Barnes: Press 'Loathes Romney for Moving Right on Social Issues'

Photo of Brent Baker.
By Brent Baker (Bio | Archive)
January 14, 2008 - 20:03 ET
  • Bookmark and Share

Catching up with an article in last week's Weekly Standard (but with Mitt Romney making his last stand in Tuesday's Michigan primary it remains topical), veteran Washington journalist Fred Barnes, a regular panelist on FNC's Special Report, asserted that the press corps “loathes Romney for moving to the right on social issues.” In “The All-Too-Resistible Romney: He has everything going for him but voters,” Barnes, Executive Editor of the magazine, marveled:

I've been amazed at the raw antipathy that so many otherwise reasonable people in the media feel toward Romney. The word they use is "inauthentic." But all presidential candidates are inauthentic to one degree or another. Even Mr. Straight Talk, Senator John McCain, talks differently today about tax cuts and immigration than he used to, but the press doesn't hector him about it. There's something unique about Romney that repels the press...

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

An excerpt from the article in the January 14 edition of The Weekly Standard:

....He moved to the right on social issues -- abortion, stem cells, marriage, guns -- before entering the Republican race. And he has insisted that his new take on these issues represents the real Romney.

I suspect he's right about this. He was probably a good bit more conservative than he appeared when he ran as a moderate against Democratic senator Teddy Kennedy in 1994 (he lost) and for governor of Massachusetts in 2002 (he won).

But changing any of his positions under duress now would produce two results, both bad. The first is that switching probably wouldn't help his campaign. The second is that it would inflame a press corps that already loathes Romney for moving to the right on social issues.

I've been amazed at the raw antipathy that so many otherwise reasonable people in the media feel toward Romney. The word they use is "inauthentic." But all presidential candidates are inauthentic to one degree or another. Even Mr. Straight Talk, Senator John McCain, talks differently today about tax cuts and immigration than he used to, but the press doesn't hector him about it.

There's something unique about Romney that repels the press and keeps him from making a connection with hordes of Republican voters. What is it? Romney is obviously a decent guy with a devoted family. People who've worked for Romney speak of him in glowing terms. He succeeded famously in tougher environments -- business turnarounds, running the 2002 Winter Olympics -- than electoral politics. And he's the smartest guy in the presidential field.

I think his problem is that he's a technocrat who doesn't come across as a regular guy. Bush senior managed to overcome a similar problem and connect with voters. His years in Texas politics transformed Bush. He learned to talk comfortably about country music and ate pork rinds....

—Brent Baker is Vice President for Research and Publications at the Media Research Center


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

The RIGHT should loathe him

January 14, 2008 - 20:12 ET by Warner Todd Huston

The RIGHT should loathe him for it, too. It's all an invention from where he REALLY stands, as a center, left pol.

In the interest of full disclosure

January 14, 2008 - 20:15 ET by RJ

Warner actively dislikes Romney's religion and everything he says about Romney should be taken with a grain of salt.

Thank You RJ.. I agree

January 15, 2008 - 07:50 ET by Six String Spiff

The facts on Romney are as Follows:

  • He is ahead in delegates.
  • Among conservatives, he has scored the highest percentages in the primaries. Yes, I understand he placed second in both states, but those are liberal states, and it's no wonder McCain came in first in LIBERAL states on the GOP side.
  • He can beat Hillary.

Well, if that's true, (and

January 14, 2008 - 20:20 ET by motherbelt

Well, if that's true, (and I don't know)...maybe he's not the only one.

I've said before and will say again that maybe Romney should start asking "out loud" if the MSM has a problem with the fact that he's a Mormon.

There's something going on here and I doubt it's the "moving right" thing; I think that's a red herring. I'm inclined to think it IS the Mormon thing.

I was thinking along the same lines, motherbelt

January 14, 2008 - 21:28 ET by RJ

I think you're on to something, and it's not just the evangelicals.  

But I don't think it will do any good to ask "out loud."   People won't admit that any more than they would admit they won't vote for Obama because he's black.

When someone makes even a

January 14, 2008 - 21:59 ET by motherbelt

When someone makes even a veiled accusation of racism, of course the accused won't admit it, but it makes people think every time he opens his mouth.

