Well, I have (defended isn’t the right word – how to put it?) suggested possible ways to view Romney’s shifting political views in a more charitable light. Mainly, this was because I was offended by the knee-jerk partisan attacking that didn’t do much beyond view Romney’s rhetoric in the most uncharitable and worst possible light. (I think Charity, if a true principle, undergoes its greatest test when politics are involved).
But that doesn’t mean the criticisms aren’t valid.
Well, the very partisan Weekly Standard has done some digging, and found the following (behind a firewall, but JPod over at the Corner pointed me to this article that covers a lot of the same ground) from 2002:
“I respect and will protect a woman’s right to choose. This choice is a deeply personal one. Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not mine and not the government’s. The truth is no candidate in the governor’s race in either party would deny women abortion rights. So let’s end an argument that does not exist and stop these cynical and divisive attacks that are made only for political gain.”
Romney also stated that he agreed with Roe v. Wade, that Medicaid should fund abortion, and a few other things troubling to many conservatives.
Now, when the initial attacks on Romney came out, they relied on quotes 10+ years old – and I really saw no problem with that, since I have (in some cases radically, in others not so much) changed my own views over the last 10+ years. But these 2002 quotes show that his political views did not change all that much over the preceding decade – not until he became a serious possible presidential candidate.
Now, Romney has a narrative to explain this, and I can actually see myself as fine with it, since there have been times I’ve changed views over a short period of time due to a striking experience. And since Rudy Giuliani shows that there’s at least some chance for a somewhat liberal Republican to take the national stage, Romeny didn’t have to necessarily change his views to become viable as a presidential candidate, though it would have been a much tougher sell.
But the timing still bugs me, and the 2002 quotes show it’s not just changes over a 10+ year period anymore. But my mind isn’t yet made up on this issue. So, I’m not going to claim Romney really is just pandering to the conservative base. But still —
(Romney supporters are more than welcome to defend him. Romney detractors can attack him as well, but both sides: please try and add to the conversation in some small way. I tire of the constant parroting of the standard talking points taken from political pundits).
For some balance, I will also link to a blog post about an LA Times article on Harry Reid’s success at becoming a Land Baron.
Oh, and New Hampshire polls the following way: “Giuliani gets 33% of likely Republican primary votes today, McCain 32%. Mitt Romney follows with 21%. 11% would vote for some other Republican.”
Considering who he is up against, I am not sure it will matter much. The ones he might be “pandering to” have to choose between him and two others who have NOT changed their public political views in an acceptable way. The only alternative is to hopelessly choose candidates who are very long shots. Conservatives voting in the primaries for more “predictable” candidates could actually nuetralize thier influence. Frankly, I think that a primary win for Guiliani or McCain is an instant Republican loss for the Presidency. Moderate voters would probably be split and the Conservative Republican base will sit the whole thing out.
As for if I believe he has changed? Personally, I am not sure his older statements weren’t the political tactics and his newer ones the truer self. Considering his Religious beliefs, family, associates, and so forth I find it hard to think he wasn’t more Conservative than he let on. To me he actually sounds more comfortable than he used to when he issued those older statements.
“Now, Romney has a narrative to explain … [his] changed views … [it’s] due to a striking experience.”
I would feel he was being less patronizing if he did not insist on drawing our attention to just such a striking experience to convince us pious peons of his sincerity …
If he can seal the deal with folks who’ve already been bamboozled by one born-again prez, he’ll have won my admiration for some pretty amazing footwork, but not my vote.
What bothers me are these political tactics entirely. Of course the leading Democratic candidate is queen of these sorts of things. So both parties are facing it. But I admit that these do bother me.
I think a lot of people looking at this issue are really blinded to the political realities involved. Romney is the only viable social conservative in the race. Brownback/Huckabee don’t have a chance. So if you are a social conservative (which I am) then when you choose between McCain, Giuliani and Romney, well, you are left with Romney.
What kinds of judges will Romney nominate? Well, probably the same kinds that Bush nominated. What will his policy toward the United Nations and abortion funding, contraception, etc be? The same as Bush. Will he try to push against abortion/gay marriage the same way Bush did? Certainly. Is this enough for somebody like me? No, but it is the best I’m going to get.
If you study Bush’s terms as Texas governor, there were all kinds of things he did to get along to with the Democrats that showed he was supposedly a moderate. People have very short memories. Bush was not the solid conservative candidate in 2000 — he was the “compassionate conservative,” and many true conservatives never supported him, ever.
So, considering we are discussing social issues in this post, I have no problem as a social conservative supporting Romney. Has he said things in the past that contradict his positions now? Yes. All politicians do this. The issue is, what kind of president would we get?
Another thought: let’s say it’s Hillary against Romney in the election. If Hillary tries to attack Romney from the position of being a flip-flopper, don’t you think Hillary will be extremely vulnerable on this issue? She has triangulated and flip-flopped all over the place. I don’t think this is a real weakness for Romney.
The way I see it, there are three possibilities:
1) he was simply telling liberal Massachusetts voters what they wanted to hear in 1994
2) he is simply telling conservative primary voters what they want to hear in 2007
3) his explanation of the discrepancy is valid and he really did change his mind in the 13 intervening years
Personally, I liked the 1994 Romney better.
One thing though. Is it really wise for Romney to be laying claim to the Bush legacy? From stances on torture, to the war, to national security, and then, of course, all those “moral issues”….
Is Bush’s legacy something any sane politician would want in the first place?
