What A Time It Was

Via Eve Fairbanks, here's hot video of Mitt Romney debating Shannon O'Brien in 2002 and elaborating on his strong pro-choice convictions:

For a bit of background here, let me just say that I was living in Massachusetts during this election, and when Romney said he supported a woman's right to choose I believed him. Watch the video, and I think you'll see that Romney is acting a little indignant. And, at the time, I thought rightly so. His opponent's camp tried now and again to insert the choice issue into the race even though Romney had a perfectly consistent pro-choice record going back to his 1994 campaign against Ted Kennedy. Why shouldn't he have been indignant? Well, the dude turns out to be a decent liar; though it's hard to say which position, if any, is the one he ever really believed in. You get the sense he'd say babies come from storks if he thought that was the way to advance his political career.

Comments

The good news is that if pandering to the Christian right is that critical for a national election, then the number of states that can produce a qualified Republican candidate is relatively small (and most of those states have meager electoral votes).

Posted by Saam Barrager | February 21, 2007 1:21 AM

Yeah it's bizarre. I mean this goes beyond a mere flipflop on a politically expedient position. This is something he really seemed to feel strongly about.

Posted by Chad Okere | February 21, 2007 1:51 AM

Part of me wishes Jill Stein would run her Prius over Shannon O'Brien for running such a retarded campaign back in 2002 and leaving us with this weirdo.

Posted by Reality Man | February 21, 2007 2:03 AM

Someone really needs to use the post title "That Was the Mitt that Was"

Posted by Aaron Bergman | February 21, 2007 2:05 AM

oh man, can you imagine the savaging romney's gonna get when the right wing really finds out how much of a flip-flopper he is? i mean, you thought they were bad when it came to accusing someone who they knew for certain wasn't their ally, wait until it comes down to calling out one of their own. and if there's one thing the right wing can be counted on, it's holding their own to the same standard they excoriate liberals for not living up to.

i just feel really badly for him, it's never gonna stop, and it's gonna be all he can do to come out with his limbs intact.

Posted by lyle | February 21, 2007 2:06 AM

A cynical opponent might run campaign ads that ask "Is Romney really a conservative?" with the real subtext being, "Is Romney really a Christian?"

Posted by Misplaced Patriot | February 21, 2007 2:09 AM

Look at the guy's mouth- this guy's a sleaze, if not worse. It's a woman's mouth for one thing. But, it's lurid, and sort of lewd. This motherfucker's bad news.

Posted by Trevor | February 21, 2007 2:44 AM

I have no idea how Romney thinks he can finesse this. It ought to be devastating, both in terms of denying him the religious right vote on his way to the nomination, and denying him trustworthiness in the general.

Of course, what do I know about how the non-reality-based side works. Maybe they'll believe whatever slimy lies he comes up with to cover for this.

Posted by jimBOB | February 21, 2007 3:21 AM

I must say, he comes off as pretty good candidate. Moreso than I've ever noticed Giuliani or McCain to be.

Usually I'd disregard him because, if nothing else, his view on abortion here should immediately take him out of the consideration of anyone who treats a pro-life position as very important. That said, McCain is a senile panderer, and Giuliani is even "worse" in that regard.

What does it say about the dignity of the Republican base if their choices are all of people who don't give a shit about them beyond getting their votes in the primary?

Of course, Democrats have it only slightly better in that regard...

Posted by Zephyrus | February 21, 2007 4:45 AM

We just need to remember that the evangelicals flocked to an alcoholic coke snortin prodigal son who told us all that he got saved. Romney is simply doing his version of that toe dance and given his otherwise apparently squeaky clean life he has far fewer personal issues with the fundies.
Romney also has Land of the SBC in his corner and speaks at Pat Robertson's Regent University in the Fall. He is getting annointed because the Christian Right sees him as electable unlike Huckabee or Brownback (even the Right can not believe a preacher or hardcore fundie can get elected; Romney was basically a neighborhood watch chief not a preacher). They will not that easily forgive McCain's open disparagement of their movement in the past and Giuliani in drag is a real nonstarter.
So what they gonna do? Certainly anything to keep the Evil One out of the WH.
I think that the Dems are in a worse place at this point. HRC has so many left Dems and Republics who simply will not support her, Pretty Boy has not been able to overcome his basic Not Serious image, and ObamaRama is OK reality tv but not electable.
At this point I'd give it to Romney in 08.
Yes I think that we have come to that.

