Correction: In 2003 Romney Channels Obama

By
January 11, 2012

Update: My bad. I should have linked the shorter clip at RCP, too. The video below is from 2003. Change!

You have to break down what Romney is actually saying here to fully grasp it. Video below. What it demonstrates is Romney's Progressivism. I'd wager he's trying to spin away his business past, given that it was 1993 2003. He claims he disagrees with the classical Republican view of getting out of the way of corporations to allow them to thrive. The only thing that can mean is regulation and taxation.

He defines the Democrats as believing in investing in government. He then pivots to claim that in contrast to those two views, he believes in "people." But that's where the spin unravels, as he doesn't stop there. He goes on to say that in his view we must invest in people and to give them more freedom. At this point, he's merely spouting gobbledygook. Government doesn't bestow freedom when it acts, it always curtails it for some, if not all.

If he really believed in liberty, he'd say government should get out of their way. Instead, he says government should invest in them. Hello, that is precisely the progressive Democrat view he had just disavowed. It's a lot of fancy words to say that he is, in fact, a progressive, if not a Democrat. Government can't "invest" in people unless it taxes some to give to others – that's wealth distribution in one form, or another.

In reality, he is saying precisely what Obama would say on the stump today. Liberty is not his focus, his focus is using government to give people "freedom" via education, or what have you. It's a mash if you break it down but in the end it is pure Obama. Government must help people, left to their own device, they are incapable of succeeding. To paraphrase Reagan, Mitt Romney is from the government and he's here to help you. In the end, this is the Mitt we'd see in a general election, as he pivots back and tries to out Obama Obama in one fashion, or another. That will depend on what the polls tell him to say, I imagine.

Given that the Constitution grants Americans all the liberty required, what greater liberty is it Romney believes had been bestowed upon the people in previous decades through government? It makes no sense, except as an acknowledgement of previous decades of progressive government, upon which one must assume, Romney would seek to build.



AdSense 300×250
NewsMax Trending Now
Comments:
  1. DBW says:

    I have been coming to this site for several years, and I am frankly amazed by the constant Bash Romney Parade it has become. I can hardly tell the difference between this site and Washington Monthly. The more successful Romney is, the more you ramp up your rhetoric and hostility. I think ANYONE who has visited this site more than 3 or 4 times gets it–YOU DON’T WANT ROMNEY TO BE THE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT. OK–I understand. Do you have anything else to offer?

  2. sickofrinos says:

    wet finger, stick it in the air, and see which way the wind blows.

  3. Dustin says:

    “I am frankly amazed by the constant Bash Romney Parade it has become.”
    Did you watch the video?
    Romney rejects the Republican party. He sits there, defines it (fairly well) and then rejects it and notes the way to prosperity is not corporations being freed to prosper, but rather more money for education.
    “Do you have anything else to offer? ”
    I keep hearing this horse race mentality. If you have standards that the GOP front runner can’t pass, then you need to shut up unless you can somehow magically change everyone’s mind so they vote for a conservative.
    Don’t you get it? That’s totally circular. The only way conservatives will ever change anyone’s mind about principles like spending reform is to explain those standards and honestly apply them to the candidates.
    Romney is a complete failure on this standard. That’s not anyone’s fault but Romney.
    And yeah, if Perry can turn this around, there’s your ‘anything else to offer’. Is that completely futile? I think it probably is, but what the hell should be just give up on having standards? Because you assume Romney will win anyway?
    Why not *have this debate about the primary now that we are having a primary*? What is the problem with that?
    If you have a problem with discussing Romney’s newest discovered flip flop, which is one of the worst, then take that up with him.

  4. KLSmith says:

    Unfortunately, I think Rick Santorum also said something along the lines of people shouldn’t have to go it alone. (As in the government should be there to help you).
    I’m not sure there are any true limited government conservatives in this race. Perry probably came closest. I was shocked that he lost so much support so soon. I guess people were feeling pretty picky at the time and don’t want to re-visit a choice they’ve already rejected.

