Posted on 12/26/2007 11:17:21 AM PST by Fred
BOSTON— Republicans are known for closing ranks around a candidate.
But former Gov. Paul Cellucci and Treasurer Joseph Malone and all but one Republican state senator aren’t lined up behind Mitt Romney, the Massachusetts Republican running for president.
Instead, they’re supporting former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani.
In past years, it would be unthinkable that a Massachusetts candidate for president would not coast to victory in the Bay State primary. But seven full weeks out from the Republican primary, a Romney triumph in Massachusetts on Feb. 5 is hardly assured. North of Boston Republicans say Romney must overcome criticism that he left the state GOP worse off than when he became governor, as well as resentment that he used the governor’s office as a launching pad for his presidential ambitions.
Moreover, his evolution as a political conservative leaves him vulnerable to Giuliani, whose positions on abortion rights and gay marriage are more consistent with Bay State values, some local Republicans say. As a candidate, Romney has taken pains to distance himself from the pro-abortion rights and pro-gay rights positions he took in runs for U.S. Senate and governor. Sen. Bruce Tarr, a Gloucester Republican and Giuliani supporter, said he believes the main reason Massachusetts is up for grabs is that Romney is too conservative for Bay State Republicans.
“If you look at Romney’s predecessors (as governor), he doesn’t fit the ideological mold,” Tarr said. Local Romney supporters dismiss chatter Romney could lose his home state.
Essex County Sheriff Frank Cousins, a Newburyport Republican who’s backing Romney, scoffs at Republicans who say Romney as governor was less than good for the state and the state GOP.
“Here’s a guy who said a year before the election, ‘I’m not going to run again.’ He did the right thing,” Cousins said. “He served his full term. Now we’re criticizing him for doing that. It’s not like he left, or ran again, won and went out and ran for office. Look at what happened in 1986 to 1990 when Mike Dukakis did that.”
Cousins predicts Romney will win here.
But Bill Ryan, a Haverhill Republican and former mayor, said Romney can’t count on a home-field advantage. “I don’t think he’ll be a favorite son,” Ryan said. Ryan said most of the Republican activists he knows are working for other candidates, most notably Giuliani. “If Swift, Weld or Cellucci were running, it would be unanimous,” Ryan said. “He doesn’t even have a majority. People are working against him.”
Romney didn’t do enough to strengthen the party, Ryan said. Two years into his term, Romney’s slate of more than 100 handpicked GOP legislative candidates was trounced by Democrats. By the end of Romney’s term, there were fewer Republicans in the Legislature than when he started, and the party was unable to find candidates to run for treasurer or secretary of state.
“It was a disaster,” Ryan said.
It’s a long way from 2002, when Romney returned from overseeing the Salt Lake City Olympics and was seen as the white knight come to rescue the state Republican Party. Acting Gov. Jane Swift, the GOP standard bearer, was widely seen as losing to whomever the Democrats put up.
Now, in what some see as pettiness, Swift recently launched her own attack against Romney, lambasting him in the Manchester Union-Leader.
Nancy Luther, a Topsfield Republican, said many Republicans believe Romney used his single term as governor as a springboard to the presidency.
“I think he came in and did four years and left,” said Luther, who’s backing Giuliani. “Folks feel like we were used, and now we’ve lost the corner office.”
Romney support
Losing Massachusetts would be an embarrassment for Romney, who lives in Belmont, helped found a prominent Boston investment firm, Bain Capital, and served four years as governor.
And the Romney campaign is not taking Massachusetts for granted, campaign spokeswoman Sarah Pompei said. She said Romney has the support of nearly half the Republican state committee members and a majority of elected Statehouse Republicans.
He also has the support of such as local Republicans Reps. Bradford Hill of Ipswich and Bradley Jones Jr. of North Reading and Lawrence Mayor Michael Sullivan. “Gov. Romney has strong support in Massachusetts,” Pompei said.
And while some local Republicans have criticized Romney for not being involved in Kerry Healey’s gubernatorial run last year, Healey very publicly backed Romney. Pompei said Romney will campaign aggressively in Massachusetts, although no appearances have been scheduled so far.
Discontent with Romney is real. Romney left office with a 77 percent approval rating among Republicans. But among all voters, it was just 35 percent, according to Suffolk University pollster David Paleologos. That could be a sign of trouble, since independent voters — the largest bloc in Massachusetts — can vote in the Republican primary.
Paleologos believes Romney will win Massachusetts in a crowded field. But, if by Feb. 5, the Republican race is down to two major candidates, Romney is in trouble. “He’s a known quantity here, so he’ll get what he gets and there’s no room to go up,” Paleologos said. “Other Republicans will grow (in popularity) because they’re unknown.”
