The Real Mitt Romney
By Liz A Mair Posted in User Blogs — Comments (12) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
During the 1992 Vice Presidential debate, Admiral James Stockdale asked a somewhat existentialist question: "Who am I? Why am I here?"
Mitt Romney seems to have answered half of that question ("I'm here to run for President"). But he's failed to give proper attention to answering the first part, leading to many within the party feeling uncertain as to whether he is a liberal who belongs in the Blue Dog Democrat camp, a plain vanilla moderate, or a conservative. And the more you delve into his record, the less clear the answer to the question of who Mitt Romney really is, becomes.
Up until last year, I hadn't heard much about Mitt Romney. The main things I knew were that he featured on Human Events' list of Top 10 RINOs, together with characters like Lincoln Chafee--who www.issues2000.org actually categorizes as a liberal--and that he was the preferred choice for the presidency of a gay friend who is very active in working to entrench gay rights within our system of civil rights, who is politically well-connected in New England (including in Massachusetts Republican circles) and who cited Romney's support--on the record and off-- for civil unions as a big plus in his view.
Let me be clear, I don't take issue with Romney's apparently favorable stance on civil unions, as characterized by my friend. I have no issue with gay couples "partnering"--ultimately, it is a private arrangement between them and I would no more advocate state interference in a private contract of that nature than I would in a share purchase agreement where there was no evidence of duress having induced the contract.
But I did think his was a problematic position for a possible Republican presidential contender from an overtly liberal state to be taking, unless his polling showed a market for a "liberal Republican" in addition to mainstream conservatives like McCain or George Allen at the polls. And frankly, even if Romney had such data, my view was that it had to be faulty--after all, evangelical Christians vote in overwhelmingly large numbers in primaries, and last time I checked, the Christian Coalition, the Family Research Council and every other religious right grouping was actively opposing gay marriage and civil unions--and seeking to entrench that opposition in the US Constitution.
So, I have been surprised to learn over the past few days from fellow Redstate bloggers that Romney is viewed as a conservative. How can it be that the man I described above has become the darling not just of moderates (which he may be--just) but of conservatives, with whom he surely disagrees on many core issues?
In short, it's because conservatives haven't been doing their homework.
Anyone who knows where to look to figure out where a politician stands within the Republican party knows that a good starting point if you want to get a sense of who affiliates themselves with the broad center of the party--rather than its conservative wing--is to check out whether they are a member of The Republican Main Street Partnership. And lo and behold, Romney is. So we know, as a starting point, that in addition to holding views that many in the party would regard as more at home within the Democratic party (e.g., as a Blue Dog Democrat), Romney is a signed up moderate, too.
But whereas with figures like McCain (also a Main Street member), membership in this organization represents the furthest left that they will go, for Romney, this looks like the only association-based evidence of him being anything further to the right than a Blue Dog Democrat.
So he is tough on budget issues--this does not mark him out as any more conservative than McCain, who is commonly decried as a moderate, and therefore politically unacceptable to the conservative base. Yet unlike McCain, Romney is far from solid on other issues that matter to conservatives.
Some bloggers on Redstate have alluded to Romney's recent conversion to a pro-life viewpoint. That may be a fair point to make insofar as Romney's personal views are concerned, but if one actually looks at his statements on the issue, it is tricky at best to determine what his views really mean for public policy in this area.
Consider for a moment the statement Romney made in 2005--that he considered himself a "pro-life governor" who wished "the laws of our nation could reflect that view." Now, what does that statement actually mean? Romney's record as Massachusetts governor certainly does not show him to be pro-life in the conventional meaning of the term--in fact, he has said that even if Roe v Wade were overturned, he would not seek to outlaw abortion in Massachusetts, so he must be talking purely personal views here. And presuming that to be so, then that puts him squarely within Harry Reid's realm--a personal pro-lifer with no overarching public policy commitment.
What is clearer is that the second half of Romney's statement merely expresses a wish--not an intention, not a Constitutional view, not anything that is a solid enough base on which real conservatives who care about this issue can base their support. In fact, even though the above statement was made in 2005, Human Events still considered Romney so pro-abortion that his comment that "I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country" was cited as reason no. 1 for his inclusion as RINO number 8 on their list.