  5. DBW says:

    I don’t have any problem discussing the candidates’ qualifications. What I am referencing is the constant harangue against Romney this site has become. Look at the posts–you have to go back 7 or 8 posts to find any supportive mention of ANY other candidate, and that’s a mention of Todd Palin’s endorsement of Gingrich. In all these posted attacks on Romney, there is no comparison to any other candidate’s “better” policies, convictions, statements, proposals, etc. It’s just an all day, every day, attack on Romney. We get it. Romney is not Dan’s cup of tea. Let’s hear who he does support, why he supports him, and how he thinks that candidate can defeat Obama. Personally, I had high hopes for Perry, and he crapped all over himself on National TV. If you think he’s somehow going to rise from the ashes like a Phoenix, and be miraculously transformed into a winning candidate, you are kidding yourself. So, who is it. Ron Paul? Give me a break. Newt? He’s self-destructing just like we’ve seen him do in the past–with help, of course, from his many detractors. His problem is he always seems to help them. Santorum? How is a guy who might not even win his own state going to win a national election? He has neither the money nor the organization to make a real run at the Presidency. I know you aren’t going to vote for Huntsman–who would? So–who is it exactly that we conservatives are supposed to effectively support? Answer that question, and you might make a positive impact. This constant diatribe against Romney is boring, overwrought, ineffective, and counterproductive–in my opinion.
    One other thing–if Romney is going to be the candidate, and it certainly looks like he is, how about maybe mentioning a few positives here and there. There’s a rumor that John Bolton is going to join Romney’s foreign policy advisory group. If true, that’s good news for conservatives, surprising in that Bolton and Gingrich are supposedly friends, and an indication that Romney is no fool–in spite of what Dan says about him EVERY day.

  6. Dustin says:

    “Perry probably came closest. I was shocked that he lost so much support so soon. I guess people were feeling pretty picky at the time and don’t want to re-visit a choice they’ve already rejected.”
    Yeah, that’s interesting. Wish they would reconsider.
    “One other thing–if Romney is going to be the candidate, and it certainly looks like he is, how about maybe mentioning a few positives here and there.”
    Why should people say the things you want them to say? I don’t think anyone is interfering with you promoting Romney. There’s plenty of that going on.
    And Bolton could be advising Romney despite thinking he’s a fool or even specifically because he thinks he’s a fool. Giving someone advice is not an endorsement.
    Sorry, but there’s a video here and you’re basically ignoring it. This video proves Romney’s utter insincerity. We shouldn’t pretend that’s not the case. Romney rejects the free market approach to prosperity. He wants wealth redistribution, not government out of the way of businesses. That is a newsworthy little fact.

  7. Godzzilla says:

    “Sorry, but there’s a video here and you’re basically ignoring it. This video proves Romney’s utter insincerity. We shouldn’t pretend that’s not the case. Romney rejects the free market approach to prosperity. He wants wealth redistribution, not government out of the way of businesses. That is a newsworthy little fact.”
    I think you’re reading too much into this video. He does not reject the free market approach to prosperity. He does not come out for distribution. He specifically mentions personal freedom and education as the means to prosperity. The twisted, convoluted rational to turn this little clip of Romney’s into an Obama-like call for wealth distribution does not fly against close scrutiny.

  8. Godzzilla says:

    “And Bolton could be advising Romney despite thinking he’s a fool or even specifically because he thinks he’s a fool. Giving someone advice is not an endorsement.”
    Actually, Bolton is endorsing Romney: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/01/11/bolton-to-back-romney/

  9. Godzzilla says:

    And if it’s not getting noticed yet among the people in the anti-Romney echo chamber. Romney is racking up the endorsements.

