Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Mitt’s Slow bleed

By

Could it get to the point that we at BMG will soon start to feel sorry for Mitt….

NNNAAAA…

First Mitt was embarrassed by the video emerging from his 1994 debate with Kennedy, which Mitt (pathetically) shrugged off as “ancient history”.

Well it’s “current issues” day today, with the dusting off of the video from the 2002 O’Brien / Romney debate. 

First reported by Hotline, my good friends at Redstate couldn’t help themselves.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. all that I can say is: Wow!

    <

    p>
    How ironic is it that the tag line for Mitts campaign will be  from O’brien, quoting Kennedy:

    <

    p>
    “Multiple choice Mitt”

    <

    p>
    Brutal.

    • Yeah, where’s this guy been?

      <

      p>
      Really, the worst thing about Romney is how much he’s been willing to follow the crass example of the national Republicans, who — since Mitt starting calculating for the Presidency — drove themselves off a cliff and taken a willing Romney with them. That sensible moderate from 1994 and 2002 might have achieved a kind of genial mediocrity.

      • When I watched that video, I remembered again why he was able to win here. His strategy of trying to run to the Right of McCain seems completely laughable now.
        I think a moderate Republican will eventually rise to the top, maybe not for 6 or 8 years, but eventually, if only because they can’t be held hostage by the Falwell faction and expect to win again.  Between the tough guy posturing of Guiliani/McCain and whatever it is that Mitt thinks he’s doing  trying to woo the Godsquad, I can’t see them getting it together by 11/08.

        <

        p>
        But by far their biggest liability is Bush/Cheney, and really, every GOP candidate is trying to figure out how to navigate that fiasco. Talk about an anchor.

        <

        p>

  2. The wingnuts will be more forgiving than most people here seem to think towards someone who says the right things and accepts their “truth.” But his history will amplify anything that happens going forward that smacks of opportunism.

    <

    p>
    This is a potential weakness and his opponents will try to exploit it.

    <

    p>
    The Romney camp knows of the existence of these tapes and has a strategy for explaining them and containing their potential for damage to his candidacy. It will be interesting to see what that strategy is.

    • The Romney camp knows of the existence of these tapes and has a strategy for explaining them

      <

      p>
      Like what, The Doppelganger Defense? Bizarro Mitt?

      <

      p>
      This I have to hear.

      • The “leave your name, and we’ll get back to you” defense.  The write a letter, and you will hear back in six weeks” defense.  The go away defense.  The “piss off” defense” which for some strage reason, he gets away with.  I think the nyt/globe cabal thnks he’s their ace in the hole.

    • there’s NO WAY to stop the damage from it though. They can try to mitigate some of it, but they can’t entirely stop it. It may not cost him the primary, but I just don’t see him getting past even a Hillary Clinton during the general election. He’s really going to have turned off a lot of the Republican base with these kinds of videos.

      <

      p>
      There really aren’t many plusses to Mitt Romney’s pres run. His singular term as Governor was more or less disastrous: he couldn’t even win reelection, so didn’t even try. His big “accomplishment” is a healthcare bill that at least 30-40% of Republicans won’t like – and that’s if the thing doesn’t fall apart (and that’s tenuous, at best, with the fiscal nightmare and apparent shortfalls in the program’s funding).

      <

      p>
      Not to mention he’s going to have the stigma of a Massachusetts Republican and be called such aweful things as a “moderate,” to which he’ll reply no, then they’ll call him a “flip flopper” with damning YouTube evidence to back it up. Lastly, rightfully so or not, a lot of evangelicals, conservative catholics… and other people…  will be wierded out by his religion – while I think only a very small amount of them won’t vote for him because of his religion, even 5-10% of the evangelicals he’s courting avoiding him because of his faith could cost him the primary, especially with McCain taking all the same positions as Mitt without the above baggage (well, except the flip flopping… McCain’s done just as much of that).

      <

      p>
      Romney certainly has his work cut out for him – thankfully – but then again a lot of the conservative Republicans seem to be congregating around him right now and propping him up, so who knows. It could just be enough to propel him in a primary if he becomes the consensus conservative.

