Posted on 01/29/2012 6:35:48 PM PST by Halfmanhalfamazing
Some conservatives are pointing out that both Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney have described themselves as "progressive," and therefore both are not to be trusted. Though both have used that word to describe their approach to politics, watch the videos in question and you will see very different meanings.
In an interview with NECN's Allison King in 2002, Romney used "progressive" to describe himself to Massachusetts voters as someone who was not very Republican.
"I think the old stand-by definitions of who votes for which party have been blown away in this campaign," Romney said. "I think people recognize that I'm not a partisan Republican, that I'm someone who is moderate, that my, my views are progressive and that I'm going to go to work for our senior citizens, for people who've been left behind by urban schools that are not doing the right job, and so they're going to vote for me regardless of the party label."
Romney used "progressive" as a synonym for "left-of-center." He was telling Massachusetts voters that he's a moderate Republican who will fight for seniors and kids. Sounds like a Democrat. Which was the point.
Gingrich used "progressive" in a very different way.
"I've always said I came out of the Theodore Roosevelt-LaFollette progressive tradition of reform," he said. "I always knew that if you're dealing with genuine corruption, people will come after you."
Gingrich was framing himself as a reformer, not a liberal. His message was: I'm here to change Washington, and the Washington establishment is fighting me. Lafollette and TR did champion government activism. But they also championed government reform (Lafollete was instrumental in replacing the "smoke-filled room" with primaries for determining political party nominees). It's important to remember in the context of that interview that Gingrich helped lead the Republicans to power in 1994 by campaigning against Democratic political corruption (remember Dan Rostenkowski?).
So to say that Gingrich and Romney both called themselves progressive is true, but misleading. They meant very different things, as the interviews show. Gingrich was calling himself a reformer; Romney was calling himself a left-of-center Republican.
You can also look directly at Mitt Romney’s Issue positions while governing Massachusetts and measure that against Newt’s positions while Speaker.
The difference is night and day.
Romney is a Progressive in the Democrat meaning of the word.
Newt is a conservative.
the standard move by progressives for 30+ years has been to get a progressive candidate on both sides of the ballot. this insures a progressive gets elected
newt or romney... they have us fighting over 2 progressives, blurring the real issue
conservatives are being pushed out before the general even starts
neither should be president... and neither will beat 0bama if he’s on the ticket
the standard move by progressives for 30+ years has been to get a progressive candidate on both sides of the ballot. this insures a progressive gets elected
newt or romney... they have us fighting over 2 progressives, blurring the real issue
conservatives are being pushed out before the general even starts
neither should be president... and neither will beat 0bama if he’s on the ticket
the standard move by progressives for 30+ years has been to get a progressive candidate on both sides of the ballot. this insures a progressive gets elected
newt or romney... they have us fighting over 2 progressives, blurring the real issue
conservatives are being pushed out before the general even starts
neither should be president... and neither will beat 0bama if he’s on the ticket
oops... network issues. sorry about the triple post
an email I got today:
Romney then vs Romney now
Mitt Romney verses Mitt Romney
Pro-abortion Pro-Life
Pro-Gun Control Pro-Gun
Pro-tax increases Spending Cuts
BIG Government Smaller Government
Denounced Reagan Conservative
Don’t just listen to the fancy new ads, look at the
past. Remember the Bills brought forward by Congress during the Reagan Years and compare it to the words spoken by the Moderate Romey in Massachusetts. The same Romney that said ““I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I’m not trying to return to Reagan-Bush”
Too bad, I would love to return to prosperity and American pride.
Actions speak louder than words.
What is the platform of Mitt Romney? Is Mitt Romney’s 2012 platform truly conservative? And most importantly, can Mitt Romney be trusted to stand by his platform?
Mitt Romney on Abortion:
1994: “Abortion should be safe and legal in this country.”
2002: “Let me make this very clear, I will preserve and protect a woman’s right to choose.”
2011: “I believe people understand that I’m firmly pro-life.”
Mitt Romney on Homosexual Marriage:
1994: “As we seek to establish full equality [for gays], I will provide more effective leadership than my opponent, [Edward Kennedy]”.
2011: “I believe we should have a federal amendment to the Constitution that defines marriage as between a man and a woman.”
Mitt Romney on Homosexuality in the Military:
1994: “[I support] gays and lesbians being able to serve openly and honestly.”
2007: “‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ has worked well... We’re in the middle of a conflict. Now is not the time for a change in that regard, and I don’t have a policy posture as to allowing gays in the military to serve there openly.”
Mitt Romney on Healthcare:
2007: “I’m proud of what we’ve done... If Massachusetts succeeds in implementing it, then that will be a model for the nation.”
2011: “What works in one state may not be the answer for another.”
Mitt Romney on Immigration:
2006: “[I am against] rounding up 11 million people and forcing them at gunpoint from our country.”
2008: “I disagree fundamentally that the 12 million people who come here illegally should be allowed to stay here permanently. I think that is a form of amnesty and that it’s not appropriate.”
Mitt Romney on Campaign Finance Reform:
1994: “I would like to have campaign spending limits.”
2007: “The American people should be free to advocate for their candidates and their positions without burdensome limitations.”
Mitt Romney on Gun control:
2004: “We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them,” he said. “I won’t chip away at them; I believe they protect us and provide for our safety.”
2004: “These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense,” Romney said. “They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.”
2004: Romney signs permanent ban on Semi-Automatics
“In a move that will help keep the streets and neighborhoods of Massachusetts safe, Governor Mitt Romney today signed into law a permanent assault weapons ban...”
2008: “Let me speak very directly and candidly about where I stand. I support the Second Amendment as one of the most basic and fundamental rights of every American. It’s
essential to our functioning as a free society, as are all the liberties enumerated in the Bill of Rights.”
