Redstate

All famous flip-floppers, eh?

Strange how you put Romney in a class by himself when McCain, Giuliani, and Thompson have done more than their share of flip-flopping.

I just don't get it. I am convinced that if Romney were a Catholic, a Jew, or a Protestant, he'd have the nomination sewed up by now.

As I said, it's a matter or degree -- degree of position change (how far new position is from old, and degree of conviction claimed as basis for each), timing (e.g., if the changes occurred just in time for the campaign), and quantity (on how many issues a candidate has flipped). The others have flipped to some degree, but Romney is in a league of his own.

First, I meant to say "matter of degree"

Second, just to add to the list of indicators that a candidate is a phony: If all the position changes a candidate has "evolved" to just happen to be advantageous in the current campaign. Wouldn't one expect that a candidate who was so inclined to sincerely re-evaluate his positions would have also changed to a few positions that would HURT him politically?

I wish the pro-Romney folks would at least apply some reasonable degree of objectivity and healthy skepticism with regard to Romney's flips and just say the following:

"Look, obviously this guy is an opportunistic flipper who either has no convictions or is willing to abandon them to win an election. And yes, while many, perhaps most major presidential candidates substantially modify their positions on one issue or another when they run, Romney has taken it to entirely new levels. Having said that, I like the positions he says he has now, I don't see another major candidate who matches my positions as closely, and the guy has some good executive experience, so I like him."

I would still oppose support of a candidate with no convictions or no commitment to convictions and who is the quintessential flipping politician, and I would still question how such a candidate can be trusted to stick to his new, politically convenient positions if/when the political calculus changes down the road, but if Romney supporters would acknowledge that his many new positions are the result of political calculation rather than sincere changes in conviction, at least then his supporters wouldn't look either gullible or disingenuous.

but notice the irony that this thread is about kowalski's concern that Romney has not changed his earlier position on assault weapons, but yet he gets roundly criticized for being a flip-flopper. Go figure.

Romney has a strong sense of ambition, to be sure. More in his little finger than Phone-it-in-Fred has in his entire soul, and if there is one thing that occasionally annoys me about him, it is that incessant ambition.

However, as a candidate and a man I don't think you can find one with greater integrity. And I say that after looking into his positions and his history. I don't find grotesque flip flops on core principles and convictions, despite the non-stop attempts to contort his past into making it appear that way.

On abortion, he has changed his public position and he has been very clear and unapologetic about that. His private position has remained the same all along and really isn't in question by anyone sincere enough to look at ALL the facts.

I like the fact that in a state with an 80+% democratic majority in the legislature, he kept his campaign promises. He picked his battles, advanced the cause where he could, held the line where he couldn't and stayed the advance of liberalism.

Your attack on his CFR positions is a red herring. The articles you refer to are all about different tactical approaches to campaign finance reform, and have nothing to do with principle. On principle, most would agree that the public perceives campaign finance as the root of political corruption.

However, changing the rules to fix the problem has proven very difficult. Romney may have changed his view on the best tactics and approaches to take to solve the problem. And if Mr. McCain had any integrity to the principle behind his legislation, he would do the same. His approach simply hasn't worked. It hasn't accomplished the goals it set out to accomplish. Instead, it has encroached further and further on 1st amendment rights so as to do much more damage than good.

You may not like that Romney has adopted a new tactical approach to the CFR juggernaut. It seems, however, that thousands of former McCain supporters have followed suit and done the same thing, myself included (die hard McCain man in 2000). Our conviction is to see to what is right and find the best solution to the problem, not argue about who is right, stubbornly (and foolishly) standing by an idea that failed miserably to live up to its promise.

I remind you that perhaps the pre-eminent lawyer and activist on the conservative side of the CFR fight (not to mention the counsel for Wisconsin Right to Life in the recent SCOTUS ruling) is James Bopp, a firm Romney supporter and campaign adviser. That fact alone carries a ton more weight than the disingenuous flip-flopping allegations that the MSM loves to spread and you love to repeat.

So, don't hold your breath wishing for us to climb aboard the flip-flop wagon. And go do some honest research.

