June 19, 2007
Welcome to Seattle!

It just wouldn't be right for a major Republican to come to town without being greeted by a shot across the bow from Joel Connelly. Mitt Romney: welcome to town!

Connelly is disgruntled with Romney's position on abortion, tossing out the flip-flop label - a tag probably being overused by both parties these days after working so well against John Kerry, but I digress. It's certainly an issue that's out there, so you commenters who are quick to complain when the potential flaws of other GOP candidates are being discussed, don't say equal coverage isn't being given to everyone's warts. The "flip-flop" meme is hardly an ideal campaign theme for Romney.

For those interested, blogger Dean Barnett (an admitted Romney enthusiast from Massachusetts) gives the events Connelly outlines a bit more depth and perspective. Barnett highlights that while some like Connelly claim Romney fit nicely into the pro-choice camp in the past, in reality the pro-choice crowd didn't at all like Mitt even back then.

Either way, Romney governed in Massachusetts in way that actually supported social conservatives, as highlighted in this National Review profile:

a good case can be made that Romney has fought harder for social conservatives than any other governor in America, and it is difficult to imagine his doing so in a more daunting political environment. "On marriage and cloning, he has provided aggressive leadership as a positive, pro-family governor," says Kris Mineau of the Massachusetts Family Institute. "On a scale of one to ten, I'd rank him an eight, and I'm a tough grader."

That's probably the rub. Being a social conservative of any sort does not generally lead to good press. If Mitt Romney was previously pro-life in his public policy positions and then shifted to pro-choice, there would likely be fawning coverage of how he was demonstrating great "political courage" and "enlightened" thought in standing up to the cretins in the Republican base...just like the MSM cheered when John McCain went after Jerry Falwell & Co. in 2000.

That's press most Republicans have learned they can do without.

UPDATE: Link to National Review article added.

And for what it's worth, Connelly gave John McCain a similar such welcome to the Puget Sound area earlier this year. Contrast that with gushing coverage of Obama and a balanced look at Hillary

Lastly, "pudge" adds some first hand perspective of Romney's tenure in Massachusetts at #3 in the comments that's worth a read.

Posted by Eric Earling at June 19, 2007 10:54 PM | Email This
Comments
1. The Mormon "religion" is based on the first and greatest lie ever told: that man could become a God.

How, then, could we expect Romney's politics to be any different?

No F...ing way will I vote for Romney.

Posted by: Independent Voter on June 20, 2007 05:31 AM
2. Save the mormon bashing for late night theology debates....if not Romney, would you prefer formerly Christian Hillary? (and i can bash w/ the best of them, but its irrelevant to who is President).

Posted by: righton on June 20, 2007 07:07 AM
3. I've noted this before ... I was there: when Romney was elected governor, no one had any doubts he was personally pro-life. It was clear to all that he was basically saying, "I know Massachusetts is strongly pro-choice, and even though I disagree, I am not going to try to change anything."

People can quibble over whether that was a wise policy (I happen to think it was, as he had no chance of changing abortion law in MA, and the alternative was a leftist governor), but to say he had some huge conversion for the sake of trying to become President is just wrong. It's always been odd to me that people say he had some major flip-flop because I was there, I supported him, I voted for him, and I knew he believed abortion was wrong, as did everyone else.

Posted by: pudge on June 20, 2007 07:08 AM
4. Can't resist a Joel Connelly slur...could you imagin e having that guy in your neighborhood...big whiny know it all liberal....yipes...

I'll bet he likes the Musli-Priest at St Marks...

Posted by: righton on June 20, 2007 07:09 AM
5. Who else but Joel Connely to report as a journalist on a Republican event? Isn't he one of the most left of the leftist community?

When Rs come into town, he talked about campaign cash as if it were a dirty word. Which, IMO, it is but it still is the facts of life as we know it.

But, what type of article is written when one of the chosen ones come into town- any Democrat? Fluff piece.

From now on and till I pass away, flipflop sandals will forever now be called "John Kerrys". He invented the word and Joel C. trying to use it in the way he does is ridiculous.

