That's one way to look at it...
Posted on 09/23/2007 9:56:21 PM PDT by Doofer
This much is clear about Mitt Romney's stances on the biggest domestic and foreign policy issues facing the nation: He thinks Sen. Hillary Clinton is wrong on health care and Sen. Barack Obama is wrong on Iraq.
Hitting the other team is a staple of Romney's speeches in his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination. But he is sometimes less precise in articulating his own positions, which may be a deliberate effort to leave room to carve out new positions on the issues that will likely shape the general election, analysts say.
"In terms of Iraq and health care, I think what he's trying to do is leave himself enough room to pivot gracefully for the general election," said Dante Scala, an associate professor of political science at the University of New Hampshire. "I think he realizes, if things are the way they are a year from now in Iraq, the Republican candidate has to have some room to maneuver. Otherwise, he knows the game's over."
On health care, Romney has a significant record as governor of Massachusetts, which passed statewide universal health care on his watch. But he rarely goes into much detail about that achievement on the stump and never utters the word "mandate" - the requirement to get insurance that made the Massachusetts plan universal. Instead, he highlights the conservative principles that he says underpin the plan, like cutting government regulation and working within the existing private insurance system.
Last week, he derided Hillary Clinton's new health care plan as "HillaryCare 2.0" and Washington-based "bad medicine" - even as experts said it is essentially a nationalized version of the Massachusetts plan. In a Wall Street Journal op-ed column, Romney argued that one key difference between his own ideas and Clinton's is that he's for letting each state go its own way.
Analysts were unsure whether Romney had left room to run as the health care guru in a general election campaign. "If you count on voters not paying too close attention, then sure," said Wayne Lesperance, an associate professor of political science at New England College. "Here's an opportunity for him to really own health care for Republicans, and he's running away from that."
Last week, Romney's campaign released a 68-page booklet on his positions. Flipping through it, Charlie Arlinghaus, a conservative pundit and former executive director of the New Hampshire Republican Party, was surprised to see nothing on the Massachusetts health care law.
"The two-page section on health care does not talk about what he did in Massachusetts - the introduction, nothing," Arlinghaus said.
While Arlinghaus said touting a health care mandate would be anathema to conservative voters, "I have to say that when he initially proposed that plan, I thought it was a position for a presidential campaign," he said.
On Iraq on the other hand, Romney has no record legislatively and has appeared careful not to say too much during the primary campaign. Unlike some of the senators in the race, he never voted to authorize or fund the war. And unlike one of his Republican rivals, former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, he's stopped short of saying that going to war was the right thing to do.
Asked directly whether he thinks the war in Iraq was a mistake, Romney has declined to answer, unlike other Republican candidates. At a debate at Saint Anselm College in June, he was twice asked if the war was a mistake - and twice refused to say, instead criticizing the question as a "non sequitur" and a "null set."
"It's a hypothetical that I think is an unreasonable hypothetical," Romney said. "And the answer is: We did what we did. We did the right thing based on what we knew at that time. I think we made mistakes following the conduct or the collapse of Saddam's government." Asked last week if Romney thinks the war was a mistake, spokesman Craig Stevens similarly knocked the question. "His point is that hypotheticals aren't relevant. They don't do any good to anyone," he said. "He's not going to second-guess the commander in chief and the leaders in Congress."
Asked if that means Romney will never second-guess that decision - even in the general election - Stevens declined to say.
At this month's debate at the University of New Hampshire, Romney took heat from rival Sen. John McCain for stopping short of calling President Bush's troop "surge" strategy a success, qualifying his praise with the word "apparently." He said he was waiting for Gen. David Petraeus to report to Congress; a week later, after that testimony, Romney's campaign sent out a release headlined "Gov. Romney: Surge Working."
As for his own plans, Romney told the Monitor this month that he aims to reduce American forces in Iraq to the point where there are "very few, if any" troops left, beginning with substantial reductions next year. Romney said he had "an expectation for how long each phase will last," but he said he did not want to publicly share that yet.
But he's been clear about the timeline he opposes. When Obama, an Illinois Democrat, proposed pulling out all combat troops by the end of 2008, Romney struck forcefully.
"I think Barack Obama has disqualified himself for presidential leadership," Romney told the Associated Press. "If we take the kind of left turn represented by Barack Obama and his flee-in-the-face-of-success strategy, we'd be in a very different position as a nation."
In a July interview with the Monitor, Romney declined to close the door on supporting a withdrawal deadline. "I'm not in favor of doing so at this stage," he said. "You maintain a certain degree of flexibility depending on the circumstances that might exist."
>>>At a debate at Saint Anselm College in June, he was twice asked if the war was a mistake - and twice refused to say, instead criticizing the question as a “non sequitur” and a “null set.” <<<
If only our nation thought like this as a whole.
We committed to Iraq. It’s our duty to finish it. It doesn’t matter how wrong the intel was outside of correcting the things that lead to that error. Once you’re at war, you’re at war and better act like it.
Protesting during the lead-up to the war is one thing. Protesting when our men are in harm’s way and have a mission to accomplish is quite another.