To unaligned Republicans, there’s an even more telling problem for Romney. John Racho, an Ipswich Republican, said Romney lacks the deep grass-roots connection to the political establishment that would have prevented the rift being played out in press conferences and newspapers.
“What you’re tapping into is that there isn’t that feeling of loyalty or pressure to be a good soldier,” Racho said. “I get to stay undecided and be like any civilian and let them win me over.” Racho said that again sets Romney apart from other recent Republican governors.
“If Bill Weld were here (running), a lot of Republicans — with all the time he invested in the Republican Party — would feel a closer bond,” Racho said.
I don’t get what the big deal is, Weld, Cellucci, Romney...RINOs all of them...
his evolution as a political conservative leaves him vulnerable to Giuliani, whose positions on abortion rights and gay marriage are more consistent with Bay State values, some local Republicans say.Not surprising, Mass. is more liberal than most, and their republican party is nearly dead because of all the liberal infiltration. Giuliani is a better fit.
Sen. Bruce Tarr, a Gloucester Republican and Giuliani supporter, said he believes the main reason Massachusetts is up for grabs is that Romney is too conservative for Bay State Republicans.You can see how they attack Romney for changing his viewpoint on abortion. They hate that he's pro-life.“If you look at Romney’s predecessors (as governor), he doesn’t fit the ideological mold,” Tarr said.
Ryan said most of the Republican activists he knows are working for other candidates, most notably Giuliani. “If Swift, Weld or Cellucci were running, it would be unanimous,” Ryan said. “He doesn’t even have a majority. People are working against him.”Romney made it much harder to win in Mass. by embracing conservative principles. It's even worse because some conservatives worry about whether his conservatism will last, and others who support other candidates attack him mercilessly for positions he held in the 1990s.
“I think he came in and did four years and left,” said Luther, who’s backing Giuliani. “Folks feel like we were used, and now we’ve lost the corner office.”Some people who couldn't save themselves or their party looked for some white knight, and now they are bitter because they are learning that if they run as liberals, people will vote for democrats. If this guy has his way, Giuliani will be our nominee, and the same thing will happen on a national scale.
“If Bill Weld were here (running), a lot of Republicans — with all the time he invested in the Republican Party — would feel a closer bond,” Racho said.Well, we all know how we'd feel about William Weld running for President.
The more people who support Giuliani and William Weld come out whining about Romney, the better.
Trying to get Republicans elected to the MA House and Senate is like grabbing smoke. This has been the case for years and years. Mitt’s not to blame. The party has been in a moribund state of existence for decades.
If the voters want to change that, they will.
Meanwhile, Gov. Deval Patrick is a lucky man; if Kerry Healy hadn’t been such a pinhead, Mr. Patrick would be doing something else for a living(if you can call what he does for a living a living :)).
Boy, am I ever glad I don’t live in MA anymore: Too much in taxes; too much outrage; too many donuts. Wait, scratch that last one!
You sure nailed it about Massachusetts politics. People from other states have no idea what ANY Republican is up against there. Ronald Reagan would never have been elected as dog catcher there. When Kerry runs for re-election, you’d think that would be an easy pickup for the GOP. Who is running? Does anyone know? Does anyone have a chance of winning?(sound of crickets chirping).
Mitt Romney and William Weld
Romney objected to the characterizations, saying: “I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I’m not trying to return to Reagan-Bush.”
Romney has sought throughout the campaign to portray himself as a “Bill Weld Republican” who is liberal on social issues and conservative on fiscal matters.
Is that man a moron ? Weld was a Clintonista operative who got the ball rolling on killing the MA GOP. Romney merely finished the job he started. Weld, of course, fully endorsed him.
You can make up your own mind on the mental state of the “republicans” quoted in this article. They seem to support Giuliani, they like Weld, and think they had a great GOP before Romney came along. And they seem to fault his change to conservatism for killing their party.
Most of the remaining elected Republicans in MA, of whom could caucus in a phone booth, are largely the reason (now with Romney gone) as to why they cannot grow their numbers despite a grossly incompetent Marxist Governor, and they suffer from the similar malady plaguing other states, and that is the Country-Clubber liberal mindset that only “they” can win. They’re not winning, and they continue to lose more and more when there is nothing to separate themselves from their grossly overrepresented Democrat opposition in their pursuit of leftism. They have little more credibility than Romney, Weld, Cellucci, or Swift.
We’d be better off telling the remaining so-called “leaders” to take a hike (how ludicrously incompetent can you be in a state with no GOP GOTV or grassroots can still get 1/3rd of the vote for Dubya without even trying, but can’t even get above 10-15% of the legislature when they claim to ?), getting some college students and other Conservative volunteers and simply starting from scratch. There is no reason why within a decade we can’t have a solid GOP Conservative voting minority bloc of one-third in the state legislature that can also make runs for statewide office, and build upon that and offer a real choice to the voters that haven’t had any in decades.
