Flip-Flopping and the Hypocritical Electorate
I would guess that at least 90% of the objections I read about Mitt Romney boil down to the charge that he keeps changing his positions, i.e. he's a flip-flopper. I think it is overblown but I agree it is something to be concerned about. What does it say in the book of James 1:8? "A double minded man is unstable in all his ways." It certainly behooves us to decide what positions Romney (or any candidate) genuinely holds.
What I find ironic is that those who accuse Romney of this sin are, many times, casting stones in glass houses. First their enthusiasm lands on Trump, then on Bachmann, then on Perry, then on Cain and now on Gingrich (not to mention those who chose not to run such as Christie and Ryan). One would think that those who find flip-flopping so abhorrent in Romney would exercise more permanence themselves.
- Comment (119)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (6)
Comments :
Oct '10
Re: Flip-Flopping and the Hypocritical Electorate
CoolHand: You know, we get it, you're a Romney lover.
Can you please find something less wretch inducing to start posts about for a while?
This is the third or fourth one of these in a row from you, and we're still a year out.
Honestly, it's starting to be a bit much. · Nov 15 at 4:19pm
C'mon, CoolHand, it's one thing to disagree with Richard (and James) and even get heated, but look at the response. It's great this is being hashed out and we're not all commenting against our will.
Apr '11
Re: Flip-Flopping and the Hypocritical Electorate
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
James Of England
Right, but not expand it or let it be expanded. "Mild pro-choice". What are you disagreeing with? · Nov 15 at 2:52pm
How is support for legalized abortion on demand through 9 months of pregnancy considered "mild"? What in the world could be more extreme? · Nov 15 at 5:38pm
I gave examples of the Massachusetts laws in #83. It's surprisingly middle of the road, although the trend was negative. In 2002, the SCOTUS still demanded that you allowed late term abortions on demand, and a federal court had recently thrown out Massachusetts' waiting period law.
Regardless, even assuming arguendo that he was an extreme pro-choicer, does that make him unprincipled? How do you feel about Reagan?
May '11
Re: Flip-Flopping and the Hypocritical Electorate
If I were running as the anti-Romney, I would put a picture of Romney on the screen and say: Mugwump. We love your mug but hate your wump.
Re: Flip-Flopping and the Hypocritical Electorate
James Of England
I gave examples of the Massachusetts laws in #83. It's surprisingly middle of the road, although the trend was negative. In 2002, the SCOTUS still demanded that you allowed late term abortions on demand, and a federal court had recently thrown out Massachusetts' waiting period law.
Regardless, even assuming arguendo that he was an extreme pro-choicer, does that make him unprincipled? How do you feel about Reagan? · Nov 15 at 6:21pm
Thanks for the examples, although I still have a hard time describing support for legalized abortion on demand as "mild." In any case, I already said I'm all for conversion to the pro-life cause. Reagan is a great example. Interesting, though, that Reagan's conversion was so convincing that he became a leader of the movement. No one would call Romney a leader of the pro-life movement. And Reagan was a leader even before he wrote his pro-life book .... Romney's timing is better late than never, although he really pushed the outer edge of that envelope, given what we know about the pro-life cause and why he should have been an early adopter of it.
May '11
Re: Flip-Flopping and the Hypocritical Electorate
In a moment of uncertainty, I googled the term mugwump, and was relieved that worldwidewords.org defined it as a person who remains aloof from controversial issues. The explanation then goes on to relate many interesting suppositions about how the word arose but ended with the old joke I related. In this moment of financial, geopolitical, and cultural crisis, do we want to elect a person who remains aloof from controversial issues?
May '11
Re: Flip-Flopping and the Hypocritical Electorate
Doubled posted but I swear I didn't do anything to get it repeated.
Edited on Nov 15, 2011 at 7:46pmApr '11
Re: Flip-Flopping and the Hypocritical Electorate
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
Thanks for the examples, although I still have a hard time describing support for legalized abortion on demand as "mild." In any case, I already said I'm all for conversion to the pro-life cause. Reagan is a great example. Interesting, though, that Reagan's conversion was so convincing that he became a leader of the movement. No one would call Romney a leader of the pro-life movement. And Reagan was a leader even before he wrote his pro-life book .... Romney's timing is better late than never, although he really pushed the outer edge of that envelope, given what we know about the pro-life cause and why he should have been an early adopter of it.
Romney's timing was early enough to capture all of the life issues in his term (stem cells and emergency contraception, both of which saw veto overrides). Does his pro-life leadership within the church not make him less extreme to your mind? It's an odd twist, in that it was pre-conversion, but he was keen and effective. Or this? I should write something in longer form on his life positions.