But it's not just conservative commentators who are confused about where Romney stands, and who disbelieve his commitment to pro-life principles. In a 2005 article in the Boston Globe, writer Joan Vennochi posited that: "when Romney wanted to be governor, he was willing to say whatever he deemed necessary to win office. Now that he wants to be a GOP presidential or vice presidential contender, he will say whatever he deems necessary to achieve that goal. Voters, beware. The subject matter in this instance may be abortion. But the issue is not whether Romney is conservative enough, it is whether he is honest enough."
I'm not comfortable with saying I think Romney is a liar, or downright dishonest. But he is playing a risky political game here, and I think it will backfire. I won't be voting for him unless it is quite literally a choice between him and Hillary--and the reason why is I genuinely do not know where he stands on any issue except handling the budget with enough certainty to feel any confidence in the agenda for which I would be voting.
In the eyes of many, Romney's alleged dishonesty, as well as his alleged slickness in changing his position on key issues remind them of another Governor who sought the presidency, while running on a platform to balance the budget, eliminate the deficit, and finish with a surplus: Bill Clinton.
And what do you know? He's going to veto the $295 "fee" that the legislature imposed.
It seems like he is the real deal.
How can you say that McCain and Allen are "mainstream conservatives" while eluding that Romney is a liberal?
If Romney is going to have a hard time selling his conservative credentials then Allen and (definitely!) McCain will have the same problem.
To me they are on the moderate side of the conservative spectrum, but conservative nonetheless. I like to call it realistically conservative.
If the race comes down to these three then they would have to focus on something other than "who is most conservative".
Also, you cheapened your analysis by basically calling Gov. Romney a liar. By quoting other people and using terms like "alleged dishonesty" you are still conducting an ad homen attack.
It's hard to find a politician who hasn't changed their position (What's Sen. Allen's position on stem cell anyway?). Those who don't change usually make very poor presidents.
Please, let's raise the debate so we can get past honest differences, so we can put forth the best candidate.
First, you attack Allen and now Romney. I'm starting to wonder. I mean, maybe you're just not entirely happy with any of the Big 3 right now, but hey who is?
And who was entirely happy with W. in 2000? Y'know, it's never perfect. If Hillary is the nominee in 2008, you think the Democrats are going to each and everyone be happy? Of course not.
Let's see who's the best candidate and support them. It's still pretty early. But Romney is obviously acting more and more conservative, and he has been since the Goodridge case in 2003.
You whole post is pretty ignorant. First, he only said he'd rather have civil unions rathe than gay marriage if he was forced to choose between the two. He opposes civil unions but when asked by a reporter to choose one, he said he'd prefer civil unions (lesser of two evils). That's far from advocating for civil unions. You would know this if you spent 5 minutes researching.
As far as his position as a "pro-life" governor, he only has so much power as governor with a liberal legislature. He vetoed bills but is sometimes overriden by the legislature - embryo cloning, morning after pill, etc. Romney is one of the loudest and articulate down-the-line conservative advocates in the country. Compare that to Hagel, McCain, Pataki, and others. He agreed to a put a moratorium on changing abortion laws in office. Wbat's wrong with that given the alternative of pro-abortion Democrat governor? He speaks about it in depth here:
http://www.radioblogger.com/archives/july.html#000858
I've spoken with the Human Events editors about that inclusion in the RINO list which was as ludicrous as many of your points. They've since changed their tune and are quite positive on Romney in articles.
It's unbelievable that after spending a little time learning about Romney, that you can conclude that Romney is anything but one of the most articulate conservative in politics today. Based on one out of context statement he made over a decade ago in a debate with Kennedy? Please, for some reason you are going out of your way to be very unfair and mischaracterizing (being dishonest) about his positions. See some links about Romney I posted in a previous comment for more info:
http://www.redstate.com/comments/2006/3/17/224857/673/7#7
I will absolutely read all of what has been reccommended and take it on board. Further thoughts (and a deeper analysis, which may negate some of my initial points) to follow.
