Why is Romney talking about campaign finance laws?

April 25, 2007 – 11:24 am

Because he is pandering. It is that simple.

Five years ago Mitt Romney believed in public funding of campaigns and taxing political contributions.

Thirteen years ago he believed in outlawing political action committees. 

Ramesh Ponnuru, after studying Romney’s position on campaign finance laws concluded that, "All told, those positions place him to the left of McCain-Feingold."

Don’t believe me? Watch (H/T Caucus Cooler):

(Perhaps Romney is personally pro-campaign finance reform but publicly not?)

It is a wonder that Romney’s hair doesn’t blow in the wind while the rest of him does.

By the way, I hope that Jim Bopp and Wisconsin Right to Life prevail today.

Tags: , ,

By eye | Comments (5)

Romney’s flip-flops take a village

April 17, 2007 – 1:42 pm

Mitt Romney opened his mouth and inserted his foot again. However, it turns out that he was replacing Hillary Clinton’s words with his foot, so it may well be a trade up.

You see, back in 1998 he said that Hillary Clinton was "very much right" that "it takes a village:"

Hillary Clinton is very much right, it does take a village, and we are a village and we need to work together in a non-skeptical, no-finger-pointing way…

Now, you see, "it takes a family". Just in case you missed that, he was talking about Rick Santorum.

Perhaps one should say that Romney’s flip-flops take a village. There are so many of them…

Tags: , , ,

By eye | Comments (3)

Romney on guns: More Mitt-representations

April 4, 2007 – 3:40 pm

Mitt Romney has a problem with gun owners, and it is that he is like John Kerry.

John Kerry referred to his "trusty shotgun", which was actually a weapon he had voted to ban. This was seen as fabricated, and it was rightly mocked in the righty blogs.

Mitt Romney has a similar problem, his image on guns is a total Mitt-representation. He told Glenn and Helen (via the Boston Globe):

The Glenn and Helen Show," that he hopes states would continue to ease regulations on gun owners, and he expressed enthusiasm for guns and hunting. "I have a gun of my own. I go hunting myself. I’m a member of the NRA and believe firmly in the right to bear arms

Slowly those statements have been exploded. First, he didn’t really own a gun, from the same Boston Globe story:

Asked by reporters at the gun show Friday whether he personally owned the gun, Romney said he did not. He said one of his sons, Josh, keeps two guns at the family vacation home in Utah, and he uses them "from time to time."

So Romney went from having a gun, to not having a gun, to having two guns. Except they are his son’s. At (one of) their vacation homes in Utah. That’s "his" gun.

Next the point about hunting. Romney "fondly" describes two hunting experiences:

Romney also described himself as a sportsman who learned to shoot as a boy rabbit hunting in Idaho with a .22 rifle. … He fondly recalled shooting quail last year at a Republican Governors Association event in Georgia.

Now the AP reports that those are the only two hunting experiences he has had in his whole life:

Yet the former Massachusetts governor’s hunting experience is limited to two trips at the bookends of his 60 years: as a 15-year-old, when he hunted rabbits with his cousins on a ranch in Idaho, and last year, when he shot quail on a fenced game preserve in Georgia.

Then the NRA thing came out. Turns out Romney is a life member of the NRA… except that he joined in August. This was well lampooned today in Doonesbury:


And he says that he "firmly believes in the right to bear arms… sort of, again the Boston Globe story:

Romney says he still backs the ban on assault weapons, but he won’t say whether he stands by the Brady Bill. And after the gun show tour, his campaign declined to say whether he would still describe himself as a supporter of tough gun laws.

You see, Mitt Romney’s problem isn’t that he is a flip-flopper, although that is true. It is that almost everything that he says about base issues in the Republican Party is a Mitt-representation. And gun activists, a pretty committed bunch, just aren’t going to buy it.

Tags: , , ,

By eye | Comments (7)

Romney: More vane than compass?

March 14, 2007 – 9:33 pm

Today, Mitt Romney was discussed on Fox News. Shep Smith asked what was going on in the 2008 race. The lefty consultant said Mitt Romney was a flip-flopper. That’s not the news.

The news is that Carrie Lukas, the Vice President of Policy and Economics at the Independent Women’s Forum, agrees:

She says:

Yeah. I share some of the concerns. I do think that Governor Romney has so far shone a propensity to want to rewrite some of the positions he has taken… He doesn’t seem to have a real compass on several important issues.

So Hugh, this isn’t the lefty media and Mormon bashers. Real conservatives think that Mitt Romney is a flip-flopper.

