One would think that a candidate, running for President in the 21st Century, whose entire candidacy has had a narrative of transparent pandering and astonishing position changes, would know better than to attempt a naked pander and position change on an absolutely fundamental issue, in a very public forum, the weekend before the largest Primary Election in American history.
But not Mitt Romney, who used a podcast on one of the center-right's most widely read blogs to absolutely contradict his previous positions on gun control. As Instapundit says, in response: "I'm beginning to question [Romney's] sincerity."
Longtime readers will know that I'm no fan of John McCain. But I really do think that Romney is convinced that he's so smart and that we're so stupid that he can get away will stuff like this. He's our Bill Clinton. I really do have a hard time understanding how anyone can take anything he says seriously.
Quoted directly from the Florida GOP debate:
To repeat:
I assume that isn't strictly what he means--I can't imagine a politician who doesn't care about the voters. I agree that this sounds stupid, but certainly not worse than a lot of things attributed to the other candidates. Right now, we are faced with an election in which voters on both sides of the aisle are trying to figure out who to vote for--it's really becoming more of a situation where you have to find the man or woman you dislike the least.
There may be a flip flop in there but as it stands the NRA ratings are as follows:
McCain: C
Romney: B
Paul: B
Clinton: F
Obama: F
"There may be a flip flop in there but as it stands the NRA ratings are as follows:"
Was the NRA judging Romney by what he told the NRA or by his record or by the myriad of different positions he's taken during this campaign?
How does the NRA (or any other interest group) give a grade to a guy whose position is never static?
It's based on their voting record.
"It's based on their voting record."
There is no way his record and statements as Governor of Massachusetts got him a B rating from the NRA.
He must have pandered pretty well to explain away some of that.
Right now, we are faced with an election in which voters on both sides of the aisle are trying to figure out who to vote for--it's really becoming more of a situation where you have to find the man or woman you dislike the least.
Perhaps on your negative side of the aisle, but over here on what I will be affectionally referring to as "the winning side" instead of "liberal", it's more a matter of who do I like more, and who is going to address more of the concerns I have.
--
"Another Anon with a worthless opinion" - Run4cvrlib on 2/2/08
"I guess I have little tolerance for people who just attack people just to do it and give no justification." - Run4cvrlib on 2/2/08
IP-I agree Romney was for the Assault Weapons Ban among other things, I am unaware of anything McCain did in the way of gun control.
I know what Romney said, but his actual record tells a different story.
http://www.goal.org/romneyrecord.htm
And McCain's record? Not so rosy:
http://www.gunowners.org/mccaintb.htm
www.gunowner.org
quotes RON PAUL on their website
"The only no-compromise gun lobby in Washington."
-Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX)
Ron Paul
by Larry Pratt
Executive Director
Ron Paul has represented areas near Houston, Texas for nearly 20 years in the U.S. House of Representatives. He has the reputation of the paramount defender of the Constitution and seeks to follow it in casting every one of his votes.
Ron Paul has been a leader in the fight to defend and restore the Second Amendment. He has sponsored legislation to repeal the following:
Paul also has sponsored legislation requiring states to treat the concealed carry permit of one state the same as they do that state's driver's license.
Paul has viewed his opposition to a national ID card as a protection for gun owners. A national ID card would most likely identify the bearer as a gun owner, among other things of interest to government officials.
Paul acknowledges his underdog status in the 2008 presidential race. He argues that he is offering himself as a pro-Second Amendment alternative to the candidates who have initially led the field, none of whom have a pro-gun record. Paul hopes to use his long experience in raising grassroots support to gain sufficient funding to become the pro-gun alternative to the current leaders of the field.
Ron Paul is a Medical Doctor who for years even as a member of Congress continued practicing as an obstetrician. He is married and has five children, 17 grandchildren and one great-grandchild.
Both very interesting websites the Gun Owners of America likes to attack McCain using the same charge written different ways to make it worse then it really is. It turns out their big complaint's are McCain Feingold, Instant Check at Gun shows and having Manufacturers ship gun locks it makes McCain hardly a Gun control nut.
