An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Romney’s Flip-Flopping Evolution
Ed Morrissey has a great post up about the shift in Mitt Romney’s “positions on abortion and other issues�, described by the former Governor of Massachusetts himself as an “evolution�, by quite some others as flip-flopping or opportunism.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
19 Responses to “Romney’s Flip-Flopping Evolution”
Interestingly enough, flip-flopping by Romney and McCain appears to be costing them rather than building popular support. Giuliani, who has flip-flopped the least, seems to be gaining from their loss, just by being himself.
Well how long before he flip flops on his use of the word evolution, and says his process was but of course, intelligent design. What a putz.
My guess is that due to his presidential ambitions , he’s no longer “a believer in stating his positions clearly and not wavering”, lol. I agree with Captain Ed- how can you go backwards on global warming, as the scientific evidence confirms it more convincingly over time?
Remember some of Chimpy’s pledges in 2000:
A humble foreign policy
absolutely no nation-building
pledge to be a uniter
RULES CONCERNING FLIP-FLOPPING (OR “EVOLVING”):
It is not necessarily a bad thing for one to change his/her mind on an issue if he/she has carefully considered the issue and determined that his/her prior belief was flawed or inaccurate. Indeed, the Scientific Method is based upon forming a hypothesis about a something, and then either confirming or denying that hypothesis based upon the available evidence. And indeed throughout history, old theories and beliefs that were well- accepted in earlier times, have been altered or discarded based upon new evidence that surfaces.
But in politics, if one is to change one’s mind on an issue, there are some key things he/she need to do:
1) Acknowledge that you’ve changed your mind. Don’t insult our intelligence by pretending that you’ve always held the view that you hold now, when this is clearly not the case.
2) Make a convincing argument why you believe your current beliefs are correct. Connect your current view on this issue with your underlying philosophy, and be prepared to given several real world examples to back up your argument.
3) Make a convincing argument why you previous beliefs were wrong. Point out the arguments you used to bolster your prior belief, and give evidence to show that these prior arguments were either flawed or incorrect.
4) This one can’t always be helped, but try not to have your “conversion” coincide with your newest campaign for political office such that your previous position conveniently coincided with the majority view of the previous electorate you faced while your new position just happens to coincide with the majority view of the new electorate you are facing.
5) Don’t accuse you opponent (or other politicians) of “flip-flopping” when you, yourself, or guilty are guilty of the same thing. Because that not only makes you a flip-flopper–it makes you a hypocrite.
I think candidates like Romney do a great disservice to the GOP.
By all signing up to the same positions, they help make GOP a narrower and narrower party, and this narrows the attractiveness of the party to only voters of the same exact, in every particular, mold.
Well I had a good comment to make on this, but nicrivera has already said what I wanted to and more AND better.
You call it “evolving” or “changing his mind” when you think that both the previous belief and the current belief were sincerely held. You call it “flip-flopping” when either the previous or current belief are thought to be opportunistic. If the public decides you have “flip-flopped” you’re in trouble. Liberals will decide you were always anti-choice and anti-gay and just played the part to cheat them, and will be angry. Conservatives will think it just too convenient that you suddenly have conservative beliefs and will think that you actually are pro-choice, and just giving lip-service to them for votes.
His abortion change came at the same time the libs and their scientists had snuck a cloning provision in a stem cell bill, what an unthinkable landmark. Who wouldn’t take a second-look at where this country is headed in the value of life? Since he’s always claimed to be personally pro-life even in ’94 (or as he said in ’02, wouldn’t be labeled with any hyphenated word because he wouldn’t change any existing laws). I find this more than credible.
Oh, please. Its flip-flopping.
Why ’cause you, the MSM and the DNC say so? psh
“Why ’cause you, the MSM and the DNC say so? psh”
Ever pause to think maybe because it just plain is flip flopping/ trolling for partyline votes? Instantly reaching for RNC deflection words/quotes don’t make the obvious go away anymore. Kind of like trying to eradicate mosquitos with a chop stick after the last 27 years, its played out.
Domajot said:
“I think candidates like Romney do a great disservice to the GOP.
By all signing up to the same positions, they help make GOP a narrower and narrower party, and this narrows the attractiveness of the party to only voters of the same exact, in every particular, mold.”
Of course, this is the same problem with the Dems. Remember when their used to be pro-life, conservative Democrats? They were run out of the party by those who couldn’t allow for diversity. A Lloyd Bensen couldn’t be on the national ticket for the Democrats anymore, yet he was pro-life and conservative. Al Gore’s another who was pro-life, but had to jettison that position in order to be Bill Clinton’s running mate in ’92. There are no “Big Tent” parties anymore.
Actually, many of the Dems elected to Congress in 2006 are of the more conservative variety, with a few pro-lifers.
It’s a braoder caucus than normal, and the leadership is having trouble getting them to all vote together because, just being Democrat hasn’t meant they’ve all shared the same ideals.
A nice solution would be multiple parties expressing multiple ideologies making coalitions based on pressing needs, but that just isn’t our system.
RNC liners? lol, please. The MSM and DNC have been rampant about trying to nip Romney’s campaign off at the bud, presumably because they realize he’s the true conservative threat up there right now.
Reading all the comments, here and around, about the dissatisfaction with our two parties, I realize how much of the discussion circles around the two areas of my life that I would like government to stay out of the most: my religion and my views about abortion.
My top priorities in grading candidates are foreign policy and the economy. I will faithfully promise to not intrude into his/her private life in return for a promise to not intrude into mine.
Can there be a ‘leave me alone’ party?
It’s called the Libertarians, lol, but shouldn’t there be a ‘leave me alone’ policy for the children within the mother? At least some kind of partial birth ban? And no one’s intruding into your religion that I know of, right?
Subuey,
If you were a politician, I’d say you just intruded into my life by asking me a question about abortion
The governement assaults my religious views constantly by shrouding everything in theirs.
So Romney believes in evolution?
Captain[ ]Comeback asked:
> So Romney believes in evolution?
I wonder which GOP contender will outdo the others and spend Sunday morning on a big-time evangelistic TV show, front and center, on his knees begging for foregiveness and everyone’s vote.
“The governement assaults my religious views constantly by shrouding everything in theirs.”
I don’t see how anything that’s been talked about has to do with religion. Ethics, yes, not religion.