Taking a Second Look at Mitt Romney? Isn’t He a “Flip Flopper?”
As I make my daily journey across the blogosphere, I frequently encounter comments from people who completely dismiss Mitt Romney based on the frequent misconception that he “changes his positions” or has been “on both sides of major issues.” So if someone reading this is considering taking a second look and supporting Governor Romney, let me help set the record straight for you.
There has been one, precisely one, change on any major issue. Anyone who says otherwise is just spouting the talking points of the Democratic National Committee who has been hitting him with this for months. Why? Because he is a supremely qualified candidate, and they know it, and they know he will whip them next November if he gets the Republican nomination. So let’s look at the major issues where is is often accused of “changing.”
The one change he made was regarding abortion. Up until 2004, he was effectively pro-choice from a governance point of view, meaning that he was personally opposed to it, but would not get in the mode of having government enforce his view. But in 2004, the issue of therapeutic cloning came before him as governor, and he was struck with how society was getting ready to create human life just to kill it, and he made a decision, (a costly one politically it would seem) to come down on the side of life. He has taken lots of heat for that decision, many saying that it was political pandering, etc. etc. But those of us familiar with Governor Romney’s character know that this was in fact a heart-felt and weighty decision for him, where he ultimately came down on the side of life. Most pro-life circles accept converts, and many leading pro-life activists have rejoiced in Mitt’s conversion. Those throwing jabs at him are those who are pro-choice anyway (or those bigoted against him for other less politically correct reasons).
As for the other frequent jabs at him regarding gay rights and gay marriage, he has ALWAYS been in favor of gays having equal treatment in the workplace etc., but he has ALWAYS been opposed to so-called gay marriage and civil unions. The first issue, namely gay rights in general, involves rights of people to live and function in society without repercussions regarding their sexual orientation. Mitt has always been in favor of this. The latter issue, however, attempts to redefine a pillar of society that has stood for thousands of years, and Mitt has always opposed any redefinition of marriage and in recent years has fought this battle on the front lines. Mitt’s position is entirely consistent from every angle–he supports gay rights in general, but opposes the redefinition of marriage. But this position drives liberals nuts, so they make groundless attacks against him based on it. But sorry, no changes here.
As for gun rights, he has always supported the basic right to bear arms, but has always opposed high-lethality weapons such as assault rifles. He has always supported reasonable waiting periods for handgun sales, primarily for background check purposes, but supports the rights of law-abiding citizens to bear arms. He has had the support of the NRA in his three campaigns, despite the fact that by his own admission, he does not line up with them 100%. This has been a consistent position throughout his public life. Again, no changes here.
His position on illegal immigration has always been that he wants to find ways to solve the problem, but has always called for immigrants to follow the law, and has always rejected any special treatment, amnesty, or fast track to citizenship for those who have failed to follow the law. Sorry, no changes here either.
So, gentle readers, I invite you to take a second look at Mitt Romney if you are otherwise simply dismissing him out of hand because of the DNC “flip-flop” talking points. Those talking points are simply without merit. He has a distinguished record as a turn-around champion in business, in the 2002 Olympics, and the state of Mass. where he balanced the budget by making government more efficient instead of by raising taxes. He is exactly what Washington needs. He is intelligent, well spoken, principled, and a clean living family man with no skeletons in his closet. His religion, which some misguidedly see as a liability, is actually a great strength to him personally, because it informs his moral choices and lifestyle, and gives him a work ethic and commitment to service that is unmatched in the current field of candidates. So if your second look has led you here, then please throw your support behind Mitt Romney!
December 21st, 2007 at 10:51 am
Excellent post, Ron!!
December 21st, 2007 at 10:52 am
Hey, I heard somewhere that Romney put together a document that outlined his promises made when he was running to be Governor. The document had like 90+ campaign pledges, and how he had delivered on his campaign promises.
Has anyone seen that document? It’s one thing to charge Mitt as a flip flopper, but a flip flopper who doesn’t ever break campaign promises kind of takes the wind out of his detractors sails.