Rush today:
"I think right now Romney probably -- as the campaign has coalesced and as the campaign has progressing on down the highway -- I think the one candidate of the three still out there on our side matter (and actually it's just two, because Huckabee doesn't, in terms of a chance to win) in saying who more closely embodies all three legs of this conservative stool, you'd have to say that it's Mitt Romney. There's actually no choice in the matter. It certainly isn't Senator McCain."
More than anything else, I admire Romney for his consistency.
Romney has gone back and forth so much on the gun issue it is uncanny. McCain is hardly perfect on the issue, but Romney has in both rhetoric and record supported the Assault Weapon ban federally and for the State of Massachusetts (where he signed it into law).
Romney has since adamantly supported his AWB support in the past... while similarly trying to distance himself from it from week to week. All of a couple weeks ago he was promising to consider bans on guns of certain lethality... but left it open as to what that means. His NRA rating above is a total joke given his recent record (he signed the ban into law just a few years ago) and his rhetoric which has been anything but consistent on what he supports or will support in office.
This is one of the first issues that drove me up the wall with Romney... mainly because he was supporting gun bans in the same breath as he was lying about having the NRA endorsement. His 11th hour joining of the NRA as a "life member" shortly before announcing his candidacy doesn't convince me he's not the same guy who was pointing out he he didn't line up with the NRA and that he strongly supported strict gun control a heart beat before.
McCain's issues with guns are his background checks at gun shows support, obnoxious imo, and his support of mandating gun locks with gun purchases, also obnoxious imo, and his one seemingly protest vote over a poison pilled vote that included a horrible amendment on the AWB. Fortunately McCain has been consistently against the AWB in record and rhetoric otherwise, so it doesn't appear this was anything more than protest vote against a bill long dead. That's McCain's worst points on guns.
Romney's worst points? He advocated, still defends, and has left open his support of banning some of the guns I own. He was a proponent of strict gun control and distanced himself from the NRA until he decided to run for president... when he joined the NRA and began talking incoherently about what he may or may not support in the future. Thanks to this issue I learned he was this way on almost every other major issue as well though. So I guess I should thank him for that. Prior to his gun lies I didn't pay him much attention at all.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Dan... indeed. The Wall Street Journal had a scathing editorial on Romney's "convictions" that was definitely worth the read.
Of course my favorite example was the MI Democrats for Romney ad that came off the heals of the DailyKos campaigning for him:
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
I was an artillery officer in the army 67-70 (OCS)and have an army major for a son (now a Champaign cop). Where does all your 2nd amendment purity come from? I know that I am biased being Romney's coordinator, but in my view there is hardly an R alive that believes we need more laws on guns. We have so many laws now we do not enforce that we ought to start eliminating them and not just in the 2nd amendment area. I am glad to hear that Romney gets a B and McCain a C, but quite frankly I would be scared if either had gotten an A.
If you have some beef about Romney on his religion, that's fine, but you don't need to distort the records by thinking hearsay is evidence. There are shades of gray. Instead of saying that he voted for this and that IP, why don't you put forth an argument why you think Romney should have supported the law. Then we can discuss it.
If you have a beef about Romney for being rich, that fine too. He earned his and did not marry into a beer fortune. Mr. Huckabee, for is running for vice-president, seems to have the same mind set. As for Rush Limbaugh, I think he nailed it on the head when he spoke about identify politics. No one is pure. There are only two choices left, McCain and Romney. I like to compare them based on their life work. On education, accomplishments, character, party loyalty, and experience, the choice is clear-Romney.
The only flip floper is Hillary Clinton.
;)
Opps, that's the Obama one, here's the Hillary one.
"If you have some beef about Romney on his religion, that's fine, but you don't need to distort the records by thinking hearsay is evidence."
The record is clear, Romney actively supported banning guns that I own. I'm a big 2nd Amendment supporter, but I'm not a single issue voter. I'll put up with McCain's flaws on guns control issues for the higher priorities of a stronger record on foreign policy and SC nominees. But no hearsay is required to look up Romney's clear support for strong gun control up until recently (he gladly supported it) and no hearsay is required to see that he's still leaving the option open for signing more bans into law as he endlessly contradicted himself on what new laws he might support or not.
"I was an artillery officer in the army 67-70 (OCS)and have an army major for a son (now a Champaign cop). Where does all your 2nd amendment purity come from?"
