Romney Explains ‘94 Debate with Senator Ted Kennedy
Mitt Romney was interviewed on Instapundit’s “The Glenn and Helen Show” this evening, and responded to a YouTube video that is floating around the blogosphere today showing his 1994 debate with Senator Ted Kennedy. Romney recorded his response on video and posted it on YouTube:
UPDATE: Romney’s swift response is undoubtedly impressive…
Follow us on TwitterJoin us on Facebook
Posted by Matt Margolis on Jan 10th, 2007 in Mitt Romney | 17 comments posted
TAGS: debate, Mitt Romney, Ted Kennedy, YouTube.
TAGS: debate, Mitt Romney, Ted Kennedy, YouTube.
Matt Margolis is co-author (with Mark Noonan) of Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority. He also blogs at The Buffalo Bean. Follow Matt on Twitter.
Wouldn’t it be ironic if Republicans overlooked Mitt’s flip-flopping the way they didn’t for John Kerry…
Mitt didn’t explain himself in that video very well. It’s not as if 13 years ago he was a little kid and now he’s all grown up, it’s just a case of opportunism.
Read the Globe story first, can’t stop laughing about Romney’s “ancient history” comment. He has see the light! The classic snake-oil salesman!
Exactly. I went through this with Kerry, and this is with “flip-flops” not nearly as dramatic as Romney, from being a better friend to gays than Ted Kennedy to leading the fight for “traditional” marriage. Romney can say all he wants, but the opportunist label seems in all likelihood here to stay. And I would have to say, I have no sympathy for one such as Romney who has taken to trying to deny people, my friends, the chance to legitimize their love for political gain.
“”flip-flops” not nearly as dramatic as Romney”
Kerry has a 30 year history of duplicity. It is his professional M.O. He can’t help himself.
Romney’s dilemma is transparent, to be sure — but it is really his first experience with duplicity.
It doesn’t become him.
Miss X, are you still on hiatus from KOS? jeeez ………
I just looked up the definition of “The classic snake-oil salesman!” it shows a picture of Deval Patrick…go figure……….
Take your blinkers off gentlefolk, all your Republican heros are frauds! They played to your emotions and your lack of examination and honesty…and now you feel betrayed. Look inwards friends,the truth will set you free!
p.s. ignore everything wavemaker says.
I think that all of the “who is a bigger flip-flopper” and “all Republicans are frauds” gloating is a little unproductive. I do have a serious question for conservatives, however.
Do you really, in all honesty believe that Mitt Romney held deep, moral convictions based on his own personal experience that led him to be firmly pro-choice, pro-gay, and in opposition to the policies of Reagan? Because that is what he said, on camera during his debate with Kennedy.
Bear in mind that if he is nominated, he will be the face of the Republican Party. If he lies and gets caught, he will damage future candidates. If he “evolves” on important issues, he will do so in the name of all conservatives.
Do you trust that he really meant it when he said he was conservative, but did not mean it when he said that he was liberal? If he was being deliberately deceptive to win an election, do you trust that he will never do it again? If he has sincerely changed his mind on our most fundamental political questions, do you trust that he has stopped changing his mind?
If you believe him and want to nominate him, you go right ahead. I would think that there might be safer bets, or people who have shown that they have a little more integrity, but its your call. As a Dem, I know I won’t be voting for Hillary in the primary. I trust her about as much as I trust Mitt Romney.
I think Miss X has a crush on wave….
That and Miss X being a Koskiddie, should be making wavemaker shake his head in roll his eyes.
I’d like for someone here to name a completely trustworthy politician. I think “all things to all people” goes with the job. We’re faced again with picking the “lesser of two evils”. I haven’t seen a republican yet who may fun for prez who isn’t blemished in some way. The Dems are worse. Romney may very well be an opportunist. Or, he may be a “flip flopper”. Either way, he is better than Kerry, Hillary or Edwards. We can debate if he is better than McCain, but McCain isn’t exactly a clean slate either.
I agree with Jonathan (well written post). But I think it is too late for us to believe the “face” of either party.
I am no great fan of Senator Kerry and will not defend his duplicitous nature but it should be pointed out that while Mr. Romney’s gymnastic political position swapping is technically more short lived, it is, not so coincidentally, precisely as long lived as his shorter political career. I fail to see the merits of this dubious distinction and expect no less from Mr. Romney than to match Sen. Kerry‚Äôs record if his tenure as a public figure should continue.
I think we can all agree that neither party owns the franchise on mendacity or hubris.