You’re one of the few people I have seen take such a negative comment, and try to spin it as a positive.
The correct answer to that question was no, it was not a mistake and give the answers and proof we all know.
We are looking for a leader, not a finger-in-the-wind politician looking for maneuvering room.
You are a funny guy!
SoCon you’ve hit the nail on the head about spinning negatives into positives. I’ve noticed here and at other websites rather creepy responses from the pro-Romney crowd when it comes to negative comments about him, especially about his religion. I wonder if the LDS has assigned monitor/spokesmen for all the top news websites? I wonder if they are planting articles? I wonder if they are double-teaming on the responses?
Well, it makes me wonder anyhoo......so, like, any of you Romney monitor/spokesmen wanna comment??
Why do you folks always want to get bog down in the "should have, would have, could have," this is something the left would contend about, should we not be moving forward to resolved the current situation.
Once the egg is broken the next step is to decide the kind of omelette it will be!
In other words, he’s a wormy weasel. No thanks.
It doesn’t matter how wrong the intel wasThe intel wasn't wrong. The WMDs got moved to Syria.
That's one way to look at it...
Romney is a squish. I am not wasting my time on him.
>>>In other words, he’s a wormy weasel. No thanks.<<<
Dude, a wormy weasel, eh? The commentary around here is like beyond deep, man.
No, I’m one of the people around here who doesn’t just call the left names about the war but addresses the issue from a standpoint of personal responsibility and accountability.
If our nation decides to go to war as a nation, we act like a nation. Once the decision is made to go to war, we’re beyond the point of compromise or turning back.
>>>The correct answer to that question was no, it was not a mistake and give the answers and proof we all know.<<<
No, it’s not. That would be an incredibly dumb argument for a Republican candidate to make.
The point is not to even engage the left in this game. They’re looking for talking points, SoConPubbie. Flatly refuse to give them any. I thought 2006 would be lesson enough.
At this point, arguing about the war is a pointless exercise. If you don’t want the left to make this their own personal Vietnam, don’t give them the chance. Make the issue about winning. Not the merits of the war. The mainstream media would have fits with that kind of argument. Play the game on our terms—not theirs.
I think that would be strikingly obvious, but really, I think when it comes to Romney, a lot of logic flies out the door as we have a rush to criticize the man.
>>>The intel wasn’t wrong. The WMDs got moved to Syria.<<<
I agree with you, most likely. Got proof?
If not, it’s flatly dumb for a Presidential candidate to bring this up.
>>>Well, it makes me wonder anyhoo......so, like, any of you Romney monitor/spokesmen wanna comment?<<<
Sure, I’ll comment.
I have very little patience with those who wish to recreate the 2004 Presidential election in the name of reliving 2006.
Water under the bridge. Just giving the ole anti-war crowd something else to rev up the ole engines and absolutely pointles.
Romney DID answer the question. Actually, I think Romney gave the perfect answer during the June 5th debate (see below).
But CP is right, Romney was correct in attempting to not answer the question directly. We should not be dragged backwards by the DNC. We should NOT give them any sound bites with which to attack us in future TV commercials. We should concentrate on the future.
Any political strategist knows the war is unpopular and so is Bush. The objective is to keep the Clintons out of the WH. The smart and savvy person who wants to live in the WH instead of the Clintons will have to handle this question carefully and not attach themselves too strongly to the decision to go to war or to Bush -- regardless of how the candidate actually feels about it (the brilliant Newt Gingrich has explained this to you all 50 times -- why don't you get it?).
June 5, 2007 debate:
Blitzer: Knowing everything you know right now, was it a mistake for us to invade Iraq?
Romney: I supported the president’s decision based on what we knew at that time.
Transcript from debate
Perfect answer! 75% of Americans agreed with that statement at one time. Maybe they still do. He supported the president's decision without saying anything over the top that they could use against him in a TV commercial. Brilliant. Newt brilliant.
_______________________
The point is to look forward, not backwards. Regardless of why we went to war and how it has been managed, we all (including Romney) wholeheartedly support the troops, the President and the mission. Mitt Romney supports our troops and their mission in Iraq. He supports President Bush's "Troop Surge" plan to stabilize the population in Iraq and bring the conflict to a successful conclusion.
Governor Romney : "In the current conflict, there is only one way to lose, and that is if we as a civilized world decide not to lift a finger to defend ourselves, or our values, and our way of life. I will not be silent, you will not be silent."
Governor Romney: "Today, the nation's attention is focused on Iraq. All Americans want U.S. troops to come home as soon as possible. But walking away now or dividing Iraq up into parts and walking away later would present grave risks to the United States and the world.
Gov. Romney Called The Petraeus Report "Good News For Americans And Iraqis." "Today's testimony from General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker confirms the progress being made by our troops in Iraq. This is good news for Americans and Iraqis. The importance of a successful conclusion to Iraq must be weighed in light of the global threat of violent Jihad and terror. America must continue its commitment to the strategy General Petraeus is executing."
"I think the American people listened with interest to General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker and recognized that we have true American patriots and heroes here...."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.