efforts to provide those domestic partnership benefits to gay and lesbian couples," says Romney.

"The list of those things which I would support is long and is one which I will work together with Mark Goshko and members of the gay and lesbian community, with experts in a wide range of fields to actually address on an item-by-item basis," he adds. Topping that list, for instance, are hospital visitation rights and the right of a surviving domestic partner to assume custody of a deceased partner's biological or adopted child.

While he has shied away from taking a stronger stance on the issue of legal protections for same-sex couples, for instance civil unions, Romney supporters are comfortable with his positions.

"If you ask him the details of what he supports, he articulates civil-union-like benefits," says Guerriero, who has informally consulted with Romney on gay issues over the course of his campaign. "If you go down his list it's pretty much a check-off of the real hot-button concerns for gays and lesbians. I do believe that, and as you know I'm a supporter of gay marriage."

Guerriero firmly supports Romney's candidacy, but concedes Romney didn't help himself with his negative response on whether he supported gay marriages or civil unions during a debate earlier this month.

"[C]all me old fashioned but I don't support gay marriage nor do I support civil union," Romney said. "...if a civil union is a Vermont-style civil union, with all of the associated benefits of marriage, then it's the same thing for me for all intents and purposes and I draw the line there...I do not favor marriage between gays. I think marriage should be preserved for a husband and a wife of different genders."

"It was a very poor answer," Guerriero observes. "It did not reflect the positions that I know Mitt Romney has taken. ...Had it been an ideal situation he would have articulated what he stood for regarding civil rights for gays rather than what he wasn't for, which is gay marriage," says Guerriero, who discussed the statement with Romney after the debate.

LCR hopes to work with Romney on the issue. "I think we'd like to move him along into broader support in the civil unions/marriage area over time," Goshko says. "I don't think he particularly falls short by saying 'I'm hell-bent against this' or 'That's as far as I'm going on that.' I think what we've seen is an open mindedness and so I think what's important is engaging in a continuing dialogue."

Romney also supports extending health insurance benefits to the domestic partners of state employees-legislation that has passed the Senate three times only to die in the House-but only after fixing the state budget. "I would not do that next year," he says, "because I would not be able to explain appropriately why we had cut 50,000 of the poor off of our health system but then we added additional state workers to our health program."

When pressed on whether he'd sign a domestic partnership bill should it pass next year, Romney says, "I haven't seen the specific bill but the answer is yes, I do support domestic-partnership rights being provided to non-traditional couples and I would support that were it brought forward. And contrary to Speaker Finneran and Shannon O'Brien, who he supports... I will advance the domestic-partnership rights as outlined."

Criticism of Romney's support for gay rights has been plentiful but his supporters say some of it, particularly as it relates to his Mormon beliefs, is just plain wrong. "The fact that the Globe would give a page one story to the whole B.Y.U. thing was just preposterous," Goshko says, referencing the story about Romney's donation to the university despite its anti-gay enrollment policy. Goshko notes that a large number of the local political establishment are alumni or supporters of Boston College, a Catholic institution recently named one of the least gay-friendly colleges in the country, yet none of them have been criticized for not taking a public stand against the school. "Total double standard there," he says.

Though his positions on gay rights may not be as strong as those of his Democratic challenger, Romney, Goshko says, is committed to following through on them. Romney also states that as governor he's prepared to sit down with legislators and talk about gay issues.

"What I believe is that as the token Republican in state government, which I will be, but with some powers and a great deal of visibility and with a bully pulpit, my job in order to get anything passed or to make any change on Beacon Hill will be to create two sources of power, if you will," says Romney.

"So that will be an area where I will be able to advance those issues that I think I can create broad public support for and specifically in the area of visitation rights and survivorship rights, I'll call them, ...those kinds of things I think I can generate a great deal of public support for and therefore create pressure for legislators that otherwise might not think in those terms.

"Number two," he continues, "you try and have that same kind of effect on individual legislators-the second branch is going after neutral legislators and trying to convince them. Typically my impression is that some of that is convincing and some of that is trading," he laughs.

"Which is, I'll come to your fundraiser or I'll help you with this project you're working on and I'll take a look at this bill but I want you to take a look at this one. And I will be someone who will be advocating basic civil rights for all of our citizens. And that will be something which will be clear to legislators as well as to the public."