Seeing this infighting between those who think Giuliani is better for the party vs. Romney is about as spellbinding as seeing the deckchairs being rearranged on the Titanic after it struck the iceberg. Problem is, the ship has already sunk and they don’t even have the common sense to try to get in the damn lifeboat.
lol....that's pretty funny. Too bad it's also true. Where are the conservatives????????? Why isn't the Republican party putting any on the table anywheres? Why does it constantly undermine conservatives and promote RINOs? I'm sure many wonder about this, including Randy Graf (AZ).
If you insist that Romney is not conservative, we essentially have NO conservatives running for president in New Hampshire.
It’s kind of hard to win hearts and minds when you don’t even offer your base a conservative choice.
Of course, I reject the notion that Romney is not running on a conservative platform, but I was simply noting the quandary for those who feel otherwise.
I’ve written about the situation ad infinitum. In places like MA, Conservatives were essentially excluded from participation, and that goes back for quite some time, and elitist rich liberals from the Brahmin class (whom mostly could care less about those not like them in $$ or those of whom that couldn’t trace their ancestors back to the Mayflower).
If you can believe it, at one point, both parties in MA were Conservative, but that started to change over time (if you’ve heard of the Henry Cabot Lodges, that is a good illustration. Senator HCL, Sr. was a very Conservative Republican, but his grandson, HCL, Jr., who won the other seat a dozen years after his grandfather’s death, was very liberal). At one point, under HCL, Jr., the GOP was further to the left than the Democrats. Many of the old Irish, Italians, Catholics, etc., were actively excluded from the GOP and remained Conservative, and tended to be repulsed by the Yankee liberalism of the Brahmins. Indeed, the premier political contest of the 20th century in MA was in 1952 between HCL, Jr. and JFK. Lodge was the Eastern Establishment liberal RINO and JFK was the Irish Conservative Democrat. Because by then the “ethnics” were outpopulating the Brahmin old-guard, the Democrats quickly moved into the majority party by the time JFK was elected President in 1960.
Rather than attempt to bring more Conservatives into the party, the GOP continued down their arrogant and elitist liberal path and nominated liberal after liberal for offices and they won fewer offices by the year. By the time the Democrats dumped the likes of RINO incumbents Frank Sargent (the Governor) in 1974 for Michael Dukakis and Black Republican Sen. Ed Brooke for Paul Tsongas in 1978, there was no ideological shift at all (if anything, Tsongas was more Conservative than Brooke).
Meanwhile, college students and other activists were overthrowing the old Conservative guard in the Dem party by the late 1960s and early 1970s and transforming it into the mess you see there today of far-left kooks, but they continued to have an ideological battle well into the 1980s. The last big battles there for control between the old guard and the college left was in 1978 and 1982. When Michael Dukakis was beaten for renomination by the Conservative Ed King. The leftists were so angry, they crossed over to support the RINO liberal nominee for Governor that year (and nearly succeeded in getting him elected).
King was the last authentic and successful Conservative Governor of the state (earning the praise of President Reagan, who called him his “favorite Democrat Governor”). However, because of the dying-off of the old guard, Dukakis was able to beat King in the 1982 Dem primary and had virtually no problem regaining his office in the general. It was actually Reagan and King who created the “Massachusetts Miracle” of the ‘80s that led to a resurgence in the state’s floundering economy, and one for which Dukakis took full credit (though he had presided over the economy in the ‘70s when it was a fiasco).
The 1990 election was actually quite similar to the 1978 election. The Democrats nominated an unapologetic Conservative named John Silber and the Republicans had a similar primary battle between a Conservative named Steve Pierce and the liberal RINO William Weld (who had been on the ticket as the Atty General nominee in 1978), with Weld emerging. The leftists then supported Weld over Silber in the ‘90 election, which saw smashing gains all over the place for the GOP. But from that election on, thanks to Weld and crew, nothing but massive erosions to where we are today, a GOP that can caucus in a phone booth, and no longer competitive for any statewide or federal offices.
Of course, you see how hard it is to reason with liberal RINOs on this board that they’re to blame for Republican decline in states like MA, you can see how much harder it is to try to run out those holding onto the reins of power even with a shriveled slice of the pie. These folks should just simply be ruthlessly and unapologetically pushed aside. Their cries of “you’ll make it worse” should be met with derisive laughter in their lying, liberal arrogant faces. The facts of a deceased state and federal party is proof enough that you can’t get worse than dead and buried.
Since I will concede Fred is not campaigning there, this is exactly the case. That ought to be a sobering thought, if you claim to be a Conservative.
"It’s kind of hard to win hearts and minds when you don’t even offer your base a conservative choice."
