[GeneV]

I think a lot of his changes in policy have been to move further to the right to win the primary election (and he is still the republican candidate that is furthest to the left). Unfortunately, it seems like candidates in the republican party have to do this to get through the primary (i.e. McCain). We have only seen his 'real' policy during his few short years as governor. During this time, my understanding is that his policy was fairly moderate.

We don't know what is real policy is. He was elected governor 10 years ago to a state which includes a lot of liberals and did not run for re-election. In Mass, he told the people he was "not a partisan Republican" but rather a "moderate" with "progressive" views. In a sense, his record is of saying what he has to say to get elected and doing what he has to do to govern with the people in place.

Romney did not run on health care. However, the federal government was about to cut Medicaid because of the number of uninsured. The Mass House had passed a health care law, and the senate another and he appointed a committee that came up with a third option (basically the current federal law) which he then supported and got Ted Kennedy to support.

His mushy view on abortion is also tailored to his office. 10 years ago he said he rejected the label of pro choice or pro life, and accepted the endorsement of pro life groups, but then stated unequivocally that he would "preserve and protect a woman's right to choose," and that there was not a paper's width's difference in his view and that of his Democratic opponent.

You Tube

You Tube

Now, for a different audience, that has changed.

It may not even be a completely bad thing, but Romney has been about an adaptable Etch A Sketch his entire, fairly short, political career. I don't think we really know all that much about his philosophy or principles, other than a penchant for cutting jobs and budgets, which he did both in private work and as governor.

---

Last edited by GeneV; 03-23-2012 at 06:13 AM.

[wasser]

This is the first sentence I quoted:

He is talking about "resetting" the positions he has taken. That seems to be a bit more than the "campaign" unless the campaign has been a lie.

Your emphasis here is on a paraphrased question and not Fehrnstrom's actual words.

This is a transcript of the full question and Fehrnstrom's full reply.

FUGELSANG: Good morning, sir. It's fair to say that John McCain was considerably a more moderate candidate than the ones that Governor Romney faces now. Is there a concern that the pressure from Santorum and Gingrich might force the governor to tack so far to the right it would hurt him with moderate voters in the general election?

The question is phrased around both the opponents he faces today and how he'll appeal to moderate voters against Obama. It wasn't specifically about Romney's political positions.

FEHRNSTROM: Well, I think you hit a reset button for the fall campaign. Everything changes. It's almost like an Etch a Sketch. You can kind of shake it up and we start all over again.

But I will say, if you look at the exit polling data in Illinois, you'll see that Mitt Romney is broadly acceptable to most of the factions in the party. You have to do that in order to become a major party nominee. He's winning conservatives. He's winning Tea Party voters. He's winning men, women, winning Catholics and Protestants.

There is a growing recognition within the Republican Party that Mitt Romney is going to be the nominee. And there's two reasons for that. The first is, people see in him the capacity of someone who can lead on the economy. Secondly, they see someone who can defeat Barack Obama.

There's a real sense that it the president is vulnerable this year because of the domestic problems he faces, and Mitt Romney is the person with the experience and the qualifications to take him on.

Fehrnstrom refers to the "fall campaign". Now, "campaign" can be a bit vague, but given the phrasing of the question and the wording of his reply, it seems clear he's referring to resetting their campaign strategy. The opponents are different, the audience is different, and, therefore, it makes sense that the campaign strategy is different. I think the sentence following the "Etch-a-Sketch" comment supports this conclusion as he's not talking about changing positions, but about Romney's appeal.

It's like selling a product. How and where the product is advertised, not the product itself, will change depending upon the demographics of the area and the competing products.

(edited to add link to transcript)

[GeneV]

Your emphasis here is on a paraphrased question and not Fehrnstrom's actual words.

This is a transcript of the full question and Fehrnstrom's full reply.

There is no meaningful difference between the paraphrased question and the transcript. The question was whether Romney would move to the right because of the primary candidates and that would cause problems in the general election. "Resetting" to express or emphasize a new position means he either misled in the primary or will mislead in the general.

[ihasa]

I still think he was talking about the campaign as a whole being 'reset' in Autumn. It's just unfortunate that, going on past performance, Romney does appear to be a bit of a weathervane politician - so the comment really hit home and took on a life of its own!

Ah well, the Republican Party trainwreck grinds on.

[GeneV]

I still think he was talking about the campaign as a whole being 'reset' in Autumn.

I guess I'm just not getting what you understood "resetting a campaign" to mean other than changing on issues. New colors?

[kenafein]

Romney's position can change at any time. He is a slick, sleazy and insincere politician. Apparently some people value this type of character in a leader. I don't understand their thinking.

If he were slick it wouldn't be so painfully obvious. I suppose liar Romney is less frightening than a sincere wacko like Santorum or an amoral sociopath like Gingrich. He's like the mystery box option.

[Wheatfield]

I guess I'm just not getting what you understood "resetting a campaign" to mean other than changing on issues. New colors?

Seems to me if they change their campaign to much in the real election, they will lose the people that put them into the campaign in the first place. The problem the retardpublicans have now is that by pandering to the lunatic fringe in the primaries, they will have to continue pandering to that same fringe going forward.

[ihasa]

[/JUSTIFY]1]I guess I'm just not getting what you understood "resetting a campaign" to mean other than changing on issues. New colors?

Currently the GOP race is between nominees trying to out-demagogue each other. Not a beauty contest, an 'ugly contest', for consumption by the party faithful. When the candidates start going up against Obama, I don't expect them to change position on anything, but they may want to moderate the way they get their policies across to the public.

E.g. all the candidates have a list of reasons to oppose Obamacare. These range from economic arguments, to spurious claims that there will be 'death panels'. They may downplay the 'death panel' arguments, which will be shot down by Obama, in favour of the economic arguments.

[Wheatfield]

E.g. all the candidates have a list of reasons to oppose Obamacare. These range from economic arguments, to spurious claims that there will be 'death panels'. They may downplay the 'death panel' arguments, which will be shot down by Obama, in favour of the economic arguments.

Except that the economic arguments will also be shot down.

[wasser]

I guess I'm just not getting what you understood "resetting a campaign" to mean other than changing on issues. New colors?

Well, yes. That's a possibility.

As I stated above, it's like selling a product. I can create a marketing campaign to push the product. This campaign may be different across regions depending upon demographics and competition. If I find parts of this campaign successful or unsuccessful I can change it. The strategy to sell the product changes, but the product itself remains the same.

I don't know all the nuances of a political campaign, but I can well imagine how this might include things such as what speeches to give and where; who to be seen and endorsed by(Romney McCain); where to be seen and what you do(Santorum and the gun range); what he chooses to talk about and not; what issues to focus upon.

All of these are part of a political campaign. Changing any of those doesn't require changing positions. It's just a changing marketing campaign for your product.