Another new term is "Swift Boated". That term is also abused.

Posted by: swatter on June 20, 2007 07:22 AM
6. For me it's come down to Rudy or Mitt.

However, the bigger question is whether either of them could carry their own state in the electoral college math.

NY-31 blue votes to red
MA-12 blue votes to red

...or perhaps a P/VP combo of the two yielding an electoral college slaughter-fest.

Posted by: Andy on June 20, 2007 09:32 AM
7. The coolest thing about Romney was his stand on pushing for use of the OSS ODF format for all government documents.

Of course, in his wake, his head of information systems was hounded out of office by Microsoft and his Democratic successor has openly embraced proprietary protocols.

The New York Legislature is also being hijacked right now into regressing on the use of OSS.

Posted by: John Bailo on June 20, 2007 10:00 AM
8. Connelly writes: "The conversion on the road to Dubuque was not yet complete. Six months later, in May 2005, Romney intoned: 'I am absolutely committed to my promise to maintain the status quo with regards to laws relating to abortion and choice.'"

Apparently Connelly thinks that for Romney to have been truly pro-life, he should have broken his commitment to those who elected him. Instead, as much as he might have liked to have done otherwise, Romney chose to maintain the status quo through the end of his term. He had no problem vetoing several pro-abortion measures that would have changed the status quo. But he deliberately did not use his office to effect change in that policy area. It seems entirely likely that this was a key reason why Romney chose not to run for reelection, as he could not commit to maintaining the status quo in a second term and remain true to his own beliefs.

Rather than being criticized as a "flip-flopper," shouldn't Romney instead be commended for keeping his word to the voters (remember "read my lips?"), even though his personal feelings about the issue had evolved?

Posted by: Patrick on June 20, 2007 01:04 PM
9. I think those that won't vote Romney due to his religion are the being silly.

I've had a ton of mormons working for me in my time and - while it is almost always wrong to make sweeping generalities - they work hard, have great personal ethics, get along well with others and in general make top notch managers that can be trusted to do what's best in just about every situation.

There's certainly nothing about their chosen "path" that makes them undesirable.

Posted by: Johnny on June 20, 2007 01:56 PM
10. I never lived in Massachusetts but I lived in Michigan when his father George was governor. I don't remember Mormonism ever coming into play in the governing of the state. Michigan certainly never turned into another Salt Lake City. In fact I believe it now has the highest concentration of Muslims but that's another story. I agree that worrying about his religion is silly. Sometimes I think it's an issue being raised by the liberal press because that's how they see fundamentalist Christians. As bigots who wouldn't vote for anybody not a member of their congregation.

Posted by: RBW on June 20, 2007 03:27 PM
11. Sorry, social conservatives ain't buying this guy, either- and that spells his defeat, either now or later.
There's the not-so dismissable flip flops on the issues that socialcons hold dear: the gays, the choice, etc. but the Mormon issue is tantamount.
Orthodox Christians believe any other claim to deity, adjunct or revision of the Bible or other supernaturual power is the work of the devil, a very real entity in their faith. To them, this isn't a matter of mere tolerance of another sect of Christianity as in the 1960 Kennedy election, this is about a follower of a cult from Satan.

This is another nomination that will not happen-- and if it does, it will fail.

Posted by: murtz on June 20, 2007 04:12 PM
12. Why would anybody care what Joel Connelly thinks about Mitt Romney? I can think of few things of less interest.

Posted by: stu on June 20, 2007 05:25 PM
13. I saw Mitt yesterday at his event and he is excellent 'on the stump' ... he spoke about strengthening the family, supporting 'traditional' families (one man one woman)...shrinking government and getting rid of government's task force addiction...

Rudy's pro-gay, pro-abortion stance will not fly in the South or among conservatives ... the only people who care about Mitt's brand of faith are people like Christopher Hitchens and the "REVEREND" al Sharpton...I don't believe that either will be voting in a Republican primary...

Posted by: Paul Fuhr on June 21, 2007 09:15 AM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?