Wednesday, April 25, 2007
|
|
Romney on McCain-Feingold
|
|
Posted by:
Matt Lewis at
11:02 AM
|
|
Townhall has an exculsive article up today by Mitt Romney, titled: The Fundamental Flaws in the McCain-Feingold Law.
While I am 100 percent opposed to McCain-Feingold, I think it is only fair to mention that, in the past, Romney was a big supporter of campaign finance reform.
On one hand, I think it is possible to say: "Yeah, but who cares about the past?" That's a legitimate point to make, because we aren't electing the Mitt Romney of 1994, but the Mitt Romney of 2008.
Ultimately, I guess, the real question comes down to whether or not you believe Mitt Romney has legitimately changed his mind on issues like abortion and campaign finance reform -- or if this is the case of a very good business man who has adapted his positions to fit his audience ...
Update: 2:29 - Never mind 1994, this Hill article says that as late as 2002, Romney supported taxing political contributions:
The Quincy Patriot Ledger and the Worcester Telegram & Gazette reported in the fall of 2002 that Romney proposed taxing political contributions to finance publicly funded campaigns.
“Mr. Romney campaigned in favor of clean elections, which provides public money to candidates for state office who meet strict fundraising requirements,” the Telegram & Gazette reported. “But he suggested an alternative funding method. Instead of providing campaign funds from state coffers, his plan would tap 10 percent of the fundraising of candidates who choose to raise money privately.”
|
|
Matt,
The past few months, you've done nothing but trash Mitt & Rudy for not being committed enough to conservative principles.
On Tuesday, you were actually criticizing Thompson for being TOO committed to his principles, saying that you didn't think such an attitude would sell in today's environment.
Now, you've flipped back to questioning whether or not Mitt is committed to conservative principles !
The irony is that you support John McCain---the guy who AUTHORED McCain-Feingold.
Therefore, in your heart of hearts, you have no problem supporting a candidate who supports the campaign finance laws----yet you have the nerve to try to get mileage out of criticizing Romney for his position.
Matt, at the end of the day, all a blogger has is his or her credibility with readers.
|
|
Lewis, give me a break. He thinks there should be less money in politics now, just as he thought then.
I didn't hear him say that free speech should be limited. He said that special interests have too much control and too much money is being spent.
What he advocates now is full and immediate disclosure of contributions. This would solve the special interest as well as any system can. People will have the facts and can decide for themselves.
As far as wanting less money in politics, unfortunately it just isn't. I think that Mitt has probably come to that conclusion which is why he isn't talking about it. |
|
Mitt Romney has innovative ideas. I'm sure more than once, he has reworked a blueprint for a company and maximized results.
Is that stupid, to re-evaluate and change to progress better? Good for him, that's he's always evaluating.
Plumber, I guess no one is as smart as you are.
I've sure changed my mind on opinions over my life---so what's wrong with that?
Shall we remind ourselves once again, class, that Reagan, Bush Sr. and I'm sure many others have changed their opinions in the past, and thank goodness they did.
The world is a better place for it.
|
|
I knew what I believed on nearly every major issue, though not necessarily why, by the time I was 18. In the next 20 years I discovered why. Not only have my views not changed but I am strengthened in my resolve.
Anybody who changes position on nearly anything (and especially the big issues) after they reach 40 or so is pandering (lying) or ignorant. If he's pandering, then he is just another unprincipled politician. If he's ignorant, he ought not be seeking the nomination. |
|
It seems that if it's not McCain, you are eager to paint the other candidates in a bad light. Even to the point of trashing your hero's own legislation, if it suits your needs.
|
|
Why are you so determined to make Mitt Romney a "flip-flopper?" This article is not an example of Romney changing positions, and a serious reader would understand that. The video clip to which you provide a link shows Romney wanting campaign finance reform in 1994, and especially a limitation on money spent. The recent article to which you link says McCain-Feingold fails to provide the campaign finance reform Romney advocated previously, and worse yet, inhibits free, political speech. I think the following paragraph in Romney's recent articles sums it up pretty well.
"The original intent of McCain-Feingold was to reduce the role of money and special interests in our political system. But on this too it has been a failure. Political spending has been driven into secret corners and more power and influence has been handed to hidden special interests. What is really needed is greater transparency, and disclosure, of campaign contributions – not more restrictions on political speech."
Perhaps you should evaluate things a little more carefully, and not be so quick to try and pin the "flip-flopper" label on Romney. |
|
|
|