From the Constitution all of us swore to uphold and defend. I don't know if you're trying to pull some sort of chickenhawk argument here, but you're barking up the wrong tree. I was a strong 2nd Amendment supporter long before I enlisted. No military qualification is necessary in being a 2nd Amendment purist, and given the historical background of the amendment it'd be ironic if such a qualification became necessary.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
"Instead of saying that he voted for this and that IP, why don't you put forth an argument why you think Romney should have supported the law. Then we can discuss it."
I'm not sure why you're angry with me - all I'm doing is pointing to quotes from The Great Romney himself. Are you saying that he didn't say the quotes I linked above? Or that somehow the quotes are really indicative of his consistent, bedrock beliefs?
Perhaps you can offer me some reassurance that Romney doesn't think we're all idiots just stupid enough to fall for him taking multiple positions on most major issues.
Unless you think the guy is a crook, I'd rather take my chances on a guy with an inconsistent record that is at least saying things I agree with now. Consistent in positions opposite of mine doesn't really do much for me.
"Unless you think the guy is a crook, I'd rather take my chances on a guy with an inconsistent record that is at least saying things I agree with now."
That's my point - he's not saying things that you agree with now. He's saying whatever he feels like at the moment.
Read the quotes. They're Romney's own words. He has taken, in public and less than two months apart, two exactly opposite positions on the same narrow issue. If he's not lying and/or pandering and/or completely without principle and/or so smart he thinks he can fool all us stupid people, I'd love to hear some explanation for how anyone can support someone who has done this multiple times throughout this campaign.
It's not that he's changed his position to agree with conservatives. He's changed his positions to agree with whomever he is speaking at any given moment. He's not conservative. He's not liberal. He's a chameleon, and he think we're stupid enough or desperate enought that he can get away with it.
He's a chameleon, and he think we're stupid enough or desperate enought that he can get away with it.
At this point, "desperate" is the correct word, and for me he is right.
Romney was more consistant in being against the things most conservatives support until he wanted their support nationally. Most of the complaints against McCain can often be, at least similarly, leveled at Romney given his uncanny ability to have been on both sides of almost every issue in his short time in and running for government office. The guy that didn't want to be associated with Reagan now arrogantly claims he'd absolutely get the Gipper's endorsement in front of his widow? I think that may have been even more offensive than when he pulled that crap with the NRA.
What baffles me is that people can forgive Romney for a laundry list of infractions and straying from the conservative platform but are totally unable to forgive McCain's in spite of his strong record on all other issues. If there was a candidate that lined up with their views better I could certainly see voting for them instead of either of these two, but when it's down to these two... Romney's new sales pitch just doesn't add up.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
That's what so frustrating for me: So many people whom I respect have bought into this charlatan.
"What baffles me is that people can forgive Romney for a laundry list of infractions and straying from the conservative platform but are totally unable to forgive McCain's in spite of his strong record on all other issues."
Not me. They're both pretty unforgiveable. At least with McCain, I know why people support him, even if I disagree with those reasons. With Romney, I really don't understand how anybody can. He's just so obviously transparent that it's unfathomable to me that anyone believes anything he says.
That said, McCain trotting out Bob Dole last night to burnish his conservative credentials is just further evidence of how completely clueless and out-of-touch McCain really is. Bob Dole isn't conservative, has never been conservative, and has very little credibilty with conservatives. Like McCain, he's an American hero - but he's a lover of big government and trusts inside-the-beltway groupthink to solve problems more than the individual and community initiative of Americans.
The benefit Romney has is that his past sins were in Mass - and I didn't have to watch them.
McCain has been a pain at the national level, when we had a GOP Congress. He hasn't faced political pressure to do what he has done - he took his lousy positions out of principle.
IP... that's what I was trying to get at. If McCain is unforgivable it's really hard to see how Romney wouldn't be too (or even more so).
RSW... the "out of sight, out of mind" phenomenon may benefit Romney, but I'd argue that it shouldn't. It almost sounds as if you're justifying Romney's litany of lousy positions because he was under political pressure... I'm not sure if that'd be a good selling point when he's likely to have a Democratic congress to deal with.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
"The benefit Romney has is that his past sins were in Mass - and I didn't have to watch them. "
Yeah, the Mass. stuff used to bother me. But I've moved past that, because he's been contradicting himself so blatently just in the past few months. He can't even agree with himself.