It's even worse when you have buffoons with no credibility claiming to be when they're not. All a demonstration of lying to achieve power. We've now become exactly what the Democrats are. A sickening thought.
"Of course, I reject the notion that Romney is not running on a conservative platform, but I was simply noting the quandary for those who feel otherwise."
He can run however he wants to. He can run as Hercules or Mary Poppins, but his record of liberal negligence and destruction is his record. But at least he has no more or no less credibility than the other RINOs running. All bad.
Even if I accepted your premise that Romney isn’t at his core a conservative, and only adopted our conservative platform because that was what he thought would get him elected, he is STILL running on and selling a conservative message to the voters.
You can certainly reject him because you don’t trust that he will adopt the policies he is espousing, but I think it is clear that what he is SELLING is our conservative philosophy, at least for the most part.
I find little to disagree with in his statements on issues of importance to me. Pro-life, pro-marriage, against civil unions, for ending DC’s gun ban, pro-2nd-amendment for protection of our liberties. Pro-tax-cuts, for cutting spending, for strengthening families, opposed to activist judges, for free-market solutions, for free trade, against islamofacism. For use of all means possible to defend our country from terrorists, including coercive interrogation tactics. Pushing the repeal of Campaign Finance Reform. Against amnesty, for tight border security, for employer penalties.
I’m hard-pressed to name a specific position on any major issue that is NOT the more conservative approach to solving a problem.
Again, you can always claim he’s just SAYING what I want to hear — but he IS saying what I want to hear, unlike most of the other candidates, who are proposing things I don’t agree with at all.
I'm not the one who hatched that theory.
"and only adopted our conservative platform because that was what he thought would get him elected, he is STILL running on and selling a conservative message to the voters."
A carrot dangled in front of the horse that it will never get to eat. How many times must it be said that he cannot be trusted and that nothing he promises can be taken as honest or set in stone before it registers with you and his supporters ? I've seen people with more Conservative credentials trying this same tack, and turned out to be liars and frauds, and this guy doesn't even have the credentials to start out with. I mean, seriously, if you won't listen to people who were former supporters, who BELIEVED in him and tried to take him at his word, and are warning you that he is a con-man in pursuit of power and power only for himself, what more can I tell you ?
"You can certainly reject him because you don’t trust that he will adopt the policies he is espousing, but I think it is clear that what he is SELLING is our conservative philosophy, at least for the most part."
He'll peddle whatever is needed to win. He isn't an honest man, and has no intention of keeping his word. If he were a Democrat and behaved in the same exact way as an elected official, would you consider trusting him for all of 5 seconds ? Of course not. It's why we have to remain vigilant in our own party to keep people from the opposition from invading and dividing us. There aren't ANY similar cases on the Democrat side, but if they've gotten so good with getting in and doing a number on us, maybe it's time we did so with them.
"Again, you can always claim he’s just SAYING what I want to hear — but he IS saying what I want to hear, unlike most of the other candidates, who are proposing things I don’t agree with at all."
And what is Fred saying that you don't agree with ?
I already told one of those RINO Liberals to go to the DNC and that their guy would be more loved at the DNC.
Fundraiser call ?
no.... someone here on FR
Hey, y'know, this is exactly where the Democrats were at in 1992. They went with the slickest, "best looking" rodent of the bunch. You see what we ended up with as a nation. Can you imagine the damage a RINO of similar stature could inflict on our party as President with similar results that Clinton did to his in 1994 in 2010 ? Lose more than 50 seats in the House, 10 in the Senate, and we'd be in 1/3rdsville land, completely and utterly without any power to stop the liberal RINOrodent agenda. Absolutely terrifying to say the least.
Uh, quite the contrary....
This is an interesting article. It certainly paints the Massachusetts GOP as a pack of pathetic mice, that's for sure. I thought the California GOP was bad, grabbing its ankles and squealing that they could be just as liberal as the Democrats. But apparently the Massachusetts GOP is at least as sick as the GOP in California and New Jersey. Whew... I'm choking back bile here.
Ah, OK. Yeah, I routinely tell them that. Joe Isuzu Romney was the best thing that had happened to the MA rodents in years. Just imagine the gift he’d be to the national party. Pelosi and Reid wouldn’t ever stop smiling, and they’d never have to worry about relinquishing their roles as Speaker and Majority Leader for the rest of their political lives.
I was thinking about those fundraising calls, unless you’re talking to local folks with local candidacies, you have to be careful. I’ve heard folks say they’ve told those callers off, and you have to realize most of those folks are just paid employees, not true-believing volunteers, no different than if you went to, say, a fast food joint. Telling them off would be the equivalent of yelling at a janitor how the President of his company sucks canal water. He might agree, but it’s just a job and there’s nothing he can do about it, y’know ?