  10. Dustin says:

    I disagree, Godzilla.
    Romney specifically rejects the notion of basing prosperity on getting out of the way of businesses succeeding. He describes a view of getting out of the way of the market and then he says he doesn’t subscribe to that.
    This lines up very well with his record, too. Romneycare and other regulations in MA crushed businesses because it’s very intrusive.
    He also mentions “investing” in education, right? And Romney increased education spending in MA even when the state was near the worst in the country on debt. So my interpretation seems to be much more accurate to Romney’s record than yours.
    Nope, Godzzilla… it’s actually much worse. Romney defines what it means to be a Republican and even rejects that, too! He is categorically saying whatever it is he thinks is Republican… whatever you think he meant there about businesses succeeding free of government getting in the way… that is “not something [Mitt] subscribe[s] to.”
    It is no surprise, then, that Romney signed into law Romneycare, which is wealth distribution of course. Romney ever described it that way, saying people who couldn’t afford something would be subsidized by those who could. To each according to their need. From each according to their ability.
    It is simply the case that Mitt Romney is quite progressive in ideology, and this video is just another proof.

  11. Godzilla says:

    And no, I’m not going to delude myself into thinking that all these endorsements that Romney is getting is because they agree with him completely. Much of has to do with the fact that they are scared shitless of a Gingrich or Santorum nominee (and with good reason, imo). Perry doesn’t even compute anymore.

  12. Dustin says:

    “He specifically mentions personal freedom and education as the means to prosperity.”
    BTW, did that make any sense? What freedom did he mean? What people?
    He talks about investing in people. But he’s talking about politics. Who is spending this money to invest in people? What does that mean, if not wealth being distributed to people who Romney wants to invest in? I see no way that isn’t a call for some kind of wealth redistribution.
    And what encumberances is Romney complaining that Republicans want business freed of? Regulation and taxes, like Dan suggests? I can’t see how that’s wrong.
    He has a record, you know. It lines up very well with Romney’s claim he is independent of the GOP and actually progressive.
    There’s still time to pick a different nominee.

  13. Dustin says:

    “all these endorsements that Romney is getting is because they agree with him completely. ”
    No kidding. Especially the advisors who aren’t even endorsing him and have also advised other candidates.

  14. Dustin says:

    “Much of has to do with the fact that they are scared shitless of a Gingrich”
    What an overreach! Damn! Perhaps this is paid advice? Maybe the smaller campaigns can’t afford 5000 advisers?
    But if Romney bashes the free market and even the GOP, that’s easy to spin, right?
    It is unfortunate that people have learned the wrong lesson from Obama’s cultish supporters. Romney is not actually stronger for those who support him like that. It makes him weaker. It makes him look like he can’t take the heat.
    Every conservative watching that video understands what Romney is saying, and it sure as hell isn’t conservative. Give me a freaking break.

  15. Godzilla says:

    “Every conservative watching that video understands what Romney is saying, and it sure as hell isn’t conservative. Give me a freaking break.”
    He isn’t a Social Conservative, at least I hope he isn’t.

  16. Dustin says:

    Wow, Romney actually talks about Republican policy as “let’s give corporations more money”.
    Wow. He is apparently talking about tax cuts.
    That’s what Republicans think, right? Lower taxes, and businesses will invest more, and America will prosper more.
    And he summarizes that as “let’s give corporations more money” (And then explains he rejects the entire view).
    So either Romney is one of two things. A) a liar about the GOP, making a ridiculously dishonest attack on the party by coming up with some idea where the GOP wants to take money and just give it to corporations. B) a liberal who sees all money as, by default, the government’s to control, so if they don’t tax it they are actually ‘giving it’ to who or whatever earned it.

