Posted on 12/22/2007 12:18:55 PM PST by Ol' Sparky
YOU'VE SEEN the cover stories. You've heard the jokes. Mitt Romney's flip flops have provided endless fodder for the late night talk show circuit. But just beneath the humorous surface lies the Democratic strategy for defeating a Romney ticket come November, and history shows this strategy works.
American voters don't trust chronic flip floppers. Sure, everyone is free to switch a position here and there, but too many changes of heart and you risk offending the country's sense of integrity and fair play. George Bush's 2004 victory over John Kerry is a great example. My Democratic friends groan when I remind them of this line: "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it." Kerry's ability to convincingly connect with average Americans was undermined by their suspicion that today's press release was tomorrow's fish wrap.
More troubling to me, though, is Mitt Romney's denunciation of key political beliefs he professed during his campaigns for public office in Massachusetts. Flash back to 1994 and 2002, and you'll see a very different candidate. Then, he was a typical Massachusetts Republican -- conservative on fiscal issues, progressive on social issues. He pledged to be more effective than Ted Kennedy on gay rights. He backed the Brady Bill Assault Weapons Ban. He even supported the so-called "morning after" pill. Invoking his trailblazing mother, Romney made an ironclad commitment to Roe v. Wade.
But a funny thing has happened on the way to the White House. Today, Mitt Romney is campaigning on his record as governor; yet he has become unrecognizable to the citizens who voted him into office.
I should know. As a Massachusetts state senator, I was one of Mitt's early supporters in his 1994 contested primary for the United States Senate. As acting governor of Massachusetts in 2002, I ended my own campaign for the Republican nomination to give Romney the best opportunity to beat the Democratic candidate that November.
This bluest of blue states had a long, successful string of GOP governors (since broken with the election of Deval Patrick in 2006). Thanks to two-party government, Massachusetts was finally able to shed its "Taxachusetts" label. And despite an economic downturn and the 2001 terrorist attacks, the GOP leadership had laid a strong foundation for growth and recovery. Mitt Romney looked like a winner committed to the principles that had put Massachusetts back on track.
Once elected governor, however, Romney began his transformation of consciousness. His flip flops on social issues are well documented. But Romney also raised taxes -- more than $700 million per year in increased fees and corporate taxes. A 2003 survey by the National Conference of State Legislatures found that Massachusetts imposed the highest fee hikes in the country.
As his national ambitions grew larger, it seems Massachusetts grew smaller in Romney's rearview mirror. The governor who promised to be the salesman-in-chief for his state's economy instead toured the country using us as the butt of his jokes.
It is no surprise, then, that Massachusetts still continues to struggle to reclaim the jobs it lost during the post-9/11 downturn. A recent report published by MassINC, a nonpartisan think tank, revealed that in recent years Massachusetts ranked last in job creation when compared to its 10 economic competitor states. It is the only one of those states not to recover the jobs it had during the 2001 peak business cycle and only one of six states nationally.
Politics is a definition game. If candidates don't successfully define themselves, others will gladly do it for them. Being defined as a chronic flip flopper will make Mitt Romney particularly vulnerable. John McCain -- the candidate I support -- is not. I have great admiration for John McCain because he sticks to his beliefs, even when they are not politically popular. He is defined by his courage. He is respected for his honesty. We disagree on important social issues, but I know where he stands and why. There is no doubt that the John McCain we see today is the same John McCain we will see as the Republican nominee and as President of the United States.
In a Romney-Clinton match-up, Democrats need only take a page from the George W. Bush playbook: Undermine the voters' sense that Romney can be trusted by highlighting the number of times he's conveniently changed his mind. And don't forget: He will have to do some more flipping if he becomes the party's nominee. Romney would have to tack back toward the middle -- where most American voters comfortably sit -- in order to win. That might just be a flip-flop-flap.
Jane Swift served as actring governor of Massachusetts from 2001 to 2003.
So! And just what candidate is worth a darn. All have baggage and never will see a Regan again. Best we can do is let the candidate that is selected be and totally get behind him. Least we get Hitlery. Too much poison garbage that I see on this site won’t help any.
Romney won the nomination already?
I must have forgotten to fill up my DeLorean to make the trip to next year.
He repudiated Reaganism too in that race.
But alas! I just posted an article where Oven Mitt is criticizing McCain over taxes and for flunking Reagan 101!
Damn I sure wish I had Romney's powers...
What does all this have to do with stopping Huckabee’s welfare to illegals plans? And McCain’s Comprehensive Immigration Reform?
“Americans don’t trust flip-floppers”—then the hildebeast can’t be trusted either.
Are you not a big McQueeg supporter along with Norman Bates?
Are you kidding? I'm a Paultard (makes incoherent noises with death metal playing in background).
And please PING Norman Bates if you mention him.
Yes, this is BS, from a hardly objective source.
A stronger case could be made that Romney could steal perhaps MILLIONS of votes from unhappy and disaffected Democrats, precisely because of his (meaningless) “flip-flops”. Stranger things have happened, like him being elected Governor of this highly Blue, Liberal state. Think about it. They have yet to tap the full implications of this “paradox”.
I don’t think so. Even some deems I know are not thrilled about Hillary, and Obama (liberal and black) is not going to win a national election period. I also wish Fred or Hunter would catch fire but this will not happen and Romney isn’t so bad, plus the dems are scared of him more than anyone.
“You’re carrying water for Hillary with your attacks on President Romney.”
Just check how many anti-Romney articles Ol’ Sparky has been posting recently. Makes me wonder how much he wants Hillary to win?
I agree..her and Mr. Romney are both RINO's...IMO.
She is what she is....And so is Mr. Romney, IMO. Both Mass Repubs...both RINOS.
My post was a reply to a particular post. I think it made perfect sense.....
Personally, I'd choose Fred or Rudy...
Both are consistent and both would fight the jihad.
There.
Snicker. It’s ‘their’.
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.