You’d think the recent governor of a state would want to say good things about it, rather than make it the butt of jokes and derisive remarks.
Apparently you’d be wrong.
How terrible, Mitt, that you were forced to associate with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts! It must’ve been hideous when the libruls held the very guns they’d like to outlaw to your head to make you run for Senator and then Governor there!
No wonder you want to dis the place. Who can blame you?
That link has to be the slowest loading file on Youtube. Got another link that actually loads in less than a day?
Willard “Mitt” Romney ran for office here so he could then do an about-face and reach out to right-wingers, selling himself as a conservative who was able to work with oh-so-liberal Massachusetts. Unfortunately for Willard, he’s having some trouble shaking his comments supporting tolerance for gays and backing abortion rights. Willard’s history begs the question: if this guy can do a political 180 between 2002 and 2004, then if we elect him in 2008, what’s he going to be like in 2010?
This Mitt-flopper is all over the map—which reminds me: he ran for the Senate in Massachusetts in 1994, then was governor from 2002 to 2006, but he announces his presidential candidacy in Michigan? I realize he was born there, and that his father was governor of that state, but shouldn’t you give at least a little nod to the state that (barely) elected you?
Sorry, Willard, but we don’t need a weather vane to tell which way the wind blows. And you are that weather vane.
You’re being kind to him - his biggest flip-flop, on abortion, took place between 2004 and 2005. (I believe I documented this in another Romney thread; too lazy to look it up right now.) IOW, he’s running for the Presidency of the United States on the basis of deeply-held beliefs he’s held for just two years.
Or more to the point, what he’s running for at any given moment.
Romney’s political career has been pretty odd - he’s run against the RW stereotype of Massachusetts every time. His first run, for Senate in 1994, was as the anti-Kennedy - he seemed to picture himself as the Beowulf who would rid the land of the hated arch-liberal icon, to the huzzahs of the liberated people who had been fooled into thinking otherwise for lo those many elections previously. He didn’t bother to find out who Massachusetts voters really are or what they really want, and wound up holding the same short end that all Kennedy’s previous ideology-bound challengers have held. He did try to mask it for the campaign, trying on progressive/compassionate public positions like Halloween costumes, and that stuff is all coming back to him now.
Then his experience fixing the SLC Olympics (and he did, give him credit) back in his real home of Utah got him thinking about politics again. Meanwhile a rich maverick MA Republican named Christy Mihos on the Turnpike Commission was the target of a forceout attempt by Gov. Swift (one of 4 straight GOP MA Governors who all quit on the job). As revenge, Mihos commissioned a poll whose results (as he desired and paid for) showed that Romney would beat her easily in the next primary. Mitt thought to himself “Yes! I can get executive power that will clean up that pit of immorality just like I cleaned up the Olympics! I’ll take the hint and run for governor! But I learned last time - I have to run as the capable executive who’ll get rid of corruption and run the state efficiently and attract jobs and lower taxes and all that.” Which he did, and there was certainly a market for that approach, it did get him elected.
But then, like most pols who get to an office that high, he got a case of Potomac Fever, used what little time he spent in the state engaging in personal vendettas (part of the culture he was hired to fix), found out that the true *executive * power in MA lies with the Speaker and Senate President (thanks to the Curley-containment policies of the old Goo-Goos, but that’s a different story) and apparently realized he wasn’t going to be any more successful at the job than his predecessors were. When the gay marriage ruling came down, he did show his true spiteful colors by doing what he could to limit its implementation.
So he’s running against Massachusetts for 3 main reasons: He really always has, because he’s really always hated the place. It’s the only approach he can take - he can’t run on his success turning it around or even having a notable beneficial effect, because he hasn’t - all he can do is blame the darn liberals for preventing it. And it plays better with the tighties who’ll decide the GOP nomination than anything else he could try.
So I’ll be kind and summarize that he’s doing it because he simply isn’t a big enough person for so important a job.
Yeah, I was being kind to him. Being kind to Willard is not something that comes easily to me, and I’ve been especially unkind to him since I moved to Massachusetts last July. It’s pretty telling that even if you paint Willard in that relatively kind light, he still looks like an amoral opportunist.