  17. Trista says:

    The constant diatribe against Romney certainly is wearing thin. I mean, thank goodness we covered the dog story, AGAIN…just in case anyone was unaware that there are actual skeletons in Romney’s closet. And while we’re at it, good thing we called him a liar, too, because all the other candidates always tell the truth. (The Pinnochio Meter states otherwise. They are, after all, politicians.) And extra points for digging up videos from 9 years ago with which to hang Romney. On the flip side, it would be entertaining to revisit all the nice things Dan said about Romney just 4 years ago.
    For what it’s worth, I’m enjoying watching the not-Romneys put up one last desperately amusing fight against Romney. It’s like watching people move through the stages of grief: Denial, Pain, Anger, Depression, Hope. I’d say Dan’s in the middle of an angry temper tantrum. Soon will come depression when Romney is inevitably inevitable. Then he will somehow find a glimmer of hope in Romney. I look forward to those posts.

  18. Godzilla says:

    As of December 20, Romney has racked up 65 percent of the endorsements: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2011/1220/Do-new-endorsements-mean-Mitt-Romney-is-finally-winning-over-the-GOP
    Among them are Bolton (now), DeMint, Nikki Haley, solid ‘conservatives’.
    As an aside, I’ve become leary of attaching the ‘conservative’ modifier to someone, as it is too general. There is a world of difference between the Social Conservative and the Limited-Government-Personal-Freedom conservative. I’m not sure how authoritarian Bolton, DeMint, and Haley come down on social issues.

  19. Dustin says:

    “Among them are Bolton (now), DeMint, Nikki Haley, solid ‘conservatives’.”
    Again, no, that’s not an endorsement.
    “As of December 20, Romney has racked up 65 percent of the endorsements:”
    He had most of the endorsements in 2008 as well. Did you know that? Still got his ass kicked by a guy who had a small fraction of the money and, frankly, wasn’t a very good politician.
    Romney ties Santorum despite spending around 45 times as much in Iowa. He’s burning through money and hiring a ton of advisers (so I guess people can pretend they are endorsements).
    “As an aside, I’ve become leary of attaching the ‘conservative’ modifier to someone,”
    Well I’m especially leery of attaching the ‘conservative’ modifier to the father of Romneycare and thus Obamacare, who collaborated with Ted Kennedy, and also discussed how wrong the Republican party’s platform is in the video this post is about.
    “I mean, thank goodness we covered the dog story, AGAIN…just in case anyone was unaware that there are actual skeletons in Romney’s closet.”
    Romney has run a negative campaign. It’s also repetitive on many attacks. But I suspect you have no problem with that.

  20. Dustin says:

    godzilla, did you read the link you posted to prove Bolton endorsed Romney?
    Why doesn’t your link say what you pretend it does? Why can’t people argue for Romney without making stuff up? It makes Romney look weak.
    But regardless, it goes without saying that the insider establishment guy has a lot of beltway endorsements.

  21. Godzilla says:

    Dustin, the article clearly states that Bolton is set to endorse Romney. Do you actually think that Bolton is not going to endorse him, and the article is made up?

  22. Godzilla says:

    “But regardless, it goes without saying that the insider establishment guy has a lot of beltway endorsements.”
    He’s got a lot of endorsements, period. Across the board.

  23. Dustin says:

    “He’s got a lot of endorsements, period. Across the board.”
    But not the one you claimed several times he had. You knew that, but lack personal integrity, which probably explains why you are capable of tolerating Romney even in this thread which is about how Romney defined the Republican platform so dishonestly as ‘let’s give corporations money’.
    And he had the most endorsements in 2008. The dude has a stake in clear channel. He’s a tremendous fundraiser. A whole lot of people want to be on his good side.
    Does that mean he is a conservative or even really republican? Well, just ask Romney by watching this video!
    The answer is no. It would have to come down to Obama vs Romney for me to support him. The notion of unifying around Romney now is insane because there are much better alternatives running.

  24. Dustin says:

    “Dustin, the article clearly states that Bolton is set to endorse Romney. ”
    Nope. Doesn’t say that. CTRL+F “Bolton” Word Not Found.
    Don’t let that stop you. George Washington and Ronald Reagan just endorsed Perry. http://www.Icanmakeshitup.com

  25. Godzilla says:

    “Nope. Doesn’t say that. CTRL+F “Bolton” Word Not Found.”
    http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/01/11/bolton-to-back-romney/
    Just read the damn article. Jeesh.