If you see it, I want to post it on Iowans for Romney so… let me know.
December 21st, 2007 at 12:22 pm
The problem with Romney has been that his statements have not been firm, principled statements on issues that often arise. In all these areas you mentioned, there’s a Romney statement that leaves open the possibility that depending on how popular the position outcome, Romney will orient in that direction. In other words, Romney leaves himself room to shift positions and claim he has always held that position. This word parsing by Romney is what reminds many of Bill Clinton and in order for Romney to get beyond this idea that though he is running as a conservative, he’s really not a principled conservative (good example Arnold Schwarzenegger), he needs to firm up his views, develop a set of conservative positions to guide him going forward and stick with them come hell or high water. In this he can take a cue from Fred Thompson and/or George W. Bush (at least in terms of the war against islamic extremism).
December 21st, 2007 at 1:00 pm
Big Jay, yes, he did have one of his staff going over all of his campaign speeches, and made the list of every single promise. There were about 100 of them. To be honest, he did put effort in every single one of them, but he put more effort with some than others. For instance, he made a few bills based on those campaign promises, and gave it to legislative. Those bills never made it out of the committees. He left them at that. With others, he would fight tooth and nail to get them to floor for voting. But yes, he did extend, at least, some effort with every single promise he made.
December 21st, 2007 at 1:08 pm
Steven, I think more of the problem is no one know what anything means, really. I mean, if you ask the liberals, like those behind MoveOn.org and Pink Code, they will tell you Hillary and Kennedy are among the most principled people. I do not even know what you mean by principled statements you claim Mitt not to make. I personally think he has made his statements very specified, much more than other candidates we have. Let’s comparing him with Rudy. Rudy had the most busy schedule, next to Mitt. Even then, when I have been following his trail for almost a year, I cannot really say HOW Rudy will go around implementing his plans. Whereas with Mitt, I could for most of his proposed policies. Let’s look at McCain. For me, a principled person would be the first one to admit his mistake. But McCain cannot do that. He claims he is the most firm (I suppose this may be what you mean by principled?) candidate, but he cannot recognize when he is wrong. Even with his amnesty bill, he only admitted he was wrong in pushing the whole package on us. He did not admit that part of his plan was wrong. When we talk about principles, I would look at the examples of our Founding Fathers. I do not see them in McCain; I do not see them in Rudy. My point is, I am not sure what you meant by “principled” as it actually is a word open to interpretion.
December 21st, 2007 at 1:25 pm
Steven,
While I agree with you that a candidate needs to put forward firm, principled statements on issues, I am still scratching my head and wondering where Mitt Romney has NOT done this? You mention Fred Thompson as a good example of this. I would agree, he espouses firm positions on the stump, but he is no better in doing this than Romney. What’s more, there are in fact many well documented instances where Fred’s support of the pro-life position has been less than “firm and principled,” yet the common perception is otherwise.
What’s the difference? It’s all in the labling, which in turn is driven by the DNC and their “flip-flop” propaganda per my original post. So the simple fact remains, it is all about image tarnishing on the part of the DNC and Romney’s opponents, more than it is about any shifts in position.
You also put fourth the premise that candidates need to select “conservative positions to guide him going forward and stick with them come hell or high water.” I will agree to this statement to a certain degree, especially when it comes to foundational, bedrock beliefs like “small government is better,” or “the sanctity of life and family” or “we must defeat violent radical jihad.” When it comes to these type of foundational beliefs, you can rest assured that Romney has them in spades.
But what he also has, is an uncommon ability to look at the data while surrounding himself with intelligent, thoughtful people who are not “yes men”, and then have a rigourous debate about all sides of an issue. What emerges from a process like this, is not a dogmatic “damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead” approach to everything, but a principle-centered, problem solving approach that will get the country moving forward. The key is in having, as you said, those core principles, but to also let reason, and good judgement, and rigourous debate, enter into the decision-making process. Life, and particularly thorny public policy issues, are not solved by myopic thinking. Ronald Reagan once said, “I would rather get 90% of what I want, than go over the cliff with my flag waving.