For Romney, maybe "ask out loud" is not the proper way to phrase it; I didn't mean a confrontation. I just meant he needs to get the question out there, even rhetorically, in some of his interviews and forums.

Of course they would deny it, and possibly even ridicule him for it; but he would plant the idea in people's minds and they would at least think twice before they take all the criticism of him at face value.

More like Huckabee should make a clear statement

January 14, 2008 - 23:13 ET by Daniel Baker

Huckabee should come straight out and say if you are voting for me because Mitt's a Mormon I do not want your vote.

I'd like to see that, mb

January 15, 2008 - 08:28 ET by RJ

Getting the question out there, even rhetorically

Yes, and it would bring some honesty to what is now a very dishonest debate.   Everyone knows Romney's religion drives much of what is said about him.  

inauthentic?!?

January 14, 2008 - 21:40 ET by needle

Fred Barnes takes issue with the fact that the MSM uses the word "inauthentic"
to describe/denigrate Romney.

I think Fred should pause and consider: What is the media’s gold
standard for authenticity anyway? Why,
it is none other than HRC herself, and don’t forget – as if you could – her sidekick
Bill. Yessiree, when such principled and
authentic authorities of principles and authenticity call Romney “inauthentic,”
he should stand up and accept the compliment with both hands (but he should
wear protective gloves when he does so).

This is a hoot.

Impunitas semper ad deteriora invitat

Right or wrong, Ann Romney

January 14, 2008 - 21:44 ET by Gary P Jackson

Right or wrong, Ann Romney was interviewed by John Gibson and Heather Nauert today. John was kind of easy on her, but Heather asked some tough questions. Heather asked her to explain Mitt's "conversion" on things like abortion. Her answer was very good. Ann Romney said Mitt had always been pro life, but felt government had no place in the argument. She claimed, as he has before, that it was the cloning issues that made him take a stand.

Who knows for sure what is in the guy's heart. It would be pretty easy to say if he was pro-life, why didn't he stand up from the get-go? I'm just running with it here, but maybe he knew that was a battle he couldn't win in Mass. We're looking at a state that keeps electing Teddy K, after all! Could it be he just tried to pick his battles? Who knows.

All I know, is what I know, and I know having someone who understands business running America, can't be a bad thing. He sounds right on national security, and immigration, and as a successful C.E.O, he knows the real deal is not what you know, but the fact that you know how to surround yourself with folks that DO know. The rest is about judgment.

With the media hiding anything about Iraq now, the focus will be on the economy. Not sure anyone else can make the sale.

he knows the real deal is

January 14, 2008 - 22:01 ET by motherbelt

he knows the real deal is not what you know, but the fact that you know how to surround yourself with folks that DO know.

Hey, it's worked for Martha Stewart for years. One would think that she knows everything about how to do anything. Of course, she doesn't, but she knew how to find people that did, and the rest is history!

Just trying to lighten things up a little...it may not be as serious as politics, but I think the comparison works.

Other Hopes From Days Gone By

January 14, 2008 - 22:41 ET by Caringwhiteguy

At one time I had hopes that it would work for Dubya.

Gary...

January 14, 2008 - 21:52 ET by Clear thinker

Here's the rub with Romney for me... We know he has flipped in the past, what's to keep him from flipping again?

I gauge a person by what they have done in the past because it gives you a good indication as to what they might do in the future. 

Rush Limbaugh stated that of the top 5 Republicans running for the presidency, only one was a true conservative. http://www.fred08.com/ 

Like Ronald Reagan?

January 14, 2008 - 21:54 ET by RJ

Like Ronald Reagan?

RJ...

January 14, 2008 - 21:57 ET by Clear thinker

No, more like Mitt Romney! 

Rush Limbaugh stated that of the top 5 Republicans running for the presidency, only one was a true conservative. http://www.fred08.com/ 

That's shallow, Clear Thinker

January 14, 2008 - 22:08 ET by RJ

Of course you know that Reagan "flip-flopped" and became strongly pro-life, as did Barnes, Henry Hyde, and many, many others.

You deny individuals the right to "see the light."   According to your concept, anyone who evolves should be treated with never ending suspicion. 

Since I prefer to believe you're not that shallow, what's your REAL reason for disliking Romney?