The main reason that every Democrat on the hill is announcing a presidential bid is precisely because Bush is so reviled that the Democrats can be counted on to make sure any final Republican candidate is going to get left holding all Bush’s smelly baggage. Romney really isn’t helping himself at all in this respect, in my opinion.
Ivan,
Would you have the same trouble w/ Ronad Reagan? He was once (gasp) a dyed in the wool Democrat!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan
How is the Church’s position on abortion so far removed from Roe v Wade? If in fact the mother’s health is jeopardy, or the pregnancy a result or rape? If abortion were unavailable period, how would those individuals be able to avail themselves of what the Church would legitamtely support?
The problem I see with Romney is not his “so called” conservative principles. Rather, I see his inexplicable support for that immoral war of choice over in Iraq, as much more problematic. He is clearly out of step with most Americans on this. If he does not change his position on the Iraq War, I think it will cost him much more support than the change of his views on abortion.
Sort of a threadjack, but did any of you see Nightline last night? I chanced onto it, saw they were doing a piece on Romney (right after the segment on Barbaro–kinda sad when they put the sheep right after the horse).
Anyway, on one of their graphics, showing the number of people who wouldn’t vote for a Mormon, they spelled it “Morman”.
Typical stupid TV news.
Seth, the problem isn’t 94. It’s that he was saying the same thing in 2002.
Dumb question, perhaps addressed elsewhere: what impact does a President’s views on abortion tend to actually have on laws in this country? On the face of it I’d have assumed that Carter was a marginal “pro,” Clinton a definite “pro,” with Bush 41 and Reagan a moderate “against,” and Bush 43 a strong “against.” Yet the only real movement on this issue that I can remember was the Partial-Birth Abortion Act, which a) had to go through Congress and b) got a lot of support there, even from Democrats. It’s not like any of those Presidents were particularly effective leaders on this issue. I mean, as much as I enjoy having a President who agrees with me about everything, I’d rather have a President who agrees with me on issues that Presidents can do anything about, than the issues that are at a cultural deadlock and in which Presidents have almost no input to begin with. Kind of like how I don’t actually expect any mainstream candidate to advocate for the abolishment of the Department of Education (cultural deadlock — heh, it’s not even a debated topic most of the time) or mandating extensive sentencing reform at the state level (not a Presidential task area.) Presidents are really good at changing Executive department strategy: I want to know what Romney (and everyone else) is thinking about the DHS/intelligence community soup. It makes me happy that the abortion issue isn’t on Romney’s online “Issue Watch.” Just as soon as he promises me in clear language that he doesn’t plan to force every American to have health insurance, I will be very happy.
There’s a separate issue of trying to explain the Church’s position effectively as a political position in a way that can ever get anyone elected. The Church’s position, I think, tends to make extremists on both sides mad, which is never good for elections. It’s better now than it was, but I can see the protests (esp. circa 1994) in my mind’s eye now. Romney was in Massachusetts and took the “free to choose” heavy side of the argument. Maybe if he was in Texas he’d have emphasized how abortion is a tragedy — that seems to be what he’s doing now. Especially when considering the likelihood that the campaign was worried that Massachusetts voters didn’t want the Mormon guy turning their state into the New and Improved State of Deseret, so Romney also used this opportunity to re-emphasize that he didn’t think his beliefs should dictate peoples’ rights. I mean, wasn’t it the Clinton campaign that went with “safe, legal and rare” as a catchphrase in the 1990s? Talk about playing both sides, with just a hint of weight on the “pro” angle. And now Mrs. Clinton is playing the “tragedy, should never happen, but how can we stand in the way…” card. Ironically, she’s even [http://www.slate.com/id/2112712/] quoting a stance very similar to the Church’s current position.
(Note that I tend to evaluate statements on a “reasonableness” spectrum, rather than “consistent with previous statements” spectrum, especially when such statements are from previous election cycles. Politicians are always changing their messages. That’s part of their job description, alongside “shaking hands” and “making alliances with unsavory people.” If they didn’t do those things, they wouldn’t be politicians. I can’t think of a successful one who didn’t change his message on something, sometime — usually on something really important.)
Also, it’d be so swell if “a” tags weren’t disallowed in comments.
The more I mature the more I feel the importance of electing people I feel are good people and letting them make their own decisions.
I think way too many of us unknowingly show our arrogance/ignorance when we decide a leader made a wrong decision. How can anyone be so sure they would not have made the same decision?
Sarah, the main place a President’s views on abortion have is in terms of who they appoint to the Supreme Court and what laws they veto.
But I agree that the abortion issue is such that it’s unlikely there will be huge changes in American policy.
The bigger issue is over whether we know what we’re getting with Romney. Consider Bush who said he hated nation building and signaled a general backing away from foreign involvement by the US. Yet, in practice he was influenced by a lot of neoConservatives who were all about nation building. It seems fair to say that many people were mislead by Bush. I think it fair for folks to worry about Romney in similar ways.
Ivan,
I lived in Massachusetts in 2002. I listened to what Romney said. He was very moderate then. The evidence from 1994 only further increased my belief that Romney played the crowd. Heck, why did he vote for Tsongas in 1992 unless he was preparing himself for the 1994 Senate run? What chances would he have had if he voted for the conservative candidate in 1992? Why else give money to Democratic House candidates also in 1992?
Further, I’m a bit troubled that you only see this now as not a partisan issue now that the ultra-right wing Weekly Standard is getting into the fray. A man should be freely questioned about his changing views without the questioner’s intents questioned.
Dan –
why not? You’ve constantly questioned my intents before.
