The Occasional Observer

Mitt Romney has clearly angered the Boston Globe. The paper has made it its mission to fill the internet with hit pieces on Mitt ever since he's started to gain traction as a candidate.

Today's entry: Mitt lied on gun control!

ORLANDO , Fla. -- Former governor Mitt Romney, who once described himself as a supporter of strong gun laws, is distancing himself from that rhetoric now as he attempts to court the gun owners who make up a significant force in Republican primary politics.

In his 1994 US Senate run, Romney backed two gun-control measures strongly opposed by the National Rifle Association and other gun-rights groups: the Brady Bill, which imposed a five-day waiting period on gun sales, and a ban on certain assault weapons.

"That's not going to make me the hero of the NRA," Romney told the Boston Herald in 1994.

At another campaign stop that year, he told reporters: "I don't line up with the NRA."

If you want to know where Mitt really stands on gun control, do the same thing you do on abortion. Look at his actions as governor in the most liberal state in the country. He received a "B" from the NRA as governor. If he had even the slightest inclination to ban guns, he could have pushed it through the MA legislature at the drop of a hat. Earning an NRA "F" would have been as easy as making a phone call over morning coffee.

As with other issues (like abortion), the Boston Globe has made the startling discovery that Mitt is not running for office exlusively in Massachusetts in 2008, but rather running nationwide. But let's take the Globe's criticism seriously. What if Mitt had decided to campaign in 1994 with the line, "I'm the NRA and the NRA is me?" His chance of defeating Teddy K (which might be the most noble cause in American politics, justifying any and all tactics) would have been zero. So you could say that the Globe's main criticism of Mitt is that he's not a political dummkopf.

Of course, the Globe's intent here isn't just to criticize Romney. It's to give fodder to the Giuliani and McCain folks on the internet, and to keep alive the "flip-flop" rhetoric and sink Mitt's campaign. The interesting question is why the Globe would want to help Giuliani and McCain, since you can bet they hate any GOP presidential contender just as much Romney.

My guess? They know that they couldn't sink Romney, despite their near monopoly on the print media in Boston. And they're threatened by the fact that he is the conservative candidate who may be most threatening to their liberal agenda over the long haul. Attacking Mitt on the web is the Globe's way of dialing 911 for anti-Romney reinforcements.

Cross-posted at RedState.com


Update #1:

Courtesy of mymanmitt.com, here's a link to more specific information on Romney's track record on 2nd amendment issues.

Update #2

In response to several comments to this post on RedState, I included this follow up:

"Any and all tactics" encompasses a lot of things that I couldn't endorse, like violent tactics. It was a little hyperbole to illustrate my dislike of the Tedster.

Having read some of the comments in this thread, I'd emphasize that I'm not trying to give Mitt a pass on inconsistencies (real or perceived) in his statements. Mitt can and must answer to those questions from those of us who (rightly) want to be sure that what we're buying is as-advertised. I'm confident that he'll be able to do so based on what I've seen so far.

The reason for this post had more to do with my curiosity as to why the Globe has it in for Mitt. Political agendas go a long way towards explaining it, but I think there's more there. The NY Times is just as ideologically driven, but isn't offering a hit piece per day on Rudy. Does that mean Rudy is a less threatening candidate to the left? Or that his image is just that untouchable? Is the BloGlo just more radical than the Times? Or is the BloGlo making a business decision that they're going to piggy-back on Mitt's new found national popularity to gain some additional moonbat readership?

One last point that I should have made above, but I'll make now. I've read a number of times on RedState folks saying stuff like they're "underwhelmed" with the field, or don't see a single candidate they like. I'd have to disagree. As I read, see, and hear from more of these candidates, I'm quite impressed with the entire field. I watched Huckabee's excellent interview on CSpan RttWH last night. I lived Rudy's excellent tenure as mayor and 9/11 leadership here in NY. Hunter is experienced on military issues and is credible on immigration and homeland security. Brownback is a good man and has an incredibly solid track record on the important social issues facing our nation.

Mitt's my candidate b/c of his issues, his proven ability to run organizations effectively (Bain/Olympics/MA), and because I think he has the right demeanor and rhetoric (not a dirty word) to be an optimistic, effective voice for conservativism. That said, when I look at the whole field, I'm 90% comfortable that whoever gets the GOP nomination will have my whole-hearted support.