According to this post on RCP’s blog, Mitt Romney didn’t support President Bush’s 2003 tax cuts. According to this article, people are reminding him of his ‘change in attitude’. First, here’s the central point in RCP’s post:

After refusing to endorse President Bush’s tax cuts when he was governor, Mitt Romney has now made them a central part of his presidential campaign, stirring accusations that he is changing his position to appeal to GOP primary voters.

In 2003, Romney stunned a roomful of Bay State congressmen by telling them that he would not publicly support Bush’s tax cuts, which at the time formed the centerpiece of the president’s domestic agenda. He even said he was open to a federal gas tax hike.

Check out the Romney campaign’s defensiveness when a heckler reminded people about Gov. Romney’s position on President Bush’s tax cuts:

But the McCain comment came back to bite him in the question-and-answer session when a young man grilled him with, “You yourself refused to endorse the Bush tax cuts as governor in 2003, saying you wouldn’t be a cheerleader for a tax break you didn’t support. Isn’t your attack tonight, sir, hypocritical in this respect and is this not another flip flop added to the ones identified by Tim Russert on Meet The Press last Sunday?”

Romney chuckled and gave a hearty “no.” He went on to defend himself from the question, explaining that he was busy being a governor but did the support the cuts and campaigned for Bush in his re-election race.

Based on the RCP post, I’d say he took time out from “being a governor” to argue against President Bush’s tax cuts while proposing a gas tax increase. Now notice how the Romney campaign tried dealing with the question:

Following the event, Romney New Hampshire communications adviser Rich Killion volunteered that the questioner was likely a McCain plant. Pounced on by reporters after Romney concluded, he gave only his first name, Sam, and said he’s registered to vote in Massachusetts and is a student. “I like to meet the candidates,” he said and added that he is undecided about his vote at this point.

I don’t know whether “Sam” is part of the McCain campaign or not. Honestly, I don’t think that’s particularly relevant. I find it quite relevant, though, that Gov. Romney’s aides are trying to make “Sam” the story. I don’t blame them for taking that approach. I’d likely do the same thing if I were in their shoes. The story isn’t whether Sam’s a McCain plant. To me, the story is that Romney has dramatically changed his positions…again.

It’s now apparent that Gov. Romney has changed positions on several high priority issues since 2003. That raises the question of whether he’d change positions if elected president. I’ve thought for quite some time that Romney is his own worst enemy in the sense that he’s in trouble when people examine what he’s saying, not just how he’s saying something.

It’s part of his “looks presidential” package. Pundits say that he looks president as though that was important. Thus far, they haven’t examined his answers, which is how candidates should be judged. If you look at his answers during debates and TV appearances, you’ll notice that they sound good initially but that they stink when scrutinized on their merits.

For instance, when Tim Russert asked Romney if he’d sign a similar health care bill as president, Romney replied that he wouldn’t, that he’s a federalist. I’m all for federalism but Romney isn’t. The reason I know is because of an answer he gave during the Florida YouTube debate. He was asked if, in a post-Roe v. Wade world, he’d sign a bill banning abortions nationwide. Romney replied that he would.

How is that a federalist position? One of the reasons Constitutional experts say Roe v. Wade is a bad decision is because it’s a states’ rights issue. Signing a federal ban on abortion is no better from a federalist standpoint than mandating it from the Supreme Court. Whether it’s banned with federal legislation or mandated by the US Supreme Court, it’s something that state legislatures should craft their own remedies to.

Another example is his canned answer that he’s pro life. As I’ve pointed out repeatedly, he isn’t pro life because of the health insurance plan he signed into law. That law now mandates taxpayer-funded abortion coverage. Again, the rhetoric doesn’t match the record.

At some point, people will examine what he’s saying. When that happens, he’ll be in big trouble because his rhetoric doesn’t match his record. That’s the ultimate price of his inconsistencies.

Tell NRO and Hugh Hewitt to get out the bilge pumps because their candidate is taking on water. BIGTIME.

Technorati: Mitt Romney, Hugh Hewitt, NRO, Tax Cuts, Flip-Flops, Pro Choice, John McCain, Election 2008

Cross-posted at California Conservative