It’s only fun to do it with local races. One guy called me up for a recent Mayoral election and I stopped him and said, “I don’t support Socialists.” You knew he was a true believer by his stuttering and stammering on the other end of the line, which I listened to just for the sheer pleasure of it before I hung up. ;-)
Wow! Great post. I had wondered why a political toilet like Massachusetts would elect Republican governors. Turns out most of the Republican governors were only elected because they were more liberal than their rat opponents.
I’ve reviewed just about every state GOP in the United States. The MA GOP is unrivaled for sheer incompetence and irrelevence. It literally has no influence and no power. It’s almost the equivalent of the GOP in a Deep South state pre-1960.
In fact, it is only a few election cycles away from being the first non-Southern state since the party first ran candidates in 1854-56 to be without any Republicans in one legislative body or the other. As it is now, in their Senate, they are outnumbered 5-35 (12.5%-87.5%). Going into the 1992 elections, they held 40% of the body, 16-24. To go from contesting majority control to losing 2/3rds of its members in just over a decade is a sign of colossally incompetent or deliberately destructive leadership. In MA, it was blessed with having both.
The state should serve as a warning what liberals and trojan horse Democrats inflitrating the party can do to a state that once was overwhelmingly Republican.
Thank you. Yes, that’s unfortunately true. I was thinking back to the early ‘80s and what you called a Reagan Republican outside of MA was an Ed King Democrat inside MA. King felt some sympathy for the shrinking GOP (he would later switch parties, btw, although the party stupidly, surprise surprise, failed to utilize him. They could’ve run him for Governor again) and even tried to protect some of their remaining members (most notably the 16-year incumbent liberal RINO Margaret Heckler in 1982 against freshman Barney Frank when they had to be redistricted in together). King was happy to try to keep the slightly more sane Heckler and dump the creepy leftist Frank, but Frank surprised them both and held his seat (the first time a Republican wouldn’t be occupying the bulk of that district since the 19th century), and beat her by an embarrassingly wide 60-40%. He’s never had a close race since.
Matthew 7:
15 "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.This admonishment clearly shows that Jesus wants His people to discern someone's words from their person as well as to look at the results of that person's past. Someone can say anything they want, but is it consistent with who they "are" and have been as a person? Does it ring true as coming from within themselves? Or, is it a contradiction of their past, or how they have lived, or what they have done in and with their lives?21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23 Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'
As trees do not bear fruit until mature, nor can leaders become good leaders until they are also mature, not necessarily in age, but in maturity AND their ideologies, for it is from the leader's IDEOLOGIES and BELIEFS that we are looking for THEIR fruit. What has their personal ideologies and beliefs produced, OVER TIME, upon which we are to discern the true intent of their current words and claims? Is it consistent? Is it many? Is it for purposes of expediency? Is there room for doubt as to motivations? If so, why? What may have been ulterior motives, then?
Leadership must be held to high standards and, obviously, Christ would have the "people" truly think hard and long about a potential leader's past with present claims.
Given these admonishments and cautions by Christ Himself concerning the obvious capacity for humans to lie and misrepresent themselves to potential followers, only a fool would dismiss Christ's warnings.
I submit that Romney's past is inconsistent with who he represents himself to be today and what he promises, and says, he will do....tomorrow, next month, or even for the next 4 to 8 years. That is too long a time period for me to throw caution to the wind and ignore the wise words of my Lord.
Leni
Now we have biblical proof of warnings about RINOs. ;-)
lol...yes, that we do. : )
Morning!
Morning. Er, well, I’ll be back in the evening. See you, uh, type you, later. ;-)
lol...did you have coffee yet. : )
I’m in and out of here myself today....I’m planning on taking a drive (out into the snow)...and then getting together tonight out with some friends.
*see* you later; stay safe.
I support Fred Thompson. I like Mitt’s position on CFR better than what Fred hasn’t said yet, and I think abortion should be banned at a national level because we have a federal constitutional responsibility to defend the people of the united states, and I consider the unborn as “people” — and would push an amendment to make that clear.
But generally, I like what Fred is proposing. He doesn’t have any “liberal” ideas other than the CFR which he has made some comments about not fully supporting anymore but has NOT said he would push to repeal it.
I’d probably be pushing Fred Thompson if I thought he could win the election. Right now he hasn’t shown me he can win, instead he’s lost a good deal of the support he had before he entered, he has pissed off a good number of the evangelical conservative community who have run to Huckabee (ugh), and has not caught fire with the general population as I had hoped.
He has NOT shown himself to be a good salesperson for our conservative values, even though he HOLDS those values. Thomas Sowell would be a better presidential candidate for that purpose right now, and yes, I think our presidential candidate has to SELL CONSERVATISM because right now the population isn’t buying it, having been TOLD the republicans governed as conservatives and seen that in fact they governed like liberals.