That, what with your constant double standards in regards to the political parties hardly makes me care all that much if I trouble you or not. I never saw the issue as purely partisan, I saw the conversation around it as partisan – now the conversation has started to cross party lines. There’s a slight difference between the issue at hand and the conversation about the issue at hand, but you’ve shown yourself as usually unable to make that distinction.
I was an early Romney fan who has been very disappointed to learn the extent to which he’s defended abortion rights and Roe v Wade. Any Mormon who graduates from an elite law school has to know that they’re swimming against the Mormon current to defend Roe as good law. Even liberal scholars who agree with the outcome admit it’s embarrassingly bad Constitutional law. That makes me think Romney’s decision to part company with Rex Lee, Dallin Oaks, Russell Nelson, and the Mormon attitude toward the US abortion regime generally, was considered and deliberate. I can see no excuse except poor judgment.
For me to get excited about him again, it won’t be until he tells us which Supreme Court justices he wishes got two votes.
Clark, you’re absolutely right. I actually just read an article that basically says that Romney said almost the exact same thing in his governor bid in 2002. Here’s an excerpt:
In the spring of 2002 Romney completed a Planned Parenthood questionnaire. Signed by Romney and dated April 9, 2002, it contained these responses:
1) Do you support the substance of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade? YES
2) Do you support state funding of abortion services through Medicaid for low-income women? YES
3) In 1998 the FDA approved the first packaging of emergency contraception, also known as the “morning after pill.” Emergency contraception is a high dose combination of oral contraceptives that if taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex, can safely prevent a pregnancy from occurring. Do you support efforts to increase access to emergency contraception? YES
The article cites several more incidents like this. You can find the article here:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/30/opinion/main2412893.shtml
I thought Romney forfeited the Mass. governorship because he didn’t want to risk losing re-election and reducing his political capital. It looks more like he couldn’t figure how to position himself for a Mass. statewide race and a U.S. national race at the same time.
Hi Ivan,
Nice post (and thanks for critiquing a republican). I do not have any particular problem with Romney’s changing or evolving positions or emphases within his positions. My nonsupport relates to his positions on other issues, like the war, which are subjects worn out on other threads.
DavidH –
well, I’m glad it pleases you, even if I didn’t write the post for you.
And this is hardly the first time I’ve critiqued a Republican – I’ve spent many a time on ‘Nacle posts critiquing Bush for his seeming inability to change his mind or see past the boundaries of his own inner circle.
But that seems to be a problem in general with politicians: either they refuse to change their minds at all, or they seem to be tossed about by every wind of opinion polling.
Ivan,
The problem you see in Romney today is that in 2004, Republicans strategized to use “flip-flopping” as their main issue with Senator Kerry. The problem with a senator running for president (and the reason so few senators actually get elected) is that they’ve got an established researchable record of voting that ends up being very muddled. Unfortunately for senators they can’t easily explain why they voted one way on an issue and then later on voted another way. Too many variables involved. Even with this, Republicans attacked Kerry for all his votes being generally malleable. This strategy, of course, limits future candidates and their positions, because they will then be subject to the same flip-flopping scrutiny. Payback’s a b****, Ivan. You shouldn’t have done it to Kerry.
It’s hardly just Kerry. It’s always been hard to get elected as a Senator. Look at how many Senators since WWII have been elected.
In general I’m not sure that’s a bad thing since executive function and legislature and oversight function are pretty different. Governors always do better because they have executive experience.
Well, thanks for the cussing Dan, even though *I* never did it to Kerry. My own problems with Kerry were related to other problems besided the so-called flip flopping. But that election is over, so I see no need to restate all my issues with Kerry (of course, I voted for a third party candidate).
But you suffer rather badly from in-group/out-group thinking, so I can see why you would lump me in with all the others. There’s not a trace of nuance in your thinking, and all you seem to be able to do is repeat, without variation, what the pundits tell you to say/think.
no Ivan, I think freely. I’d like to see civility back in politics, but I fear I’ll see pigs flying first.
I remember, back when he was running for governor of Massachussetts, that I felt Mitt Romney had sacrificed his LDS values for political expediency. I was disappointed in him, that he was so willing to say publicly that he was pro-choice, without caveat. It seemed obvious to me that he had to take this position to win a high political seat in such a liberal state. Maybe he saw that this was absolutely necessary, but I didn’t like it.
Now he’s flipping around and saying he’s pro-life, and I don’t know what to think.
There are other people who play this game as well or even better. Hillary Clinton is an example. Due to her influence, it’s hard not to consider her a solid part of her husband’s presidential administration. I remember when she came out and said that she supported the creation of a Palestinian state. She did this at a time when it was quite controversial and when her husband (the president) was unwilling to publicly support that position. She became, in a sense, a champion of a specific set of values. However, when she ran for a high seat in New York, her politics changed and it was obvious she was changing them to win the support of a Jewish constituency.
It may be that a person who wants to succeed in politics has to be willing to “flip.” But I think I might admire the person who sacrifices political wins to stay true to some kind of inner conviction or sincere belief in ideals.
So I guess the question with Mitt Romney is the degree to which he is a flipper. I’m comforted to some degree that he’s sticking by his Mormon identity. But I would concede that I’m wondering which values he really holds to out of sincerity and which ones are merely calculated to win the votes he wants to win an election.
It seems that Mitt Romney can’t get a break. Conservative Mormons like Matt Evans (comment #14) are disappointed because he’s not sufficiently pro-life. Meanwhile, liberals in the Bloggernacle hate his guts. See this piece for the liberal (non-Mormon) viewpoint, which is basically that he is a lapdog for the right wing:
http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=12418
Based on the views in the bloggernacle, Romney certainly can’t count on that vast army of Mormon automatons to head out and help his candidacy. I just can’t figure out why so many average Mormons I talk to actually think he’s a pretty good candidate. Most people agree with me: it would be nice to have an articulate (electable) conservative in the White House.