As far as the alleged dishonesty point, I really was not trying to call him a liar-- hence why I said I am not comfortable with it. Evidently, that message did not come through in the piece. There's a world of difference between being a liar and just having positions that appear woolly due to them having changed-- for whatever reason-- over time. That's the point I was trying to make.
As far as who I like or dislike, the point of both the Romney and Allen posts was just to stand back and take a look at two contenders who are less written about than McCain. I'm actually not a fan of attack politics and that is not what I was trying to do by writing this or the Allen post-- principally, I was curious to see what people's views on the issues I raised were. And you guys have given me plenty to read up on and think about, so I'll revert once I've done that!
Separately, I actually entirely agree that changing one's position, while it can be taken to extremes, is a positive and necessary trait in any leader. Inflexibility is no positive in politics, and actually, in that respect, the fact that both Romney and McCain have evidenced their ability to change their views over time probably stands them in better stead to run the country.
Finally, I will say this for Romney-- he is a very, very smart guy, and I absolutely revile people who are saying they'd never vote for him because he is a Mormon. Perhaps it's easier for me to critique those who attack on the basis of religion, as I see many fellow Catholics who were similarly viewed with mistrust up until recently, but I just think that it's wrong to intimate that someone's religion makes them unsuitable for public office. Unless it's this guy:
I appreciate your clarifications and your commitment to read more. Your position seem like it's based off of limited info.
Also, I did catch your caveat but I don't think you understood my point. You can't preempt or caveat an attack on someones character. Here are some examples...
"I heard that Liz is an alcoholic, but I don't know if it's true."
Howard Dean said once in an interview (to the effect of) "There are many interesting theories about 9-11. The most interesting is that Bush knew about 9-11 before but didn't do anything, but it's just a theory".
but the issue is that I think you were reading my comment as a Howard Dean-esque insinuation, where as I genuinely meant that I don't think it's OK to suggest the guy is a liar or that he's dishonest. I don't, and I'm far too blunt to bother with insinuations anyway. It was meant to be read literally-- I wasn't trying to suggest his dishonesty at all. I was trying to say that others do, and that's wrong, but that the fogginess that seems to engulf Romney on the subject of abortion is a risky thing for him. Literally that's it.
And yes, I know less about Romney than McCain, for example, although since the partner with whom I worked most closely before resigning my job as a lawyer worked with Bain quite a bit, I know a fair bit about Romney as a businessman and an intellectual force. That does give me some second-hand insight into how he thinks and approaches problems, and the fact that he is extremely intelligent, if not his views on abortion which are of course very much separate (God knows that discussing that would liven up a four hour meeting to complete a corporate acquisition, though).
In any case, you might be interested to read my other article on him posted today (Romney reconsidered), as well as the follow-ups to that.
I do have concerns about him. But they're not to do with his honesty, or his views on abortion when you get right down to it. They are potentially far deeper than that. Take a look.
PS: you threw me with the "Liz is an alcoholic" comment which popped out of the page at me before anything else. I have had that specific insinuation made about me simply by virtue of the insinuator knowing some less than pleasant details about my typically Scottish family and certain members' drunken pasts. But on reading of your response, it was obvious that it was a random choice of words to prove your point. A funny coincidence, in any case. And a very apt demonstration! :)
You think that McCain is more conservative than Romney?
What you're writing here is either a planned misreading or no reading at all on the candidate.
Actually, I do-- slightly. McCain has always been pro-life-- it's not a new thing, and while I recognize that his stance is very similar to Romney's current stance, it is not identical.
Also, let's look at the record Romney's developing right now as an interventionist politician. He's in support of what in my view (and that of many others here, I might add) is state dictation of how/whether individuals care for their health and how they spend their money-- these are things that should be private choices. I'm pretty sure that Reagan, Goldwater, name any other genuine conservative you like, would have serious reservations about Romney's health plan because it is the kind of step to alleviate the crisis in health care (legislate on it and dictate to people) that you would expect to see from the Democrats. Maybe that's why Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy have been praising Romney for it.