"Denial" ain't just a river in Egypt.

And by the way, who said anything about Romney lacking "ambition"? On the contrary, it probably takes a heck of a lot of ambition to be willing to abandon position after position and claim sincere conversions on convictions just to win an office. Well, it takes a combination of ambition and indifference to the concept of integrity.

see reply downthread, with "Bricklaven" as Subject

Umm...no. He has taken plenty of strong stances on issues contrary to public opinion.

Specifically, the Iraq war. He was asked in one of the debates why he was supportive of seeing the war through when the majority of Americans think we can't win. He said that America doesn't want or need someone who just makes decisions based on polls.

Are you kidding? He said exactly what would help him win the NOMINATION.

He has been trying to "close the gunshow loophole" (a.k.a. get rid of gunshows) for a while now. He was also one of only about 8 Senators that voted for final passage of some insane combination of AWB renewal and legal protections for firearms makers.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

If you believe he has sincerely seen the light and substantially changed positions on issue after issue (expressing deep conviction behind his new positions after previously expressing deep conviction in his past positions), and it's just a coincidence that all his past positions were advantageous in past elections and all his new positions are advantageous in getting the nomination now, well, I've got a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.

he can do it over and over at the drop of a hat

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

Right, or at the drop of a poll. Wonder how a guy like that will act if he wins and faces re-election. Whatever positions win a GENERAL election at that time are the positions he'll take.

That's one reason I lean toward McCain. Actually, two reasons: (1) relative consistency of positions, based on convictions, and straight talk (again RELATIVE to the other candidates), and (2) extensive experience in foreign policy, national security and military issues vs. none with Romney or Giuliani (and only limited degree with Thompson).

I appreciate this especially because it was very similar to the question I asked of one of his campaign representatives in New Hampshire. My question was much more specific, because it dealt with the very pointed question of Romney's definition of an "Assault weapons ban" and what he construes as "assault weapons" and even more specifically, what types of ammunition he thinks qualify as "assault weapons ammunition."

Mitt Romney attended the SHOT convention earlier this year and having heard what he just said I'm still very skeptical about his willingness to speak candidly on this issue.

As the former Governor of Massachusetts, which has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, he should be able to hold forth for at least 10 minutes on the state of firearms legislation nationwide and also be able to discuss his views on the Clinton assault weapons ban, the current efforts to revive and extend it, his views on things like banning air rifles statewide in Massachusetts, and his overall picture of whether the Tiahrt Amendment is a good piece of legislation or something that he doesn't support.

This was a very, very basic (and very safe) answer, and it doesn't satisfy me. I am going to have to take this up with some of his campaign representatives and I encourage people who are interested in Romney's views to do likewise, and encourage him to expatiate on this subject in *considerably* more depth.

If he sticks to these pat, "safe space" answers he is going to neutralize my support for him -- and that goes for all the other Republican candidates as well.

Which makes him a pretty dangerous choice, IMO. I think he could easily be convinced to sign just about any gun control bill, because every gun control bill is always about "cop killing machine guns" and "cop killing sniper rifles," no matter what the actual details of the bill involve. I've heard him talk about his support for some kind of an AWB before and I didn't get the impression that he has any clue as to what the Clinton AWB did, or what the current state of the law on firearms is.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

I don't think he's educated himself on the subject especially from the perspective of an *advocate for* gun rights and for people who opposed the Clinton ban and the new efforts to revive and extend it. At the very least he should be able to talk lucidly and persuasively about why the Clinton ban was so odious and why it should never be resurrected, much less extended. He's really losing me on this issue so far. I hope that changes.

Not to have an indepth, coherent and defensible position on this issue as the former Governor of Massachusetts. Given his answers thusfar, I'm willing to wager that I know more about this state's gun laws and licensing process than he does, and that's absolutely intolerable for me. I've lived here for just a little over a year and I have actually read the statutes word-for-word and spoken to literally dozens of people about them. It's a vitally important issue for his campaign and he needs to be much more thorough in his future comments or I'm going to find it impossible to defend my support of his candidacy.