Example:
December 16, 2007:
February 3, 2008:
Nothing to do with Massachusetts. These are the words out of his own mouth. Same man. Same race. Less than two months apart. Diametrically opposed positions on the same issue.
And this isn't the only instance. Why is anyone OK with this?
It almost sounds as if you're justifying Romney's litany of lousy positions because he was under political pressure.
Not so much justifying as just contrasting it to McCain's lousy positions, which he took in opposition to his own majority party and President. He really believes this stuff, and is stubborn enough to push for them - that scares me.
John Maloney said:
"If you have a beef about Romney for being rich, that fine too. He earned his and did not marry into a beer fortune."
Romney didn't pull himself up by his bootstraps. Remember, his father was the president of American Motors. I'd be shocked if Romney wasn't born a millionaire. Granted, he apparently expanded his wealth, but it's a lot easier to earn $2 million if you start with $1million.
Even more quotes of the same problem:
His recent statements neither match his record nor his rhetoric in his most recent campaign. I don't buy it.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
.
It’s been an interesting discussion. I don't look at the right to life, gun rights or free speech as rights which are our personal rights as something easily taken away. Unfortunately we have two candidates that seem to think that they and the government have the right to change them at will. Romney concerns me more because he diminishes our rights within a paragraph when it comes to gun rights and doesn't know he's done it.
"Let's get the record straight. First of all, there's no question that I support 2nd Amendment rights, but I also support an assault weapon ban." -- Mitt Romney at the Republican Debate in South Carolina May 15, 2007.
Romney does the same with the right to life issue since he is pro-choice and McCain some what with his support of Embryonic Stem cell research. McCain of course goes off a cliff completely with campaign finance reform which has been a sham. The big problem for me with Romney is his inconsistency he can't stick to a position on an issue so I can reasonably expect and outcome if he is elected. With McCain he fought for the Surge even when everyone else wavered, McCain didn’t give up and was proven right. I think McCain is for balancing the budget and spending cuts and tax cuts I think he will follow though when things get tough.
You all miss my point. 2nd amendment is 10 issues (or more) Right to life is 10 issues (or more). But if you are running to head the executive branch of government you need an executive. You do need someone who thinks like you do on 10 out of 10 questions put forth by the Catholic Church or the NRA. No one can meet litnus test. And who could care less about stem cells? Is that some big right to life issue now that they have figured out to do research in other ways.
McCain has no executive experience. He has a bad temper. He is a worst womanizer than Bill Clinton (or was at the same age). He is not smart. He certainly did not distinguish himself in the Senate (except as a fun guy to party with). Plus he is too old to be President. He has absolutely no chance of winning against Hillary or Obama because he cannot even debate an issue. His answer to the economy is Jack Kemp.
No response to my question, John?
Why are you OK with your candidate taking two diametrically opposed positions on the exact same issue less than two months apart? And why should I be OK with that?
Dear John Maloney and IP,
In reading Romney's statements, they aren't necessarily contradictory. I believe he said he "would have" signed and "would have" supported assault weapon bans. He then said he doesn't currently support gun control legislation. I can't guarantee that he is simply indicating a change in position, but the semantic route is considerably less convoluted than the meaning of "is:"
Part of the problem may also be that Romney is confused, as most people are, by the expression "assault weapon." This is largely a matter of style and not function. You can shoot a bear with something that looks to Romney and others like an assault weapon and you can shoot a cop with something that looks like a hunting rifle.
I'll be the first to admit that Romney leaves a lot to be desired for Conservatives, but McCain is in even worse shape. The kefuffle over Rush and the Dole letter makes him look really testy and incautious. I like that in a military leader, but on the domestic front we don't want all the gooks mad at him.
John
"Part of the problem may also be that Romney is confused, as most people are, by the expression "assault weapon."
I'm not, we don't need a candidate that is.
