Mitt's Little Lies

Michael Luo runs them down with admirable thoroughness for The New York Times. Obviously, this accumulation of fibs isn't the biggest deal in the world. One suspects, however, that one reason the pile grows so large is that Mitt Romney's fundamental approach to political self-presentation is so deeply dishonest -- it's in part a "what a tangled web we weave" phenomenon.

It's also a bit sad that while George Romney didn't march with MLK, he really was a pillar of moderate Republicanism and a staunch civil rights man. Romney, for a while, seemed like he was very much his father's son. And one could imagine an alternate reality in which he took a tough stand and tried to use his influence to return the GOP to something more like George Romney's political party. Instead, though, he decided to sell it all out and sign up for the party of gay-bashing and immigrant-hating and "no atheists allowed" and dim-witted idol worship like the Reagan zone of economic freedom.

Comments

What exactly is so bad about a politician changing his mind out of political expediency? I ask this not as a Mitt supporter, but since he's the topic at hand, I'll use him as an example.

When MR ran for Gov of MA, he ran as a social liberal. Mass is something of a liberal state, so that worked out well for him. So far as I know, he didn't welch on any campaign promises. I might go so far to say that he was a faithful representative of the Bay State electorate. I think I read somewhere that that's sorta the point of elective office.

Now he's running for the GOP nomination for POTUS. The nation, and the Republican base are more conservative than the good people of Massachusetts, so he has tacked to the right to better align himself with his constituencies. How is this a problem? I reckon the fear is that he will revert to his more liberal ways. But does he have any history of changing positions DURING his term of service? Is there any substantive basis for these fears?

Posted by Matt B | December 22, 2007 10:25 AM

According to the referenced article, Romney says he corrects mistakes when he gets things wrong. Has he corrected his mistake in the June 5 debate when he contended that the war with Iraq could have been avoided if Saddam "had opened up his country to IAEA inspectors and they'd come in and they'd found no WMD"? This is, of course,(as all of us who were awake at the time know),exactly what happened. And has he corrected his mistake when he declared on CBS Evening News 12/12/07 that Iran is "rushing headlong" to develop WMD to use for genocide? Are these mistakes,lies, or propaganda from the war-mongering neocons?

Posted by Sabine Wales | December 22, 2007 10:37 AM

It now seems that George Romney did march with MLK.

Matt B, I think the problem is that his old positions were better than his new ones. If he'd gone from an immigrant-basher to a supporter of civil rights Yglesias wouldn't complain.

Posted by Matt Weiner | December 22, 2007 11:01 AM

And honestly, I wish that campaign reportage would focus a bit more on Mitt's crappy positions and less on this kind of gotcha. It wasn't that great when they did it to Gore, it's not that great when they do it to Romney, it won't be that great when they do it to the Democratic nominee.

Posted by Matt Weiner | December 22, 2007 11:04 AM

Romney should know by now the press is a tool to exercise hegemony. It is not in the business of covering little white, but the big lie. Not understanding the function of the press doesn’t make Romney look very Presidential.

Posted by A Different Matt | December 22, 2007 11:34 AM

Sabine is a lonely voice against Matt hegemony.

Posted by Matt Weiner | December 22, 2007 11:43 AM

It now seems that George Romney did march with MLK.

It seems as though The Atlantic doesn't care about printing the truth.

Posted by Al | December 22, 2007 1:12 PM

I'm a bit concerned with this piling on Mitt.

Keep it up and the GOP just might turn to the previously-left-for-dead McCain.

And if there's one GOP candidate who has a real shot (if only because of the adulation he gets from the Beltway press) against the Dems, it's McCain.

Posted by McKingford | December 22, 2007 1:15 PM

It seems as though The Atlantic doesn't care about printing the truth.

Al: once more beyond parody.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | December 22, 2007 1:52 PM

Matt B wonders: "Now he's running for the GOP nomination for POTUS. The nation, and the Republican base are more conservative than the good people of Massachusetts, so he has tacked to the right to better align himself with his constituencies. How is this a problem? I reckon the fear is that he will revert to his more liberal ways. But does he have any history of changing positions DURING his term of service? Is there any substantive basis for these fears?"

Yeah, there is. As you noted, Romney ran in Massachusetts as a "social liberal," more or less. (Basically he just adopted William Weld's MO.) After it was obvious that he was running for president he made his famous "conversion" to the pro-life position over a stem cell research bill. He would have signed it if it had crossed his desk two years before, but he wouldn't be able to explain it to his new GOP national audience.

So, yeah, I'd say he changed his position during his "term of service" here in Massachusetts. And at the time everyone here knew why he had done it. He's the ultimate Plastic Man.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | December 22, 2007 1:57 PM

Would the "what a tangled web we weave" phenomenon include detaching, by implication, the GOP from its metaphorical march with the 60s civil rights legislation by chance as slimily as you try to detach Romney, Sr. from "actually walking" with MLK?

We can argue all day whether members of the press like David Broder (not exactly a neocon type) got it right when they keenly assert that Romney and King "walked together." (See the Grosse Pointe, MI detail.) But the tangled web of deceit happens, in this case, to fall in MY's lap and transcends Mitt's putative "lie."