Re: Flip-Flopping and the Hypocritical Electorate
Franco
The idea that there are "independents" out there who will vote for Romney, but not for Gingrich Cain or Perry is hogwash. I call BS on anyone who says so. This was proven in 2008 when McCain the maverick, the moderate, the guy who appeals to so-called independents, went down in flames. · Nov 15 at 1:49pm
I am personally acquainted with several independent voters who, if the election were held today, would vote for Romney over Obama, but would not vote for Cain or Perry. (They are, by and large, still undecided about Gingrich.)
Moreover, 2008 did not "prove" anything. First of all, McCain was actually leading, albeit narrowly, when the September meltdown occurred. Absent that, he might have won. But more broadly, you (and others who have made the same point) are simply engaging in a non sequitur here. To say that the claim that "A would do better than B" is "disproved" by the fact that last time around A lost, simply makes no sense. If you have "proof" that a more conservative candidate would have done better against Obama, then you can make that claim. Otherwise, what you have is simply your own opinion.
May '11
Re: Flip-Flopping and the Hypocritical Electorate
James of England: I should write something in longer form on his life positions....... No! Please don't. No one cares. Really. There is nothing you can say about Romney's positions because his whole campaign is based on not having a position on anything anyone would argue about.
Nov '11
Re: Flip-Flopping and the Hypocritical Electorate
Franco
I think he will be relentlessly attacked by the leftwing press for everything including his Mormonism and they haven't unleashed on him yet. Hmmm. wonder why.
My, how far we've progressed in our society! I grew up in Michigan (when it was actually a red state) and retain avid memories of George Romney enjoying unqualified success as CEO of American Motors, Governor, and viable candidate for the 1968 GOP presidential nomination.
Dec '10
Re: Flip-Flopping and the Hypocritical Electorate
Severely Ltd.
C'mon, CoolHand, it's one thing to disagree with Richard (and James) and even get heated, but look at the response. It's great this is being hashed out and we're not all commenting against our will. · Nov 15 at 6:16pm
True enough, sir.
As you were then, don't mind me.
Sep '10
Re: Flip-Flopping and the Hypocritical Electorate
Steve Manacek
Franco
The idea that there are "independents" out there who will vote for Romney, but not for Gingrich Cain or Perry is hogwash. I call BS on anyone who says so. This was proven in 2008 when McCain the maverick, the moderate, the guy who appeals to so-called independents, went down in flames. · Nov 15 at 1:49pm
I am personally acquainted with several independent voters who, if the election were held today, would vote for Romney over Obama, but would not vote for Cain or Perry. (They are, by and large, still undecided about Gingrich.)
I find if you scratch the surface of these so-called independents you will find a Democrat alive at the core. These are people who will say they are on the fence but they always find a way, or some excuse, to vote Dem. Many Independents like to pretend they are open-minded and fair and they get lots of attention for being independents. If indeed these people will vote for Romney but not Perry over Obama, they obviously can't have a good understanding of fundamental politics, right? Why cater to them?
Sep '10
Re: Flip-Flopping and the Hypocritical Electorate
Anyone who equivocates and can't decide between Obama and virtually any Republican is a political moron, but more likely they are being disingenuous.
Moreover, 2008 did not "prove" anything. First of all, McCain was actually leading, albeit narrowly, when the September meltdown occurred. Absent that, he might have won.
Polls showing he was leading are suspect like any polls, we don't know if he was actually going to win at that point. Second, most "independents" recoiled when McCain picked Palin and used that as their big excuse to go for Obama. McCain was in a real bind and we got the worst of both worlds. He had to take on a real conservative or he would lose the base, and this opened the door for all the faux independents to bolt. I heard it a thousand times.
So Romney may appeal to these folks now, but he will likely have to bring on a more conservative VP, and there will be their excuse to cast their ballots for Obama.
Sep '10
Re: Flip-Flopping and the Hypocritical Electorate
Absent that, he might have won. But more broadly, you (and others who have made the same point) are simply engaging in a in a non sequitor here.
To say that the claim that "A would do better than B" is "disproved" by the fact that last time around A lost, simply makes no sense. If you have "proof" that a more conservative candidate would have done better against Obama, then you can make that claim. Otherwise, what you have is simply your own opinion.
