Tuesday, December 13, 2011

Romney in 2002: "My views are progressive"

28 comments:

Lionhead said...

Was there any doubt? Are voters just beginning to discover Mitt's 'roots?' As I posted earlier, let's face facts & call the nominees what they are, what they campaigned on, what their records are. The truth regarding Mitt & Newt cannot be hidden anymore.

No matter how much media 'lipstick' you put on these two candidates, they are what they are. Anyone that refuses to acknowledge their thoughts, actions, deeds, is in need of professional psychological help.

Face the facts & choose your candidate wisely.

Teemu said...

Gingrich has constantly said that FDR was the greatest 20th century president
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgdzZJePL04
And last week in Glenn Beck interview he said “I’m a Theodore Roosevelt Republican”. So how is that different. Expect of course Gingrich has said these things more recently.

Anonymous said...

Charles K yesterday said Gingrich's attack on Romney was something that would come from a socialist, and Brit Hume destroyed Newt for his attack on romney.

Anonymous said...

So Newt makes some "progressive" statements over the past few months and nothing...

Anonymous said...

Wow RWN...this is sooo 9 years ago. How long ago did Gingrich use the most liberal phrase I've ever heard a "true conservative" say...5 months...just checking

Lionhead said...

"Wow RWN...this is sooo 9 years ago." So, the primary voters should 'selectively forget' everything every candidate has done until just before they announce to be a candidate. Uh, huh, I see. Now that's a very sound way to judge a candidate, just by what they say in a campaign hoping what they say will get your vote & ignoring everything else that has preceded their candidacy. We just expunge history, destroy the video tapes, burn the books, newspapers & magazines. It merely doesn't exist. Poof!

Anonymous said...

Shocking! Well, maybe not when you add up the heresies of Newt. Besides, didn't Reagan go from being a Democrat in 62 to winning the governorship as a Republican in 64?

I forgot the rule, though. It's okay for everyone else to have changed a little over the years, but not Romney. His feet must be held to the fire, darmit!

I believe it you compare Governor Romney's and Governor Reagan's records you would find that overall Mitt was more conservative. But don't bother with the pesky little facts in your futile quest, RW.

-Martha

Anonymous said...

I meant darnit.

-Martha

matrix641 said...

Definitely not good for Romney, but not as bad as attacking the very same capitalist success you praised so recently, or praising FDR and Andy Stearne, for that matter. There is merit to the idea that the term progressive was not seen the same as it is today. Romneys view on abortion was "progressive", until he saw the fruit of that labor as governor. He was also willing to look at environmentalist policies until he saw how much they would cost as governor. Was he a conservative ideologue? No, but he did govern conservatively, especially as he saw the results of progressive policy first hand. So you point to Romneycare, which is a misonomer, because ther was and is no government provider of care in MA. How many of you even know that Romney never wanted a mandate? His proposal allowed for people to bond out or show evidence of self insurability. The legislature would not have it. He went there on a mission to fix the economy. You can't be all things to all people, as someone will always be upset, so he changed what he could, for the better, and left when it was done. There is no real reason to think he would not do the same for America.

DanL said...

So what? Romney's not a tea party drone, no news here. I want a candidate who can think on his own and not be told what to think by the screamers on the far right. This is a positive in my book.

Top_Hat said...

Just look at how he ran Massacusetts, he ran it conservatively. During the election in Massachusetts, the libs had to understand that he would work with both sides. What is wrong with working with both sides. Romney also got in trouble for criticizing the Contract for America because he as governor could not just say he was going to be one sided and it was his way or the highway. So he worked with the 85% liberal legislature and passed very conservative means to correct their economy.

From the Boston Globe this shows his conservative history in a liberal state: “The first signs of life appear in the Massachusetts economy and the governor calls for a $225 million tax cut.” ( http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/05/11/romneys_real_agenda_is_national/ )

Yes he was still able to get this passed in a liberal state because he worked with the other side.

Machtyn said...

matrix641: That's the best response I've seen on the subject so far. Mind if I share it with others?

Anonymous said...

Lionhead...that is not at all what I am saying...just applying the same logic for those who extol Romney for flipflops and give Gingrich a pass on all the pieces of video and betrayals. To ignore this double standard is not very truthful and to apply your own term "selectfully forgetting" such instances is a two way street. It doesn't just apply to Romney.

Gordon

Lionhead said...

Hi Martha, This is what you want voters to forget huh?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRdqGKA782A&feature=player_embedded#

Just sweep history away & start de novo. Start with a clean slate. Uh, huh.

Lionhead said...

Sorry Martha, Gordon fessed up now. If you think I'm biased, pull up the link.

cimbri said...

This was long before the newer use of the term progressive took root in the late 2000s. The liberals stole the progressive moniker from Republicans - that's not Romney's fault.

Anonymous said...

Ah RWN, you never let us down!
Ellie

Anonymous said...

Lionhead...great piece...should I pull up a link to disparage Newt now along the same lines? Seriously, man dump on Romney all you want, he probably won't win this thing anyway, but for you to extol me on Romney and embrace Gingrich by ignoring all of his heresy's...well there is a term for that, something about a pot calling a kettle something...

Gordon

Lionhead said...

Gordon, I dislike both equally, but for different reasons. Newt is more progressive than Romney & a lot less ethical. So, put in any link you fancy. I will not be voting for Newt or Mitt. Period.

