Friday, April 8, 2011

Romney Loves Mandates

The following video is a compilation of quotes from Mitt Romney in 2008. He clearly loved mandates at the time. Where does he stand now? Is he going to flip-flop on that too?

35 comments:

CraigS said...

RWN
It is amusing to see the mental gymnastics with which Mitt's detractors exercise themselves daily. You all accuse him of " Flip Flopping " sometimes over a measurable time frame measured in decades. If he changes his mind, ( as Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and TR did often ) he is a " flip-flopper". If he doesn't change his mind, as you endlessly encourage hime to do on healthcare...he is an " anti flip-flopper ". Do you not see the humour in big time 2008 Romney supporters like De Mint " flip-flopping " support over Romney's refusal to flip flop over an issue that was in stone two years BEFORE they endorsed him in 2008? Is this not a clear case of political " Flip -flopping " by De Mint ? Did he endorse this issue in 2008 only to disavow it in 2010 ?
CraigS

Socrates said...

Right Wingnut,

You've spent the last week trying to push the Romneycare button to hurt Romney.

Rombots have defended it with facts.

Doug comes out with a Palin Reality check, made up with CURRENT reference to several articles, doesn't even take a stand, and rather than responding to what he has reported, you post a hit piece made up of a collage of old videos.

YOU KNOW Romney is not pro-mandate.
You ALSO KNOW, that Palin is sliding into abyss.

Yet you and many other of her supporters take these facts as personal attacks rather than just the way things are.

OhioJOE said...

"by De Mint ? Did he endorse this issue in 2008 only to disavow it in 2010 ?" The reason Mr. DeMint and other 2008 Romneyites are jumping ship is because the field of candidates is different. Next....

OhioJOE said...

Look in the mirror much Socrates? The real you are trying to push Mrs. Palin into the abyss is because that is easier than defending mandates.

DanL said...

LOL OJ, I am sure that all the millions of republicans who have soured on Palin over the last two years are avid readers of Socrates personal blog and he is the real reason for Palin's failing poll numbers.

DanL said...

Sure, Romney has flip flopped during his political career. I am not worried about what he once thought about mandates. His one flop that really concerns me is on global warming, cap and trade, energy sources etc. But this? meh.

BOSMAN said...

What Socrates said!

Spenza said...

Good for Mitt! At a "state level" I like mandates as well! Causing free riders to take personal responsibility is an American way, it is a Conservative principle because it saves the rest of us from bearing the burden.

As a Staunch Conservative, I totally agree with Mitt on the mandate in this particular case. Since when did the word "mandate' become a bad word IN EVERY SINGLE SENSE!

OhioJOE said...

No Socrates is not responsible for the change in poll number, but I do suspect that Mr. Romney's support for mandates is in part the reason why the latest poll puts Mr. Romney at about 14%. Further, people are not buying the explanations of the Romney camp.

Anonymous said...

Right Wingnut <3 freeloaders!

-Luke

Anonymous said...

A little off topic, but this is a problem I have with Romney...I just don't believe him. Go ahead and tear me a new one but the man has changed positions too many times in his career to be trustworthy in my eyes. I can understand if he had a change of heart...maybe even two but his changes of heart always seem to coincide with his political aspirations and sometimes they have changed back and forth and back again...

I just don't believe him...

jerseyrepublican

OhioJOE said...

So it is OK to ruin the whole system just to fix a few free-loaders? WOW!

DanL said...

Jersey, I like Romney. But I also have a hard time believing him.

Doug NYC GOP said...

Thanks Socrates, for noting it was not a Palin hit piece I wrote.

Anonymous said...

Dan, the funny thing is that I could care less about some of the things he has flipped on...I also believe he is probably a decent family man...but as a politician...I just don't believe him...of course...I guess he is in good company because I don't believe most politicians...he has just given me more reasons not to believe him.

jerseyrepublican

Anonymous said...

If I had to take a sabbatical from life and leave every tangible thing that mattered to me (family, property, finances) in the hands of one of these political candidates, it would be Romney. Does that mean I believe everything he says or that he won't change his mind; no, but I can understand his reasoning where we disagree or where he has changed positions.

Anonymous said...