Maybe it’s because he’s pretty darned good compared to the other Republican choices (McCain and Giuliani).
Geoff,
I’ve told you before my real anger at Romney. His support of torture at a time when he could have stood for the principles of the Gospel was the nail in the coffin for me. As such, I will attack him (like I have attacked all those who support torture).
Now, just so you don’t think I’m a liberal who targets only Romney (because supposedly I’m afraid of him as a candidate in the general race), you can read my most recent post about Somalia where I castigate John McCain for demanding troop withdrawal in Somalia, and now demanding more troops for Iraq, and haranguing those who advocate otherwise.
And no, Romney better not be expecting blind support from Mormons just because he’s Mormon.
Geoff –
I really haven’t made my mind up on Romney. I think your point in #4 is well taken, in the end it will really come down to the alternatives we have – and so if Romney gets the Republican nomination, a lot depends on who gets the Democratic nod. Romney’s sometime changeable positions may pale in comparison to – well, whatever the other candidate has. Or not. Time will tell.
It is worth pointing out that if Jeb Bush ran, it would be tough for me deciding who to vote for, Mitt or Jeb. Jeb was a darned good governor down here in Florida and would make a fine president also. Infinitely more articulate than our tongue-tied president. But this is definitely not the time for another Bush to run. Jeb will have to wait at least another four years.
No matter how great Jeb Bush may be, in a country of 300 million people we shouldn’t have two families occupying the presidency for 20-plus years. When George W. Bush took office it was novel, first son of a president to become president since Adams, maybe it’ll happen again in another 200 years. Now some think this kind of thing should go on and on. I don’t think Senator Clinton is electable, but if she or Jeb Bush become president, we’re descending into a banana republic.
What is it that you think Jeb did well? I found his administration to be something of a disaster, between the gutting of the public school system, the privatization of Medicaid (which has put more stress on hospital emergency rooms), and his intervention in the Schiavo case, I don’t consider him a particularly good governor.
I realize that a lot of the state’s problems during his tenure came from factors outside his control (post-9/11 tourism decline, 2004 hurricanes), but I still think he left the state in worse shape than when he took over.
But then, I’m not one of his rich friends.
Of course one thing that Romney and Bush share is a wife problem. Mitt Romney’s wife suffers from MS and cannot keep up with a typical grueling campaign schedule for an aspiring first lady. Columba Bush was banished from public life after an embarassing incident with violating customs laws and lying to her husband early during his governorship.
Naismith, here’s why Jeb was a good governor. Of course, reasonable people can disagree, and I’m not willing to threadjack this thread, but I’ll briefly outline it for you. If you want to get into a long debate, I suggest we take this somewhere else.
1)He got rid of the ridiculous intangibles tax and kept state taxes low in general (property taxes have gone way, way up, but these are charged by the city and county and not the state).
2)His leadership during our many recent hurricanes has been spot-on. He has pointed out that is it the responsibility of state and local governments to primarily be prepared for hurricanes and worked to get county and city governments prepared (just compare Florida’s response to Louisiana).
3)Education is noticeably better throughout the state. On the elementary, middle and high school levels, schools have improved noticeably. I’ve had three kids go through the schools in the last 18 years, and the schools are much, much better than they used to be. Something like the top 30 percent of high school students get free college scholarships to state universities. All this without a state income tax.
4)He instituted an excellent voucher program that has helped clean up the worst non-performing schools.
5)I approved of his leadership during the Schiavo situation.
6)Crime is way, way down in Florida in the last eight years.
7)He is a national leader on the immigration question, and like Pres. Bush refuses to pander to the nativists who would close our borders and damage the country.
8)The state economy is booming, with incredible job creation and new businesses moving to the state. I believe the unemployment rate is around 3 percent, lower than the national average and at a level that is below what economists consider full employment.
Jeb is very popular in Florida as he leaves office, and for good reason.
John M, I don’t disagree with your #28. I don’t think Jeb can be elected president now, and perhaps ever. But you might consider the fact he would make a good VP for somebody like McCain, Giuliani or even Romney.
While Jeb would undoubtedly have been a superior President to his brother, can I just say how much the whole dynasty thing bothers me? It’s one reason (among many) why I’m really uncomfortable with Hilary running. Someone (a Democrat) mentioned this problem noting that if she wins we’ll end up with roughly 28 years of leadership in the US by two families. That’s disturbing to me.
One of the things that was great about the ’94 Contract with America was the idea of not having a few powerful folks in Washington but getting more regular people to run and having limits on how long they could stay. (Hopefully reducing power and the corrupting influence of Washington) Of course the saddest thing about the Republic run the last 15 years was the fact that they didn’t act on these measures. (In large part due to the Senate – which has also put a stop to what limited reforms the house Democrats hoped to pass this year)
I liked this quote from a recent GQ article
Surprise! Politician, including Romney, are corrupt scumbags who will usually do whatever helps them and their friends at some point in their political careers.
Mark Steyn, one of the most respected conservative writers, on the Romney abortion issue in today’s Corner sums it up very, very well:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjUwYzIxNzVlOGE4OWJlMzgyNmJkZDQwODgzYjIxODA=
Nut graf: “Governor Romney needs to do quite a bit of work on his pitch in this field, but you shouldn’t be holding it against the guy that he’s changed his mind. If he means it, then that’s great news for us: we’re meant to be persuading people, aren’t we? And, if he’s just being opportunist, then even that is modestly encouraging.”