Posted by tiptap | February 21, 2007 7:20 AM

A column in todays' Washington Post about flipflopper Romney.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/20/AR2007022001266.html?sub=AR

Posted by SLC | February 21, 2007 8:30 AM

10 yard penalty for using an electability argument against a Democratic candidate. See rule change 2004-a.

Posted by SP | February 21, 2007 8:45 AM

Don't tell me we wouldn't have done if Robert Reich had won in the primary over Shannon O'Brien. He would have pinned down Multi-Choice Mitt on the issues and we wouldn't even be talking about this self-promoter now.

Posted by not the senator | February 21, 2007 8:45 AM

Romney's a whore who will say anything to get elected. If I were the Democrats, I'd be salivating to run against this guy. Any halfway decent Dem. campaign strategist should be able to come up with a few TV ads to drive down Republican turnout and independent support.

Posted by Dave | February 21, 2007 8:48 AM

Matt: I really think it is unnecessary to call the man a liar. After all, for all we know it is plausible he--like a small but not negligible fraction of the American populace--has changed his mind on abortion. That said, his change of heart has been certainly dramatic enough that he owes the public a very serious clarification of the history of his transformation, and of where he stands today.

Posted by pedro | February 21, 2007 9:02 AM

What does it say about the dignity of the Republican base if their choices are all of people who don't give a shit about them beyond getting their votes in the primary?

there was as segment this AM on NPR about this. the big 4 GOP contenders are going to be speaking to the evangelicals at a big event somewhere soon, and they interviewed the organizers of the event. the people interviewed were sure that all the candidates were going to show up and say all the right words, but they clearly weren't going to take their speeches at face value. they actually seemed pretty jaded about the whole thing. evangelicals have the same problem anti-war or pro-environment liberals have: candidates who say the right words when they need to, but just can't bring themselves to taking big steps. after a while, we all get used to empty promises.

Posted by cleek | February 21, 2007 9:06 AM

When has being a Lying Whore ever disqualified anyone from becoming president? I thought it came in at #2 right after Really Good Teeth, only slipping to #2 since the 70's.

Posted by tiptap | February 21, 2007 9:25 AM

"Matt: I really think it is unnecessary to call the man a liar. After all, for all we know it is plausible he--like a small but not negligible fraction of the American populace--has changed his mind on abortion."

File this under "bending over backwards".

Posted by RickD | February 21, 2007 9:26 AM

This is so bad for Romney in the GOP that it's going to spill over and be bad for McCain. They both are waffling panderers on the issue. Candidates like Huckabee and Brownback have a real choice to rise.

OT: Dems need to come up with a counter to the GOP talking point 'I'm going to appoint strict constructionists' to the bench. That view means modern judges are going to view the Constitution as though no Amendments exist beyond the Bill of Rights. I think Dems could do some real electoral damage to the GOP if they had McCain, Giuliani, et al. on the record as supporting judges who view the 19th Amendment as an afterthought.

Posted by joejoejoe | February 21, 2007 9:28 AM

"So what they gonna do? Certainly anything to keep the Evil One out of the WH.
I think that the Dems are in a worse place at this point. HRC has so many left Dems and Republics who simply will not support her, Pretty Boy has not been able to overcome his basic Not Serious image, and ObamaRama is OK reality tv but not electable.
At this point I'd give it to Romney in 08.
Yes I think that we have come to that."

And YOU give up too frickin' easy!

Posted by Terry C, End Bush's War | February 21, 2007 9:34 AM

Shannon O'Brien's run for governor of Massachusetts may not have won her the office, but there is no doubt in my mind that it kills whatever faint hope Mitt Romney may have of being president.

She doesn't deserve attacks, she deserves a pat on the back.

Flipping on this issue won't hurt him with the fundies, they believe in miraculous conversions more than they believe in anything else. The same can't be said for the general population, and this, along with being a Mormon, will crush him should he stumble his way to the victory stand in the GOP primary.