Now I am not suggesting that Romney will abandon a single one of these core priciples. He simply will not do that. But I am suggesting that in Romney, we have a leader who will lead and get things done.
December 21st, 2007 at 1:33 pm
Do you see it in Romney as far as your definition and example about the founding fathers? Romney has imperiled his campaign because of his constant equivocations and the many, many statements he’s made this year to suggest he’s something he’s not (hunter statement) or to give himself room to shift positions (as with his comments on Iraq) or to position himself for the benefit of getting elected (abortion). In all these examples there are no principles that guide his decisions, only calculating moves to maximize his electability. Make no mistake, if you want to point to one reason why a successful businessman, family oriented, and conservative across the board in terms of positions hasn’t sewn up this nomination already, its due to the perception that he has no core, no principles to guide his decisions. And so when the chips are down, Romney is liable to shift with the winds and choose the path of least resistance, as oppose to someone like Reagan, Bush, or Thompson who are going to stand on their beliefs. Case in point, the stem cell debate–Bush stood on the principle that life begins at conception and that all nascent human life must be protected no matter what stage of growth it is. This guided him not to support any additional funding for the destruction of embroyos, even surplus embroyos produced in the invetrofertilization process, for the purpose of stem cell research. He met with great resistance and even Romney spoke of the need to compromise on the surplus embroyos. As we now know, Bush was vindicated by the new technigue of harvesting stem cells from regular skin cells. But again principles is what kept Bush rooted enough to stand firm when buffeted by all the critics. I just sense that Romney when the heat is on will wither because he has no set of principles that he really believes in. And so you are seeing McCain surge now and to some extent Thompson. Conservatism is not only about ideas, its about principles that are rooted in the founding of this nation. Does Romney get that?
December 21st, 2007 at 2:00 pm
Steven, I did ask you what you meant by principle. Since you did not provide it, I will go ahead. First, do realize that there are 15 definitions, according to Dictionary.com. From your argument above, it sounds more about the convinction a person may have, or rather, how firm he is with his inner system. Here is what being principled means to me:
What is interesting to me is the “guiding” part. It actually is more about progress than being firm. Now, we know that the Founding Fathers were men of principles. They would argue on what means to be right, and they would change when they recognize what is right. For example, as Mitt pointed out in his Faith in America, when a prayer was proposed in the Congressional Conviction meeting, there were protests everywhere, except from one man! Again, they were all principled men, but yet, they cannot admit that there could be some goods from others. It took one man, John Adams, to point out that it is about the love of country and the common acknowledge that God has hands in everything. That was a simple guiding sense that John provided. They all admitted quickly that he was correct. What a principle they practiced! They allowed themselves to be guided in the right course. A principled man is NOT one who is firm, but one who always seek to better himself, to seek after, like Paul had admonished us, for “anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy.”
I think what you are concerned with, instead, is what define the core of this man. What rule of action or conduct (another definition of the principle) does this man professed. You claimed that he changed because of election. For instance, you said he positioned himself on abortion for the benefit of getting elected. Let me see, he did promise during his campaign that he will remain status quo on this issue. It means he won’t go in either direction. He won’t permit more access to abortion, nor would he do anything lessen it. That’s exactly what he did. He did not flipped on it in a true sense. His convinction on abortion did change related to the role the government has on this issue. He realized the government should do all it can to protect the lives, and he proved it with his records, 3 years before he declared he would run for Presidency. In any case, he abided with what he promised, that he will not change the abortion law in the state. How is that not a principled approach?