Right now people don’t identify with the republican party, OR with being “conservative”, because they no longer know what “conservative” means or believe it holds the key to solving problems.
I thought Fred Thompson, with his folksy charm, his acting and speaking ability, his deep voice, his height, and his popularity, could sell conservatism the way Ronald Reagan did. But so far, he has not.
In fact, Mitt Romney is a much better salesperson for our conservative values. He explains them better and more convincingly, he is easy to listen to, he has charisma and charm. He is more like Reagan in his presentation than Fred Thompson is.
Of course, with some people confusing the general population by saying Mitt isn’t conservative, which most people think means what he is saying isn’t conservative (when it is) which makes them think even more they have no idea what it means to be conservative, the people who might like conservatism are running to Huckabee, who isn’t pushing a conservative message.
A majority of the country is not conservative.
If you want to elect a conservative, he better be able to sell the conservative message. Reagan could sell conservatism, and so can Romney.
Right now, Fred Thompson is NOT SELLING conservatism to the general population. He’s not convincing people that conservatism works, or that they should embrace it. He’s not explaining in a way that people will listen to why they should trust that conservative values will fix this country.
He BELIEVES all that, and he is SAYING all that, he’s just not educating people so they believe it.
Politics is about selling your message to a majority of voters. True believers don’t have to be sold, they are in the market, but they make up a minority of the votes. There is a large mushy middle waiting to be told what to believe, and that requires salesmanship.
I am aware of Romney’s record, and do not agree with your opinion that he is not being sincere or that he will change. A lot of smart, strong conservatives agree with me, and have put their endorsements on Romney as the man to best lead the nation in a conservative manner.
He has shown himself to be a man of honor, he has lived as he said he would. Part of determining if a person who changes their view can be trusted is seeing if they were trustworthy with their previous view, and Romney has been.
In fact, that has hurt him among those who wish he had a better record of in a few areas, because he kept a promise rather than doing what would have helped him win the Presidency.
Ottumwa Courier, Circulation 14,200.
The paper I write for, which is decidedly NOT a “leading newspaper” in my state, has a circulation much larger than that.
The political past of Romney's that I have seen and read about do not comport with the Romney he wishes us to view within him in the future....unless I throw out all of his past with the exception of the past two years. That just doesn't square with my idea of discerning his, or any body else's fruit.
The only MA Republicans who support rootie are those who have no idea what rootie is all about.
Leni
You heard about the the young Iowa farm hand talking to his friend at the tractor repair shop.
"I hear your getting married," said the friend.
"Yep", said the farm hand.
"But your girlfriend is sleeping with every guy in town."
"Well," replied the farm hand, scratching his head, "No nevermind. Ottumwa ain't such a big town, ya know."
Leni
IN 1994, he ran for Senate. Of the positions he espoused in that election, most were conservative positions. He was liberal on a couple of issues.
Welfare reform, taxes, security, government spending — he was conservative on those issues.
So unless you were a liberal on all but a couple of issues, you are wrong that you have to ignore Romney’s past.
Actually, he didn’t say “leading newspaper”, he said “an important newspaper”.
Ignore Romney’s past?
I’ve been reading all about it. It’s not conservative, and I read his own words where he himself has admitted it to not being consistently conservative, he stating he’s distanced himself from Reagan, etc., etc.
You said “unless I throw out all of his past with the exception of the past two years”.
I’m pointing out that you only have to throw out “all of his past” if you were in fact liberal on all the issues that he was conservative on in 1994.
Your statement suggests he WAS Ted Kennedy before 2005. That is patently false. When he ran for Senate in 1994, he was conservative on a host of issues, and liberal on a few issues.
And frankly, even those “liberal” issues are somewhat in dispute, as the folks a powerline pointed out last december when they discussed his views on homosexuality.
Hands up for manmade global warming!
Embryonic stem cell research!
Benefits for same-sex couples!
Special civil rights protections for homosexuals!
Solve international conflict through dialogue and model foreign policy on Hezbollah's charity work!
Ban "assault weapons"! After all, the 2nd Amendment is just about hunting!
Path to citizenship for illegals! Don't try to pin me down on what I mean by 'amnesty'.
Am I missing anything? I'm sure I am. Plus there's the whole history of petty lying.
Let's go down the issues.
Global Warming
Romney isn't even a newbie to question global warming. See Romney hedges on global warming, which doesn't mean what you think. It's from 2004, and says:
As he introduced a new state policy to combat global warming, Governor Mitt Romney had a surprise for the environmentalists gathered along the Charles River Esplanade yesterday: Personally, he's not sure global warming is happening.Here's a lefty's take on Romney and global warming.:During a news conference at which he formally announced the Massachusetts Climate Protection Plan, Romney said he decided not to take sides in the debate about "is there global warming or is there not, and what's causing it."
