Believe it or not, in the 1994 Massachusetts Senate race, Bay State governor and presumptive presidential candidate Mitt Romney ran to the left of Ted Kennedy on gay rights.
That Romney would have run to the left of Ted Kennedy - who so corpulently embodies the catchphrase "big government" - on any issue, never mind one as loaded as gay rights, might sound preposterous, but it's all in writing.
Last week, Bay Windows, a Boston gay newspaper, reprinted excerpts from a letter Romney wrote to the Log Cabin Republicans in 1994, hoping to gain the group's support in his campaign against the veteran Democratic lawmaker and Massachusetts institution.
"If we are to achieve the goals we share, we must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern," Romney wrote. "My opponent cannot do this. I can and will."
Romney lost that race by a wide margin, but came closer to defeating Kennedy than had any previous challenger in recent memory. Romney's support for the gay community did not end with his loss, however, as his political aspirations dictated otherwise. At the Boston Gay Pride Parade in 2002, when he ran for governor, Romney supporters marched and handed out fliers stating, "Mitt and Kerry wish you a great Pride weekend."
Twelve years later, Ted Kennedy actually supports "equality for gays and lesbians" as he has been a forthright backer of gay marriage and an outspoken opponent of the Federal Marriage Amendment. Mitt Romney, on the other hand, has made himself the poster boy for conservative opposition to gay marriage, conveniently positioned as he is at the geographical epicenter of the debate. The thought of Romney attending a Pride parade today is unthinkable. It is unlikely he would make it out alive.
Rather than making gay equality a mainstream concern, Romney has used the gays whom he was courting just four years ago as part of his nationwide comedy routine. That Romney is supposedly the lone sane person in a commonwealth full of radicals has become the crux of his presidential narrative. His stock line at GOP fundraising dinners across the country is that his being governor of Massachusetts is akin to being a "cattle rancher at a vegetarian convention."
Romney won the governorship there in 2002 on reformist credentials; he parachuted in not long after cleaning up the scandal-plagued Salt Lake City Olympics.
Romney's flip-flop on gay rights is part and parcel with a radical shift toward the right in his single term as Massachusetts governor. In a 1994 interview with Bay Windows, when asked about his views toward "conservative Republicans like Pat Robertson or Jesse Helms," Romney came just short of decrying them outright. Yet the mention of those men's names conjured the memory of his father, former Michigan Gov. George Romney, "fighting to keep the John Birch Society from playing too strong a role in the Republican Party," and his walking out of the 1964 GOP convention after presidential nominee Barry Goldwater pronounced that "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice."
Since this interview, Romney has appeared as a guest on Robertson's popular Christian television program "700 Club" and has made outreach to religious conservatives a crucial part of his campaign.
Poor Mitt Romney. As he will soon discover, the evangelical Christian right will brook no opposition to their "values" agenda. They can spot a phony when they see one and are not so cynical as to endorse a charlatan like Romney over someone who has a track record on their issues. There are other potential candidates who fit their bill, who lack the baggage of past expressions of pro-gay support. Sen. Sam Brownback immediately comes to mind.
Romney was unmistakable in his support for gay equality in 1994, and that he would now come out in favor of laws that explicitly ban gay equality indicates one of two possibilities: that his views about the rights of gays underwent a complete and utter transformation in a four-year period or that Romney did the math and figured that he would have a better chance of winning his party's nomination if he ran to the right of John McCain.
So, is Mitt Romney a hypocrite, an opportunist or a nihilist? Can I choose all three?
6 Comments for “Why Romney’s Flip Will Flop”
posted by Alex on
As a resident in Massachusetts who has scene all the odd things Romney has done over the last four years. I can say if any other state wants him they can have him. He ran in 2002 one way and governed in another way and people in Mass just did not like him by year two. Thankfully in a few days my state will get a new governor who likes living here.
posted by cesqua on
what the hell happened to the actual values of the GOP? less govt in private homes, equal rights for all, conservative spending… *sigh* is the sound of longing…
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
So Romney’s a politician — he’ll say or do anything to get elected (including on gay rights). That makes him no different from John McCain (who claimed he opposed anti-gay amendments and then supported the latest AZ one), Nancy Pelosi (who claimed she would take down DADT but then declared the policy would be preserved by her Congress), Rudy Guiliani (whose position on gay rights and freedom of expression seems to change depending on the time of day and with whom he is speaking), Harry Reid (who is noncomittal on gay rights “to be safe”), Barack Obama, etc., etc., etc.
There’s not a single leader in any of the old parties who gays can depend upon to stand for equality under the law when the going gets a little tough. They *all* fold like cheap suits.
posted by solitaire on
Yes, Romney’s a sell out, just like Pelosi, Obama, McCain and the like, just like Clinton–remember the promise of an integrated military?
It’s sad the Republican Party has abandoned it’s libertarian heritage. What’s sadder, still, is that we LGBT folks prostitute ourselves to these politicians as if they are our saviors; they are not. Neither are the leaders of many of the LGBT organizations, who do more damage than good.
posted by Kellie on
An opportunist.
As a resident of Massachusetts, I’ve also seen first-hand Romney’s flip-flopping; it’s truly been of Kerry-esque proportions! I voted for him in ’02, based in considerable part on his past statements and positions (on a variety of issues) believing him to- largely- be a slightly more socially conservative version of Govs. Weld, Cellucci, and Swift, while hewing to their economic conservatism. Romney has been not only a flip-flopper, but more; after four years of his Administration, I CANNOT understand the excitement for him w/in GOP circles! He has floated countless ideas and rhetoric, but has delivered on little (less, IMO, than his GOP Gubernatorial predecessors here, who also were burdened w/ an overwhelmingly Dem legislature.) He has done little-to-nothing to seriously build any statewide party, and he largely left his Lt. Gov. to fend for herself in the recent election. He has alienated many Republicans and Republican-leaning voters in the process. At this point, he’d be hard pressed to win the MA GOP primary (particularly if Giuliani and/or McCain are still viable.)
As I’ve told anyone considering Romney- don’t believe the hype.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
What’s sadder, still, is that we LGBT folks prostitute ourselves to these politicians as if they are our saviors; they are not.
Absolutely. But surely you’re aware that the old disciples of politicking will crawl out of their coffins to hiss “you’re poisoning the debate” and “the facts should be ignored” when you make this observation. They’ll then advance the specious notion that they’re “making a difference,” when the reality is that even doing nothing at all in politics would be more effective than the process of political prostitution that gay statists have attempted to thrust upon all of us by appointing themselves as our “leadership.”