This can’t be smart. There goes Romney’s good media week. Romney launches an ad hominem attack against Brian Camecker, author of the the Mitt Romney Deception piece. Romney has been bleeding from that and an AP story about it.
In an attempt to undermine Camenker’s credibility, Romney’s campaign says:
Camenker Admits He Used To Be "A Social Liberal." "For much of my life I thought of myself as a social liberal. I voted for John Anderson for president and Michael Dukakis for governor." (Brian Camenker, "How A Good Jewish Boy Joined The ‘Religious Right’," The Jewish Advocate, 12/25/96)
Ummm. So were you Mitt. In 1996, he had a record as a social conservative activist. 10 years later he still does. Romney’s "record as a governor" is full of holes. This sounds like when Romney attacked Kennedy for flip-flopping on abortion.
Why can you change but not other people Mitt?
9 Comments
fredo · January 12, 2007 at 4:21 PM
Probably b/c Camenker’s argument defeats itself: “Romney cannot be trusted because he’s a flip-flopper. Oh, but wait, I’m a flip-flopper. I guess that means I can’t be trusted. So maybe Romney can be trusted after all.”
Mitt’s site is pointing out the absurdity of a convert slamming someone else for being a convert. If Mitt had gone out of his way to insult Camenker’s integrity first, instead of the other way around, maybe you’d have a point. As it is, it’s only January ’07, and “eye on ’08” is already sounding like “lie on ’08.”
Consumatopia · January 12, 2007 at 7:17 PM
Wow, Romney doesn’t get it. Changing your mind as your enlightened by new experiences and wisdom is not only permitted, but encouraged. Saint Paul once persecuted Christians, did he not? As long as you explain why you changed your mind, then political and religious conversions are perfectly acceptable.
Camecker declares himself to be a convert. Romney does no such thing–he attempts to deny that he ever changed his mind, even though his positions are clearly completely new. Which means either he was lying then or he is lying now. There’s no way to tell whether he was then a social conservative maquerading as a social liberal so that he could get elected, or is now a social liberal masquerading as a social conservative.
fredo · January 13, 2007 at 9:11 AM
Consumatopia,
Either you’ve been paying no attention whatsoever or are willfully misrepresenting the facts. You write:
“Romney does no such thing–he attempts to deny that he ever changed his mind, even though his positions are clearly completely new”
How do you square that with Romney’s actual words of this week:
“Well, I just got a look at the excerpts from my debate against Ted Kennedy in 1994, and it reminded me of why I ran against him in the first place. Someone had to give him a run for his money. Now it also shows, y’know, what 13 years will do. I’m grayer, I’m a little heavier, and I hope I’ve grown a bit wiser, as well. Of course, I was wrong on some issues back then. I’m not embarrased to admit that. I think most of us learn with experience. I know I certainly have.”
Here’s the link.
Don’t distort facts. Romney has explained both the when and the why he evolved on life issues, and if you actually wanted his explanations, they’re mere clicks away on the internet.
The Right’s Field » Report Slams Romney’s Record · January 12, 2007 at 4:15 PM
[…] Romney responds by citing a Camenker article from 1996 in which he says he was a “social liberal.” […]
Ankle Biting Pundits » Blog Archive » Townhall.com Column · January 13, 2007 at 5:50 PM
[…] Also at Townhall.com is this perceptive post from Matt Lewis titled, “Don’t Hit a Gadfly with a Sledgehammer.†Lewis takes a look at Gov. Mitt Romney’s ongoing battle with conservative activists in his home state. Here’s a sampling: If Camenker is so irrelevant, then why is Romney trying to take him down? Why not let someone else take down Camenker? Get a surrogate, for crying out loud, Gov. Romney, but don’t dirty your hands on this man … […]
eyeon08.com » Was Romney’s Camenker attack a Forti mistake? · January 14, 2007 at 7:07 PM
[…] Mitt Romney’s attack on Brian Camenker has been criticized in a number of places (I did it here). However, National Journal’s Danny Glover has what might be the beginning of the explanation: Carl Forti doesn’t get the new media: Yes, that’s right, the same Mitt Romney who earned endless kudos this week for being so smart about new media has hired as deputy campaign manager and political director the same man (Forti) who has been dismissive of blogs. While working as communications director at the National Republican Congressional Committee, Forti pretty much ignored blogs and made it clear why: "A lot of times, you just don’t know how reliable the information on these things is. … Ninety percent of the time, we know more than they do." […]
Straight Talk Alabama » Romney camp–another “oops” · January 16, 2007 at 5:53 AM
[…] Lots of other blogs have picked this up. It’s really turning into a problem for Romney. The Romney campaign seems so insecure about criticisms that it exploded on this mid-level (not that we’re any better) blogger. […]
eyeon08.com » Romney, ¿el gran comunicador?, take 2. Or just dishonest? · March 19, 2007 at 1:12 PM
[…] Now, I wouldn’t normally make a fuss of this. But the Romney campaign has done this before. It started with Brian Camenker, who they attacked. For a while they pulled the attack down, but then put it back up, but removed all the links on their website. (This is now how they do personal attacks. They just pass the URL around) […]
For President » Romney, ¿el gran comunicador?, take 2. Or just dishonest? · March 19, 2007 at 2:07 PM
[…] Now, I wouldn’t normally make a fuss of this. But the Romney campaign has done this before. It started with Brian Camenker, who they attacked. For a while they pulled the attack down, but then put it back up, but removed all the links on their website. (This is now how they do personal attacks. They just pass the URL around) […]
Comments are closed.