And I agree with anthony on the surface. WHat bothers me most about Romney is that at the outset, he was “different” than the rest (or so it seemed) — his “conversion” is more (I think) a product of political maneuvering (and handlers) than it is core intellectual dishonesty.
Not to ignore anthony and V, but I am quite certain that if you were inquire confidentially of most Mass dem politicians who have worked with Kerry, they will tell you to a man that he is, in his core, an unprincipled, duplicitous phoney.
I think that there are many issues that politicians can change position on convincingly. The hot button social issues are not among them.
I changed from pro-choice to pro-life in the middle of a political campaign, on the spur of the moment, during a public debate. I was only 29 at the time and had been struggling with the issue for months. I lost my campaign manager over that (she slapped me — heh). But since I was running in a moderate district and it was hardly a popular position, no one could accuse me of doing so for political reasons. (BTW, I won that race notwithstanding.)
“Kerry has a 30 year history of duplicity.”
Examples, please, other then Hub Politics innuedo?
“I’d like for someone here to name a completely trustworthy politician.”
From local selectmen trying to improve their towns (Jeanne Krieger, Lexington) to senators trying to improve the world (Russ Feingold, D-WI). I am frankly tired of the tendency of people to dump on politicians who are just trying to help people.
What’s especially humorous about Pretty Mitt’s latest round of Republican double-speak is it’s sheer scope.
Sure, politicians change their positions on supporting practical issues when circumstances change –like giving-up on the Cuba embargo (after 40 years of no effect on Castro), raising the eligibility age for SS (now that people live longer), or opposing a troop surge in Iraq despite supporting the initial invasion (now that Iraq has devolved into a civil war)– but these are practical adjustments, not “flip flops” in core belief.
Pretty Mitt, on the other hand, changes his fundamental “deeply-held” political beliefs as easily as most of us change our socks. It’s just classic listening to Mitt implore MA voters that his support for abortion rights isn’t just his own heartfelt conviction, but part of the Romney family legacy, starting with his Mom…!
Yet another Republican who will say absolutely anything to get elected.
dem, don’t take my word for it. Talk candidly with any democrat who has been in Mass politics for more than twenty years. Go ahead, I’ll not have to put words in their mouths. Better yet, for the fun of it, try posing this multiple choice question to dem politicians only (i.e., thoser who know him best):
John Kerry is:
a. A brave American who has served his country well in war and in politics;
b. A straight-talking politician who says what he means and means what he says;
c. An arrogant scumbag opportunist who will say or do anything to further his own agenda.
That might wake you up.
Mitt Romney paved the way for queer marriage in Massachusetts and it is well documented at http://massresistance.blogspot.com/ .
Cellucci and Weld were the forefathers of the gay rights movement in Massachusetts.
Yes, perhaps Mitt Romney was once a friend to gay people. No more. He has turned his back on those seeking equality, emerging as a full supporter of discrimination for political gain.
Talk to ANY Democrats in any section of the state. They can’t stand John Kerry. Many people regard his brief tenure (thank god) as Lt. Governor as not only one of the worst of any State Executive, but one of the worst performances by an executive ANYWHERE. The man is a poodle to rich women. His wife is a total disgrace… to think they say millions of sperm are released, but only one makes it to the egg…. and in TEEEEEERRRREEEEEEZZZZAAAASSS case it had to be THAT ONE SPERM. What’re the chances?
Funnies aside, I’m honestly quite suprised he hasn’t been defeated for his Senate seat. He’s not very bright, his approval ratings are in the toilet (and have been since 2004) and I can’t recall a soul, in my brief time in Mass. politics who actually like the guy, Democrat or Republican. I can’t say that about any other politician out there.
As for Mitt… Regardless of his stance on gay marriage.. as of right now, he’s the conservative candidate in the race. Next to Rudy and McCain, he looks like Gengis Khan. Really when it boils down to it, he’ll win the election if McCain isn’t able to successfully bomb Giulliani out of the race quickly. Brownback is same old turd, different bowl, Newt is a policy wonk and IMO, the best candidate to run, but in the end is the least likely to win. Haley Barbour is awesome. Only thing is he has a southern accent and is from Mississippi, which is the same state at Trent Lott, BTW.
Romney is a terrible party builder. I would DREAD to see what ‘his folks’ would do at the RNC. I’d likely vomit or bolt the party. ON that reason alone, I hope he gets buried and so should every other Republican with a brain in their head.
I hate admitting it, but I may have to hold my nose and back McCain.