Romney better not be confused over what an Assault Weapon is. He signed the ban into law in Massachusetts and supported the federal ban for over a decade. He was still supporting an Assault Weapon Ban as late as May of last year. His stance has evolved considerably since then. As many of his "stances" have in recent times.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Mitt & Kerry wish you a great Pride Weekend....
I am sure that will go over Really Well in the South.
The news is reporting that Mitt Romney has enrolled in Southern Baptist Bible School and will be the first Mormon ever converted to the Southern Baptist ministry.
When asked to comment Romney said, "I have always believed in the Baptist ministry, While Governor of Mass, I suppported Baptist ministers, especially from the South. I have always been a Baptist minister in my heart. I saw my father march with Baptist ministers."
When reached for comment, Mike Huckabee said, "He's not in the club. He's never come to any of the meetings."
I simply do not want a weapon on the street that puts my Champaign policeman son at a disadvantage in a fire fight. I have no problem with rifles, shot guns, and hand guns. I like conceal carry. I want people that have guns to be highly trained, of good moral character, and completely sane.
The more gun laws we have the more we dilute the present ones. Did you ever put a document in a wrong file? Nothing is ever so lost. It is the same with our gun laws. Enforce the ones we have and after we start doing that, we can discuss new ones. Most of the restrictions on guns are in places like Chicago. We have no hope of changing that until we change the definition of home rule.
Last post was mine. Changed to lap top.
John I don't know what weapon on the street doesn't put your son at a disavantage, when it's held by a criminal anyway. What kind of weapon are you talking about.
Gordy
It is probably not relevant today with McCain this far ahead, but I always try to answer IP. I thought I answered the question before, but let me try it this way.
Your definition of what an assault weapon is, may be found in the definition secition of the piece of legislation that was originally proposed. After the house version of that bill gets over to the Senate, there may be a new definiition. The bill then may go to a conferenece committee. It then may be debated some more and eventually passed. Usually the legislation will have a rule making provision that allows some federal agency to oversee the legislation and to make regualations from time to time. Assuming that I know the exact regulations and laws that you are talking about is a hopeless task. The assault weapon ban may be so overlly broad that if law enforcement attempts to enforce it, judges may interprete that piece of legislation and make a decision on it. There may be other cases that have slightlly different facts. All these cases are used as a basis of deciding what we mean by the term assault weapons.. After all this, you and I sit here and discuss it. You can never have an exact meaning of "assault weapon. It means something different to you than it does to me. Your interpretation of what Romney was trying to say was in your mind. The second interpretation of what Romney said was also in your mind. Who is a better expert on what Romney meant the first time he said it-you or Romney. Who is a better expert on what Romney meant the second time-you or Romney? Obviouslly Romney.
This situation is the same discussion that Romney had with McCain on a timetable to get out of Iraq. Romney said clearly in 13 straight debates that he would have no time table because that would just help the enemy. Yet McCain said that by that statement and the use of the word "time table" it meant he wanted to set a timetable. Who was a better expert on what Romney meant? Obviouslly Romney.
In the third debate a discussion came up about torture. A question came up about "waterboarding". Romney said: "I am opposed to making any statement about what I will and will not do. I will say that the UN and laws outlaw torture and I will follow the law." So, you are for torture is McCain's reply. The problem is that the definition of 2nd amendment covers a wide variety of circumstances. It is like free speech, but you cannot yell fire in a theater. Maybe this will help.
Your view of 2nd amendment is like a big empty box. All neat around the edges. When you try to fit Romney's views or my views into that box-you have trouble. This is why I define how I felt in an ambiquous way -"I don't want my Champaign cop son to be at a disadvantage in a firefight." I hope that helps.
There's no confusion over what guns Romney supported banning. My guns. Both with the legislation he signed into law and with his adamant support of the federal law. He's lying his tail end off now trying to be as non-specific as possible in what he supports/supported banning. But we are fully aware his immaculate conversion to conservative issues was about as sincere as Hillary's tears. And what guns did he support banning for decades... scary looking semi-automatics. Two guns I own... that are less powerful than most hunting rifles but look scary... making them easy for hysterics to ban.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Thanks for the response, John.
I still don't really understand how those who support Romney can discern his positions or rely on them to remain static. But it's a moot point anyway, as one of the other not-a-conservative candidates is going to win.