Y’all may want to check out this poll at Meridian Magazine:
http://www.ldsmag.com/pollmentor/results.html
Out of 3200 votes for presidential candidates, 85 percent voted for Romney. McCain was second with 3 percent. Seems like most Mormons, at least the ones who read Meridian and the ones I talk to, are not concerned about the abortion issue and Romney.
Which was a tax that only affects the very rich. I already admitted that Jeb’s tenure was good for his well-to-do friends.
Are you really going to claim that the isolated impact of the 2004-2005 hurricanes were even close to the destruction of the infrastructure that New Orleans experienced? Disney was closed for less than a day with each hurricane.
Perhaps in the A-rated schools that get extra money from the state, which are mostly schools with better-off parents. Florida was ranked 46th of 50 states in high school graduation rates, in an Education Week study published in June 2006.
I’ve had five kids go through the schools in the past 17 years, and the schools are much worse than they used to be. I feel like I should be apologizing to my high schooler ever day for the inferior experience she is having. And most of it is due to state-directed policies, such as over-reliance on the FCAT standardized exam, which is now also used as an exit exam and placement requirement, purposes for which it was never designed.
Another welfare benefit for the upper-and-middle class. (I already agreed that Jeb’s friends benefitted during his tenure.) Most of the kids who receive Bright Futures scholarships have families which could pay for college anyway. I’d much rather see those dollars put towards making a post-secondary education opportunity available to those who would otherwise not have it. We need the Colin Powell’s of this world, and will not have them in the future with a public education system that polarizes, benefiting only the “haves.”
The ONLY good thing I see about the Bush administration and education is the creation of the Virtual High School, but the reasons behind that are so cynical: high schoolers have had their day cut by a period so that if they want to take any electives, they must do some required courses online. And really, the Bush administration wants to save money by having high schoolers to leave in 3 years.
So lottery money is morally superior? Are you suggesting that as President, Bush might institute a national lottery?
But there is no evidence that the children from those schools are doing any better. That’s because private schools accepting vouchers have no standards or accountability; there was merely an assumption that private schools can do better. (Actually, this might have changed in recent years as legislators have repeatedly tried to introduce some accountability, but it was that way in the beginning and how Bush designed it.)
And those are mostly poorly paid jobs without benefits or upward mobility for workers. Because so many jobs are in the service sector, Florida has one of the highest rates of lacking health insurance in the nation. In Miami-Dade County, 45.5% of young adults age 19-24 do not have health insurance. I give Govs. Romney and Schwarznegger high marks for addressing this issue in their states.
i don’t want to live in a country that was run the way Florida was run the last 8 years.
32 = Too obvious for our 4th Estate to comment on … Bush+Clinton+Bush+Clinton=Banana Republic
But, if we on the left help torpedo the Clinton nomination, do you folks on the right promise not to foist another family dynasty on us in future, or is all this hand-wringing only operative ‘cuz it’s Hillary? As far as I can tell, support for Bush among Republicans is still – correct me if I’m wrong – pretty solid. What’s up with that?
Naismith, in most of the ways that an a person can benefit — jobs, schools, lower crime — Floridia is much better off than eight years ago. People in state likes Ohio and Michigan would love to have our success. If you don’t want to see it, well there’s not much else to talk about. I love the way leftists talk about wanting full employment — “jobs for the poor” — but when a Republican actually comes along and gives them jobs suddenly it doesn’t count. They are all “low wage jobs.” Well, you gotta start somewhere. Low wage jobs are better than no jobs. Again, people in Ohio and Michigan (unemployment approaching double digits) would love to have any job at all. You simply don’t know how good you have it.
To hear one American tell another American You simply don’t know how good you have it, after what’s transpired these past six years, I’m too tired to fill in the blanks, but anyone else feel like a Tea Party?
Chino Blanco, I’ve lived and worked all over the world. Believe me, we have it pretty good here in the U.S. But my statement was aimed at one state compared to another. Florida has it much better than Michigan by just about every measure. That’s why Florida’s population is booming and Michigan’s is falling.
My concerns regarding Romney are basically limited to this flip-flop issue – and those concerns are minor in relation to the concerns I have about other candidates. On the Republican side, in my opinion, he’s a much better and much more appealing conservative candidate than McCain or Giuliani. As for the non-Republican candidates, well it might be enough to say that I usually vote conservative. If Mitt Romney wins the Republican nomination, barring something really unusual, he will have my vote.
Geoff, these are bad times for the American auto industry, and American industry in general. I don’t see what Jeb Bush, Granholm, or Dingler have to do with it. I am supposing your preference is for government that stays out of directing the economy.
It’s really sad. When I lived in Michigan, I loved being part of a state that makes things: cars, washing machines, Cheerios, Eggo waffles, I got to stick my thumb in all of that. Producing things just doesn’t seem to count for much anymore, but I can’t get behind the notion that tourism, retirement, and medical care can drive a complete economy.
John M, state government has a responsibility to try to improve the state regardless of the short-term economic situation. In Michigan, a long series of Democratic leaders have raised taxes, increased regulation and coddled the UAW, which has led Ford and GM to the mess they are in today. Toyota, Honda and Mercedes have set up dozens of new factories — making things — in other states, mostly southern states, because the business environment in Michigan is, frankly, bad for business. If Michigan had decided to attract these companies by giving them tax breaks, Toyota and Honda and Mercedes would have gladly gone there, giving people in Michigan jobs, especially since there were so many skilled workers in Michigan. Instead, Michigan is in an unstoppable regression.