I want to believe he is staking out a cautious position with an eye toward the general election believing that he can afford to do so.

Personally, I would like him to take a stronger position and delineate a more robust response on this one. It is one issue on which I reserve my support for him.

Obviously he is not a fearless hunter . . . we've been through that gaffe before. But I would like him to stake out a detailed definition and make a pledge about just what line he will tow with a Democratic Congress, particularly on assault weapons bans.

That is not a satifactory answer. There is no such thing as a limited right to bear arms. I thank God for police and what they do, but liberty is not limited by what is best for them.

Re "There is no such thing as a limited right to bear arms", do you really mean that? Does an individual have a constitutional right to travel in Manhattan with a suitcase nuclear bomb or carry around a stinger missile and launcher in the vacinity of a major airport? If not, we are talking matters of degree, not a pure right.

earlier and forgot to do so. If the term "arms" used in the Second Amendment would encompass nuclear bombs or stinger missiles, then I would have to say that they do. That doesn't mean that I would feel comfortable with it or that states could not in some way have some control. That statement is very slightly hypocritical, since I am normally against any gun laws, state or federal. On the other hand, as someone said in one of the abortion thread, bad cases make bad laws. You can take anything to an extreme case and proceed to pass any law you want on the basis that someone somewhere might do something. The chances are pretty good that people aren't going to do the above things, even if there was no law against it. Has the fact that these things are very illegal now really made the situation a lot harder for those who would do it? I am sure that terrorists who would set off a dirty bomb are shaking in their boots because it is against US law.

Do I understand you correctly that you think a law prohibiting an individual from owning a nuclear weapon would be unconstitutional?

Also, what do you mean by states having "some control"? What kind of "control" would be consistent with an unlimited right?

I said that if a nuclear weapon fell under the direct meaning of the term "arms", then yes. A federal law at least would be unconstitutional, but that is an if. I have looked up the definition of arms, but can't remember right off exactly what all it covers.

As for the state having some form of control, it isn't consistant. I said that I was being somewhat hypocritical, there. Frankly, I'm not really concerned with artillery level arms and above, except as a purely theoretical area. My area of interest is more anything that would be carried by an individual soldier during wartime. Since to the best of my knowledge, it isn't really normal for individual soldiers to carry nuclear bombs, it isn't something that I have put much thought into.

You've probably heard of a suitcase nuclear bomb. Actually, I'm not sure if they currently exist or not, but I think they do -- regardless, they are at least feasible now or will be at some point). So a guy could walk (or perhaps drive) around with a nuke. Same deal with the stinger missile (which could take down commercial aircraft, or Air Force One, among other things). What I hear you saying is that it may be (depending on the definition of "arms") that any law preventing an individual from owning and traveling within the U.S. with such weaponry could be unconstitutional, which would prevent federal, state, or local governements from maintaining such a law. If that's your view, well, at least it's consistent with a belief in an unlimited right. But I don't know if even the NRA would hold such a view.

As for states having some "control", I'm still unclear on what kind of "control" you mean, and what kind of "control" would not be inconsistent with an unlimited right.

You pretty much have it. I believe that a federal law at least would be unconstitutional if arms includes nuclear bombs. State and local governments might have a little leeway. The kind of control that I was talking about might be similar to the restrictions that currently exist on explosives like dynamite, although again they should be state and local ordinances, not federal. As I keep trying to tell you, the stance that some local control could exist isn't consistant with my stated beliefs and I know that it isn't.

No, the NRA would never go that far. The NRA is a great group and does a lot of good work, but they do compromise too often. Every once in a while, compromise is the only option, but sometimes you have to stand for something and die trying. Sometimes the NRA does that, but too often they go a little soft. Check out GOA and JPFO for some no-compromise Second Amendment groups. They are a little crazy sometimes, but they take the Second for what it means. If I had the money right now, I would belong to all three groups.

Why don't you consider state restrictions on dynamite unconstitutional? What if an individual wants to drive around with a truck full of dynamite and a state law prohibits it, why would you consider such a restriction constitutional if the right to bear arms is unlimited?