Mitt himself would probably tell you not to pay any attention to the man behind the curtain but we have eyes and ears and can spot an imposter.
No more RINOs, No more moderates. Our children deserve better!
Tax & spend liberal or fiscal conservative?
The Massachusetts state budget was $22.7 billion a year when he took office in January of 2003.
When he left office four years later, it was over $25.7 billion – plus another $2.2 billion in spending that the legislature took “off budget.” (Romney never reminds us of this fact.)
The net effect of budgets proposed and signed into law by Mitt Romney? An additional $5.2 billion in state spending – and a similar increase in new taxes. Every year.
He claims to have done a good job as governor of liberal Massachusetts in light of the fact that it’s a “tough state” for poor “conservatives” like him. He infers his hands were tied by the predominantly Democratic legislature.
But when it comes to tax and spend policies, he’s not only in lockstep with the Democrats. He leads the way.
Each of the four years Romney served as governor, he started budget negotiations by proposing an increase of about $1 billion in new government spending. Before the legislature even named a budget figure.
Romney initiated massive new spending – without any prodding.
The legislature responded with a handful of line item budget increases. Romney agreed to some of them and vetoed others. The media helped him out again by making fanfare of his vetoes and portraying him as tough on spending – after he had already given away the store!
The Romney-Kennedy Alliance
But his grande finale was the worst of all: RomneyCare, Mitt Romney’s version of socialized medicine.
By his own admission, he didn’t plan his socialized medicine scheme until after the 2002 election.
During Romney’s governor campaign, he convinced voters that his Democrat rival would be worse – because she would saddle us with socialist tax-and-spend policies, he said.
But soon after he was elected, Romney started the drumbeat for socialized medicine. Three years later, he signed RomneyCare into law.
Voters of Massachusetts did not vote for RomneyCare. Mitt Romney foisted the granddaddy of Big Government expansions upon them without warning. He championed it from the beginning. Again, without any prodding from his Democrat rivals.
When Romney ran for U.S. Senate in 1994, his campaign popularized the derogatory term “Kennedy country” to describe the devastating effects of Ted Kennedy’s “liberal social programs” on poor neighborhoods in Massachusetts.
Yet Mitt Romney stood proudly with Ted Kennedy while he signed RomneyCare into law.
Ted Kennedy has pushed for socialized medicine for decades. Romney fulfilled his dream. Kennedy lobbied the legislature hard to get Romney’s bill passed. It was a Romney-Kennedy alliance.
Welcome to Massachusetts: Romney-Kennedy country.
Romney’s socialized medicine law mandates everyone who doesn’t have insurance to buy it – or suffer income tax penalties. Both individuals and small businesses face steep fines if they refuse to give up their freedom to make their own health care choices. There’s yet another “off budget” Mitt Romney tax increase.
Romney’s mandate will cost individual taxpayers many thousands of dollars every year in health insurance premiums for unwanted policies – or force them to pay sizable tax penalties.
The total cost of RomneyCare in mandates and new spending? At least several billion dollars every year – to start. It will rise from there, as socialized medicine programs are wont to do.
Romney’s law went into full effect in 2009. It’s harmful effects were not felt until after the 2008 presidential election was over. Romney’s time-release tax increase.
Romney’s Words Versus Romney’s Deeds
Smart moms tell their kids, “Believe none of what you hear and half of what you see.”
That advice saved me a lot of heartache. And it will do the same for anyone who is leaning towards voting for Mitt Romney.
Candidate Romney campaigns for president with the words we’re aching to hear. Words we want to believe. Candidate Romney tells us that he is a:
“fiscal conservative”
“friend of small business”
“tax cutter”
“waste fighter”
“opponent of runaway spending”
“tough leader who vetoes new taxes and needless government spending”
Let’s follow Mom’s advice: ignore candidate Romney’s words. Look at elected Governor Romney’s deeds.
What does he do when he’s elected?
Mitt Romney hits up taxpayers with a variety of new taxes – while pretending he doesn’t.
Mitt Romney jacks up government spending as much as any Big Government Democrat would.
Mitt Romney champions massive Big Government Programs – that made Ted Kennedy proud.
Well, that era's progressives gave us the income tax, the direct election of senators, and opened the door for one of our very worst presidents to assume office. That was Woodrow Wilson, and he continued the progressive era by giving us the Federal Reserve, the League of Nations (later morphed into the United Nations), the Treaty of Versailles (which enabled Hitler to rise), among other really terrible changes to the American nation and the world.
So I'm not in the least bit impressed by Gingrich calling himself a Roosevelt-LaFollette style progressive.
I think we're screwed no matter if Romney or Gingrich gets the nomination.
Those in the Republican field are all state supremacists. The only way they look good is by contrast with the Lovecraftian monstrosities currently residing in the White House.
DING DING DING...
although we keep being told that the circle jerk of these 'primaries' is really a *circular firing squad*, we'll shortly see bambam and the media lackeys sittin on a $billion vs a non candidate that can be shown to have agreed with lots of his progressive, big gov policies...
we were hosed loooong ago...
Anything to make the Constitution inhibited..
The Constitution was written down for ONE purpose..
TO limit Federal Government.. it must be abrogated to increase the federal government further..
Exactly. Newt was a conservative member of the House but he isn't the same today. He even backed much of Obamacare including the individual mandate.
Both Newt and Mitt are opportunists who will be whatever they think they need to be in order to get elected.
I don't like either one. Republicans are shooting themselves in the foot yet again.
Don't forget "Prohibition".
Don't forget "Prohibition".
Whose enactment was opposed by the conservatives of the day. Would that today's self-styled conservatives were as wise about drug prohibition.
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.