The other was a short news item in which Romney complained that “some in the Republican Party are embracing the radical environmental ideas of the liberal left,” and protested that “Kyoto-style sweeping mandates, imposed unilaterally in the United States, would kill jobs, depress growth and shift manufacturing to the dirtiest developing nations. Republicans should never abandon pro-growth conservative principles in an effort to embrace the ideas of Al Gore.”His web site says nothing about wanting to combat global warming. You can interpret a hand-wave anyway you want, but Romney's not a liberal on this issue.
Embryonic Stem Cell Research
Mitt Romney opposes federal funding for Embryonic Stem Cell Research. He supports a BAN on the use of cloned embryos, but would not ban the use of all embryos in privately-funded research.
Embryonic stem cell research is not, unfortunately, outside of the realm of conservative thought. Even a good number of pro-life conservatives don't oppose all embryonic research. We DO all stand united in opposition to federal funds PAYING for the research. Mitt Romney is with us on that -- and by the way, that puts him to the right of a good number of the republicans in the house and senate, as Bush barely sustained his veto.
Even Fred Thompson is not proposing a ban on all embryonic stem cell research. He "opposes" it, but has not advanced a plan to ban it in his run for President.
I don't think we will have to ban it, as the new promise in other stem cell research will make embryonic stem cell research a moot point.
Benefits for Same-sex couples
Mitt Romney opposes both same-sex marriage, AND civil unions. He supports DOMA and the Marriage amendment. As reported by ABC News, "Governor Romney would uphold current law that does not make same-sex couples eligible for federal spousal benefits," Romney spokesman Kevin Madden told ABC News."
So that's three cases where Romney specifically OPPOSES benefits for same-sex couples. However, Mass. government does provide benefits to same-sex couples. However, that itself can't be a "liberal" thing, because Fred Thompson supports allowing states to give benefits to same-sex couples: "Thompson's campaign has said the candidate would let states decide whether to sanction civil unions.".
So Mitt Romney opposes civil unions, while Thompson supports letting states adopt civil unions (I believe he is personally opposed to them, but supports the right to choose).
Special Civil Rights Protections for homosexuals
As the guys at Powerline Blog say:
In general, though, [Romney's] attitude toward homosexuals sounds like it is in tune with what I described as the majority conservative view.Meanwhile, I can find nothing on his web site, or in any quotes found on google, which would remotely suggest that Romney is running on a platform that includes ANY "special protections" for homosexuals. It is NOT something he is supporting.
Solve international conflict through dialogue and model foreign policy on Hezbollah's charity work!
The conservative approach to solving conflict is resolve the conflict in our favor in a way that is the least radical. War is the MOST radical way to resolve conflict, talking is a MUCH BETTER WAY to resolve conflict. If you think "conservative" means "blowing things up" , you are simply wrong. Talking is good -- giving in to demands is bad. Romney has NOT called for appeasement, he is for acheiving our goals through negotiations backed by the real threat of action if necessary.
We invaded Iraq, but got Libya to give up it's weapons through DIALOGUE. A WIN for conservatism.
And I wouldn't scoff at how Hesbollah gets support through its charity work. The Marshall plan gained us support through the same kind of charity work, showing that while we had might and would use it, we also had generosity. Be our enemy, get crushed. Be our friend, we all come out ahead.
If you want to govern by sound-bites, saying "hezbollah's charity work I guess is a great clip. If you actually want to acheive our goals in the world, you have to get out of the world of sound bites and look to what actually works. Because like it or not, Hezbollah has won the hearts and minds of the people doing what they do, something Israel acknowledges as a problem. Mitt wants to learn from the enemy and steal his tactics to use against him. That is a strongly conservative principle -- take what works and use it to increase the security of the country.
Note that our policy in Iraq includes rebuilding the infrastructure, setting up hospitals, opening schools, getting the water and electricity to work. All of that is EXACTLY what Romney was talking about in regards to what Hezbollah does -- and it's exactly what we are doing to win over the Iraqi people.
I can't imagine what you find "un-conservative" about that.
But I haven't discussed what Romney's REAL position is on this, only my take on your distortion and trivialization of his position.
Since you try to insinuate that Romney's ability to see a tactic our enemy uses as something we could employ to suggest he is soft on terror, here's NRO Corner report about Romney's position on Hezbollah:
Governor Romney believes that bloodthirsty terrorist organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas have smothered the progress of the people and nations where they have built their networks, Lebanon serving as an example. These terror organizations cannot and should not be allowed to gain an advantage with the citizenry in Muslim nations just because they mask their terror agenda with an offering of some vital services. America can make great progress and provide more stability by creating partnerships with moderate Muslim governments to perfect the institutions of democracy and showcase the wonders and benefits of American democracy, such as our healthcare technology, educational institutions and free market commerce.A thoroughly conservative position to take."By working with moderate Muslims to break down and defeat terror organizations like Hezbollah militarily, we can then turn to a new 'Marshall Plan' approach that strengthens the foundations of freedom and prosperity in burgeoning Middle East democracies."
