- Daily Photo: Obama Jokes Around at G-20
- Blackwater gets replaced in Iraq
- Daily Photo: U.S. Marines Look Out for Taliban in Afghanistan
- Hillary Clinton the Tomboy and Her "Ah-Ha" Moment
- Obama Administration Sudan Envoy Headed to Region
- Daily Photo: Potential Flashpoint in Iraq
- Clinton Says New Afghanistan-Pakistan Plan Depends on Diplomacy
- Exclusive: Three Israeli Airstrikes Against Sudan
- Additional 4,000 Troops to Be Ordered to Afghanistan
- Daily Photo: Navy Submarine Trains in the Arctic
- Alarm Over North Korea Missile Prep
- Anti-Terror Stimulus? US Offers Rewards for Top Terrorists
- Daily Photo: Pakistani Women in Refugee Camp
- Condoleezza Rice Appears on "The Tonight Show"
- Diplomat and Aid Group Sound the Alarm on Darfur Camp Situation
- auto industry rescue
- Ballotwatch
- Biden, Joe
- Bush, George W.
- Clinton, Bill
- Clinton, Hillary
- Dodd, Chris
- Edwards, John
- Giuliani, Rudy
- Gravel, Mike
- Huckabee, Mike
- Hunter, Duncan
- Inauguration
- Iraq
- Kucinich, Dennis
- McCain, John
- Obama, Barack
- Palin, Sarah
- Paul, Ron
- Romney, Mitt
- Tancredo, Tom
- Thompson, Fred
- Veepstakes
- Vote 2008: Democrats
- Vote 2008: Republicans
- Washington
- White House
« Previous | Main | Next »
Not Politically Correct? Or Not Politically Clever?
December 07, 2007 1:52 PM
ABC News' John Berman Reports: The Romney Campaign is releasing a new television ad in Iowa called, "Not Politically Correct," which they claim "highlights Governor Romney's record of fighting for conservative principles in the bluest of blue states.” The question is, does it is highlight his record, or does it highlight his weaknesses?
In the ad, the voice of an announcer says, "When it wasn't politically correct, [Romney] stood up for life in Massachusetts." And, "when it wasn't politically correct, he said marriage should be between a man and a woman."
It is certainly true that as Governor, Romney opposed the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision allowing same sex marriage. And he did veto legislation for funding stem cell research, as well as legislation that would have allowed for a "morning after" pill without a prescription.
However, when he ran for Senate in 1994, and Governor in 2002, he said he was effectively pro-choice. It is unclear whether he thinks that cuts for or against the notion of political correctness (although it certainly seems like he wasn't standing-up to the largely pro-choice Massachusetts electorate.)
Moreover in a letter to Log Cabin Republicans, looking for their support, essentially he said he would be a better candidate for gays than Ted Kennedy. "If we are to achieve the goals we share, we must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern. My opponent cannot do this. I can and will."
The Romney campaign is clearly trying to seize on the exposure of his "Faith in America" speech, to continue to appeal to conservative voters in Iowa, where he has fallen behind former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee in some polls.
The speech was designed to show evangelicals that the Mormon candidate shares their values, and this ad seems designed to do the same.
However, ABC News' newest political contributor, the sage Matthew Dowd, notes that Romney's trouble in Iowa, "has nothing to do with fact he is a Mormon, and has more to do with questions of authenticity and I don't know if one speech can fix that."
And it might be that the new ad again raises questions about authenticity. The other campaigns seem to think so, an are already jumping on it. Jill Hazelbaker, communications director for John McCain, had this to say: "Mitt Romney has changed his position on virtually every issue at stake in this election, from immigration to the war in Iraq. When it suits his ambitions, Mitt Romney switches sides – that's called pandering, not political courage."