December 21st, 2007 at 2:44 pm
Well you in last paragraph exactly got the sense of my definition of principles. Principles are rules that you apply to every circumstance you encounter to guide your decision making. In essence, principles are the red lines you draw to keep you centered. For example, there’s a principle to being sucessful which is to work hard, be enthusisatic, show initiative, and acquire knowledge. This principle can be apply no matter what work environment you find yourself in and we see that Romney has a good set of principles in that area. However from a policy perspective, Romney has no such formulation. He has no set of principles that he really believes in to guide him in foriegn policy or social policy. These are the areas he has stumbled on and though he has made it clear he will be a conservative, I just don’t have confidence that he will follow through when the heat is on in debates on climate change that can imperil our economy, on health care that can imperil our economy, and on Iran and Pakistan which can imperil our security (thanks to Bush I don’t have to mention stem cell research). What are his principles? To his credit, Fred Thompson in every talk he gives, starts off talking about the principles that he will base his decisions on. I have confidence because of Thompson’s articulation of his principles, he will carry out conservatism come hell or high water. I don’t have that confidence with Romney.
I will say, that I do support Romney’s stands on the issues and I am glad that he is now prolife. And I also hope he does win IA and prevent a Giuliaini or a Huckabee from gaining the nomination. But if Romney doesn’t get this principle thing down now, he will be creamed in the general election. Make no mistake about it, there is no margin for error for the GOP presidential nominee in 2008. That person needs to know where they stand and to effective contrast that against the democrats’ nominee.
December 21st, 2007 at 5:49 pm
Steven, please understand that I do enjoy this discussion, and I do want to continue this only because I want to learn more about the fundamentals that makes our country great. I, like Ron, am still scratch my head trying to see what you mean with Mitt being not a principled man. For example, here you express your lack of confidence that Mitt won’t follow through when the heat is on in debates on climate change. (I am focusing on this one issue so that you and I both can work out what we are trying to say to each other). The first part that puzzled me is the “heat”. First, we know very well that Mitt would walk to hell and back with his effort to understand the problem before he would implement a long term solution for it. His history shows he often baskes in the heat of the time. If he find himself in a room full of a “yes” men, he will replace them quickly with those who can openly discuss the cons and pros, going at the issue of climate change from all degrees, and not just anyone, but the true experts who can justify their reasons of argument with data. Those people won’t be some so-called experts that Al Gore loves to surround himself with, as they have absolutely no data. Second, we know how intelligent and brilliant he is. He will know when he has enough data. He will know when the discussion (workgroup or such) has gone on long enough. And, not only will he want to hear from all sides, but we know that he know how to direct the discussion in the right way. For example, if the discussion starts to move toward the concept that government should be a big part of the solution, he will re-direct the discussion away from it. This, the third part, will happen, because Mitt understood very well the principle of free market. He knew that the accountable business will always be better than an organization with no accountablity. He did hammer on this point often during his campaign. Now, back to the climate change, he did say we need to be considerable of the climate change, and that we need to see if we could find the free market solution for it.
Please, help me see the holes you believe you see Mitt to have with his principles for this specific topic.
December 22nd, 2007 at 3:16 pm
I don’t think it would do either of us good to look at every scenario to discern whether or not Romney will stand on principle or not. Suffice it to say that Romney the candidate in his current state leaves much to be question as far as his mettle for making principle decision when things are not popular. George W. Bush for all his flaws, demonstrated principled stands with the war in Iraq and stem cells, both issues in which it seems based on past statements he’s made, Romney would have caved on. Think of a President Romney in the aftermath of the 2006 elections and face with a disastrous situation in Iraq calling for an increase, rather than a decrease in the U.S. commitment in Iraq. I don’t see Romney making that principled call, because what are his principles related to the war against radical jihad? Bush’s principle was that it’s better to fight them there than have the terrorist come to our shores. And he didn’t want to embolden the terrorist around the globe with a U.S. defeat in Iraq. Those are principles that guided Bush to the decision in the face of an electoral defeat, to call for the surge.
