In today's Video Everyone Will Be Talking About Today, my fellow Buckeye ex-pat Andrew Kaczynski, who recently YouTubed the video in which Governor Romney criticizes John Kerry for flip-flopping, has unearthed another political gotcha.
The current Presidential candidate is quoted in the video above during his 2002 run for Governor of Massachusetts:
I think the old standby definitions of who votes for which party have been blown away in this campaign. I think people recognize that I'm not a partisan Republican—that I'm someone who is moderate, and that my views are progressive.
Is it really that bad? Yeah, actually, it probably is.
That might have been innocuous in Massachusetts in 2002, but in the post-Glenn Beck era the word “progressive” has a whole new (bogeyman) status.
In his 2010 book, No Apology: The Case for American Greatness, Romney huffed, "progressives...rejected the notion of universal truths, objective judgments, and, ironically, progress itself, embracing neutrality among competing belief sets and rejecting the primacy of Western civilization, the great thinkers of the ages, and the principles espoused by the Founding Parents of the nation." Yet Romney once proudly declared himself a fellow of progressive views. Maybe he should apologize.
Kaczynski, a history major at St. John's University, has a whole collection of goodies here, and was recently the subject of a feature in New York magazine.
Leave a Comment:
Sheesh! A lying scumbag can't get a break in this dang new electronic age. You may be on candid camera even now.
Newt Romney race themselves to the bottom!
That's why he will sell his soul and say absolutely anything to get the nomination. The last thing we need is another Corporately Owned and Controlled President.
Obama has his flaws, but he'll help the people who are actually people and not the corporations.
Totally agree.
It is sad that the only thing he can wave to prove that he is a consistent man is the fact that he has been married to the same woman for over 40 years. But I guess that is a better record than Gingrich.
It is even more sad that the 2 front runners for the Republican candidates are actually the two that would just say and do absolutely anything just to get to the front instead of the 2 that are probably most true to the party's believe (Jon Huntsman and Ron Paul).
This Republican primary has just been a pissing contest so far. Pissing contest between the crazies and the haves.
And we are all downwind from a pissing contest.
Blah Blah Blah - Mitt dons his flip-flops yet again!!
Like McCain, Romney has shifted hard to the right and abandoned his idealism for political gain. It didn't work for McCain, and it work work for Willard.
What happened to the sideburns on the left side of his face? His bouffant is wildly unbalanced.
flip-flip,, i mean mitt mitt,, you are such a flop flop.
Mitt reminds me of Cinderella's wicked step-sister, trying desperately to fit
a size 9 foot into a size 5 shoe. This is getting painful to watch.
Well if that is really what progressives believe, especially the claim that progressives reject the founding principles of our nation, then they were clearly wrong. But I don't trust Romney to accurately report what progressivism advocates.
Personally I am not a progressive, I'm a liberal. I don't hide behind labels.
Contrary to party line, founding parents of this of this nation did not set up this nation to be a Christian nation to be run by the sanctimonious for the benefit of Christians only
No of course not. I never said they did.
Storm, It doesn't matter what you or I believe. 30% of Americans have bought in. That's a good sized voting block and you can count on someone to pander to it.
Here is the crux of the problem facing Mitt Romney today. He is simply not trusted by the right-wing base of the Republican Party. Mitt is a flip-flopper, and he has never stopped flopping from the day he entered the political universe. More importantly, he does not engage in the kind of overheated hateful rhetoric against President Obama that the Tea Party adores and has made it a litmus test for any presidential candidate. Mitt doesn't play the kind of dog whistle politics the conservatives are demanding. He's a "progressive"! And then there's "Romneycare." He's finished! http://www.sunstateactivist.org
The mystery to me is how intelligent, oftentimes progressive voters of Massachusetts allowed Romney to be elected Governor in 2002.
I'd like to hear from someone who was living in MA at the time. Why did the sort of attacks that Kennedy did in 1994 fail in 2002? Why did Romney ever win? Was it technical- like the microtagging, or was it thematic- like "I am not one of those republicans- I am really a progressive- just a competent one, unlike my democratic party opponent."?
Because however strong our wave is today, one day it will ebb. I guess I want to ask an imponderable. It's like Tom Robbins asking "what makes love last" in Still Life with Woodpecker.
Romney is watching his chances for becoming president slowly slip away. He is the epitome of Wall Street, a wealthy man lacking ethics who will run over anyone in the pursuit of money and power. He will say anything to achieve his goals even if he contradicts himself. This is the price he pays for being an opportunist without principles. And this is why Obama needs him to be the Republican candidate.
I see where you are coming from and that is a strong argument, but it has two weaknesses. The first is what I think what you are suggesting- that Romney best represents the darkness that produced the mess we are in today. The second is pragmatic, and has to do with maximizing what we need to have happen in 2012.
There was a chance that 2012 could have been one of those pivotal elections where not just a candidate, but the viability of a political viewpoint was decisively rejected by the electorate. I was optimistic that the Romney-Obama matchup could be that decisive battle, but in faded when the republicans failed to line up behind him. Stewart put his finger on it when he compared it to the can of La Choy corn in the back of your cabinet. If they aren't wholeheartedly behind their candidate, the loss of the candidate will not be taken personally. It will be a loss that conservative voter will effortlessly go into denial about, because they were never were behind them anyway. For the world beyond 2012, will will not have advanced the dialog decisively back to one of civil discourse, where the spirit of good faith and compromise is acknowledged as the fundamental requirement of governance.