MY ought to stop deceiving himself and others. GRomney's "walk" with King is a de facto truth-and that's really the key point. Whether they literally held hands or stood shoulder-to-shoulder is moot, and silly Clinton-speak 101. It's also another sad example of the lunatic-fringe trying to tacitly revise history, as they try to do by forever denying the GOP's central role in the 60s c/r legislation that bigots like Byrd and Gore and the rest of those racist southern-fried democrats tried eternally to retard.

Shssh. The word might get out.

Posted by resh | December 22, 2007 2:10 PM

MY - Instead, though, he decided to sell it all out and sign up for the party of gay-bashing and immigrant-hating and "no atheists allowed" and dim-witted idol worship like the Reagan zone of economic freedom.

Matt's Jewish sophistry skills at their best.

The "party of gay-bashing" is for non-discrimination of gays. Not what gay activists demand - full moral acceptance via gay marriage. It is as accurate as calling the Democrats the "party of nigger-bashing" because, other than Kucinich, they oppose slavery reparations.

"Immigrant-hating" is the coy NYC crowd's strategy of conflating illegal and legal immigrants together and claiming someone that wants an end to illegal immigration "hates all immigrants" - the doctors, scientists, Ichiro Suzuki & hot dog champ Kobeyashi, Canadian hotties like Pam Anderson, Israeli Gene Simmons of KiSS, and so on. Americans like legal immigrants, mainly the talented who cointribute to the country. Less so relatives and parasites using chain migration, less the H-1B Visa abusers and phony or gutless refugees, and most of all unskilled illegals. Why lump them together? Jews again being too clever by half.

Atheists? Both parties are full of them. And religious people. Ever hear of libertarians?
DEvout blacks?

And each party has their variant of dim-witted Idol worship. Republicans have Reagan vodoo. Democrats have their "not enough governemt largess" as the root problem for lazy, parasitic, vicious-tempered NOLA scum bred into dependency and dysfunctional families.

Posted by Chris Ford | December 22, 2007 2:23 PM

I'm beginning to think you guys my need to password the comments -- Chris Ford was, as I recall, reliably conservative, and he had some hostility toward AIPAC, but he didn't used to be an out-and-out anti-Semite as far as I remember. "Jewish sophistry"? "Too clever by half"?

Honestly: I don't think it's the same guy.

Posted by Kelly | December 22, 2007 2:50 PM

I know I really should leave it alone, but...

The "party of gay-bashing" is for non-discrimination of gays.

One segment of the population enjoys the right to marry, including all the corollary benefits that attach to it (inheritance rights, adoption, employee benefits, etc.). The other (ie. gay) segment of the population does not enjoy these benefits. (and nice deceitful rhetorical slight of hand, btw: the GOP wishes to deny gays not the moral acceptance of gay marriage, but the *legal* acceptance of gay marriage).

In short, one segment of the population is discriminated against (and of course, there are lots of other ways too, but I'll leave it at this for now).

The GOP clearly wishes this to remain the case. Leaving aside the fact that denying one segment of the population the right to marry is in itself discrimination. The GOP also wishes to keep all the attendant benefits of marriage off limits too, since it opposes civil unions (see even Rudi Giuliani's flip flop on this issue).

Discrimination means gays enjoy fewer rights than heterosexuals. One party clearly wishes it to stay that way (although the other party isn't exactly cloaking itself in honour on this point).

Posted by McKingford | December 22, 2007 3:06 PM

i would say two things

a) matt's post doesn relay explain how on earth Romney jr is betryaing Romney seniors ideological viewpoints. In fact Romney senior as a very very devour mormon was consistanctly moraly conservative- to the level of things like sabbath keeping ect , I doubt very much he'd be for gay marriage (and he was certainly no federalist) ect. Dont iknow his postion on immigratiuon but i havne't heard he was a fan.

What's interesting is that Romney was pretty much breaking with his dad's moderation (frankly arguablly moderate liberlism not always moderate even) on ecomonics and fp - his alwasy been pretty economically conservative. In a sense his abandoment of his dad's ideological legacy nas been a constant- the issues his swithed on are not ones his dad took high prolife liberal issues on ( and of course like his dad his been consistnatly pro civil rights not that that 's big news nowadays ).

b) Yes Romney has flip flopped a lot.However let's not pretend he betrayed his promises i can't see any. JHe said he'd support the status quo on life issues when he ran for governor ie. he'd oppose abortion restricions. However the status quo is the status quo things like Stem cellss and morning after pill ect were attemps to move it leftwards.

c) mcKingford fails to distinguish between relationsips and people. It's one thing to give poel legal equality another differne relationsips. So if one gave the tax breaks of marriage to mistresses of married men one would be treating polygamy as equal- the law already treats polygmaists equal. That may be true but the point is the argumetn that all sexual relatiohnisps i) are equivilent in nature and value and II) deserve legal priviledges and recongnition. So one could argue for on agianst htis on gay relatiohsp , polygamous ones , incestrious ect ect.