Florida is not a huge producer of industrial goods, but it is a leader in some areas such as software, pharmaceuticals and foreign trade. Stuff gets shipped through here to Latin America more than anyplace else. Almost every major multinational has offices in Florida to address the Latin American market — these are high-paying jobs that are associated with “making things.” In the modern economy, there are all kinds of needs. Selling software and pharmaceuticals is no less valid than selling Eggo waffles.
First off, I’m glad to hear about what Florida produces, and the orange juice it supplies the nation and the world is worth mentioning too. Second, Michigan has had Democratic governors 12 out the last 44 years, 4 out of the last 16. (And I don’t know where I got “Dingler” from; I meant Engler.) Republicans control the state senate and have at least since 2003; Democrats control the state house of representatives.
I don’t really know what sort of tax breaks the state has or hasn’t handed out, but I’m surprised to see you favoring that sort of crony capitalism instead of uniform, hopefully low, taxation. Ford and GM can complain about their legacy costs all they want (“Decades ago, we agreed to fund the retirement of our employees, and then they surprised us by growing old and retiring.”), their number one problem is whether they make vehicles people want to buy. Besides trucks and the Mustang, what Ford models can anyone name? Five years ago, their strategy was to sell all the trucks they could while that demand was hot and ignore cars. Now trucks aren’t so hot, and they didn’t prepare a car lineup. I don’t see how that’s the governor’s or the union’s fault.
Also, the American auto industry, including American operations of foreign companies, is more concentrated in the Michigan-Ohio-Indiana area than ever.
John, I’m surprised to hear you say that the American auto industry is more concentrated in those states than ever. What about Saturn? What about all of those new Toyota/Honda/Mercedes plants in Kentucky, Alabama, Mississippi and on an on? I am not in the auto industry, so I could easily be wrong, but it seems to me that nearly everything was in Detroit as recently as 30 years ago, and now the auto industry is spreading to other areas.
I suspect Geoff, he’s distinguishing between the big three and the Japanese. So while most American cars are now made overseas and many foreign cars made in the US, by and large the control in in that small area.
I think this wrong, of course. While it may apply to Ford and GM, both of whom have huge problems – not the least of which making cars anyone wants – it is hard to apply it to Chrysler which was bought years ago by Mercedez. They’ve even had a series of add playing up this German ownership by hyping the new German President.
I’d add that with cheap oil again, GM and Ford may start doing better. It’s hard to say.
I do agree Ford and GM (and frankly a lot of Chrysler) have bad cars. They stack the rental places with them as a form of advertising. But all it does is makes people not want to buy American cars. Everyone I know who rents them hates them. Most people I know now go out of their way to request Japanese cars at the rental agencies.
But all this is getting a tad into a thread jack. My apologies.
There are more plants in the south now, as you say, but there was a time that California had five assembly lines. The last of those five shut down in 1982, then re-opened as a joint Toyota-GM operation and is the only one there today. There are two main factors. One is just-in-time manufacturing, which adds value to parts suppliers and vehicle assemblers being in proximity more than in past decades. The other factor is that manufacturers used to produce fewer models, but more of each model, so there were vehicles being manufactured on multiple assembly lines to supply different parts of the country. There were once vehicle assembly plants in Oklahoma, Minnesota, Maryland, New Jersey, Massachusetts. Not anymore.
I’ll put a couple of URLs at the bottom of this comment for graphics from a Chicago Fed blog. The first shows where assemble plants have opened and closed. The second shows where Honda’s plants and its suppliers are located.
http://midwest.chicagofedblogs.org/archives/BLOG.html
http://midwest.chicagofedblogs.org/archives/HondaCorridor2-new.html
John M, interesting stuff. Thanks.
That does tend to overlook the overseas factor, John. I’ve been told that GM and Ford now have some cars made entirely overseas.
One of the reports that crosses my desk every year is the state snapshots at
http://www.unitedhealthfoundation.org/ahr2006/
Please note that this report is not political propoganda; it is produced in cooperation with the American Public Health Association and endorsed by Secretary Leavitt of HHS. And yet it suggests that Florida is worse off than Michigan when it comes to violent crime, high school graduation, and many other health indicators. Michigan is average, rated in the middle of the pack at 27th. Florida has slipped to 41st, in the bottom 10 states.
Because I have only lived on three continents instead of all around the world like you? Because I read objective reports instead of propoganda from right-wing think tanks?
Okay, I’ll try. I’ll put on some eye makeup and try to pretend that I’m a Republican soccer mom. “I just love Jeb because he gave us a week of tax-free clothes shopping each summer, and my girls can go to the Gap and buy all kinds of midriff-revealing clothes without paying tax. And he was so wonderful during the hurricanes…of course our family went to Disney during the time power was out, because no civilized person can live without a hair dryer, and it was great that we didn’t have to pay any tolls. That’s just what we needed. Thanks, Jeb!”
Sorry, just can do it. Not without puking.
I think it says a lot about the church that members in good standing can disagree on public policy, like Reid and Romney.
Clark, I’m not sure what you mean about overlooking the overseas factor. I’m only addressing where within America (and Ontario) vehicles and parts are being manufactured, and how competitive Michigan, Ohio, and Indiana have been compared with other states in competing for automotive manufacturing. The declining share of sales going to U.S. manufacturing is another matter. You’re right that Ford, for example, is building the Focus and the Fusion in Mexico, besides owning European brands like Volvo and Jaguar.
