Romney 'Private' view different from public comments

Romney 'Private' view different from public comments

In a Wall Street Journal op-ed piece on Thursday, the veteran conservative journalist Fred Barnes offered Mitt Romney some advice for improving his campaign, including the sensible (and one might also say humane) suggestion that on immigration, the presumptive nominee “would be wise to move away from his harsh position in the primaries.”

Then Barnes included this fascinating sentence: “According to a Romney adviser, his private view of immigration isn’t as anti-immigrant as he often sounded.”

What exactly does that mean? Does it mean Romney said things that he doesn’t really believe? What are we supposed to make of a candidate who takes certain public positions to court one group of voters — and then tries to reassure an entirely different group of voters by leaking the fact that he doesn’t really believe what he said to win votes from the first group? How many other “private” positions does Romney hold that we don’t know about?

This is an important question because I think the Romney campaign will be engaged in a series of two-steps between now and Election Day. On the one hand, he needs to keep reassuring conservatives that he is really with them on a whole series of issues. But the whole premise that he was the most “electable” Republican rested on the unstated — was this “private,” too? — premise that he was the most “moderate” candidate in the field and could thus appeal beyond the conservative hard core. Romney wants the GOP base to think he’s a staunch conservative and swing voters to believe he’s a closet moderate. That’s why I suspect we’ll hear more hints about Romney’s “private” views on a lot of other matters.

Romney is not the first candidate to try to be all things to all people. But he has a special problem because he has taken a great many contradictory public positions over the years, depending upon whether he was trying to appeal to a general-election electorate in Massachusetts or a Republican primary electorate nationwide. Keep an eye out for more hints about Romney’s “private” views. At some point, he will have to reconcile what he says with what his aides hint at. And he will have to do this publicly.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/pos ... _blog.html


Wow... 'Private view" different from 'public comments'?....You can hear the surprise in *MY* voice....

How many times can one flip-flop in one day?...Let me count the ways....

If I was running for office, I would base my platform on what I think the country needs to do in order to thrive. That might very well conflict with what I would like to do as a private citizen. I don't see that as a conflict, it's just macro .vs. micro. As an individual, I can give to charities that help illegal immigrants work through the system to become legal. As a representative I would be of the opinion that the illegal immigrants cannot be a financial drain on the country and must leave or pay taxes.

I don't think that's a flip flop, it's a difference between what I'd like to do .vs. what must be done.

Do you see it different than that, LJ?

Flip flop? So...
Obama flip flops all the time, denouncing the Keystone XL pipeline and now has given the go ahead for the southern part of it. OMIGOD! Impeach the man!

LadyJazzer wrote:

Romney 'Private' view different from public comments

In a Wall Street Journal op-ed piece on Thursday, the veteran conservative journalist Fred Barnes offered Mitt Romney some advice for improving his campaign, including the sensible (and one might also say humane) suggestion that on immigration, the presumptive nominee “would be wise to move away from his harsh position in the primaries.”

Then Barnes included this fascinating sentence: “According to a Romney adviser, his private view of immigration isn’t as anti-immigrant as he often sounded.”

What exactly does that mean? Does it mean Romney said things that he doesn’t really believe? What are we supposed to make of a candidate who takes certain public positions to court one group of voters — and then tries to reassure an entirely different group of voters by leaking the fact that he doesn’t really believe what he said to win votes from the first group? How many other “private” positions does Romney hold that we don’t know about?

This is an important question because I think the Romney campaign will be engaged in a series of two-steps between now and Election Day. On the one hand, he needs to keep reassuring conservatives that he is really with them on a whole series of issues. But the whole premise that he was the most “electable” Republican rested on the unstated — was this “private,” too? — premise that he was the most “moderate” candidate in the field and could thus appeal beyond the conservative hard core. Romney wants the GOP base to think he’s a staunch conservative and swing voters to believe he’s a closet moderate. That’s why I suspect we’ll hear more hints about Romney’s “private” views on a lot of other matters.

Romney is not the first candidate to try to be all things to all people. But he has a special problem because he has taken a great many contradictory public positions over the years, depending upon whether he was trying to appeal to a general-election electorate in Massachusetts or a Republican primary electorate nationwide. Keep an eye out for more hints about Romney’s “private” views. At some point, he will have to reconcile what he says with what his aides hint at. And he will have to do this publicly.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/pos ... _blog.html


Wow... 'Private view" different from 'public comments'?....You can hear the surprise in *MY* voice....

How many times can one flip-flop in one day?...Let me count the ways....

Everyone has opinions and attitudes that they keep in private and wouldn't use in public. Romney is a politician, he's attempting to become President, someone who is tasked with representing the whole of the country.

Are you as much of a bitch in public as you are on here?

I would say in Romney's case, no matter your political affiliation, you'd have to know that the guy is an empty suit - he isn't committed to anything except to say what he thinks people in the room at the time want to hear. He really defines flip flop in the literal sense. I believe that people (and especially politicians) should evolve their views on things as they learn more and age and experience, etc. and think previous allegations of flip-floppiness in many other politician's cases were unfounded. In Romney's case, however, he is the quintessential political whore - saying whatever he needs to say for money.

Wily Fox aka Angela wrote: In Romney's case, however, he is the quintessential political whore - saying whatever he needs to say for money.

No kidding... that $400,000 annual salary he would make as president is going to really help raise him right out of poverty. You're coveting is showing.

Wily Fox aka Angela wrote: In Romney's case, however, he is the quintessential political whore - saying whatever he needs to say for money.

If money is such a big issue with you, why don't you get in gear and go find a way to make a few million. Talk, talk, talk... you're all talk. It's easier for you to complain about the rich instead of becoming rich yourself. Then again, some people revel in complaining, they wouldn't know how to be "happy" unless they have something to complain about.

I didn't say anything about him being rich. I said he lies like a rug for money. Money=political power. it is very simple.

I find it interesting that the personal attacks start with there seems to no real answer as a response. I have not attacked anyone here. I have stated my view on how I see Romney and I am not the only one that sees him as he is. That is why the GOP has had to hold it's nose with him.

Wily Fox aka Angela wrote: I didn't say anything about him being rich. I said he lies like a rug for money. Money=political power. it is very simple.

I find it interesting that the personal attacks start with there seems to no real answer as a response. I have not attacked anyone here. I have stated my view on how I see Romney and I am not the only one that sees him as he is. That is why the GOP has had to hold it's nose with him.

I had very real answers... you're just to partisan to consider them.

Wily Fox aka Angela wrote: I didn't say anything about him being rich. I said he lies like a rug for money. Money=political power. it is very simple.

I find it interesting that the personal attacks start with there seems to no real answer as a response. I have not attacked anyone here. I have stated my view on how I see Romney and I am not the only one that sees him as he is. That is why the GOP has had to hold it's nose with him.

You seem to have no problem attacking Romney?