Dean Barnett on the Romney he knew circa 2008:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/opinion/15barnett.html

“I FIRST met Mitt Romney at a Lincoln Day dinner in 1994, during the earliest days of his failed Senate race against Ted Kennedy. The next weekend, I was helping him to collect the signatures he needed to get on the ballot for the Republican primary. In a supermarket parking lot, Mr. Romney dashed about for hours introducing himself to voters, few of whom knew who he was.
It was Mr. Romney’s first real campaign and his first time collecting signatures. He enjoyed learning the intricacies of retail politics even at their most banal: I remember that he was impressed by the expertise of veteran signature-gatherers in the arcane area of clipboard management.
I spent a lot of time with Mr. Romney that year, and I occasionally served as his volunteer driver, taking him to local campaign events. The Mitt Romney I got to know was warm and likable. He had an electric intelligence. He was unfailingly decent. He was totally committed to his family. He treated everyone with respect and kindness.

Anonymous said...

If you’re like most politically attuned Americans, you probably don’t agree with my description of Mr. Romney. You may consider him to be the personification of political ambition. You possibly believe he will say anything to get elected president. You might even consider him one of the least honorable politicians in the country.
As a longtime admirer of Mr. Romney’s, it pains me that many Americans believe these things. Even worse, Mr. Romney’s presidential campaign has given them cause to feel this way. As a result, in the Michigan primary today, he is fighting for his political life.
I often marvel at how the public perception of Mr. Romney differs so radically from the man I know. The blame for this lies in the campaign he has run.
Early in the presidential race, Mr. Romney perceived a tactical advantage in becoming the campaign’s social conservative. Religious conservatives and other Republicans with socially conservative views found the two early front-runners, John McCain and Rudy Giuliani, unacceptable. As someone who shares the beliefs of social conservatives, Mr. Romney saw an opportunity that he could exploit. He made social issues the heart of his candidacy.
This tack rang false with the public because it was false. The problem wasn’t so much the perception of widespread “flip-flopping” on issues like abortion. The public allows its politicians a measure of flexibility. But the public correctly sensed something disingenuous about Mr. Romney’s campaign.
Voters perceived the cynicism of a campaign that tried to exploit wedge issues rather than focus on the issues that in truth most interested the candidate. They sensed phoniness. As a consequence, many have grown to feel that Mitt Romney can’t be trusted. This lack of trust is now the dominant and perhaps insurmountable obstacle that the Romney campaign faces.

Anonymous said...

I know few voters will believe this, but Mitt Romney wants to be president out of a sense of duty. He feels our government needs someone with his managerial skills. He also feels that to fight the long war facing us, we need an intellectually curious president who’s willing to learn about an unfamiliar foe and who will fight resolutely to defeat that foe.
Mr. Romney cares passionately about social issues, but he knows his Republican competitors can appoint strict constructionist judges as well as he can. The real value of a Romney presidency would lie in the talents, honed in the business world, that he would bring to the White House.
Because Mr. Romney chose to make this argument a secondary matter compared to his stands on social issues, he mounted a campaign that was, at its most basic level, insincere. Now, parts of the voting public have come to view everything Mr. Romney says through jaundiced eyes. This past weekend, Romney-distrusting portions of the conservative blogosphere kicked up a fuss over seven words Mr. Romney said to volunteers who were dialing for dollars at a fund-raising event last week: “Make all the promises you have to.”
Without knowing the context, it’s impossible to know precisely what Mr. Romney meant. But given the public setting, it was almost certainly something benign. Most likely, he was reminding his volunteers to reassure potential contributors that in spite of his recent setbacks in Iowa and New Hampshire, he is committed to staying in the presidential race. But for voters who have learned to distrust Mr. Romney, the comment probably sounded a lot like, “Tell whatever lies are necessary.”
The Mitt Romney I know would never say such a thing. But the Mitt Romney I know is sadly unrecognizable to today’s voters.
Fourteen years ago, many of us who were close to Mr. Romney’s Senate campaign in Massachusetts thought he was too decent for his own good. He never made political use of Senator Kennedy’s epic personal peccadilloes, even though late-night comedians mocked them on a regular basis.
Only six weeks before the 1994 election, Mr. Romney held a slim lead in the polls. Perhaps he could have closed the deal if he had run a more bare-knuckled campaign. He didn’t.
Mr. Romney’s 1994 campaign, errors included, reflected the candidate’s character. His 2008 campaign has not.
I hope Mr. Romney does well enough in Michigan today that he gets the opportunity to introduce the public to the real Mitt Romney. He is a wonderful and gifted guy. It would be nice if he and his campaign allowed the voters in on that secret.”

Anonymous said...

Dean Barnett was one of my favorite conservative writers long before I ever heard of Romney. I have no reason not to believe what he says about Romney's character since he knew him personally.

I apologize for the long posts, but I think it's a good reminder that Romney is not the man he is portrayed to be.

-Martha

Right Wingnut said...