December 7, 2007 in Palin, Sarah, Thompson, Fred | Permalink | User Comments (20)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
"Politically correct," or "politically dishonest"
Posted by: BenMurphyNYC | Dec 7, 2007 3:05:33 PM
Zealots & fanatics will say & do anything to win. His "religion" speech was self serving & contradictive .The theme was God/country/politics/god-given etc.Yeah, we believe you would never have the Mormon church at your right hand.Just as Bush never had the Evangelicals in his!The christian Taliban wants all the power!
Posted by: Sharon White | Dec 7, 2007 3:48:03 PM
BenMurphy, those two are one and the same. A career politician cannot vote his conscious or conviction in a politically correct climate....that is why we have so much bad legislation on the books.
Posted by: ken lewis | Dec 7, 2007 4:23:57 PM
It chills me to the bone to see Romney's strategy unfold...instead of highlighting the differences between Mormons and Christians, he is working to align them together against the real enemy: no, not terrorists, not even Muslims...atheists and agnostics. If we ever call him President Mittens, mandatory tithing and school prayer, federal blue laws, a Christian Ayatollah, and the ultimate death of secularism aren't far behind.
Posted by: jeremydbrooks | Dec 7, 2007 4:25:34 PM
Get your "god" out of my government!
Posted by: dano | Dec 7, 2007 4:54:44 PM
Media really likes to get after this guy. Every candidate has been flip flopping. Giuliani in softening his stance on being pro choice by saying he wants roe vs wade overturn. Huckabee calling for a tough stance on immigration, when just a few months ago he was doing everything he could to keep them working for Arkansas poultry plants. He has been labeled and that is tough to shake, but the media is certainly not applying it fairly. That is just one man's take on the matter.
Posted by: Nick | Dec 7, 2007 6:06:37 PM
I don't see how a fair minded person could disagree with Romney. After all, he has come out on every possible side on every possible position.
Posted by: jonathan swiller | Dec 7, 2007 6:36:58 PM
Why would anyone think it is o.k. to allow faith to shape our governmental policies? Doesn't the separation of church and state mean anything any more??
Posted by: Marilyn | Dec 7, 2007 6:37:16 PM
Since when has being politically correct contributed to anything meaningful? I like political leaders who can think outside the box. Romney in one of them. He believes in fiscal discipline. Isn't that a concept? Do we really need more taxes to pay for pork and barrel politics? If we can just get rid of the crap, we may have more money to spend and inflation will be lower.
I shudder to think how low our country would sink if we had Hillary and a bunch of legislation-happy power-hungry Democrats in congress. So far Congress has done little but block Republicans. It reminds me of the dog that pees on the tree to mark his territory. I would hope that we can fire the Democrats again soon or put in a Republican president like Mitt Romney who can veto crap.
Posted by: michael charlton | Dec 7, 2007 9:00:20 PM
Mitt Romney is an intelligent Presidential Candidate and he leads with much understanding.It is easy for anti Romney reporters to sleep the rest of the day and get up go look for something negative to write about a candidate but the reality is more and more Amerians read Religious books and upliting stories than the media fine small print.
Posted by: kmjjp | Dec 8, 2007 2:02:58 AM
Republicans have been the ones in office and they have been the ones who have run up the enormous deficit in this country. Last president who didn't have a deficit was good ol democrat bill clinton. Republicans run on saying government does not work and then they get elected and prove it. As for romney, he is just a rich panderer, who will do anything to win. I don't think he really knows what position he is for, he's changed his mind so many times. Why believe anything he says before he gets elected if he will just changes his opinion on the matter such as abortion when he's in office. Thank god he doesn't have a shot at being president.
Posted by: Scott D. | Dec 8, 2007 2:04:41 AM
Mitt Romney has the most impressive resume of any candidate of either party. A solid business career, pulled the 2002 Salt Lake Olympics out of bankruptcy, and got the big dig in MA completed where others had failed. This Evangelical Christian will be pulling the lever for Mr. Romney in the primary. If the most dirt Liberals can come up with is that he put his dog kennel on the roof of his car 20 years ago then Romney is your man.