If Willard takes the Republican nomination (which I do believe is possible,) all this business about him running around the country putting down the state that voted for him is going to have to congeal into this: “If he thinks the people who voted for him already are idiots, then why is he asking me for my vote?” Not the most enviable position…
Excellent summary, ElvisL1ves, of that blowdried phony. It’s very, very wrong of me, no doubt, but I get a delightful tingle of schadenfreude every time the Mittster, desperately sucking up to the worst fanatics of the Religious Right, gets dismissed by them because he’s gasp a heathen Mormon.
Thanks, Eddy. I enjoy watching him address the religion issue basically out of theatre - politics makes a great spectator sport, and it’s always interesting to see if a pol Gets It, just like it’s interesting to see one self-destruct instead. Still too early to see which way Mitt goes, but it’s clear which way to bet.
BTW, there are now even fewer Republicans and Republican office-holders in MA than when Romney took office. Nobody is wondering who the next GOP Governor will be - there aren’t any candidates left. Their Senate candidate last November actually came in third. Romney not only killed the crop, he salted the field.
Hey, be fair, he didn’t do it all by himself. He had help from the homegrowns, too. Just look at the disaster of a campaign that Kerry Healey ran, for example.
Mihos had a lot to do with that, too - he ran as an independent just so he could get in the debates and do the knifework on the Mitt-surrogate. The Bush Effect was undeniable, too.
But, while I’m being fair (yes, I can do it without much physical pain), Romney might make a pretty good Cabinet secretary. He really can run large organizations competently and cleanly when he wants to, and if he can give up his Oval Office daydreams, he might very well want to. But he isn’t cut out for the top job - he just doesn’t Get It.
Anyone who flips around like that whenever the wind blows from a different direction is the worst kind of president we could have. For them, it’s all about power. It’s hard to find a principled politician, and that’s why I think Obama has so much appeal-- he appears to be the genuine article. I think Obama will make an excellent president some day, even if he isn’t quite ready yet. I may not agree with many of his positions, but he’s thoughtful and principled and not afraid to admit mistakes. Too bad he wasn’t governor of IL for a term or two instead of the junior Senator of such a short time.
Anyway, I can only shake my head whenever I see Romney out campaigning. He’s not going to fool enough people to get the nod. Meanwhile, Moderate Giuliani Doing Fine with Right. (For some reason, the on-line article has a different headline than the one I quoted, which was in the hard-copy version of the Mercury News paper today).
Don’t feel bad. They all deserve each other. He’s scheduled to speak at Pat Robertson’s Regent University. The shitstorm has only begun to unfold.
Gilham said Friday that she understands “evangelicals in an academic context need to be exposed to other viewpoints.” But she fears inviting a speaker of the Mormon faith “would confuse young Christians who are not so firmly grounded in Christian doctrine.”
Mr Romney has a lot of popular support in the Midwest. His political mini-dynasty has the backing of rich, influential people. As a born-and-bred Midwesterner, I can say one of the most derided areas of the country is the East Coast, specifically Massachusetts. This ploy makes good sense.
In addition to personal ties with the Romneys, I have a professional connection with Alex Castellanos. If you Bay Staters would read up on him, you’ll understand it’s all in his playbook. Your negative reaction is his validation. Additionally, in Alejandro’s mind, flip-flopping at this ultra-early stage is incomparably beneficial later in the game; the first accusation of waffling will be an opportunity to mention how Mitt’s open to debate, more reasonable and “a welcome change from the Bush Administration.”
This one? What candidates has he actually helped to win an election since 2000?
The others were gay?
“Gay” and “straight” do have other dictionary meanings, ya know. 
Hatemongers like Castellanos are part of the problem in US politics. Even if they help your guy win, they’ve devalue what is won.
So, did you mean “straight” as opposed to “crooked”? Or “straight GOP” as opposed to RINO? Or “straight GOP” as opposed to “elected by an alliance of the GOP and third-party and independent voters”?
You might be surprised at how little difficulty the winners have in living with that.
“But hey, we’re more alike than those damn atheists!”
“Syracuse broke Georgetown’s streak of eleven heterosexual wins the other night…” 
He means “in a row.”
What I was wondering about was the comment about Romney “fixing” the Olympics. “Fix” as in “made to work,” or “fix” as in “cheat?”