To confuse this with equlatiy of "gays" is to conflate issues. What about when say a women breaks up with a girlfriend to go out with a man (eg Ellen Degenees ex) does she become a different person- not it's that she now has a relatiohship she can solamize in marriage. It's about who your having sex with not about who you are.

the "GOP" doesn ot oppose civil unions even Bush supports them. What is true is that it's more hostile to them than the Democrats just as they're also more hostile on gay marriage-note though this is an average ( and typicall of the western world in terms of RIGHT-LEFT pattern) ther are plenty of exceptions in both parties.

Posted by edmund | December 22, 2007 4:14 PM

i would say two things

a) matt's post doesn relay explain how on earth Romney jr is betryaing Romney seniors ideological viewpoints. In fact Romney senior as a very very devour mormon was consistanctly moraly conservative- to the level of things like sabbath keeping ect , I doubt very much he'd be for gay marriage (and he was certainly no federalist) ect. Dont iknow his postion on immigratiuon but i havne't heard he was a fan.

What's interesting is that Romney was pretty much breaking with his dad's moderation (frankly arguablly moderate liberlism not always moderate even) on ecomonics and fp - his alwasy been pretty economically conservative. In a sense his abandoment of his dad's ideological legacy nas been a constant- the issues his swithed on are not ones his dad took high prolife liberal issues on ( and of course like his dad his been consistnatly pro civil rights not that that 's big news nowadays ).

b) Yes Romney has flip flopped a lot.However let's not pretend he betrayed his promises i can't see any. JHe said he'd support the status quo on life issues when he ran for governor ie. he'd oppose abortion restricions. However the status quo is the status quo things like Stem cellss and morning after pill ect were attemps to move it leftwards.

c) mcKingford fails to distinguish between relationsips and people. It's one thing to give poel legal equality another differne relationsips. So if one gave the tax breaks of marriage to mistresses of married men one would be treating polygamy as equal- the law already treats polygmaists equal. That may be true but the point is the argumetn that all sexual relatiohnisps i) are equivilent in nature and value and II) deserve legal priviledges and recongnition. So one could argue for on agianst htis on gay relatiohsp , polygamous ones , incestrious ect ect.

To confuse this with equlatiy of "gays" is to conflate issues. What about when say a women breaks up with a girlfriend to go out with a man (eg Ellen Degenees ex) does she become a different person- not it's that she now has a relatiohship she can solamize in marriage. It's about who your having sex with not about who you are.

the "GOP" doesn ot oppose civil unions even Bush supports them. What is true is that it's more hostile to them than the Democrats just as they're also more hostile on gay marriage-note though this is an average ( and typicall of the western world in terms of RIGHT-LEFT pattern) ther are plenty of exceptions in both parties.

Posted by edmund | December 22, 2007 4:15 PM

moelarryetc,

Thanks for the pointer. I was unaware of that "conversion."

Posted by Matt B | December 22, 2007 4:37 PM

edmund, could you run your gibberish through a spellcheck before you post it? Tightening up your sentence construction would also be greatly appreciated.

That said, you gave me a big laugh with "incestrious" and I thank you for that. Sometimes illiteracy can be very funny.

Or are you from Kazakhstan?

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | December 22, 2007 5:08 PM

edmund displays all the credulity and originality of a child in his argument; whether or not you want to justify (with absurd non-sequiturs and slippery slope arguments) the discrimination, it is still discrimination.

Go play with your Legos.

Posted by McKingford | December 22, 2007 5:12 PM

It now seems that George Romney did march with MLK.

Click through the links. He didn't march in the same march as mlk--he marched a few days later.

Josh Marshall & Co. may think that's cklose enough for government work, but I don't

Posted by rea | December 23, 2007 10:34 AM

It now seems that George Romney did march with MLK.

Just to chime in with what rea said...

Here's a debunking of the debunking:

http://thephoenix.com/TalkingPolitics/PermaLink.aspx?guid=ff666446-0340-417d-9520-5c7b030bed55

George Romney obviously marched for civil rights, but MLK was not there - he was in Chicago.

Worse, of course, is that the Mitt Romney campaign knows this, but wishes to convey the impression that they marched together - so that the media was *wrong* for initially criticizing him. That is, they want to convey this impression, but without their hands on it. The surest clue of this is that these two "witnesses" were not introduced by the Romney campaign, but instead were told how to contact the media.

In short, the Mitt Romney campaign clearly knows what David Bernstein has established: that Romney and MLK did not march together (which, however, does not impugn George Romney's support of civil rights). The Mitt Romney campaign knows that Mitt "misspoke" (hence his ridiculous spinning and parsing of the word "saw"). But the Mitt Romney campaign has an interest in muddying the waters so that people think he was right all along...

Posted by McKingford | December 23, 2007 11:56 AM

rea and McKingford, you're right. I was headed back to eat my words. I'll even add that I think this episode does reflect on Mitt's fitness; we've had enough of a president who bullshits in the hope of pushing a bad story into the next news cycle, thankyouverymuch.

Also, this is ridiculous and makes me a lot more sympathetic to Dawkins.

Posted by Matt Weiner | December 23, 2007 5:11 PM