Unlike McCain, Romney Did Not Ever Flip Flop On Where His Party Loyalties Lie

[Lincoln Republican]

Evidently, when things were not going his way, as he saw them, as has been discussed in another thread, John McCain flirted with joining the Democratic Party.

At least Mitt Romney did not flip flop about which party his loyalties are with.  Romney has always remained loyal to the Republican Party, through thick and thin, through good times and bad.

[Lincoln Republican]

"I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush."

I have explained this statement before on a previous thread.

However, I will do so again here.

Romney made this statement during his 1994 Senate run as the Republican candidate during a debate with the Democratic candidate Senator Edward Kennedy.

Kennedy had criticized Republicans, saying that "under your economic program, under the program of Mr. Reagan and Mr. Bush, we saw the growth in terms of the unemployment, the growth of the number of children living in poverty, the growth in terms of those children out of wedlock."

Which would lead me to ask, due to the fact that Kennedy had been in the Senate for decades, most of the time Democratically controlled, what was he doing to resolve these social ills?

But I digress.

Anyway

Romney replied, "Look, I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush.  I'm not trying to return to Reagan-Bush.  My positions don't talk about the things you suggest they talk about.  This isn't a political issue."

Evidently, Romney was unenrolled for a period, which is not uncommon for Massachusetts, with it's large percentage of independent voters. 

Apparently, 49.7% of Massachusetts voters are unenrolled, meaning they can vote in either party's primary.  Democrats account for 36.9% of voters, Republicans for 12.5%.

(Kennedy, by the way, won this Senate race, 1994, by the smallest margin he had ever won a Senate race in all the times he had ever run for Senate)

These are the facts behind this statement, and anyone is free to take it or leave it.  The statement is mostly always taken out of context.

[Lincoln Republican]

So, THR, is it better to stay loyal to ones party than to ones principles? Because Mr. Romney most certainly stayed loyal to his party, his principles (If he has any), have changed at the drop of a political dime... But oh yes, he's still a Republican and always will be. Never mind then, my bad.

Politicians have been known to sincerely change or modify their views on certain issues over the years, and Romney's views on some issues have sincerely modified and evolved over the years.

I recognize that the perception of Romney's change in some policy positions are troublesome to some, however, Romney should be judged on his record and on his abilities, his record, I believe, is most credible, and his abilities, I believe, are outstanding.

Although Romney is currently placing second in the race for the Republican nomination, what is clear is that millions of caucus and primary voters agree with my assessment of Romney's record and abilities.  

[Lincoln Republican]

Ok, that's great that people are unenrolled in MA. That's great that it's common. However, don't tell us that he's never wavered when it comes to where he stands in terms of partisanship. If one minute it's good enough to be an independent and then a few years later it's better to be a Republican, that's wavering.

Oh, and by the way, no one cares that Kennedy's 1994 race was his closest. He still won by about eighteen points and it's still totally irrelevant to our discussion.

Phil, some people might find it interesting that this was Kennedy's closest Senate race.  To say that no one cares about this is rather presumptuous of you.  Another interesting fact about this Senate campaign is that Kennedy spent over $10 million and Romney spent over $7 million.

Anyway, to return to the topic at hand

Phil, if you were running for Governor of Massachusetts, or in your case Pennsylvania, what would you run as, an independent, or a Republican?  The answer to that should be obvious.  The same with Romney in Massachusetts.  One could hardly expect him to run as an independent.  He would simply not get elected.  That's just the way it is.

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Romney has ever flirted with becoming a Democrat.

[Lincoln Republican]

You're right, at least Mitt Romney did not flip-flop about which party his loyalties are with.

He just flip-flopped on absolutely everything else.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I actually may have considered a pre-flip Romney.  My problem is trust.

I've been wondering whether Romney had not flipped to go so gung-ho for conservative primary voters would or wouldn't he be in a stronger position today?

Dave

Personally, I rather doubt he would be.  McCain pretty well had the more moderate Republican constituency locked up, especially since Giuliani ran such an inept campaign.

[Lincoln Republican]

Ok, that's great that people are unenrolled in MA. That's great that it's common. However, don't tell us that he's never wavered when it comes to where he stands in terms of partisanship. If one minute it's good enough to be an independent and then a few years later it's better to be a Republican, that's wavering.

Oh, and by the way, no one cares that Kennedy's 1994 race was his closest. He still won by about eighteen points and it's still totally irrelevant to our discussion.

Phil, some people might find it interesting that this was Kennedy's closest Senate race.  To say that no one cares about this is rather presumptuous of you.  Another interesting fact about this Senate campaign is that Kennedy spent over $10 million and Romney spent over $7 million.

No one cares as in no one following this discussion cares because it is completely irrelevant.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh, uh, thanks. About time.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'd run as myself as a Republican. I make my own decisions. I don't always agree with my party and its leadership. But...again...what does this have to do with anything? One minute your argument is that Romney has never wavered in his allegiance and now you're saying, "He has to be an independent! Otherwise he'd lose and we don't like losers! Forget principles."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But he was never consistent with his partisan allegiances.

Phil, my thread is based on the premise that Romney never flirted with joining the Democrats, and he never did, whereas, credible evidence points to the fact that McCain did.  Independent is not a party loyalty, because it is not a party.

I have addressed in some detail the "Reagan-Bush" issue and the independent issue, as well as the issue of Romney's policy shifts over the years.

If some choose not to accept these explanations at face value, that is up to them.

If anyone can show me one shred of evidence that Romney ever flirted with joining the Democrats, then I will stand corrected.     

[Lincoln Republican]

Winfield, you would make a great politician, and that's a compliment.

Thank you, and welcome to the forum.

It is great to see another Romney supporter.

[Lincoln Republican]

Winfield you started this thread to emphasize Romney's partisan support but you have evolved it into how it is good he was never a Democrat.  You are almost as much a flip flopper in that capacity as your hero;)

No.

The thread is clearly emphasizing the differences between Romney and McCain in this matter.

That's all it is.