I know people on this website hate McCain with great vitriol (I personally like him, for many, many reasons), but I can't see him ever signing up to pushing a plan like this, because no matter how self-serving anyone may think he is, he does at least understand the concept of small government, which Romney evidently does not.
And before anyone says "but health is a big problem, we have to do something even if it means abandoning our conservative principles", let me remind everyone that that is the kind of thinking that instituted socialized medicine in Britain.
One last thing-- when I refer to "they" and "we", yes we're all on this website because we loosley affiliate as conservatives. However, if you've read other posts of mine and replies, it should be evident that other readers regard me as a libertarian-leaner, and indeed that many who use this website identify themselves as "moderates" or are regarded as such, rather than conservatives in the economic (low taxes, small government) and the social (adamantly pro-life, pro-amending the Constitution to deal with gay marriage) sense. And it is conservatives like this who I think would be crazy to support Romney, because while he purports to support the core beliefs of that wing of the Republican party, his actions demonstrate something rather different. Based on the responses to my other posting, it's pretty obvious that the libertarians among us already mistrust him a great deal and won't be backing him anytime soon.
I know this is an old thread . . . but I'm getting sick of all this "Romney is a pro-gay, pro-abortion liberal" crap!
First, lets take a step back and try to get some perspective on the whole situation (a tough thing to do . . . since many people are pretty lazy)
My question is this: Should Conservative Republicans altogether give up hope for turning around liberal states like Massachussetts?
Mitt Romney is a courageous politician. He is willing to take on liberals on their own turf.
Were he the Governor of Arkansas or Texas, or a Senator from Tennessee or Utah, he would have a perfect track record on all of these issues for ROMNEY IS AND HAS ALWAYS BEEN AGAINST ABORTION AND GAY MARRIAGE. No, Romney didn't have the luxury that most GOP frontrunners have of governing a conservative state (remember, he was "drafted" into being the Mass GOP nominee . . . not a calculated move by him) though he is, and has always been a moral and fiscal conservative.
Being a politician in the bluest of blue states, Romney has accomplished much that conservatives should be proud of (balancing the budget, no new taxes, trying to decrease the income tax rate, vetoing the morning after pill, vetoing a decrease in the age requiring parental consent for an abortion, etc . . .). But to get all of this accomplished, he has had to "shelf" certain issues, like abortion saying that he would neither sign new laws nor work against existing laws.
He had to communicate to the electorate that he would "shelf" these issues. This necessitated public declarations that he would protect the current laws (which, unfortunately, do protect a woman's "right" to choose) and not add to nor take away from current laws.
If you bring up these statement and use them out of context you can get them to paint whatever picture you want. The picture that you seem to want to paint is that Romney is a pro-abortion, pro-gay rights politician. He is not, nor has ever been such.
A few quotes below strengthen my argument.
In a recent National Review article it stated: "Romney has done his best to defend the culture of life on what is probably the most inhospitable terrain in the country."
Maggie Gallager, The President of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy said: "Mitt Romney is a brave man. While the GOP glitterocracy attended the first gay wedding of one of their own, Gov. Romney was in Washington, D.C., making the single most eloquent and articulate defense of our traditional understanding of marriage I have heard from an American politician."
Kris Mineau from the Massachusetts Family Institute stated: "On marriage and cloning, he has provided aggressive leadership as a positive, pro-family governor"
Charles Colson, a promient evangelical leader has also said: "I could in very good conscience support Romney as a fellow social conservative on most of the issues we care about."
This is an article written by Mitt Romney yesterday regarding education: http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20060409-101256-6627r.htm
This is an article written by Mitt Romney today regarding health care:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008213
It is possible to determine where Governor Romney stands on many issues with little effort. I just don't think having a gay friend who supports him should be reason enough for you to decide he is a liberal in sheep's clothing.
I would be more interested in debating his views on specific issues, such as education and health care, than in knowing to which organizations he belongs. I am more interested in what he has accomplished as a conservative governor in the bluest of States than in equating him to James Stockdale.