In 1994 and 2002, Mitt Romney campaigned as being pro-choice. He has markedly changed his tone and stance on abortion, as Worldnetdaily points out. It also appears as if his stance on stem-cell research has taken another turn, this time being against it. He has also been accused of being slippery on immigration. A blog that I stumbled upon also has him pegged as flipping on campaign finance reform.

Qustions for debate:

1.)Has Romney flip-flopped on key issues in order to win the GOP base?

2.)At what point can a politician change their mind on a given issue and not be a "flip-flopper"?

3.)Is Romney opportunistic and trying to have things both ways? Why or why not?

The 3rd question is a bit of a re-hash of the other two. I only include it as folks might like it over question #2.

Questions for debate:

1.)Has Romney flip-flopped on key issues in order to win the GOP base?

Indeed, he seems to have f-flopped. I've heard his explanation on abortion through a few different venues. I believe his characterization. Because I am "warm" to his candidacy I am also probably more forgivving. I am more interested on the timing of his professed stance on abortion when he was running for the governorship of Mass. Did he flip to be in favor of abortion during that candidacy or had he always been pro-abortion up to that point? I question this because it is fair game to assume that a high-profile Mormon would be against abortion. That he has since taken a more pro-life stance is not a surprise to me.

I am also now more sympathetic to Kerry's problem. I have to wonder if my conclusions on Kerry's f-flopping would have been different had I listened more to his own characterizations and not relied so much on conservative, politcal pundits characterizing it for me.

2.)At what point can a politician change their mind on a given issue and not be a "flip-flopper"?

Hard to put a timeframe on it. I guess it has to be looked at in context. I am not sure on the timing of Romney's "changes of heart" but I don't believe any of them happened within the last yr or so? Had he made these changes more recently I would be more hesitant to give him a pass even though I agree almost entirely with his new position.

3.)Is Romney opportunistic and trying to have things both ways? Why or why not?

There has to be some of that opportunistic element in any candidacy. It is more a question of moderation and not whether he should or shouldn't ever be opportunistic.

1.)Has Romney flip-flopped on key issues in order to win the GOP base?

Sounds like he has. The pro life/pro choice seems to carry many flip floppers. Gore for instance, when on the state level was pro life, and flopped upon entering the National arena. Rudy, whose explanations are so convoluted it is tough to tell. On this issue it appears Romney has flipped flopped.



That is a tough one. I can see over time how positions can change. I am not sure if he has had enough time to not be labled a flip flopper.


3.)Is Romney opportunistic and trying to have things both ways? Why or why not?

Yes, he is an opportunist if he was really pro choice previously. Again, on the state level, he needed to be pro choice. On the national level the GOP base is of course pro life.

Another day, another issue where Romney is accused of flip-flopping.

Sounds that way on some issues but who hasn’t.


If they “flop” back and forth that is what I would consider a “flip-flopper”. Anyone should be allowed to change his.her mind. Certainly Hillary has done plenty.


He is trying to appeal to the largest Republican base that he can – who wouldn’t. That said he has had some of the same views for years as governor here in MA.

And this speaks well for him as MA is known as the “bluest” of the blue states.

1.) Maybe. Probably. However, maybe not. Maybe he just changed his mind. It could happen.
2.) The question worded oddly but I think you mean (essentially); How many times can you change your mind on a topic BEFORE you BECOME a flip flopper? Once. I am for flibbity-floop. I am against flibbity-floop. Once more back; I am now, once again, for flibbity-floop! you are officially a flip flopper.
3.) Tough call. He hasn't really gone back and forth much. The truth is a lot people would like fiscal conservative with a touch of social liberal in them running the country. Those people are called "normal". They're not overly religious. They're not anti America. They're not against all taxes, just a lot and they mostly want to be left alone to pursue happiness. So Mitt is trying to be that guy.

1.)Has Romney flip-flopped on key issues in order to win the GOP base?


This is a level of honesty I was unprepared for when I first started reading this thread. What's disappointing is that only now, when the roles are reversed, do you see the malignancy associated with political assassination campaigns. The moment a political pundit starts in with the self-righteousness is the moment s/he should be ignored.

It is possible that Romney has had an honest change of opinion: it's hard to tell with politicians what they *honestly* think. It is much more likely that the positions he takes now are closer to his real positions, that is, his prior, more liberal, positions were not "true".

2.)At what point can a politician change their mind on a given issue and not be a "flip-flopper"?

Here we get into a philosophical question.

1. Jeffrey believes in position "A".
2. But, Jeffrey acts against position "A".

Can we say that Jeffrey's belief or actions on position "A" are what matters to an external observer?

3.)Is Romney opportunistic and trying to have things both ways? Why or why not?

Yes, he is of course opportunistic. Name me one politician who isn't opportunistic. As for having things both ways, the answer is: of course, he can have things both ways. It's all a matter of how it's presented.

An update of sorts, the WaPo has an interesting article about the many position changes of the Mitt.

I am curious nebraska29 , in June of 2004 you started a post about the over hype of the flip-flop buzz word.

As evidenced here: Post

I guess you have "flip-flopped" on your stance of flip-flops from back then? Just sayin...

Oh wait!!! I see... It's a different person now.

Since the thread you referenced was closed before any meaningful debate could take place, I'm not sure throwing this back in nebraska29's face is fair.