For my own sake, I’ll correct on inaccuracy I wrote concerning California assembly plants. GM’s Van Nuys Assembly continued building Camaros until 1992, and Ford’s San Jose Assembly built Mustangs until 1984.
Let’s talk about Romney one more time…
How many of you have heard that he’s lately attacked Hillary Clinton in a speech during a Manhattan dinner sponsored by the largest pro-Israel lobby for being too timid against Iran? Of course, before that, he was in Herzliya mongering for another war in the Middle East (against Iran of course).
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070202/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_iran
http://www.mittromney.com/News/Press-Releases/Iran_Herzliya_Conference
The problem with Romney is that his speeches all sound eerily similar to Bush’s speeches in October 2002-March 2003. I don’t know how many of you are familiar with Douglas Feith’s Office of Special Plans (OSP) where the intelligence in Iraq was cooked, and how Feith is connected with AIPAC. Perhaps not many, so here’s a good introduction:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIPAC_espionage_scandal
Now, here’s our country slowly sinking in the Iraqi quagmire, with no relief in sight, and all because Bush pursued the interests, not of our own country, but of another (Israel to be exact). One would expect that Romney would have the hindsight to know better as to why we’re stuck in Iraq. But no, he’s there in the loving arms of the very people who led us there.
Without doubt, Romney wants to be emperor, I mean, president of a country with hundreds of garrisons all over the globe ready to execute innocent human beings for contrived reasons, but what gives? “What does it profit a man to gain the whole world but lose his own soul?”
Is Romney now willing to bomb and kill the Iranians in exchange for AIPAC money so he can become emperor, I mean president? Where then is his so-called Mormon values in this Faustian exchange?
Dramatizing much Sol?
On the bright side, perhaps Romney will dump the dumb Bush-war talk once he’s secured the vote of the 25% who actually still agree with Bush in the upcoming primaries. Maybe he is a “moderate” at heart after all…
Dramatizing? More than 3,000 of our troops dead, and tens of thousands of them maimed, not to mention the horrible destruction we’ve unleashed on the Iraqis who never had WMDs to begin with… that’s not my type of drama. No, no, no. Especially when the whole bloody project has nothing to do American interests in the region.
As for your “bright side”, there’s no point wooing the votes of those who still believe in Bush. These aren’t the people who are going to deliver the bacon in 2008, as the 2006 elections have shown. The Republican ship of state is sinking fast, and it’s really every rodent for himself right now.
No, Romney needs the Manhattan money for the campaign, and that money needs precisely to hear in public what it wants to hear, that is, “Bomb Iran!”, otherwise it won’t flow. It’s a mantra that must be repeated again, and again, and again to make sure the precious juice doesn’t dry up at the crucial moment.
Remember how Dubya promised a “more humble foreign policy” to those sick and tired of Clinton’s nation-building efforts in Kosovo and Somalia? And then, as soon as he got elected, did the exact opposite of what he promised. Well, Romney isn’t talking to the Republican joe 6-packs at Manhattan this time, but to the corporate class who have the money to make him emperor. That’s the difference. Now that he’s willing to sell his soul to them, just like Hillary and the other aspirants, let’s not delude ourselves that he will later have the guts to screw them by not carrying out his promises to bomb Iran.
Nobody dines with those people to talk about peace in the Middle East.
If Romney publically supported Roe v. Wade as late as 2002 (on a Planned Parenthood questionaire no less), I would say that pretty much torpedoes his chances of getting the Republican nomination any time in the next ten or twenty years.
I don’t really understand what it is with some members of the Utah legislature who seem to have found something really pressing about the abortion issue lately. It looks like they’re prepared to spend millions of other people’s money to argue this case one more time. But why now? Utahns are not clamoring to open a debate on this.
I think this sums up why USS Republican is going down the way of the Titanic. Some officials on board still don’t know what it is that their boat had hit last November 2006. For that alone, I think they really all deserve to drown.
Just in case anyone’s paying attention, it looks like Douglas Feith is back in the limelight…
Report Says Pentagon Manipulated Intel
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2862621
Alternative Intelligence on Iraq Called Dubious
http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-02-09-voa75.cfm
Pentagon’s Official Preware Intel Faulted
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN0934889820070210
‘Very Damning’ Report: Pentagon Manipulated Pre-War Intel
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003543976
Zohar –
of course. Please actually study up on the issue rather than buy into the talking points of the leftist pundits.
WaPo Corrects Feith Scoop: Almost All the Quotes Were Wrong
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/08/AR2007020802387.html
But, y’know – let’s all ignore that in favor of our usual BDS. What a joke. Twain was right. A lie can get halfway around the world before the truth gets its pants on.
Ivan,
The reason we’re stuck in the Iraqi quagmire is not because the Washington Post or AP can’t seem to get their quotes right. It’s because Cheney, Feith, and the OSP seem to have an uncanny ability to create intel ex nihilo. In fact, your own quote agrees to that:
…the inspector general’s report states that the office “developed, produced, and then disseminated alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq and al Qaida relationship, which included some conclusions that were inconsistent with the consensus of the Intelligence Community, to senior decision-makers.”
The Iraq and al-Qaeda connection have been debunked before the US invaded in 2003. That connection was fed to the media as part of the govt’s propaganda war. But facts don’t deter the faithful. Now, here we are on the verge of escalating this failed war by attacking Iran, accusing it of misdeeds that our govt can’t really prove. It’s a rerun of the drumbeating that went on in 2002-2003, and today one of its main cheerleaders is Mitt Romney.
Is there really anyone here willing to send his son or daughter to be crippled or killed for what Romney and the other presidential wannabes are now telling us about Iran? Are you?
