Many have said that, hey, people can change their views over time, on an issue or even on everything. Sure, that’s not uncommon. But the people of Massachusetts voted for a governor in 2002, Mit Romney, who promised them to be moderate on issues. Now, he’s shifted hard right, and surprise, what’s ahead? The 2008 presidential election. As a Republican, Romney will have a very hard time selling himself to the Christian right if he continues supporting principles he supported in 2002. Stem cell research? Abortion? Gay rights? Contraception? Abstinence? All for liberal positions in 2002. All for conservative positions in 2006. What gives? The Boston Globe looks at Romney’s shift to the right and asks this question: who is Romney and what does he really stand for?
Conservatives should also ask themselves this question as they ponder their candidate for 2008. If Romney believed one thing in 2002, and four years later, believed something different, more to their liking, what will he say during the summer of 2008, as he tries to woo the independent minded voters? Will it be to the liking of conservatives?
Americans should ask themselves why they keep voting for people who compromise their principles, so that when good candidates seek office, they have to compromise also or they won’t get in. Is this really the kind of process we want in selecting righteous and good leaders?
The Globe has a very stong anti-Romney streak, so I take what they say with a grain of salt. (They’re only a few shades away from the Salt Lake Tribune.)
Haven’t you experienced massive changes in the last four years? A lot can happen in that time frame. In that time, I became a lot more moderate and dumped the Constitution Party. If Mitt’s consistent in his statements, I don’t see a contradiction, I see a change of heart. It’s one thing if his message has been varying depending on the audience. What I’m reading is his message has been varied depending on the time frame.
His statements and actions in 2002 were all consistent with each other. Same with his statements and actions in 2005-2006. You can only claim inconsistency and pandering if it’s a different statement every week. If there’s a clear evolution or revolution of thought, it’s a large shift, but hardly inconsistent.
Why is it that John Kerry gets a free pass on changing his positions (and in a much shorter time frame, mind you) but Romney gets grilled? I smell little more than blatant partisanship.
By: Jesse on December 18, 2006
at 8:16 pm
Actually I have not. I’ve been quite consistent in all my views over the last four years, and over the last 15 years. (I have a notebook from high school on which I wrote my political views, and they’ve hardly changed).
Jesse, you’re not being very accurate here. this section shows Romney’s shift on several issues, some of which a smart man could not comprehend why he switched when some of these issues have not shifted much at all in the past four years. Abortion is the key one. In 2002 he said:
Then suddenly four years later he says:
If he wasn’t running for Governor of a very liberal state in 2002, and running for a conservative Republican nomination in 2006, I would not have a problem with him changing his views, but unfortunately the situation seems to indicate Romney changed his views because he would never get the conservative vote if he held the same view he did in 2002.
Are you referring to my criticism of Romney or the Globe’s? Because if you look at my blog, I haven’t supported Kerry at all. Yes, I voted for him in 2004, but then again anyone was better than Bush as president. Donald Duck would have done better.
The state of Massachusetts knows what they have in Kerry, and they don’t care. They thought they had a straight talker in Romney, and now are wondering why the voted for him in 2002. It’s a fair question.
By: Daniel on December 18, 2006
at 9:30 pm
You’re missing the point that a person can go through a lot of personal change in 4 years. Change is sometimes a gradual thing, other times a sudden thing. During that time frame, the Church came out with their stance on a federal marriage amendment, and that could have prompted some sudden change. During that time, Romney obviously met with some professionals concerning stem cell research and it could have affected how he felt on the matter.
It’s not just the Globe that’s showing a double standard. Plenty of other liberal-leaning news sources (including the blogitboro) have been attacking Romney on the same thing. These same sources didn’t give Kerry a whatfor on switching so quickly from voting for the Iraq resolution in 2002 and campaigning for president in 2004. It’s sloppy at best and nasty partisanship at worst.
As for chasing the conservative vote, I think Romney is too smart for that. Social issues may be the litmus test for a variety of crazy people down in Alabama (no disrespect to my home state, of course), but the vast majority of Americans want someone who’s not going to fool around with secretaries *cough*Clinton*cough* or ask for Congressional blank checks *cough*Bush*cough*. Romney has a solid record of turnarounds on fiscal issues that cements him as a excellent leader. I think the kind of criticism being heaped at him right now is the same old “flip-flop” argument we all got sick of in 2004.