  3. …Romney isn’t just a glorified accountant (which I had earlier characterized him as being, with his Harvard MBA), he’s also a salesman.  And in this video he knew that he was selling himself, not his ideas or his policies (of which there were–none).  In this clip, it was clear that he dominated the discussion.  And, quite frankly, that is largely why he won the election.  O’Brien let him dominate the discussion, virtually every time.  She let him go jabbering on and on, and allowed him to silence her when whe wanted to interject.*

    <

    p>
    Romney probably expects to prevail to the pResidency, not on his ideas–of which he has none–or his values–of which he also has none–but on his bravado and salesmanship.  As long as he can dominate the discussion, he will prevail.  If he can’t, he won’t.  It really is as simple as that.  It has nothing to do with his religion–it has to do with his ability to dominate.

    <

    p>
    *If you noticed, Deval Patrick did just the same in the 2006 state election.  He would not let Kerry Healy dominate the discussion.  She would talk minutiae of policy, but he would deflect them and he would dominate the discussion.  She could never dominate the discussion in any of the debates.  That’s one reason why he won the 2006 election and not she.

  4. I don’t remember her being so luscious!  All I remember is the “unbecoming” comment, and how much everyone was offended by that.  Seems so silly now, considering how obnoxious Mitt was, and still is.  Maybe Shannon can use this clip to ressurrect her career.  I’d consider her for Kerry’s seat, or something.  what’s she doing these days?

  5. Note that he does strenously avoid the label pro-choice however..

    <

    p>
    And check this fun piece out from apparent liberal Terry Michael:  http://www.politico….

    <

    p>
    Mitt Romney is Bill Clinton with his pants up. And he’ll very likely be cast in 2008 (“nominated,” if you prefer the political science verb) against Clinton’s wife, who has all the seductive qualities of John Kerry in a pants suit.

    <

    p>
    Hey, sure, this is a mighty flip flop but I guess if you are going to flipflop, do it on something that is an absolute necessity to get elected and something which is not likely to matter from a legislative point of view imo.  As a pro lifer, would one rather have Guiliani who was pro choice and is still pro choice, or Mitt who was (not pro choice but would protect a woman’s right to choose) and is now against abortion?

    <

    p>
    I guess to some thats huge, but to me its a sideshow – whereas Kerry’s ludicrous flipping about the Iraq war – war opposition being possibly his most central theme as a human being – was beyond redemption.

    <

    p>
    I kind of like Mitt, and I really like that article above.

    • He never does explain his positions from 2002.  The article just likes to point to Mitt’s YouTube for the 1994 debacle, but that’s not Mitt’s only problem, it’s actually 1994, 1995 .. 2002, 2003… 2006, 2007.  It’s a question of credibility, what is being pointed out is not a single issue like choice.  Instead it is all issues that Mitt at one time or another supported.  If you follow his political career you see a trend, the trend is that he makes himself into a candidate that he thinks will be electable, he’s a human chameleon and that is what he is dragging in the polls and needs to air teevee ads so early.  There would not have been a need to air ads so early in the campaign if there was not a feeling in his camp that they need to do something drastic.  At this point in time in the GOP it’s a two man race.  My feeling is that you can pretty much stick a fork in Mitt, but it won’t stop me from enjoying Mitt and the daily circus of bizarre statements from his campaign.

      • Absolutely – a history of flipping positions definitely calls credibility into question, and “they all do it” is no defense.  However, I think to some degree what matters is how central the issues they switch on are to themselves and to the context of their election at the time.

        <

        p>
        I’d be interested in a more thorough analysis of Mitt’s flips over the years that you note.  Can you point me to one?  Or briefly describe them?

  6. So, not only was he pro-choice in 2002, but in the ‘shut-up-Shannon, don’t-question-me-or-I’ll-call-you-pro-life, I’m-more-pro-choice-than-you-are’ kind of way.

    <

    p>
    I really hope he’s nominated.. and I kind of think the Republicans are so self destructive at this point in time that they just may be stupid enough to do it.

  7. He said he would preserve and protect a womans right to have an abortion, based on the laws of the Commonwealth, which is the job of the Governor.

    <

    p>
    He said that he would not attempt to change any provisions the law that allows abortion in Massachusetts.

    <

    p>
    So, did he lie?

    <

    p>
    Did he stand in the way of a single abortion being performed in Massachusetts?

    <

    p>
    Did he propose any legislation to limit or to outlaw abortion-on-demand in the Commonwealth?

    <

    p>
    Cute phrases like “multiple choice” sound oh-so-clever, the first time.
    But it appears that witty is all you’ve got, here.

Archives