Sol,
I don’t think anyone in the White House is arguing for a ground invasion.
What Bush is posturing for, are airstrikes similar to what Reagan did in Libya (thus the extra aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf).
No one is talking about sending “sons and daughters” into Tehran. But airstrikes are totally doable and I wouldn’t be surprised if Bush is seriously considering it. Of course, Israel might beat us to the punch with unilateral airstrikes of their own…
Not that I think it’s a good idea. I think it would set the Iranian nuclear program back maybe one year tops. It would further destroy our credibility worldwide. And it would further alienate an increasingly paranoid Iranian government – possibly driving them to more drastic measures. Iran could also punish our ground forces in Iraq indirectly.
Airstrikes are a bad idea. But nobody is talking about ground invasion craziness but you Sol. Bush is a blundering blockhead. But he’s not a cartoon character.
A neocon-run website has been conducting a straw poll on the most popular presidential bets for 2008. The results so far have been disastrous for the site owners. That’s good news…
http://pajamasmedia.com/strawpoll2008/results.php?precinctid=d7b93ad39dd2b3ab00924ee074aabdd3a
Seth,
I’m not talking of a ground invasion in particular, but a war with Iran in general. My question for the forum was if anyone was willing to send someone they love to suffer violence in Iraq on the basis of Mitt Romney’s justifications for it. As such, it doesn’t really matter how the US military attacks Iran, whether by airstrike, by ground invasion, or by shooting from an open whiskey bottle. We need a better justification for war with Iran than what Bush gave us with Iraq in 2002. One would think Romney would not act like the AIPAC dupe Bush is, but a dupe is what a dupe does, don’t it?
Sure, the White House isn’t floating the idea of a ground invasion, but what happens after their so-called “surgical airstrikes”? Did Israel’s much-vaunted airstrikes in Osirak take out Saddam? If the military doesn’t invade on the ground, we’ll be the laughing stock of the Middle East next to Israel after its failed war with Lebanon a few months ago. Israel controlled the air in that war, but without a decent ground invasion to overthrow whoever called the shots in Lebanon, they got nothing but dead bodies and an angry public back home.
Remember Bush I’s dilemma with Saddam after chasing him from Kuwait to Iraq? He couldn’t attack Saddam in Baghdad without getting sucked into a bottomless pit, just exactly the kind his son is stuck right now. Yet back home, the public here couldn’t understand why he won’t do it while he had the chance to “finish the job”. Americans saw Bush I as a wimp and they didn’t like it, and that’s partly how he lost his re-election bid.
So yes, airstrikes are a nice way of opening a war, and they’re as “doable” as opening a plane’s cabin door at 30,000 ft. You can bet your life they can create powerful vacuums where none should be.
As for the bombing of Libya by Reagan, it was nothing more but a cruel joke inflicted on the Libyans by Americans. We know that terrorists bomb civilians and this is a fine example of Reagan as terrorist-in-chief. Those airstrikes were meant as a collective punishment for the Libyans because, hey, their chief sin was cooperating with Khaddafi. But as you can see, without a ground invasion, airstrikes are useless. Khaddafi has survived and remains till this day Libya’s strongman.
A more apt comparison for an escalation of the Iraq war by bombing Iran would be Nixon’s bombing of Cambodia and Laos when napalming Vietnam wasn’t working. The world knows we are desperate in Iraq and that we have lost control of the country a long time ago. A war with Iran can be compared with committing suicide for fear of death. It’s crazy, but I can bet Bush will do it before this month ends. Then you’ll know he is a cartoon character after all.
“A neocon-run website has been conducting a straw poll on the most popular presidential bets for 2008. The results so far have been disastrous for the site owners. That’s good news…”
How is stuffing their ballot boxes by bots a good thing?
Actually, Libya is often considered a success story. I’ve never heard the bombing went after civilian targets, perhaps you could enlighten me. Point is, Khaddafi backed down and today he isn’t a problem.
I don’t mind judicious use of bombing military and government targets when it makes sense to do so (mind, I’m not saying one way or the other whether Libya was actually such a case). But I don’t think it would be productive to bomb Iran now, or even next year.
I am utterly unimpressed with Romney’s support for the Bush foreign policy agenda. An agenda which has been moronic from day one. I’m not just talking Iraq either. I can’t think of a single major foreign policy move this administration has made that had any real usefulness.
Seth,
If Libya is a success story, then Iraq is a success story as well. I know there’s someone out there with a website called “Iraq the Model” that runs “success stories” on Iraq. I guess a 3-way civil war under US occupation is something successful, no?
Well, my point is simply this: no one likes admitting his failures, even if the cold facts say otherwise. Khaddafi has ruled Libya unchallenged since 1969, and that’s almost 40 years. The same can be said of Fidel Castro. These guys aren’t backing down. They’ve just become too old for adventures. What our government says about Khaddafi becoming tame and cooperative because of our toughness is simply prop material.
If the purpose of bombing Libya was to coerce them to do our will then it’s a failure. Before the bombs dropped, a Voice of America broadcast warned the people of Libya to stop cooperating with Khaddafi. In fact, it told them that it’s their collective burden to get rid of him. In short, the bombs were meant for all Libyans. Yet in spite of the ensuing carnage, Khaddafi was never ousted. Why then did the Libyans not overthrow him if they really hated him? That civilians were targetted is beyond doubt, as the French Embassy suffered damage in that operation.
I was wrong. Romney just torched himself. Check my blog, http://mormonopenforum.blogsome.com/2007/02/16/another-sad-embarrassment-on-mormomdom/. What a fraud!