The problem with the whole “consistency” argument anyway is that it’s against what good leaders do. If you decide a certain way just for the sake of consistency, you’ll make a lot more bad choices than someone who’s more flexible. For instance, take people who always vote down a tax increase. They may be opposed to taxes, but there comes a time when crucial needs have to be met. Instead of saying “gee, I hate taxes, but we really need more roads”, they resort to some kind of mechanical response. Is that the kind of leader we want? Not I. I want someone who will change as new information becomes available, even if it means they go back and forth a bit.
By: Jesse on December 18, 2006
at 11:02 pm
But that’s exactly what he is doing, Jesse. That’s exactly what he unfortunately has to do to win the Republican nomination. He’ll lose badly in the Republican primaries if he does not veer hard right.
I couldn’t agree more. The problem is that Romney has shifted his views on issues that really haven’t changed all that much in the last four years. Abortion principles haven’t changed. Why did Romney? Did he really not know enough back in 2002 when he made the comments he made?
Apparently I should go run for office. I know far more than most current politicians. Seriously. I know more than the House Intelligence Committee Chair about the differences between Sunnis and Shi’ites.
Now, for a bit of disclosure. I think Romney is a good man. I think he was very successful in running the Salt Lake Olympics. His record as governor is mixed, but positive. He worked with Democrats and fought against the gay marriage court decision. Before this last fall, he looked good enough for me to consider voting for him.
Then he went and did the most stupid thing he ever could have done. He supported Bush’s torture policies. That closed me off to Romney forever, or at least until he recants that support and apologizes. I cannot accept any individual as my leader who supports Bush’s torture policies. No one who I can vote for will receive my vote who supports that. And I will do what I can to ensure Romney does not win Pennsylvania, because of that.
By: Daniel on December 19, 2006
at 1:23 am
To me the most alarming thing about is not his inconsistency—that’s not alarming, just politically stupid and McCain will make sure to get plenty of mileage out of it. That Romney has continued his charted course to the right even after the last election is pretty stupid.
But the most alarming thing about Romney is (with support of the torture policies coming in right behind) the fact that he is volunteering the Mass. state troopers to enforce federal immigration law. I could take the time to go through all the constitutional violations that this implicates, but I’m in the middle of finals. But beyond that, Mass. doesn’t want this, which means that Romney is using the governorship as a pulpit from which to pitch himself to the fanatical anti-immigration (i.e. racist) wing of the GOP. To frustrate democracy by going against the popular will of your state is unbecoming. The only way I’d vote for Romney is—wait, no, I wouldn’t.
By: JKC on December 19, 2006
at 3:43 pm
So you’re also mad at the Mass. judiciary for tossing out a voter referendum banning gay marriage? Just saying. It seems like “the will of the people” is only respected when “the people” agree with you.
And how do you know that Mass. citizens are opposed to using state law enforcement to enforce federal immigration laws? Anything to back that up, or is it wild conjecture?
By: Jesse on December 20, 2006
at 11:19 pm
Since I’m in the middle of finals, I’m not going to look up the sources for you, but according to polls Romney’s move was highly unpopular in Massachusetts (not to mention unneccesary; I mean, come on, how many illegal immigrants are there in Massachussets? Some old IRA terrorists still hanging around, watching the Red Sox?).
But if you can’t find or don’t believe the polls, the fact that the new Governor who is much more open to immigration just won says something about Massachusetts’ attitude toward immigration–it doesn’t jive with Romney’s.
About the voter referendum, no, I don’t care. Questions of policy (i.e. law enforcement, immigration policy) are usually left to the political process. Questions of the substantive rights of individuals (whether homosexuals have a right to marry) are usually left to courts. There’s good reason for this. Politics is better at policy, courts are better at rights. There are also ways for the legislature to pass laws and amendments to correct the courts if they think the courts are wrong, so no, I don’t think it was improper for the court to preserve its own jurisdiction over questions of individual rights. Whether we think the court will make the right decision is another question, but I don’t think there’s any real argument against who gets to make the decision.
But aside from the procedural question, gay marriage is not as big a deal to me. If gays get to marry, they get to marry; if they don’t, they don’t. Either way, they’re living together. It has a symbolic value, I suppose, but I just don’t think the symbol alone is worth the time and effort that Romney and the GOP want to give it.
By: JKC on December 21, 2006
at 4:01 pm