Let's take a break, while I note a contrast here. Your attempt to smear Romney as a current liberal employed a series of sound-bites which provided NO real information and were designed to obfuscate the issues and trivialize the complexities of our world. My answers are by necesity involved and complicated, because real answers are not 4-word sentences.
It's time we got back to this kind of real discussion, and away from the childish sound-bite gotcha games.
Back to your list.
Ban "assault weapons"! After all, the 2nd Amendment is just about hunting!
Another inaccurate statement about Romney's position. From Romney Issues -- American Culture:
Strongly Support An Individual’s Right To Keep And Bear Arms Under The Second Amendment. Governor Romney believes in safe and responsible gun ownership. He recognizes there are people in this country who want to remove all guns in our society and he thinks they're wrong. We need to distinguish between law abiding gun owners and criminals who use guns.Also, check out This Video from a Romney event. The person who posted it misrepresents the video, and in it Romney says that the intent of the founders for the 2nd amendment was to allow for the individual citizens of america to own weapons for their PERSONAL PROTECTION, Hunting, and for any other legitimate purposes.
...
Romney has said repeatedly that the 2nd amendment is for everybody, not just for hunters. Your claim that he says it is "just for hunting" is false.
For example, again from Romney -- American Culture and Values:
GOVERNOR ROMNEY: "I believe the Second Amendment is about more than just self-defense or sport; it's about the basic freedom of lawful citizens to live their lives – to engage in the normal pursuits of society without the interference of the heavy hand of government."It's clear Romney understands and articulates the conservative position that the right to bear arms is essential to our freedom to live our lives without government interference. Nothing liberal about that at all.
In commenting on the DC Gun Ban, which Romney opposes, Romney said "It is my hope that the Supreme Court will reaffirm the individual right to keep and bear arms as enshrined in the Bill of Rights and protect law abiding gun owners everywhere. To further guard this fundamental liberty, as President, I will take care to appoint judges who will not legislate from the bench but will instead strictly interpret the Constitution."
As to banning assault weapons, he isn't perfect on that, because he supports banning a few weapons I wouldn't ban, but banning certain weapons has been something conservatives have supported -- the only question is where to draw that line. Bush was largely conservative on the 2nd amendment, even though he said he would support re-signing the AWB.
Path to citizenship for illegals! Don't try to pin me down on what I mean by 'amnesty'.
Romney's position is conservative enough to earn the endorsements of Tom Tancredo, whose one issue was illegal immigration, and also Maricopa (AZ) County Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Further, his ACTIONS on illegal immigration while Governor earned him a rating of GOOD, compared to Fred Thompson's raiting of FAIR for his actions.
And on most of the specific issues regarding illegal immigration, NumbersUSA ranks Romney as EXCELLENT or GOOD, and actually gives him more EXCELLENT ratings than they give to Fred Thompson.
Here is Romney's statement on Illegal Immigration: "The number of illegal immigrants in the U.S. has exploded in the last decade from 3 million to over 12 million. We must secure the border, implement an enforceable employer verification system, punish sanctuary cities and reject amnesty if we are to restore Americans’ faith in the rule of law."
All of those are CONSERVATIVE principles. Romney is running as a strong conservative on illegal immigration, your sound-bit missive notwithstanding.
Let's see what you missed.
National Security
"We must strengthen our military by increasing the size of our military by 100,000 troops and dedicating at least four percent of our gross domestic product to defense. We must transform our domestic civilian international efforts to meet a new generation of global challenges and ensure that our intelligence and law enforcement efforts are able to address threats before they reach out shores."That's a strong conservative platform.
Tax Cuts
"America faces economic challenges at home and abroad. We must improve America’s global competitiveness and unleash the American economy by rolling back tax rates across the board, eliminating taxes on middle class savings, making the Bush tax cuts permanent, lowering the corporate tax rate, making health care expenses tax deductible and eliminating the death tax once and for all."Again, a wonderfully conservative message of tax cuts.
Of course, I could list his conservative positions on energy independence, free trade, out-of-control government spending, appointing conservative justices, and his call to repeal the liberalMcCain/Feingold(Thompson) Campaign Finance Reform measure.
Anyway, across the board, Romney's platform is a solid conservative platform, with at most a few glitches here and there like support for a limited Assault Weapons ban and not pushing to ban all embryonic stem cell research.
I can't argue with you that at one time he had more liberal views on a few of these issues, but he is now running on a conservative platform, not a "liberal platform on many issues" as you mistakenly claimed.
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.