As far as global warming, there is undoubtedly going to be pressure to bring the U.S. into some global agreement, subjugating our economy to the environmentalist agenda. Bush to his credit again, has rejected any type of agreement that would harm the economy and force the U.S. to comply in any cap and trade regime. Where is Romney on this issue? What are his principles? For the president of the United States we need someone who will defend first and foremost U.S. interest whether its popular or not. The president is the only elected official in the United States that represents every single person in the United States (aside from the Vice President). This person needs to have principles to keep his mind on the interest of this country. At best, as of now Romney is more like George H.W. Bush (41) than George W. Bush as far as principles are concerned and that’s troubling considering the type of issues on taxes (2010 Bush tax cuts expire), global warming (Kyoto expires 2010), Iran (according to NIE Iran could have enough enriched uranium to make a bomb by 2015), and other issues that we need a man of conviction to stand for what is right for this country. I think you are focused on process, rather than the actual decisions a president has to make at the end of the day. Yes, its good that Romney will have data, rigorous debate from both sides of the issue, etc, but in the end when he makes the decision does he make it on what’s expedient or what his principles guide him to make? If he doesn’t have principles, despite all the good process stuff, he will make the expedient choice rather than the principled one. In the next 4 years if he wins the presidency, let’s hope that his expedient choice aligns with conservatism and America’s best interest.
December 22nd, 2007 at 11:17 pm
Steven,
There is really a simple answer to your concerns - look at how Romney governed in Mass. Were his actions conservative or liberal? How did he ACT in respect to abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research, illegal immigration, spending, etc. When you start digging in to this, you quickly realize that he governed stongly as a conservative, and certainly more so than Rudy, Mike or McCain. Fred has also acted conservatively in his political career (although, unlike Mitt, he does not support a federal marriage amendment - this is a big concern for me). But putting his and Mitt’s accomplishments side by side, Mitt’s resume shows a better aptitude and success in completing goals, despite formidable obstacles. The fact that Mitt governed conservatively leaves us no room to wonder how he will govern as President.
December 23rd, 2007 at 11:53 am
Steven, it was not my intention to look at every issue to see if Mitt is principled enough. It was my intention to see why you do not think he is principled enough, whereas many of us do. I have scoped to one issue so we could decree if Mitt is principled enough. And the reason why I have scoped on the climate concern is because I think it is one of his most least attentive proposal. Yes, you are right, if push come to shove, will Mitt stand up to let free market to come up with solutions, or will he pour money into it at taxpayers’ expenses?
I read the speech the other day from Paul Johnson (of Modern Times fame) on the Hilldale College (a very conservative college) cruise. He emphasized that what makes a leader great is that the leader has at most 3 or 4 “central principles”. So far, we have seen it from Mitt — Clean up government (cutting, deregulating and enforcing), control federal spending and strengthening our economy. He went on those principles over and over. He may vary on the wording, but that is pretty much what he is about. With your example of climate concern, how the Legislatives may push the climate bills, if it weaken our economy, you can be sure he will not be for it. He has fought many times in the past, he can fight, as he has shown in this election cycle. He may not slash out at opponents, but he definitely is there, pushing along, working his way through, standing up for something over and over. Why cannot you see this aspect of Mitt?
December 24th, 2007 at 1:12 am
I’m at a loss as to why Steven thinks Romney shies away from big challenges. I see no evidence of a cave in mentality. If that were so, he wouldn’t have chosen to start his own company when he had a good thing going at Bain, he wouldn’t have stepped forward to rescue the Olympics from scandal plagued disaster, and certainly would not have run as a republican in the bluest of blue states (twice, by the way) when he would have been a shoe in for Utah Governor. Instead he goes home to Massachusetts, runs and wins against the Democratic establishment, tackles seemingly intractable budget and health care problems and against all odds develops solutions that are entirely consistent with the free market and conservative core principles.
Romney’s core principles are fine, and they have served him well throughout his career. And I agree with Ron, you are not selecting Governor Romney for any particular past result, you are selecting him knowing that he can apply his problem solving process to any challenge and he will develop well considered and effective win/win solutions. That is the hope for a brighter tomorrow: not myopic dogmatism but principled pragmatism with the energy, intelligence and drive to get results.
And remember this: as Romney campaigns, so to will he preside. He is by far the most active, tireless and relentless campaigner on the trail today. As much as you may like others, Romney runs circles around the field as a campaigner.