This one is staggering. Mitt Romney's defenders have argued that
we should overlook his reversals on numerous issues because he took
his earlier positions as far back as 1994, and anybody could change
in that time period. But over the weekend, Romney flip-flopped
again on guns, only this time, he reversed a position he held less
than two months ago. Conservatives who have been rallying around
Romney out of hatred of John McCain really need to take a close
look at this and reexamine whether Romney can be trusted.
The short version is that during the Dec. 16 edition of "Meet
the Press," Romney told Tim Russert he would sign a renewed assault
weapons ban if he were president and also claimed to have received
the support of the NRA in his 2002 race for governor. Following the
interview, it was noted
that Romney received no such endorsement, and the Romney campaign
had to do damage control by confessing that Romney misspoke.
Over the weekend, Romney granted an interview to Instapundit's
Glenn and Helen Reynolds, only this time he said he would
veto any new gun
legislation that came before him-a complete reversal from what he
told Russert. Perhaps even more shocking, he repeated the myth that
he had received the NRA endorsement when he ran for governor. It's
one thing to misspeak once. But when a candidate errs on national
television, gets called out on it, his campaign acknowledges error,
and then he repeats the same erroneous information, it is very
difficult to give that candidate the benefit of the doubt. Some
would call him a liar, but I'll be kinder and say that he has
displayed a remarkably loose grasp of the truth. I'd love to see
those who have been so critical of McCain defend Romney on this
one. Reynolds himself writes, "I'm beginning to question
[Romney's] sincerity."
Just so you can judge for yourselves, I have included the
primary source material below.
First, here is the relevant portion of the "Meet The Press"
transcript from December:
MR. RUSSERT: So the assault ban that expired here
because Congress didn't act on it, you would support?
GOV. ROMNEY: Just as the president said, he would have, he would
have signed that bill if it came to his desk, and so would have I.
And, and, and yet I also was pleased to have the support of the NRA
when I ran for governor. I sought it, I seek it now. I'd love to
have their support.
Video
here.
Here is the excerpt from the Glenn and Helen Reynolds Show,
which I transcribed myself:
H. REYNOLDS: Now, I know that a lot of the gun
rights folks are still unsure about your position on gun rights.
Would you pledge to veto any new gun control bills that come across
your desk as president?
GOV. ROMNEY: Yeah, yeah, I don't support any new gun
legislation. The effort for a new assault weapon ban with a ban on
semi-automatic weapons is something I would oppose. There's no new
legislation I'm aware of or have heard of that I would support with
regards to guns. I think we have enough legislation. We have to
enforce the laws as they exist. I was pleased that as I ran for
governor, I received the support of the NRA and I hope to receive
their support now.
Audio
here.
UPDATE: Stephen Smith, Romney's director of online
communications, writes, "In the 2002 race in Massachusetts, the NRA
phone banked in support of Governor Romney's candidacy. While the
NRA did not endorse a candidate in that race, Governor Romney was
referring to this support in his interview over the weekend on 'The
Glenn & Helen Show.'"
ME: I see this as utterly Clintonian. When a candidate says, in
a political context, that he had the "support" of a group, most
normal people take that to mean that organization endorsed him.
Especially given that Romney got in trouble over making similar
comments on national television, he should have been clear that he
just meant phone banking. At best, his answer was misleading. But
I'm sure the McCain haters out there will have a different
take.
topics:
John McCain, Television, Law