Posted by Lindsey | February 21, 2007 9:48 AM

I don't see the problem. The fact that he'll do anything to get elected is a big plus. McCain had a reputation that he wouldn't stoop to dispicable levels to get elected, and that has hurt him in the past. He has spent the last 8 years trying to destroy that reputation so that he will be electable to his fellow Republicans. Romney is just ahead of the pack in that regard. The Republicans WANT a candidate who will do or say anything to get elected. It is required.

Posted by Njorl | February 21, 2007 9:49 AM

Here's your attack ad tagline!

Mitt Romney. He'll believe anything. And he'll say anything to be president.

Posted by rk | February 21, 2007 10:12 AM

I think people underestimate the degree to which Republicans are willing to close their eyes and allow a candidate to "evolve" on the social issues. My sense is that Romney is so blatant that he crosses the line regardless, but still, they're simply different from the Democrats in this regard. Deep down, they know their positions are in the minority and they'll take whatever "converts" they can get.

Understand that the leaders of the Religious Right are political operatives first and foremost. Their personal power is tied to the fortunes of the Republican Party and they can't afford to let that go. If someone squishy like Romney or Giuliani is actually in line to get the nomination, the Religious Right is guaranteed to suddenly pronounce them as sincere social cons, because if a Democrat wins they're completely shut out of the process.

Also, I'd note that playing the flip-flop card cuts both ways for Dems. Sure, it weakens Romney's credibility. But there's a downside to making a big deal out of the fact that deep down, Romney might actually agree with the majority of Americans on the social issues, and he's just saying he agrees with the batshit minority to win the Republican nomination. There are millions and millions of Americans who don't care all that much about the hot-button social issues, and they're not going to care if someone is a squish on those issues. All they really want is for the candidate not to be some crazy extremist, and when you point out that the candidate likes to have it both ways, all that does is reassure these voters that he's not a wacko.

Posted by Steve | February 21, 2007 11:10 AM

The part that really pissed me off wasn't the whole change in positions. It was Romney's arrogance and pomposity in that YouTube clip. Saying "let's raise the tone of this debate a little bit" in the middle of the actual debate cannot raise the tone: it lowers it.

Posted by Julian Elson | February 21, 2007 11:19 AM

and if there's one thing the right wing can be counted on, it's holding their own to the same standard they excoriate liberals for not living up to.

Which is why George W. Bush is right this minute sweating out his impeachment for lying during the State of the Union addresss. All those moral right wingers and their hatred of lying.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | February 21, 2007 11:23 AM

Romney's whole campaign will go flying off the road and over a cliff as soon as someone asks him: "Is the Book of Mormon a Sacred Scripture, another Revelation from God, equal to the Bible?"
One question, and he's history! Who is going to ask it?

Posted by Mooser | February 21, 2007 11:29 AM

Yeah, also, we must be sure to ask Jewish candidates what they think of the New Testament. That's the type of country I aspire to live in, for sure.

Posted by Steve | February 21, 2007 11:51 AM

What's all the fuss about? So we discover that yet another of our (what's the number now, 30?) 2008 prez wannabes is a whoring little weasel. Wow, what a surprise.

Posted by Kafka | February 21, 2007 12:10 PM

Christian fundamentalists aren't retarded, guys. It's not like they're choosing Romney vs. Hillary Clinton. It's Romney vs. McCain, Romney vs. Brownback, Romney vs. Huckabee.

Being tagged as a flip-flopping panderer is the kiss of death in Presidential politics. Mitt Romney makes John Kerry look like Jesus Christ. This guy is toast--and it's nobodys fault but his own.

Posted by Korha | February 21, 2007 12:24 PM

I love this line. ... 'from storks'

Now that's an immaculate conception.

Posted by cal | February 21, 2007 1:03 PM

Actually, I think he is quite plain that he does not accept the description "pro-choice" for himself., and all he says is that as Gov. of Mass. he will protect a woman's right to choose. I assume he did that. He could always say "Look - I'm pro life - but Mass. is not. So I decided I shouldn't try to force my views on this on them if I was their Gov." It's consistent and could be honest. Of course, it won't work on the Christian Right, because they only like candidates who believe they SHOULD force their views on us heathens.

Posted by Quizzical | February 21, 2007 1:08 PM

Bwahahahhahaha! That is comedy gold.

