Unlike McCain, Romney Did Not Ever Flip Flop On Where His Party Loyalties Lie

[Lincoln Republican]

Ok, that's great that people are unenrolled in MA. That's great that it's common. However, don't tell us that he's never wavered when it comes to where he stands in terms of partisanship. If one minute it's good enough to be an independent and then a few years later it's better to be a Republican, that's wavering.

Oh, and by the way, no one cares that Kennedy's 1994 race was his closest. He still won by about eighteen points and it's still totally irrelevant to our discussion.

Phil, some people might find it interesting that this was Kennedy's closest Senate race.  To say that no one cares about this is rather presumptuous of you.  Another interesting fact about this Senate campaign is that Kennedy spent over $10 million and Romney spent over $7 million.

No one cares as in no one following this discussion cares because it is completely irrelevant.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh, uh, thanks. About time.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'd run as myself as a Republican. I make my own decisions. I don't always agree with my party and its leadership. But...again...what does this have to do with anything? One minute your argument is that Romney has never wavered in his allegiance and now you're saying, "He has to be an independent! Otherwise he'd lose and we don't like losers! Forget principles."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But he was never consistent with his partisan allegiances.

Phil, my thread is based on the premise that Romney never flirted with joining the Democrats, and he never did, whereas, credible evidence points to the fact that McCain did.  Independent is not a party loyalty, because it is not a party.

I have addressed in some detail the "Reagan-Bush" issue and the independent issue, as well as the issue of Romney's policy shifts over the years.

If some choose not to accept these explanations at face value, that is up to them.

If anyone can show me one shred of evidence that Romney ever flirted with joining the Democrats, then I will stand corrected.     

[Spaghetti Cat]

Winfield, you would make a great politician, and that's a compliment.

[Lincoln Republican]

Winfield, you would make a great politician, and that's a compliment.

Thank you, and welcome to the forum.

It is great to see another Romney supporter.

[Sam Spade]

Winfield, you would make a great politician, and that's a compliment.

More sig material.

[Spaghetti Cat]

Winfield, you would make a great politician, and that's a compliment.

More sig material.

sig?

[HappyWarrior]

Winfield you started this thread to emphasize Romney's partisan support but you have evolved it into how it is good he was never a Democrat.  You are almost as much a flip flopper in that capacity as your hero;)

[Lincoln Republican]

Winfield you started this thread to emphasize Romney's partisan support but you have evolved it into how it is good he was never a Democrat.  You are almost as much a flip flopper in that capacity as your hero;)

No.

The thread is clearly emphasizing the differences between Romney and McCain in this matter.

That's all it is.

[Horus]

So, THR, is it better to stay loyal to ones party than to ones principles? Because Mr. Romney most certainly stayed loyal to his party, his principles (If he has any), have changed at the drop of a political dime... But oh yes, he's still a Republican and always will be. Never mind then, my bad.

Politicians have been known to sincerely change or modify their views on certain issues over the years, and Romney's views on some issues have sincerely modified and evolved over the years.

I recognize that the perception of Romney's change in some policy positions are troublesome to some, however, Romney should be judged on his record and on his abilities, his record, I believe, is most credible, and his abilities, I believe, are outstanding.

Although Romney is currently placing second in the race for the Republican nomination, what is clear is that millions of caucus and primary voters agree with my assessment of Romney's record and abilities.   

Actually, his "views" on social issues have backtracked, and been disenlightened, although that is a matter of opinion I suppose. The important matter is that they have not been modified, they have completely flipped! Modified is supporting a change in abortion legality from 2nd to 1st trimester, not completely CHANGING your view on an issue. There's a big difference there.

His economic record is okay (in terms of not completely changing, not in terms of issues), although he has changed his views there as well.

And millions of primary voters or not, he's still done a lot more than modify and "evolve" his views...

[HardRCafé]

sig?

For great justice.

[Gustaf]

I actually thought it would be interesting to see a dissenting opinion defending Romney but I got about this far:

Just to make sure things are clear, I've compiled a list of issues that Romney has supposedly changed his opinion on but has actually remained entirely consistent.

Abortion Previously supported abortion rights, now opposes abortion. 

...and then I kind of sort of lost a little interest.

[Gustaf]

Looking again, Fezzy does seem to adress it in his post, so it isn't a serious criticism, I guess. But it still looked pretty funny. But can you admit that a lot of these changes ocurred after he was elected Governor and gave up his reelection plans?

[politicaltipster]

I think the issue is not his specific flip flops but the speed, motivation and extremes between them.

Take two obvious examples from the other side of the pond: Tony Blair and David Cameron. Blair started out when he was elected in 1983 as a generic anti-war Labour MP at the time when it was firmly out in left-field. During the 1980s he gradually moved to the centre, so by the late 1980s he was leading a movement to move the party back into the maintstream. By 1992 he was acknowledged a one of the major modernisers and in 1994 he explictly campaigned for the leadership on that promise. During his ten years in Downing Street he made the inevitable pander but held firm to a centrist, modern agenda  and a muscular foreign policy.

In contrast, David Cameron spent his time as a Conservative researcher and his time as a Conservative MP from 2001 to 2005 as a loyalist to the dominant right-wing of the party. Indeed, he co-wrote the Conservative manifesto on an viruntly anti-immigration platform. After he got elected as Conservative leader he spent time being photographed with Alaskan huskies and talking about 'hugging a hoodie' (a slightly less violent version of gang members). Both politicans changed their ideology but given that Blair's change was an honest ideological evolution and Cameron's was a cynical poll driven about-face people (rightly) consider David Cameron a phoney.

Similarly, while Romney's move to the right may be no more dramatic than McCain's move to the centre, the fact that McCain's move was over the best part of a decade ((from the K5 to the 2000 election campaign) demonstate' that whatever you think of McCain he is a genuine centre-right politican rather than the phoniness of Romney.

[HardRCafé]

The point is there were no changes.  He did not change his platform while in office, that is a flat-out lie.  I don't know how this blew up into "Flip-flop Mitt", but it never happened.  Outside of abortion, which has been explained to death, he has not changed any positions.  He has consistently stood by his beliefs from at least 1994 to 2008.  That is fact.

Do you actually read other people's posts?

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Father Mitt apparently likes to stretch the truth like anyone else.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080204/ap_on_el_pr/romney_economic_record