Posted by: LB Tartaglia | Dec 8, 2007 2:58:39 AM
I just love Christians who support Rommey's and Bush's Christian values like Rommey's support for Bush's pre-emptive illegal war, the killing hundrends of thousands of Iraqs. Best of all not only will he continue the Bush illegal policy of torture he wants to double Gitmo, and the hell with haebas corpus. Our Founding Fathers would never support any of the pro-war candiates. But, I guess God didn't speak to them like he does to Bush.
Everyone knows that anyone will admit to anything when tortured, thus, the info. obtained is worthless. Rommey is just another chickhawk prowar Bush supporter who never served in the military nor any of his 5 sons. He is opportunist who thinks he can buy the election. He pays people to vote mulitple times at the Florida straw poll.
Posted by: Greg | Dec 8, 2007 3:22:04 AM
What? "Mitt Romney has the most impressive resume of any candidate of either party." How many people did he put out of work with his company buy-outs? His flip-flops are the worse of the bunch. Can't wait until Mitt sends the DEA feds to arrest all those sick people who upon the advise of their doctors obtain legal prescriptions for medical marijuana to relieve their pain and suffering. Yes, enforce those Fed laws over State rights, and individual freedom and liberty. Just what we need, another warmongering chickenhawk who supports torture.
This country is sick, and what it needs is a Doctor, someone the Founding Father's would support, the champion of the consitution, integrity who supports real real freedom and liberty for the people. We, the people support Dr. Ron Paul.
Posted by: Greg | Dec 8, 2007 3:31:36 AM
Mitt Romney is not fit to be President, the last thing we need in the White House is another holier than thou religious conservative who thinks it is OK to pander to the religious right and their antiquated bigotted view of the world. He is also unfit because he will say anything to get elected. This man has changed his position on the issues more than most people change their sox. How can you trust a man who is for something one day and against it the next? His actions show him up to be a hypocrite, a liar and a panderer and we certainly do not need another one of those in the White House.
Posted by: Brian G. | Dec 8, 2007 8:24:07 AM
Questions of the day for Mitt. Is it your religious tenets or your political freedom tenets that allow your use of waterboarding? By the way, what was your contribution to American freedom during the Viet Nam war? I chose to go. Why didn`t you?
Posted by: Luke | Dec 8, 2007 10:14:38 AM
Romney is the Republican Hillary Clinton!
He says whatever you want to hear, whenever you want to hear it!
That is why he would have no chance to
beat her! He negates the flip-flop issue!
Posted by: reaganfan | Dec 8, 2007 11:16:33 AM
Did anyone else notice that Mr. Romney used the word "Mormom" only once in his entire speech? He is simply a very slick salesman, trying to sell himself as president by saying whatever he thinks will close the deal. I'm not buying.
Posted by: Arthur | Dec 8, 2007 11:14:31 PM
Romney has leveled with the American people about his religion. He's not ramming it down anyone's throat...he is what he is and for me has the best potential among all the Republicans of whipping Hillary in the fall. He,like most of the the rest of us wage earners, has a vital interest in wanting America and it's people to thrive in a most positive way. It wasn't just a fluke that George Bush Sr. introduced him before his speech. Anyone with even half a brain ought to get behind him and cast their vote for sanity. The alternative will be a rehash of scandal and rancor beyond belief. America doesn't need that now or in the future. It's time to bury Bill and Hill for good. Case closed!
Posted by: John Bunion | Dec 9, 2007 12:46:00 AM
This article starts off in the Governor's Mansion and then jumps all over Iowa..personally speaking..from experiance..the People of Massachusetts are very easily the best this country has...however Mitt Romney was as their Governor and then his BID-for Presidential Office is not really descriptive of the problems..entities don't excist in the article..just the fact that Mitt Romney has a view towards winning his popular VOTE..the article creates the view that Mitt Romney has shrewd manuvers...and this seems the whole point..very poor on character and very high on baloney in politics.
Posted by: Mark S. M. | Dec 9, 2007 10:39:46 AM
Post a comment