When Romney ran for and served as Governor of Massachusetts and, he represented a different constituency than he is now trying to capture. In shifting emphasis to getting votes from the right leaning elements in the Republican primaries, he has abandoned the center. You can call this flip-flop or whatever. In Romney's case, I think he's attempting to completely reinvent himself.

I think it's completely fair. Just because Jaime closed his topic before there was more than 2 replies does not make his stance invalid. It's just humorous that nebraska29 starts a topic about flip-flopping, when he didn't like the term being used against Kerry.

For the record I do think Mitt is a flip flopper. The man has great business sense, but I believe he is like Hillary in that he will do or say anything to get elected. Gotta love pandering.

In my comments, I mentioned how not every issue was eactly black or white or an "either," "or" possibility. Take the republican position on the SCHIP thing. Just because they are against SCHIP, doesn't mean they are for people going without coverage, they just feel it should be done differently. Attacking politicians because they like certain elements of a given bill and nailing them for "flip-flopping" is one thing, calling them out when a pro-choice under any circumstances candidate suddenly becomes pro-life is quite another. I asked about both candidates and for evidence to back up the assertion that on a given topic, a candidate truly flip-flopped, as opposed to only liking certain elements of a given bill.

Your "calling me out" on the thread brought out what I was exactly trying to do in that thread-a discussion on how nuance and the "gray" zone area often gets misrepresented as a completely for or against accusation.

Well I hope he flip-flops on medical marijuana. I thought this was abominable: Romney confronted on medical marijuana

Actually Mitt should be the host on the Price is Right

Image

Image 2

Nebraska, I just stopped in to right this exact same title for a thread and I saw this. The parallels between Romney and Kerry are uncanny. The hair, the Frankenstein stiffness, Massachusetts, the flip-flopping, both have rich personal fortunes, both the establishment pick(donation wise), and both can't win in the general election IMO. The past 18 independent polls from places like Zogby, Ramsmussen, ABC, Newsweek all show Romney losing to Hillary by anywhere from 4 to 18 points. Source. I really don't understand his leads in Iowa and NH except that he has spent a ton of money there.

The hair, it has to be the hair. The Masschusetts thing is eery too.

Here is a different degree of flip-flopping, this one relates to the "facts" and statements made during the campaing.

According to this detailed and documented article, Romney stated that when he talked about his dad walking with Martin Luther King Jr., that he meant it metaphorically. T oread more about that, click here. On a Dec.16th edition of Meet The Press, Romney stated that he had the NRA's endorsement, only to backaway from that assertion and only offer up that the NRA phone banks for him. The earlier, and more amusing story, is how he was a life-long hunter, despite not being a gun owner or the holder of a hunting license. Click here for Romney's re-statement. We are definitely getting an "I was for it, before I was against it" Kerryism with this guy.

Flip-Flop: to make a sudden or unexpected reversal, as of direction, belief, attitude, or policy.

At the time John Kerry was running, I had sympathy for him on this issue even though he was not my candidate. IMO we need to oust the word "flip-flop" from our political vocabularies.

We really need to judge any "change" in political platform on its own merit. Aren't people allowed to change their minds? Do we all want to have the same opinions we had when we were younger etc? I for one used to be "Pro-Life", and now after much consideration, I consider myself to be "Pro-Choice". Aren't political candidates allowed that same freedom? I know that my comments are very BASIC, but it seems that we are generalizing and applying this pejorative term(flip-flop) to any politician who dares to change his opinion.

We don't know for certain why John Kerry or Mitt Romney changed his opinion, but on their hair and posture, I definitely agree. And I applaud whomever suggested that MR should be the host of the Price is Right! Right on!!

Excellent point, and I would have a tremendous amount of respect if candidates would talk about their opponent's present positions, as opposed to nailing them on supposed flip-flops. Irony at it's greatest-Romney slamming McCain on taxes and imigration.

And here is what McCain could counter with to illustrate that irony, but he likely won't because he wants to stay positive. McCain's Secret Romney attack ad. Even funnier, it was written by Romney's team 6 months ago when they worked for McCain!!

Ottimista

It becomes a little suspect when you've had the different opinion for 10 years on your voting record, and then it instantly changes during a Presidential Campaign or because the polls indicate your "convictions" aren't popular enough to win an election.

Then, yes, it's still a freedom. But you're telling the world you can be bought or sold depending on the circumstance. That's NOT what a leader is about, IMHO.

Al Gore was Pro-Life. He quietly turned pro-choice shortly before his entrance for the Presidential Bed, and later in the Clinton Administration.

Tipper Gore founded the PMRC - an attempt to first censor (unsuccessful) and then sticker label warnings on records (to hurt sales, also unsuccessful) due to her religious convictions of the evils of rock music. One of her targets - Stevie Nicks for "being a practicing witch". Funny, she was up there dancing to "Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow" with Fleetwood Mac at the Inaugural Ball.

No need to just pick on the liberals either.

Then you have Larry Craig campaigning on "family values" while soliciting sex in public bathrooms.

Bush Sr. with No New Taxes.

I guess it depends on whether or not you think the candidate is being genuine, or sticking his finger in the wind.

I'd rather vote for someone who stood for something I didn't necessarily like, than someone who stood for whatever was right "at the time".

I am amused at the line in the Romney ad, "is John McCain the right Republican for the future?"

After the foreign policy disasters, domestic debacles and endless corruption of the current Republican regime, I don't think there is a Republican for the future in the “big tent” -only elephant droppings left by the Bush administration’s disasters than will take decades to clean up.

Republicans have morphed from elephants to dinosaurs.