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.

[Gabu]

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.

[Хahar 🤔]

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.

Thank you, Gabu.

[Democratic Hawk]

He just flip-flopped on absolutely everything else.

Yep, Romney is what you could describe as a 'Latter Day' conservative. Ran to the left of Ted Kennedy once over

Dave

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Then why did Romney say "I was an independent during the years of Reagan-Bush. I'm not trying to go back to Reagan-Bush"?

I mean, his dad was a Republican right, so when did he decide he wouldn't be one?

Not that it's a big deal either way - but has McCain ever endorsed a Democrat?

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

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.

Oh please. Remember the "I'm not trying to go back to the Reagan/Bush days?" McCain has never publically stated that he was leaving the GOP. Both are crappy Republicans if you base them on loyalty. But Romney is the biggest joke of a candidate I have seen in a long time. If you take away the $18 M he spent from his own pocket last quarter, he would've been out of the race a long time ago.

Then why did Romney say "I was an independent during the years of Reagan-Bush. I'm not trying to go back to Reagan-Bush"?

I mean, his dad was a Republican right, so when did he decide he wouldn't be one?

Not that it's a big deal either way - but has McCain ever endorsed a Democrat?

Does Joe Lieberman count? I don't think he's ever formally endorsed him, but it's no doubt he is a supporter.

[angus]

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.

I think that's a good point.  I'm not a particularly loyal republican myself, but even I can see that Romney definitely is.  Honestly, though, McCain strikes me as a fairly loyal republican as well.  He's a scumbag, sure.  And I hope he loses.  But he's about as nationalistic as they come, and nationalism is the defining characteristic of the GOP.  Moreover, flirting isn't the same as outright cheating, unless you're a Catholic.  Are you a Catholic?  If not, then flirting isn't the same thing as adultery.  McCain may not always vote with the GOP, but then neither does Ron Paul.  Not supporting stupid ideas doesn't make anyone less Republican.  If you really think that, then you wouldn't be a Republican, would you?

[Democratic Hawk]

Not that it's a big deal either way - but has McCain ever endorsed a Democrat?

Don't know. It would seem that McCain's critics would like to think he'd have switched from Republican to Democrat just like that if he thought there was something in it for him politically

Dave

[Horus]

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.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

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.

Good point. One of the biggest reasons I respected Giuliani was even though he differed on social issues, he didn't have a miraculous epiphany two years ago before running for President and decided he was pro-life/anti-gay rights and an avid hunter.

[J. J.]

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.

[Democratic Hawk]

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

[Keystone Phil]

LOL at this thread! Are you kidding me, Winfield? I know it was stated earlier but let me say it again:

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

[gmo]

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?

Well, McCain & Guiliani seemed to have the ground toward the center covered pretty well.  The economy was not in or perceived to be in bad shape so that the current businessman selling point would not have been that great.  I am not sure Romney had somewhere to try to carve a niche besides where he did.

Whereas now he is dubiously the conservative's conservative trying to hang in the race, I think if had not taken this tack he would have been just another rather moderate also-ran who had been pushed out of the race by now.

[Smash255]

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.

Good point. One of the biggest reasons I respected Giuliani was even though he differed on social issues, he didn't have a miraculous epiphany two years ago before running for President and decided he was pro-life/anti-gay rights and an avid hunter.

Well he actually tried to for a short period of time than realized no one was buying it so he dropped trying to pretend.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

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.

[Joe Republic]

News News News:

Winfield viewed this topic about five minutes ago, and is currently sending a message to Nym90, the moderator.  No actual response to the thread itself as yet.

So exciting!

[Sam Spade]

This thread is f-ing hilarious.

[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.

[Keystone Phil]

"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.

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.

[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.  

[Keystone Phil]

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.

And they just happened to evolve right after he was elected Governor when he wanted to run for President. Interesting.

[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.

[Keystone Phil]

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.

[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.