I don't believe him either JR. I've never seen a politician change positions on so many issues in such a short amount of time. Some of it can be attributed to governing a liberal state, but at some point you have to wonder if he has ever taken a principled stand on anything.

Anonymous said...

What issues, RW? How many? Be specific. You can't unless you mislead.

He has no more position changes than any other politician.

-Martha

Spenza said...

You are a Wingnut. Give me a break! Your mind has been affected by the media and Romney haters. Mitt has flipped on 1 major issue, and MAYBE 1 or 2 minor issues.

You destroy your credibility when you stretch the truth so dang far and I think Bosman should seriously consider kicking you to the curb.

Anonymous said...

ROMNEY 2012!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Right Wingnut said...

Martha and Spenza,

You can start here. As you can see, it is more than 1 or 2 issues. The man has flipped on almost every issue over the past several years.

http://mittromneyflipflops.com/

When you're done with that, take the Romney Quiz. Seems like you need a little refresher.

http://whynotromney.blogspot.com/2011/03/20-question-mitt-romney-multiple-choice.html

Anonymous said...

Spenza, you're right he has only flipped on one major issue and two or three minor ones BUT it's the timing of those flips that makes all the difference. Not to mention that e has double flipped on one or two of those issues as well...all for political expediency.

I am glad it doesn't bother the Romney supporters...but personally it bothers me and that is why I just cannot believe the guy.

jerseyrepublican

Right Wingnut said...

Spenza,

Here's a partial list for you. Sounds like you have some research to do.

Carbon Emmission limits
assault weopons ban
auto bailouts
Ronald Reagan
Mandates
Minimum wage
Privatizing social security
don't ask, don't tell
TARP
Abortion
Campaign finance reform
Amnesty
Bush tax cuts
stem cell research
Roe v. Wade
definition of marriage
civil unions
homosexual adoption
abstinence only education

Anonymous said...

RW, it looks like I replied to soon to Spenza. To think all of those flips were flopped out of political expediency...they all coincide with an election he was a candidate in or planed to be involved in.

jerseyrepublican

Pablo said...

Wow, he flip flopped on TARP? Mandates? Are you serious? And of course, most of those are closely related. Yes, he flip flopped on abortion and gay marriage. That's two, not eight.

Spenza said...

Roe V. Wade and abortion are 1 issue. Mitt NEVER flipped on redefining marriage (his religious beliefs, but nice try in stretching (you are a truth stretcher...repent for bearing false witness), he has always favored Civil Unions, has ALWAYS been in favor of the Bush tax cuts, no matter what material to try to use to put a spin on it. Mandates? Mitt is still in favor of certain mandates, what the heck.

It's time for you to search deep into your soul in honest reflection and you will find hate for Romney lurking there, governing all this nonsense flowing out of your mouth.

Right Wingnut said...

Spenza,

Put your contact lenses back in and go read the material I gave you before you comment.

Roe v. Wade and aborton are not the same. You can be pro-choice AND believe that Roe v. Wade is bad law. Many believe it should be left up to the states.

Right Wingnut said...

Re: Bush tax cuts:

"Governor Mitt Romney refused yesterday to endorse tax cuts at the heart of President Bush’s economic program, but he told members of the state’s congressional delegation during a private meeting he also would not oppose the cuts because he has to maintain “a solid relationship” with the White House….

According to the observer, who spoke on condition of anonymity, Romney told the delegation that he “won’t be a cheerleader” for proposals he doesn’t agree with, “but I have to keep a solid relationship with the White House.”"

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/155688/mitt-and-taxes/byron-york

Right Wingnut said...

Re: FEDERAL mandates (in the video contained in this post)

MODERATOR: “You seem to have backed away from mandates on a national basis.”

ROMNEY: “No, no, I like mandates. The mandates work.”

Right Wingnut said...

he has always favored Civil Unions, - Spenza

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Do you think there's any difference, really, between a gay marriage and something called a civil union?

GOV. MITT ROMNEY, MASSACHUSETTS: Well, I would rather have neither, to tell you the truth. I'd rather that domestic partner benefits, such as hospital - hospital visitation rights for same-sex couples. I don't want civil unions or gay marriage.

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/health-care/did-romney-endorse-federal-mandate/

Right Wingnut said...

Spenza, Re: Gay Marriage

Mr. Romney’s standing among conservatives is being hurt by a letter he sent to the Log Cabin Club of Massachusetts saying that he would be a stronger advocate for gay rights than Senator Edward M. Kennedy, his opponent in a Senate race, in a position that stands in contrast to his current role as a champion of a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/09/us/politics/09romney.html