I doubt it will hurt Romney though. If those evangelicals believe their best buddy is a magical man who lived 2,000 years ago they'll believe anything. They always vote for the establishment tool no matter what. JEB's endorsed Romney already. It's a done deal.

Posted by Chris | February 21, 2007 1:25 PM

For more history of Mitt having it all ways on abortion, see:
"Romney's Abortion Flip-Flop."

Posted by Angry One | February 21, 2007 1:45 PM

"I have ALWAYS believed, to my core, that I should be raised on high before the teeming multitudes."

Posted by thad | February 21, 2007 1:49 PM

Romney has jumped the shark. It's not anyone of his flip-flops, it's the collective, repititive weight of them all. Abortion, gay rights, gun control, and worst of all his Tsongas vote, which is the worst because it's not serious, it just makes him look like a joke.

Posted by AJ | February 21, 2007 3:13 PM

"...the dude turns out to be a decent liar..."

First, there can be no comparing Romney to Lebowski, even if unintentional. Lebowski is just too cool.

Second, maybe I'm missing something, but I don't think Romney has been saying that he's never supported the pro-choice position. What he's saying is that he now opposes it. This doesn't make him a liar, it makes him a flip-flopper. He'll be fine if he can offer a reasonable explanation for changing his stance, with the assumption that such an explanation will not involve political calculation. And yes, that's a very big IF.

Posted by kwo | February 21, 2007 3:15 PM

I have never seen such a weak Republican field of candidates. I suppose somebody will come out on top and perceptions may change, but Romney's flip-flopping, Rudy's liberalism, and McCain's destroyed credibility (on the right and left) will make this a fun, fun, fun election for Democrats.

Posted by Slippery Pete | February 21, 2007 3:45 PM

Steve -

You'd be correct if there were only a general election to deal with, but Romney/Rudy/McCain has to survive the primaries. Rudy is still pro-choice, and I can't see any way the right supports him. Romney - perhaps you're right, but even then their enthusiasm will be greatly diminished. They may not revolt, but they're not going to go out on a rainy November morning for the guy, either.

Posted by Slippery Pete | February 21, 2007 3:47 PM

Given the fact that Linus has been known for some time to be a big, dumb jerk his opinion that the so-called war on terror is now more important in the minds of Republican voters than the culture war issues of the 1980s and 1990s giving Rudy "bitchen mayor of America" Giuliani a distinct advantage should be mostly disregarded if not dismissed outright.

Posted by Linus | February 21, 2007 4:26 PM

Romney is merely following the time-honored tradition of "necessary conversion". Every major Democrat who claimed to be pro-life (Clinton and Gore come to mind) had their own "necessary conversion" when they ran for President. It's a reflection of the difference in running for State vs. Federal office. Criticize Romney all you want - but if you didn't criticize Clinton or Gore for the same thing....ask yourself....why?

Posted by Chris | February 21, 2007 6:43 PM

Mitler made his first order of business upon election as Governor of Massachusetts the restoration of the death penalty. So when his oppostion to Gay Marriage became his next burning crusade, I realized that he was no different than the small dicked mormons I grew up with in Idaho. To quote my father, "he's never gonna cut a fat hog in the ass."

Posted by horation | February 21, 2007 7:29 PM

The Republicans have very little chance of winning in '08. Every pandering statement to the religious right is going to turn off other voters and they already have the religious right. The Republican primary will just get them all on record for issues that the majority of the population will not support. It will be a landslide (unless the Dems decide to give Hillary the nomination and handicap the Republicans with 5 or 6 states).

Posted by steve ex-expat | February 21, 2007 7:42 PM

Saying that babies come from storks might indeed help him win the Republican nomination. Or anything that separates sex from good people and families

Posted by aleks | February 21, 2007 10:15 PM

Are you sure he committed to being personally pro-choice? The video linked to seems to show him promising the voters of Massachusetts to support a specific policy.

This also seems consistent with the straddle posted on his website -- namely, that he's not going to try to enact anti-abortion policies because the issue is too divisive, and therefore best left to the states.

The overall message seems to be, "I personally oppose abortion, but am unwilling to waste any political capital on a politically impossible (or at least deeply divisive) ban." Understandably, he focused on the latter half while running in a strongly pro-choice state.

Posted by Ben Hoffman | February 22, 2007 11:41 AM