The second and just as vital consideration I think you may be missing is how damaging Gingrich is to the GOP brand. If Debbie W-S and progressive Super-Pacs are on their games, what they do is run ads that takes a clip of Gingrich saying the same thing as what the local congressional candidate is making the theme of their campaign. Step two, after chaining them to Gingrich, you push that anchor off the boat and the candidate takes a 10 point loss in the polls. Gingrich easily represents everything the electorate things is wrong with Congress, so he is absolutely perfect for putting in play many more congressional seats.
Practically, that is what must happen in 2012. 60 seats in the Senate, and Nancy back in the drivers seat. Then we can really haul some ass on progressive issues. It's a tough task- something practical political operatives would say is impossible to achieve- because although the polls show congressional approval in the single digits, the only number that matters is what they think about the congressperson they can vote for. And that number is 53% approval. Without Gingrich slaughtering the GOP brand, it is much harder to get the seats we need.
I do not believe Gingrich will be the nominee for the Republicans. Like Romney, his support is not very deep and merely represents people voting against Obama, but not necessarily for Gingrich. Nor do I believe that Gingrich wants the nomination because being president would severely impede his pursuit of money. I think Gingrich will stumble just like the other candidates and these early primaries will be meaningless. Romney is not going to quit the race over some small states. His support will come in large states where delegates are plentiful and the TP is not as large. In addition, Romney has the support of the regular Republicans, party leaders and wealthy benefactors of the party because he can bring in big campaign contributions to the Republicans. Gingrich and Romney have character issues that can be easily exploited, but Romney is a perfect Wall Street target. Gingrich is an easy target, but he will bring out voters which is something Romney will be unable to do.
OWS represents more than just a small group of malcontents. They have tapped into something more visceral that rings true for a lot of the middle class and poor. The anger goes beyond just the jobs issue. A lot of the House seats gained in 2010 were swing seats and it is highly probable that those seats will change hands if opinion polls hold steady as we get closer to elections. But again, voters are voting against people and not necessarily for the other candidate. The voters are volatile and we will see a number of upsets in safe districts.
The Presidency is extremely lucrative to Gingrich because it increases the popularity of his numerous books, and feeds his enormous ego. And don't forget- it is not just Gingrich's ambition, but Callista's. Would she like to be first lady and give state dinners for visiting dignitaries? Oh yeah, she wants this. She wants it bad.
It is quite plausible Gingrich will not be the candidate, and like Cain, I think he was primarily motivated to do it in order to pump his book sales. Today, his ego is heavily stoked due to his meteroric numbers in SC and FL. I still want to know if he continues to do his book tour engagements. If he is doing books after the recent polls you gotta wonder what he is thinking.
But there is a darker possibility why he might not be the candidate- he very well could throw the candidacy on purpose. All he needs to do is scare the crap out of Kochs (either by him purposely tossing out incendiary comments on topics near and dear to their hearts, or if the Kochs figure out that they could lose congress). Then Gingrich could see a very handsome profit. In exchange, Gingrich would make a "gaffe" that disqualifies him. Neither would the payoff be obvious. For example, what you could see is an unusual number of his books getting bought up and given away free to every library with English language books in the world.
The way I size up Newt though- even if this weird scenario played out, it would fail to sway him and stoke his ego even more. Wild horses could not keep him from going for the presidency. OTOH, if they got to Callista, and the number was big enough, she could do to Newt what wild horses could not.
Newt is still doing his book signings and has not hired a complete campaign staff. He does not have links to the Republican leadership in and out of Congress. Newt may toy with the idea that he could be President, but I think Newt will find it difficult to raise a lot of money. The large contributors to the Republicans are supporting Romney.
I would expect that the higher Newt goes in the polls, the more probable that Republican leadership is going to unite to stop Newt if he doesn't self-destruct. The problem is convincing someone other than the current candidates to run because they certainly are not going to drop out of the race and come out for Romney. If Newt wins the nomination and public opinion polls show that he is going to lose the election, the Republican leadership is going to cut Newt loose while they work to save seats in Congress. There are large campaign contributions from Wall Street and the banks that are going to Obama and the Dems. A Newt candidacy will insure that those contributions will get larger because Wall Street and the banks are hedging their bets as usual.
The Republican establishment may try to destroy Gingrich. He is fundamentally unelectable. We all know the reasons why. But will Republican voters listen? Unfortunately for the establishment Republicans, much of their base is not prepared to listen to them. And after decades of being told that being criticized is something to be proud of, maybe they'll take establishment attacks on Gingrich as a reason to vote for him.
In several states in the last election cycle, establishment Republican pols were thrown over in favor of tea-bagger candidates, some of whom where wildly unelectable. The GOP nomination will be decided on a state-by-state basis. Maybe the dynamic of the last cycle will play out this time, at least enough for Gingrich to gain sufficient delegates to win the nomination. Gingrich may be a bomb-thrower, but maybe the Republican base is in that kind of a mood, especially if they are in no mood to listen to the establishment.
It almost doesn't matter whether Gingrich really wants to be President. He only has to win enough delegates to win the nomination. What will he do then? Quit the race? Doubt it.
Romney will be whatever he thinks he must be to win the nomination. His positions change as often as the weather. And there's the rub. He's shifted so often, his pronouncements are simply not credible anymore.
Mitt Romney is a shameless shapeshifter. No apologies. Whatever it takes to win.