H/T: News Hounds.

Tags: ,

By eye | Comments (2)

MA GOPers for Truth forms

March 9, 2007 – 8:38 am

Everything in this cycle starts early, including, according to the Boston Herald, the formation of groups to attack candidates. In Massachusetts, there is now the Massachusetts Republicans for Truth, to go live on Mitt Romney’s birthday (happy birthday!):

“It’s a matter of trust,” Robichaud said yesterday. “When somebody changes their position on so many different issues - taxes, minimum wage, abortion, gay marriage, gay rights - you’ve got to start to wonder, where are his core beliefs?”
“If you don’t have any core beliefs, you shouldn’t be president of the United States,” she said.

This isn’t just a small group of people: 

So far, about 40 Massachusetts Republicans, including elected state committee members and activists who have been involved in campaigns for years, have joined Massachusetts Republicans for Truth. Robichaud, a contributor to the Herald’s Monday political briefing, said she would not yet identify the other members. The group’s website goes live Monday.

I met Robichaud at the RNC Winter Meeting and again at CPAC. At the RNC Winter Meeting, she was verbally assaulted by Romney staffers. And Romney himself became extremely uncomfortable when she was in the room. The Romney team is quite nervous about MA Republicans standing up and criticizing him.

This will be a fascinating dynamic. Can a guy run for President whose position really is:

Romney aides have dismissed criticism from the hometown crowd, saying his message is resonating with voters nationwide.

We don’t need the people back home?

Tags: ,

By eye | Comments (4)

Isn’t this pandering?

March 5, 2007 – 10:02 am

Mitt Romney says he is going to try to repeal McCain-Feingold. Fine, I agree that McCain-Feingold is bad, as do most conservatives.

But… Isn’t this laughable? I mean, this guy advocated taxing political contributions to fund "clean elections".

Where is Mitt Romney? Wherever the wind blows.

Tags: ,

By eye | Comments (0)

Mitt’s three-step on taxes

February 18, 2007 – 2:38 pm

MItt Romney’s appearance on This Week will likely be viewed as one of the fundamental mistakes in the campaign. Not only has he had a problem with his statements on why he voted for Paul Tsongas. He is going to have another problem on taxes. In talking about taxes and the Americans for Tax Reform pledge, he said:

"But you can read the pledge, if you will," Romney said in his "This Week" interview, "and you can see that it’s drawn very narrowly. It’s not drawn very broadly. It talks about raising the highest marginal income tax rate. It does not talk about all forms of revenue for the government."

And so Romney already tries to finesse his position on taxes. So you see, Romney starts on the far left of the Republican Party when he calls the ATR Tax Pledge "government by gimmickry". Then he signs it. Then he soft sells his position. Furthermore, he will likely continue to try to sell his position as having never raised taxes even though he raised fees and taxes substantially:

“Rather than forcing the Legislature to close the budget gap through spending cuts alone, Romney raised some $500 million in fees.

“Romney raised corporate taxes by an estimated $210 million and only backed down under pressure from pushing for even higher taxes on business.

Romney’s "Mitt-flopping" will morph into "Multiple Choice Mitt" and, perhaps, into simply problems with the truth.

Tags: , ,

By eye | Comments (0)

Romney not making sense (telling lies?) about Tsongas

February 16, 2007 – 9:34 pm

Mitt Romney explained today why he voted for Paul Tsongas in 1992. He said:

"When there was no real contest in the Republican primary, I’d vote in the Democrat primary, vote for the person who I thought would be the weakest opponent for the Republican."

However, there are several problems with this:

  1. Erick Erickson points out that it is not how Romney has explained it in the past.
  2. Romney donated money in 1992 to Democrats. He even did a fundraiser for a Democrat. So perhaps he wasn’t helping Republicans that year?
  3. Romney said he wasn’t for Bush. Again, in 1994, he said, "I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I’m not trying to return to Reagan-Bush."

Can Mitt Romney stop lying? Is it possible?

Furthermore, this is just dumb. Why is he talking about this? He could just admit that he was wrong and go on. But no, he has to invent something.

Tags: ,

By eye | Comments (3)

Brownback campaign: Romney misleading voters

February 12, 2007 – 5:41 pm

I think that this press release just about says it all. No need to comment. Apparently this was triggered by the Romney campaign circulating statements comparing Sam Brownback and Mitt Romney’s record on abortion:

 Mitt Romney’s Campaign Misleads Voters about Senator Brownback’s Position on Abortion

"Mitt Romney’s flip flops are enough to make John Kerry blush."

