(CNN) - Jon Huntsman's spokesman took to Twitter Friday to needle GOP presidential rival Mitt Romney.
Tim Miller sent this message to Romney's spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom: "@EricFehrn spoxing for @MittRomney in '02 called Grover's pledge "gov't by gimmicry." Harsh. Why the change of heart? http://bo.st.q2cZaO
The link goes to an article in the Boston Globe that quotes Romney and Fehrnstrom saying he would not sign a no-new-taxes pledge as a candidate for governor.
"I'm not intending to, at this stage, sign a document which would prevent me from being able to look specifically at the revenue needs of the Commonwealth," Romney said.
At the time Fehrnstrom called such pledges "government by gimmickry."
However, as a candidate for president, the former Massachusetts governor has signed the "Taxpayer Protection Pledge," a no-new-taxes promise from Americans for Tax Reform and the "cut, cap, and balance" pledge, which calls for a balanced budget amendment, among other demands, to raise the debt ceiling.
Huntsman and Romney are both Mormon former governors with ties to Utah, an early presidential voting state.
Huntsman has consistently refused to sign pledges, as a candidate for Utah governor and as a 2012 presidential candidate.
"Other than the pledge of allegiance, I don't do a whole lot of pledges," Huntsman told CNN in June.
The Huntsman camp tweet comes the day after his campaign manager resigned. In a statement, senior Campaign Adviser John Weaver said the campaign is moving into a more aggressive phase from a "messaging and tactical standpoint."
Eric Fehrnstrom did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Huntsman is the best of the bunch. Too bad the GOP is too rightwing to nominate him.
Anyone who has signed a Nordquist pledge, or will be likely to sign one if elected in 2012, or has anything to do with the TEA Party will lose in 2012. Not after what has occurred in 2012.
Any pledge not to raise taxes shows that someone is not fully thinking and is an ideologue. The idea that you will completely cut off any one form of raising revenue or cutting spending shows that the person is not willing to look at the whole picture. This is a problem for the country today. The problem is that people who are in (or running for) office that don't understand that everything must be on the table as far as the budget is concerned. There are things that I would like to left out the discussions, but I understand that everything must be done. I don't want to pay more in taxes, but that must be considered. I would like services to be maintained at current levels or expanded, but it can't always be done. Let us all be realistic about what needs to be done. Please, I hope all the ideologes go home or learn to be more flexible.
The Tea Party really has the GOP in a corner. A simple look at recent history (the last fifty or so years) will show that EVERY president HAD to raise taxes at some point. It's the cost of running government. It can't be avoided. Conversely, taxes are also lowered at some point. It keeps the ship of state on an even keel. At first, the Tea Party was made up of Republicans and Independants who wanted to curb the big government caused by both Bush's and Obama's bailouts. Eventually, the far right extremests took over the Tea Party. That's all that's left now. The far right extremists who make up a small minority of the GOP. Yet, in order to kow-tow to them, the GOP is selling itself down the river. The Moderate Republicans who can honestly do some good for this country are being thrown under the bus by their own party.
Now Mitt is anti pledge? This is just another example of Romney's pandering: he says what he thinks people what to hear (to get elected), then takes an opposite position when the original position is politically unfavorable (Massachusetts health care, abortion, tax pledges). This man is a meretricious empty suit.
Take it from a MA resident: this man has NO fundamental principle he will not compromise for political gain. I am against him as a politican not because of his party or political philosophy (which, but for laissez faire capitalism, is only a shifting series of politically expedient positions) but because of his craven opportunism.
I like Mitt Romney better than Huntsman, but both are better leaders and would govern better than Obama.
Note to the uninformed: both candidates are centralist conservatives that have the ability and have worked WITH the other side. Obama has made NO effort in his presidency to compromise or even debate conservative ideas.
Mitt Romney in 2012.
Things are starting to happen now. The GOP hopefuls are starting to snipe at each other. Eventually, hopefully fairly soon, the wheat will be cut from the chaff, so to speak, and all the wannabes who shouldn't be wasting our time will fall by the wayside. I am hopeful that after the carnage that is just beginning in the GOP, New Jersey Governor Chris Christy will be convinced to run. Now HE'S one Republican this Democrat can vote for.