  26. Godzilla says:

    Me: “He’s got a lot of endorsements, period. Across the board.”
    Dustin: “But not the one you claimed several times he had. You knew that, but lack personal integrity, which probably explains why you are capable of tolerating Romney even in this thread which is about how Romney defined the Republican platform so dishonestly as ‘let’s give corporations money’.”
    What the hell are you talking about? Bolton HAS endorsed Romney.

  27. Godzilla says:

    “You knew that, but lack personal integrity, which probably explains why you are capable of tolerating Romney even in this thread which is about how Romney defined the Republican platform so dishonestly as ‘let’s give corporations money’.” ”
    The one thing I don’t have tolerance for is bullshit. And to claim that that video shows that Romney supports wealth distribution is pure bullshit.

  28. sickofrinos says:

    endorsements are meaningless-unless you win.

  29. gary gulrud says:

    No offense, racking up endorsements from today’s players is, in fact, shouting fire in a packed theatre.
    The GOP is three days dead in the tomb.

  30. Dustin says:

    “What the hell are you talking about? Bolton HAS endorsed Romney.
    Posted by: Godzilla ”
    Thanks for providing a correct link, finally, after a ridiculous amount of drama. Your initial comment:
    “As of December 20, Romney has racked up 65 percent of the endorsements: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2011/1220/Do-new-endorsements-mean-Mitt-Romney-is-finally-winning-over-the-GOP
    Among them are Bolton (now), DeMint, Nikki Haley, solid ‘conservatives’.
    As an aside, I’ve become leary of attaching the ‘conservative’ modifier to someone, as it is too general. There is a world of difference between the Social Conservative and the Limited-Government-Personal-Freedom conservative. I’m not sure how authoritarian Bolton, DeMint, and Haley come down on social issues.
    Posted by: Godzilla | Thursday, January 12, 2012 at 01:35 AM

    Sure as hell did not say what you pretended it did.
    Then you pretended away Romney’s leftist trashing of the GOP. He claims the GOP’s policy is to ‘give money to corporations’ and this is what the GOP thinks constitutes a great country. This is ridiculous.
    “he one thing I don’t have tolerance for is bullshit.”
    Projection is pretty typical from Romney fanatics.

  31. Dustin says:

    And instead of bringing up irrelevant trivia, I’m interested in hearing a Romney fan explain what Romney is trying to say about Republicans.
    What position is it that Romney is claiming the Republicans hold, and then noting he doesn’t subscribe to it.
    What investments is Romney really asking for?
    Instead of a serious discussion, I hear a bunch of crap about a foreign policy endorsement that Perry had months ago.

  32. Neo says:

    I don’t see this video as saying much more than I personally already believe.
    Unlimited support for corporations has lead to crony capitalism within the Republican Party, which can be clearly shown during the not too recent period of Republican control of both houses of Congress .. the debt kept going up while corporations did well, some on the government’s largesse.
    The Democrats merely have a different set of benefactors to target the government’s largesse, while they throw scraps to the “working man.”
    Both parties need to get past the view that government is merely for the “splitting up of the spoils” before we inescapably fall into a sovereign debt armageddon.

  33. Not a RINO says:

    What’s up with Willard’s Bishop status in the Church of Scientology, and family living in Mexico? Anyone else find this stuff just … weird?

  34. Rampaige says:

    Romney-bots –
    Here’s Bolton’s enthusiastic endorsement: “He’s conservative enough for me.”
    WOW. You must be STOKED.

  35. Sonny says:

    I haven’t checked in with Dan’s blog in weeks.
    Today, I’m stunned,seeing and reading posts that NOONE, no other blogs are digging into. Well, they’re sort of talking about events, but not at this intensity.
    I had been thinking that Romney was a wishy-washy, lilly-livered Rino.
    Now, I’m starting to really question his actual character. He does not “ring” true.