Alexandria, VA – Documentation surfaced over the weekend that the Romney for President Exploratory Committee is misleading voters.

In an e-mail circulated to right-to-life leaders on February 8, 2007, a key Romney staffer wrote: "Just like Sam Brownback, Mitt was once pro-choice but changed his views upon being elected to office… When Brownback was elected to office, that is when he also had a conversion and voted with the pro-life movement."

Brownback for President National Campaign Committee Member Dr. Jack Willke, who was President of National Right to Life for ten years, responded: "Senator Brownback has always been pro-life, and has never made a statement or cast any vote to the contrary."

This false allegation by the Romney campaign comes in light of recent evidence that Romney has switched positions on abortion at least three times. Below are direct quotes from Mitt Romney on the issue of abortion:

CHRONOLOGY OF MITT ROMNEY’S ABORTION POSITIONS (IN HIS OWN WORDS):

1994: Mitt Romney was pro-choice

"I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time that my mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a US Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years we should sustain and support it." (Joan Vennochi, "Romney’s Revolving World," The Boston Globe, 3/2/06)


2001: Mitt Romney was not pro-choice

"I do not wish to be labeled pro-choice." (Mitt Romney, Letter to the Editor, The Salt Lake Tribune, 7/12/01)

2002: Mitt Romney was again pro-choice

"I respect and will protect a woman’s right to choose. This choice is a deeply personal one … Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not mine and not the government’s." (Stephanie Ebbert, "Clarity Sought On Romney’s Abortion Stance," The Boston Globe, 7/3/05)

2007: Mitt Romney acknowledges he was "effectively pro-choice," but says he "was always for life."

January 2007: "Over the last multiple years, as you know, I have been effectively pro-choice." (Bruce Smith, "Romney Campaigns in SC with Sen. DeMint," The Associated Press, 1/29/07)

February 2007: "I am firmly pro-life… I was always for life." (Jim Davenport, "Romney Affirms Opposition to Abortion," The Associated Press, 2/9/2007)

"Mitt Romney’s flip flops are enough to make John Kerry blush," Brownback for President Campaign Manager Rob Wasinger said. "It is absurd of Mitt Romney to compare himself to Senator Brownback on the right to life issue."

Tags: , , , ,

By eye | Comments (4)

Fisking Romney’s Campaign Finance Rebuttal

February 9, 2007 – 11:00 am

Mitt Romney got slammed yesterday for flip-flopping on campaign finance reform. First The Hill wrote about it and then Caucus Cooler, a great Iowa blog, got his hands of Romney on C-SPAN video sounding like a wild-eyed campaign finance reform radical (below too).

Then the Romney campaign sent out talking points rebutting the allegation that he flip-flopped on this too. But these talking points simply aren’t honest (not a surprise from the Mittster).

Purely on a process note, this is poor rapid response. Off topic rebuttal. Weak on the facts. And not in the same medium as the attack. Sorry Mitt, Carl, and Kevin. Try again next time.

Myth vs. Fact: Campaign Finance Reform

Thursday, Feb 08, 2007

MYTH: Governor Romney Has "Flip-Flopped" On Campaign Finance Reform.

Does this mean that Mitt Romney stands by his old positions or not? Taxing political contributions, spending limits, and abolishing PACs?

FACT: Governor Romney Has Always Supported Transparency And Disclosure In The Campaign Finance System.

Note how this doesn’t rebut the actual claims made about Romney. Instead, he tries to change the subject. We are saying that he either has radical ideas on campaign finance reform or has flip-flopped. Which is it Mitt? (Or Kevin or Carl?)

MYTH: In 2002, Governor Romney Supported "Dramatic Changes" To Massachusetts’ Campaign Finance System When He Proposed Altering How Campaigns Were Funded.

I would call funding publicly-financed elections through a tax on contributions a "Dramatic Change" wouldn’t you?

FACT: Governor Romney Supported Changing The Clean Election Law So Taxpayer Money Would Not Be Used To Fund Campaigns. When That Could Not Be Done, Governor Romney Supported The Law’s Repeal.

Trying to change the subject. Romney supported taxing political contributions. Imagine if 10% of Romney’s political contributions were redirected to Mike Huckabee. How would he feel about that? Does he disagree with that position or has he flip-flopped?

Mitt Romney wants you to believe that he is a 1st amendment protecting, 2nd amendment protecting, red blooded conservative. Instead he wants to tax political contributions. That’s quite a makeover from  this, which neither he nor Kevin Madden have ever disavowed:
 

Tags: , ,

By eye | Comments (1)