Mitt Romney: Everyone Flip-Flops, It’s No Big Deal; Also, Catching UBL Isn’t A Priority

In an interview with the AP yesterday, Mitt Romney defended his changes of positions as a natural evolution of politics that comes with understanding, specifically stating, “I served as governor for four years and my record is consistent and clear. … I’d also note that everybody in this race that I know has changed their mind on certain positions and they’ve done so as they gained more experience.”

On John McCain, Romney said, “Senator McCain voted against the Bush tax cuts. Now he’s for them. He was opposed to ethanol. Now he’s for it. He said he was opposed to overturning Roe v. Wade. Now he’s for overturning Roe v. Wade. … that suggests that he has learned from experience.” (See my take on McCain’s history on abortion here).

Romney also mentioned that Giuliani has had similar instances, but what, if any, he specifically referenced was not included in the original AP article.

It’s an interesting two-pronged strategy; first, to mitigate the flip-flop label by directly saying it doesn’t matter, and secondly to put the label on all the other candidates.

That said, I’m not sure either Giuliani’s or McCain’s flip-flops, at least the ones Romney mentioned, are serious enough as to compare to some of the more drastic ones of Romney. McCain opposed spending money on ethanol when gas was cheap and before 9/11 if I recall correctly. Even his statement on Roe clearly stated that he wanted to avoid illegal abortions. Giuliani’s shying away from some of his more dramatic statements, but not most of his record, and this unedited clip shows he wanted Roe ultimately repealed.

Neither Giuliani nor McCain have had as many moments like Romney has had with flip-flops; such as when he said: “I promised that if elected, I’d call a truce - a moratorium, if you will…I vowed to veto any legislation that sought to change the existing rules…I fully respect and will fully protect a woman’s right to choose.” There’s plenty more examples, on everything from campaign finance to guns to taxes. McCain had a major flip-flop regarding the Bush tax cuts, but not many beyond that. Giuliani seems to be tweaking his past statements regarding abortion and gay right, but nothing incredibly major like declaring himself completely against all abortions.

In normal circumstances, talking about the elephant in the room would hurt Romney. But when everyone else is talking about it, and it’s certain to be brought up in the two debates coming in the next month, having a quote to fall back on would help him, not hurt him. And the argument has some merit to it, whether you think it applies to Romney or not - that’s definitely up for debate. Romney is always going to have some blowback because of his history of such positions; he’ll have to work hard and climb bit by bit to overcome it. It’ll be difficult in any one moment to say if it’s working or not.

The other noteworthy element of the interview with the AP interview was Romney’s comments on Osama Bin Laden (UBL). Romney said:

Said the country would be safer by only “a small percentage” and would see “a very insignificant increase in safety” if al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden was caught because another terrorist would rise to power. “It’s not worth moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person,” Romney said. Instead, he said he supports a broader strategy to defeat the Islamic jihad movement.

John McCain fired back at Romney over those comments, as the New Hampshire Presidential Watch writes:

On a conference call with “bloggers” Senator John McCain took aim at Romney. In response to a question, McCain said “this is a national security issue,” and that he “disagrees in the strongest terms.” He also criticized Romney by saying “it takes a degree of naiveté to think he’s [bin Laden] is not an element in the struggle against radical Islam.”

In response to McCain’s comments the Romney campaign responded that, “The answer was in response to a question from the reporter if it was a failure of the Bush Administration that bin Laden was still at large. Governor Romney believes that the terrorism threat posed by radical jihadists is larger than just one person. Governor Romney believes—and has stated time and time again—that in order to confront these threats we have to focus on the larger problem of the global jihad and break down entire regional and global terror networks of al-Qaeda and others.

This is a position that is consistent with many counterterrorism experts and the majority of Americans.”

This is a problem that you can expect Romney to look to nip in the bud. Even with everything happening in Iraq, Bin Laden is still public enemy number 1, and saying that catching him is not important - even with the fair context that the Romney campaign asserts - is something that could give him a lot of unneeded publicity. I’d look for Romney to make some statements early in the Reagan debate that are hawkish, just to nip a potential problem in the bud. He’ll also keep talking about the war against radical Islam, as he calls it.

Perception matters in presidential politics. Mitt Romney knows this - just look at how he handled the flip-flop issue as proof. But look for McCain and other Republicans to really push Romney on this issue. That may be the biggest problem for Romney - he can fight this all he wants, but in the end, it’s an easy apple for the other candidates to pick.