None of this, what you say, what I say, can be proved. So it's all opinion and argument. But the GOP has a history that goes back farther than McCain 2008. G H W Bush, an incumbent, lost in 1992. Bob Dole, a respected statesman and veteran of the Senate in 1996 lost. Heck, the only Republican Presidential candidates who won recently have run as strong conservatives - Reagan and GWBush, accounting for 16 years, whereas Dole, the first Bush, McCain, and Ford, all moderates, lost
Apr '11
Re: Flip-Flopping and the Hypocritical Electorate
Franco:
None of this, what you say, what I say, can be proved. So it's all opinion and argument. But the GOP has a history that goes back farther than McCain 2008. G H W Bush, an incumbent, lost in 1992. Bob Dole, a respected statesman and veteran of the Senate in 1996 lost. Heck, the only Republican Presidential candidates who won recently have run as strong conservatives - Reagan and GWBush, accounting for 16 years, whereas Dole, the first Bush, McCain, and Ford, all moderates, lost
I wasn't in the US at the time, so perhaps I have this down wrong, but didn't the first Bush become the 41st President? Didn't W. run in 2000 as a "compassionate conservative" on a platform way to the left of anyone's platform in this race (NCLB, expanding medicare)? Didn't Nixon's defeat of Reagan in '68 turn out OK in the general?
Romney is running as a budget cutting conservative, same as he always has done, and is likely to actually cut spending, same as he always has done (business, Olympics, governor), so this is beside the point. Still, truth matters, and moderates haven't always lost.
Sep '10
Re: Flip-Flopping and the Hypocritical Electorate
James of England, Bush won one term on the heels of Reagan. He promised spectacularly "Read my lips no new taxes" and he reneged and was defeated. W pretended to be a conservative and he sorta is...more than Romney anyway. Nixon caused way more problems (and I'm not talking about Watergate, although that has to count too) for Republicans than any other GOP President. Nixon was another statist. We could afford statist Republicans back when there was a larger private sector, now each year government expands take uus closer to the brink.
The record of the "mainstream" GOP is horrific.
Apr '11
Re: Flip-Flopping and the Hypocritical Electorate
Franco: Anyone who equivocates and can't decide between Obama and virtually any Republican is a political moron, but more likely they are being disingenuous.
[McCain had to pick Palin, which cost him independents]
So Romney may appeal to these folks now, but he will likely have to bring on a more conservative VP, and there will be their excuse to cast their ballots for Obama. ·
You don't have to be stupid not to be sure about a stark choice. McCain's problem was that he wasn't offering much. Things like interstate insurance purchasing are great, but he didn't understand them. He ran on experience against novelty, but "experience" means knowledge and understanding, which he didn't have. The financial crisis highlighted this.
Romney's campaign is against Obamacare, for cutting spending and regulation, and for American pride and a more robust foreign policy. There are a lot of independents for whom this is a winning message. They don't need an excuse to vote against us, just reasons, for and against. They'll have reasons, and those reasons will grow ever stronger as the European superstate crumbles. No one think Europe lacks government.
Apr '11
Re: Flip-Flopping and the Hypocritical Electorate
Franco: Bush won one term on the heels of Reagan. He promised spectacularly "Read my lips no new taxes" and he reneged and was defeated. W pretended to be a conservative and he sorta is...more than Romney anyway. Nixon caused way more problems (and I'm not talking about Watergate, although that has to count too) for Republicans than any other GOP President. Nixon was another statist. We could afford statist Republicans back when there was a larger private sector, now each year government expands take uus closer to the brink.
The record of the "mainstream" GOP is horrific. ·
Postwar, we have a moderate loss, two moderate wins, two conservative losses (Nixon ran as a strong conservative in 60), two landslide moderate wins, a moderate loss, two conservative wins, a moderate win, two moderate losses, two "sorta" conservative wins, and a moderate loss. If we had a Reagan out there, he'd be a shoo-in, Remove Reagan from the conservative record, treat "sorta" conservative as separate, and the moderate record of 50/50 seems better than the conservative result of all loss. "Sorta" conservative does great.
In what way was 2000 Bush to Romney's right? Be specific.
Sep '10
Re: Flip-Flopping and the Hypocritical Electorate
James of England, You want to go back farther in history because it helps your case, however things change, and recent history is much more meaningful,
There is also the problem of current circumstances. For example, it's one thing to be moderate when the country is prosperous and we can afford some politically expedient program, another when we are at the brink of socialism.
The candidate in 2012 needs to be more conservative than the candidate in 2000. I actually don't know how to gauge Romney on the political spectrum, as far as I'm concerned he's a pig in a poke.