What Was Mitt Thinking?
by Patrick Ruffini :: February 17th, 2007 2:07 pmI don’t think this can be written off as simply unconvincing. It has to be chalked up as one of Mitt Romney’s first real gaffes of the campaign:
That year, Romney, then a registered independent, voted for former Sen. Paul Tsongas in the 1992 Democratic presidential primary. He told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, in an interview that will air Sunday on “This Week,” that his vote was meant as a tactical maneuver aimed at finding the weakest opponent for incumbent President George H.W. Bush.
“In Massachusetts, if you register as an independent, you can vote in either the Republican or Democratic primary,” said Romney, who until he made an unsuccessful run for Senate in 1994 had spent his adult life as a registered independent. “When there was no real contest in the Republican primary, I’d vote in the Democrat primary, vote for the person who I thought would be the weakest opponent for the Republican.”
Romney’s opponents call him calculating and opportunistic. So what does he do? He freely admits to casting a calculating vote to cause mischief the other (?) party’s primary. That only serves to reinforce the prevailing anti-Mitt narrative that’s already traveling at light speed. This is the kind of thing a two-bit political operative like me would cop to, not a candidate for President.
It’s also very different from his past explanations of his vote. And it’s enough to cause Erick to pull his support.
I’m not a Mitt-hater. I’m doing some work for Rudy, but I’ll freely admit there’s a lot to like about the guy, particularly his precisely honed communications skills. The obvious move here would have been to admit he was wrong and move on. No one has a spotless voting record. Just move on.
Tagged: 2008 
mitt romney
Comments (4) 
Trackbacks (0) 
del.icio.us 
digg it 
subscribe
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
There is nothing contradictory. We have a report from two Boston Globe employees as to why Romney voted for someone 15 years ago. There is no direct quote.
I bet if you asked Scott Lehigh, Frank Phillips, or Mitt Romney that those weren’t the only reasons why Romney voted for Tsongas (the fact that Tsongas was from Massachusetts, and that he was better than Bill Clinton). Do you vote for someone because of only two issues? You might only give two issues, when you have limited time, but no one votes for a candidate because of only two issues.
Why don’t we take Romney at his word. He voted for Paul Tsongas because he liked him better than Clinton, and that he didn’t think that he would win the general election against Bush? Are these somehow mutually exclusive.
The democrats and MSM is going to take everything Romney ever said 10 years ago, tell us it, and then say “however today he says…” blank. They are going to use this tactic weather it contradicted the previous statement or not. They will use this tactic every time Mitt Romney does not repeat his previous statement verbatim.
Mitt Romney should learn from this that he should not over simplify things. People didn’t like John Kerry because he made things more complicated than they had to be. People won’t like Mitt Romny if his explanations are over simplistic. If someone from the media asks you why you voted for Paul Tsongas, you might want to give him a quick answer and get onto the next issue. But you should totally explain all your reasons, because if you just give one reason, the media will search to see if you ever gave one of the other reasons why you voted for the guy. If they are not the exact same explanation they will accuse you of changing you mind.
It is the same stupid thing that the Democrats and the Media have done to George Bush. Bush gave lots of Reasons why we went to war with Iraq. They were a destabilizing force in the world, they invaded two of their neighbors in the last 50 years. All right democrats. Give us one other example besides Iraq of a large country invading it’s neighbor? Iraq invaded Kuwait and Iran. But the only justification you hear the media bring up is WMDs.
George W. Bush needs to keep talking about the other non-WMD reasons to go to war with Iraq. Romney also needs to give a more thorough explanation of his decision making. In fact, I think he should use my format of Reasons to agree and Disagree with everything.
Every time Romney discusses the same issue more than once he better say the exact same thing verbatim, or the Democrats and the MSM will accuse him of changing, even when the two statements are not mutually exclusive.
First a clarification. Romney voted for George H. Bush in the General (final) election, but he voted for Paul Tsongas in the primaries.
Reasons to disagree
Romney was a good republican because he was very practical. In 1992 there was no Republican primary. He had two options. He could sit on the side lines and not vote (like me this last election cycle) or he could vote for the best candidate who would not likely beat Bush in the General election. Romney chose the latter. This does not make him a bad republican.
Paul Tsongas was a fiscal conservative.
Paul Tsongas was a good guy.
I wish every Republican would have registered as independents in 1992 and voted for Paul Tsongus. Bush would have lost anyways, but we would have had Tsongus instead of Clinton. And now Hillary Clinton. Maybe George H. Bush would have one against Paul Tsongus. Two descent guys, that had nothing to do with Hollywood instead of Bill going against H. Bush in 1992.
Maybe Republicans should all claim independent, so that we can vote for Hillary in the Primaries and our guys in the General election.
There was no GOP primary contest in 92. In 1992 Mitt Romney voted against Bill Clinton twice.
I am a Romney fan, but not even I think Romney was smart enough to see that Bill Clinton was a bigger liability than George H. Bush was an asset for our Country. I am not going to attribute Mitt Romney of difficult political calculus. This was very basic addition. Vote once for the guy you like best, or vote twice? Hmm, let me see…
I’ve done much the same thing here in Michigan. We have open primaries, where you get to choose which primary you want to vote in without locking yourself into that primary for future elections. I’ve often crossed over into the Democratic primary if there was nothing going on of note on the Republican side.
Or, back in my misguided Democratic youth, I’d go over to the Republican primary, especially when the Democrats had merely a beauty contest for their presidential primary.
Usually, I’d vote for the guy I liked the most, but I’ll admit to voting for the weaker of the two candidates on occasion. I’m a mugwump on this race, leaning slightly towards Romney of the big three, but I don’t see my opinion of him changing from this; it’s a Michigan tradition.