According to your concept,

January 14, 2008 - 22:19 ET by motherbelt

According to your concept, anyone who evolves should be treated with never ending suspicion.

Well, that depends, RJ. Someone who shifts to a more liberal stance has "evolved." Someone who switches to a more conservative stance has "flip-flopped."

Gotta keep that terminology straight, you know.

Important Distinction

January 14, 2008 - 22:30 ET by stratman

I am fine with people changing their heartfelt opinion on certain flashpoint issues like abortion following some seminal event in their lives (Fred Thompson has said that the birth of his child cemented his anti-abortion position) or after some usually intense or lengthy period of reflection and introspection.

The people I trust not are those who proclaim epiphany when it is expediant to obtaining something in return.  If, and I mean IF, Romney had a public change of heart on abortion following his entry into or preamble leading up to his entry into the presidential race, then I would be suspect of Romney's convictions.

Since I can not look into the mind and soul of this man, I am stuck making a determination based on appearance, words, inflection of speech, and prior actions.

Regardless, if Romney is the Republican candidate for POTUS, I will vote for the man over anything the Dems prop up.  I believe Romney is a good man with the finest executive experience of any candidate.

That said, I hope Fred Thompson rises to the top of the list.  I believe him to be the best candidate at this time.

Killing them with kindness isn't working.  Time to get scrappy with the Donkeys.

I have a test

January 14, 2008 - 23:04 ET by KC Mulville

The difference between a mere political opportunist and a genuine change of mind is why you shift. I wouldn't get upset at a politician for shifting his policies if he can explain why he shifted. Hell, I've changed my mind about some things, but I can explain it. I didn't shift because of personal gain.

Romney changed his mind about a lot of social issues. If he only changed his mind about abortion because of cloning, then I can respect his explanation. But he also apparently changed his mind about gun rights, coincidentally while he was preparing to run for president as a Republican. One change is perhaps explainable, but two? On totally different grounds?

  • And I'm uncomfortable with the explanation of why he changed his mind about gay marriage. In Romney's telling, he was originally against the idea of government "interfering," either in abortion or in gay marriage. Now he's in favor of "interfering?" That bears some explanation, not on the either issue, but on his philosophy of government. How can we explain the balance between individual rights and legitimate interests of the state? We presume that a man who was a governor, and wants to run for president, should have a pretty firm theory of government, and yet Romney claims to have experienced a revolution in the blink of an eye. That makes me nervous.
  • On the other hand, Robert Bork supports him. Bork has more theory of government in his pinkie than I'll ever have, so Bork's trust in him counts for a lot.

If Romney can explain his theory of government, I'd feel a lot better. Otherwise, it's too much a coincidence that he made all these revolutionary changes in policy. Why did his nervousness about cloning change not only his position on abortion, but also his perception of the relationship between state and citizen? I don't need a full egghead treatise, but it's got to be more than what I've seen so far.

How Romney changed his mind

January 15, 2008 - 01:11 ET by qapilot

Can we be honest? We all agree that government should be involved in some matters, and should butt out of others. The minute someone does something to tread on our rights, we want the government to get involved!

Look, let's be practical: Mitt Romney couldn't do much about abortion law as governor. The Supreme Court decided it. He committed to support the law, which I can understand. (The Court, in deciding Roe vs. Wade, showed disregard for the legistlative branch of government, which is charged with making law.) When you think about it, abortion is about the only issue where conservatives say the government SHOULD butt in, and liberals say it should keep out. Now THERE'S a flip-flop.

I'd like to hear from one critic of Romney's "flip-flopping" who can say he or she hasn't changed a view, ever. Romney has explained his reasoning again and again. He is a thoughtful man, and he hasn't taken his position lightly. But as soon as he tells about his thinking, his critics stick their fingers in their ears. Romney hasn't gone back and forth like a certain Mr. Kerry. He's
learned, and grown, and there you are. All the other candidates have changed positions (many on abortion), and each of us reserves the right to change our minds ourselves. Those who can't deal with Romney's change of perspective are displaying very convenient and obvious hypocrisy.

Very well said!

January 15, 2008 - 02:25 ET by Gary P Jackson

Very well said!