Moreover, you're correct in saying Mitt likely will not get the nomination. Again, the leaders of the GOP have given out mixed messages & confused the primary voters IMHO. Now, they will receive more messages about Newt pricking his bubble.

The establishment folks don't recognize it, but they've just sown the seeds for a third party. It may happen this election cycle or if there's another one, but the seeds are in the ground. The "red team" vs. "blue team" game where both teams are owned by the progressives is coming to an end. The current era of "rope-a-dope" & "pick the lesser of evils" choices will not stand anymore. You can choose anyone on each team, but you will be choosing a progressive.

"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time."

Abraham Lincoln

Anonymous said...

Was the definition of "progressive" the same 9 years ago as it is today? I don't think so. The word has been twisted from meaning someone who could think outside of the box and willing to reject some traditions in order to do what is right to someone who pushes left wing ideologies. It's not fair to use a single word with such broad definitions in such simple terms as what Beck and his followers have done. For example, back in the 40's and 50's it was typically more accepted in society to have an abusive husband at home - today that is unacceptable. I would consider the change a progressive social change - and a good one too. So to throw around the term "progressive" without proper context is unfair and just plain ridiculous.

matrix641 said...

@ Machtyn

Sure, just attribute it to my primary handle - Flagkeeper. I need to set up more accounts where I post, but haven't yet.

marK said...

I have never understood the fascination so many people have of digging up "gotcha" quotes from 10, 15, 20, even 25 years previously.

We are not selecting the 2002 version of Romney to be our nominee any more than we are selecting the 2002 version of Gingrich, Bachmann, Perry, Santorum, or anybody else. We have to deal with the person as they are now, today, not nearly ten years ago.

Lionhead said...

""Was the definition of "progressive" the same 9 years ago as it is today? I don't think so."" Answer, Yes & no, actually their takeover agenda has never changed in its 100 year history. Big gov't, redistribution, regulations, centralized power & control.

"The word has been twisted from meaning someone who could think outside of the box and willing to reject some traditions in order to do what is right to someone who pushes left wing ideologies." What is right? Who are you to define what is right? Do you know better than anyone else what is right? I don't think so, that's why we elect our representatives. The USA is a republic, not a democracy.

""So to throw around the term "progressive" without proper context is unfair and just plain ridiculous."" So, are you going to define it for us? Or should we look to the candidates, Gov't, academics etc. Will that definition creep or morph into something else more sinister someday?

"I would consider the change a progressive social change - and a good one too." Great, at least you have the courage to say what you are & what you want. You are a proud Progressive. Bingo!

leighrow said...

Romney spent only 4 years in government as a governor of MA. Romney never worked in Washington.Romney spent decades in the private sector economy making boat loads of money by restructuring companies.

Gingrich spent 40 plus years in Washington or as a leech who profited from Big Government as an "historian"-ha ha ha-sarcasm.

HMMMM-I wonder which one is the big fat progressive who supports Big Government?????

Anonymous said...

Lionhead...I assumed you were jumping on with Gingrich...sorry that I jumped to that conclusion...glad to hear that's not the case. I won't encourage you to get behind Romney, it would be impossible to do so anyway. I respect your convictions and I'm glad that you're sticking by your own principles and choosing neither. That is what has been most upsetting about the Gingrich surge for us Rombots, a lot of Republicans hated on Romney all year and vowed never to support him because x,y,z, but then they went ahead and jumped on board with someone just as guilty of x,y,z. I'm fully aware of the narrative that exists about Romney and there is certainly evidence to back some of your claims up.
Let me just finish with one thought...please at least accept that there a lot of us who are "true conservatives" who just happen to believe Mitt is the best candidate this cycle. You and I would probably see eye to eye on most issues, we obviously just disagree with how we view the office of the Presidency and candidates that we would like to see in that position. Just because we may support Mitt, doesn't mean that we think other conservatives are loons etc. and that they are worthless members of the movement.

Anonymous said...

The definition of progressive has changed.....I'm sure Mitt Romney used the word as defined in the dictionary...favoring or advocating progress , change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, especially in political matters ...

Terrye said...

This is so stupid...Once upon a time, progressive meant modern, forward looking..in fact back in the early part of the 20th century conservative Republicans went out of their way to call themselves progressives, because it meant that you supported science and industry...ect..liberals have recently started using the term to describe themselves so that they could escape some of the baggage that was attached to liberal..

Besides, cherry picking old video for the sake some silly gothca moment is just so ridiculous. There is not a politician out there that could not be made to look bad with the help of some out of context video. This is lame and and par for the course for RWN.

BTW, Romney has a record you can look at...and it is far more conservative than he gets credit for.

Lori Patriot said...

Talent says Newt is unreliable. He points out that Newt bashed Paul Ryan's plan and was against the surge that worked. Romney's platform is far more conservative than anyone's since Reagan. Mitt said he was not a "partisan Republican" (reasonable) in 2002 when he ran in far left Mass. He said he was progressive in relation to his ideas to cut 2 departments in the Mass. government and cut spending. Massachusetts Care was also viewed as progressive as far as thinking outside the box and trying to give the voters what they wanted. He record is very fiscally conservative in a bankrupt far left state. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/12/13/romney_surrogate_jim_talent_gingrich_an_unreliable_leader.html

Newt loves FDR, models himself after Woodrow Wilson and admires SEIU’s Andy Stern http://www.glennbeck.com/2011/12/13/unbelievable-newt-loves-fdr-models-himself-after-woodrow-wilson-and-admires-seius-andy-stern/