It’s not just the flip flopping, it’s the lying

Jim Geraghty:

Sometimes a candidate gets a little too much grief for misspeaking. The first time Mitt Romney said he was endorsed by the NRA in his gubernatorial run, he was wrong; the NRA rated him a “B,” which is not bad. (His Democratic opponent was an “A,” surprisingly. The NRA did not endorse in that race.) Apparently some NRA folk did some phone-banking for him, and Romney mistook that for an endorsement, and I guess I can see how that mistake could be made. The key is to note that he was told of his mistake back in December.

And then, in an interview a few days ago with Glenn Reynolds, the Instapundit, Romney claimed to be endorsed by the NRA again.

When it happens multiple times, one begins to wonder if Romney just wants to assert the endorsement and hopes that the person he’s speaking to doesn’t hear the correction.

Glenn comes across to me as a particularly fair-minded interviewer, but after Race42008 demonstrates a couple of different positions in a short span of time — telling Tim Russert he would sign the Assault Weapons Ban, telling Glenn and Helen that he would oppose it — Glenn concludes, “I’m beginning to question his sincerity.”

Which is a nice way of saying that Mitt Romney is truth challenged:

Posted on Monday, February 04 2008 | Permalink

Welcome to our world Glenn.  Where have you been? 

Now just take every major political issue and we can find a Romney position on one side or the other.

Posted by  on  02/04  at  10:32 PM

I thought Geraghty was stretching:

1. Go to the NRA website and search Romney, the articles that came up were supportive of the legislation he signed into law in Ma.

2. With Instapundit, Romney said “I was pleased as I ran for Gov. I received the support of the NRA.” Which he did in the form of volunteers staffing his phone bank. I don’t see how saying this is disingenuous: Geragthy saying Romney claimed to be “endorsed” by the NRA - which he didn’t on the Glen and Helen show - is what’s off the mark here.

3. Where is the flip in “I would have signed the assault weapon ban if it had passed, it did not and I do not support any new legislation.” That’s not only not a flip flop, its not even a flip. A simple line of reasoning would be “if the legislature feels strongly on this, I will defer to them, however if they can’t get it done before the current law sunsets, then its clearly not a priority, and going forward I will not support such legislation.” Aside from being a perfectly coherent and tenable policy position - it’s also a shrewd political move “here you go Dems, hurry up and try and get a gun law passed.” Something about hoisting them by their own petard comes to mind.

Anti Romneybots see flip flops as often as Paul supporters see conspiracies, and as often as Romney fans see anti-mormonism.

My response: Yawn.

Posted by Brendan  on  02/05  at  02:03 AM
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.

Next entry: Bill Belichick: Film maker

Previous entry: FWIW, Here's My Voting Plan

Introduction


Recent Punditry Entries


Hot Topics on Food & Wine

Hot Topics on Law & Business



Punditry RSS Feed

Flickr

Archives

My Books



Blogroll