Two changes of mind, and maybe three?

January 15, 2008 - 02:34 ET by KC Mulville

I have no problem about changing one's mind. As I say, I do it occasionally myself. But the difficult part to accept is that Romney changed his mind on at least two, and arguably three different social issues, all within a narrow timeframe, and just when he was beginning his run for president as a Republican. He changed his mind on abortion, and gay marriage, and gun rights. And, curiously enough, he changed his mind away from the perspective that won in notoriously liberal Massachusetts, toward a new perspective that would play much better in national Republican race.

That's a lot of coincidence to accept. It just plain quacks.

  • Romney has forwarded an explanation about abortion, but whether the explanation suffices is another matter. I'm not sure. Maybe. He's even explained a little about his position on gun rights, and a little about gay rights. But three?
  • You can explain it in really only one way. It would make sense if your moral convictions on those issues didn't change, but your perspective on how government addresses moral issues changes. And that would make sense.
  • But Romney hasn't offered any "underlying" change in his perspective. Instead, he explained them away individually, as if each issue was unconnected with each other.
  • So, either he doesn't mean what he says, or he doesn't grasp the implications of what he says. Either interpretation leaves me nervous about him.

Let's be clear. I'll still take Romney any day over the Democrat. But I don't want to vote for a weather vane.

I agree with what you have

January 15, 2008 - 03:00 ET by stratman

I agree with what you have said overall.  But there are two very important instances in which the POTUS has significant domestic impact:

  • Nominating judicial candidates, especially SCOTUS.

  • Signing into law or vetoing bills from Congress.

I doubt I need to refresh anyone's memory on the importance of SCOTUS selections.  I hope no one needs refreshment on the power of the pen the president wields with the wacky things Congress tries to push (eg SCHIP, military budgets)

In these respects, it is imperative that the presidential candidates elucidate their positions and how they will handle future decision making algorithms.

A third critical component is how the candidates would prosecute the GWOT, whether it's lobbing a few cruise missles at tents in the desert, fullscale nation building or something inbetween.  Of course what the candidates plan on doing with Iraq and Afghanistan is important for future relations with allies and emboldening of the enemy.

Killing them with kindness isn't working.  Time to get scrappy with the Donkeys.

No McCain, No Hucklebe, No Way!

January 14, 2008 - 22:38 ET by Free Stinker

I'm still suspicous of Romeny since he has been Liberal in the past.

I am an Evangelical, and have many, many issues with Mormon theology. (And, no, I'm not going to discuss them. That's not the point!)

I'm with Fred! I like waht he has to say, and he is the most conservative candidate.

Having said all that, if Romney is the nominee, I will be voting for him. I will encourage others, including my fellow Evangelicals, to vote for him. Fred, Rudy, or Mitt are the only choices we have.

No McCain, No Hucklebe, No Way!

 

Newsbusters. Log on and find out What the heck is so yummy over here!

Fred

January 15, 2008 - 01:01 ET by Cool Arrow

At work, a woman kept telling me to go to www.votehelp.org to play their little questionnaire game.

I came out 98% Fred.  Didn't surprise me much since mostly the comparisons are about what the candidates say rather than what they've done.

Yeah, I'd vote for the White Reverand Bishop Mitt Romney if we got stuck with him as the nominee.  But there are some problems about Mitt I'd just as soon we could avoid.

I ♣ My Seal

Cool link. Not

January 15, 2008 - 02:48 ET by Gary P Jackson

Cool link. Not surprisingly, Fred was my top match also at 97.78% followed by Rudy at 93.35% and Romney at 89.81%.

Frankly, I like Mitt, but any of these three would make good Commanders in Chief. With no clear front runner, this is going to be a very interesting next few weeks.

I just hope Romney wins tomorrow, so the media will shut up their constant drumbeat of how Romney "has to win Michigan!" He's got the most deligates, he's leading the pack for goodness sake! Of course, if the dims play games, McAmnesty might win. Not good.

Barnes on Romney

January 15, 2008 - 09:37 ET by rdjjpm

I have read and listened to Barnes a great deal. I cannot remember one well stated and convincing position he has ever taken. By any standard Romney is the best qualified candidate. My hope is that he selects McCain as Secretary of Defense.