I'm not familiar with GOA and JPFO, but what makes them, in your view "crazy sometimes"?

If somebody takes a strict reading of the constitution the second Ammendment might not apply to the states at all. It would only apply via the Fourteenth Ammendment. It could be considered a privilege or immunity, as some conservatives consider the P&I clause to incorporate the bill of rights. Or it could be applied under the Due Process clause which is the clause that is now used to incorporate parts of the bill of rights. The supreme court couldn't decide on how the Fourteenth Ammendment should be interpreted even four years after it was written, so it isn't as simple as one might think.

You seem better versed in this matter than I am, but are you saying that a state law could be seen by the U.S. Supreme Court as a violation of the Second Amendment (or the First or whichever) and yet still would be permissible based on some aspect of the 14th Amendment. I'll have to read the 14th to see what you mean, but does it somehow supercede and limit the application of other parts of the Constitution to the states?

The Bill of rights didn't originally apply to the states. For example the first Ammendment starts out "Congress shall make no law" thus it only applied to the federal government. Some believe that those who wrote the Fourteenth Ammendment intended for it to extend the Bill of Rights to the states. So you got it backwards, the Fourteenth Ammendment doesn't limit the application but rather extends it. Without the 14th there would be no plausible for reason for the court to strike down any state gun regulation.

Here is a great site to research: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/home.html You can look up all kinds of stuff on here, for the current discussion you would want to scroll down and click on " The Incorporation Debate". This site has a little bit of a liberal bias, ( what do you expect from a university site) but overall it is pretty helpful. Contact me if you have any questions, as I have researched this quite a bit. Maybe you'll learn to enjoy this kind of thing like I do.

Thanks for the info and link! I'll check it out. Re: "So you got it backwards, the Fourteenth Ammendment doesn't limit the application but rather extends it." That's what I would have thought. The reason I though you might have been suggesting otherwise is because Tcgeol may have been suggesting (I'm not sure) that a state could maintain restrictions that would violate the Second Amendment, which seemed odd to me since I assumed that the Bill of Rights superceded state laws when one of the former is violated. I assume from what you are saying that my understanding is correct, that if a state law is held by the U.S. Supreme Court to be a violation of the rights guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution (say the 2nd Amendment), then that is the final word -- the law must go. Is this correct?

Cool site! Thanks again. I put it on my "Favorites" list. I'm sure I'll refer to it often. Have to admit, I went straight to "Bill of Rights Golf"! (missed a few, but got the questions on Miller right, by the way)

I better not thread - jack any further. If you have any questions I think you can hit the contact and send me an email.

You are not set up to receive emails.

well since this seems to be a dead post I will go ahead and respond, and if someone has a problem they can say so.
You said that you thought the Bill of Rights would supercede state law, but it doesn't neccesarilly. The Bill of Rights in and of itself only applies to the Federal Government, but the Fourteenth Ammendment is directed at the states. The Fourteenth Ammendment says:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Therefore if a violation of the Bill of Rights is found to adbridge privileges or Immunities it could be considered unconstitutional. If the Court decided to do this we would say that the Bill of Rights is incorporated against the states via the Privileges and Immunities Clause. However doing this is only theoretical, the court has never used the Privileges and Immunities clause to incorporate the Bill of Rights.

The court has incorporated parts of the Bill of Rights via the Due process clause. The logic for is is much the same as that for incorporating via Privileges and Immunities. The logic is that the liberty of a Bill of Rights is violated by a law without Due process. This is called Substantive Due Process, because it is not based on the process being unfair but the actual substance. Conservatives often argue that Substantive Due Process is an oxy-moron since the Due Process implies that your liberty can be taken away with due process. Therefore conservative propose that our liberties should be protected by the Privileges and Immunities clause instead of the Due process claues.

Now as far as the second Ammendment I don't think the court has ever ruled on whether it is incorporated. Hopefully this helps a little.

I'm going to have to re-read that a couple of times to digest it, but is the bottom line that if the U.S. Supreme Courte rules that a state law violates some right guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, that state law has to go (which was my understanding) or is it not that simple?

Oh, and if YOU email ME, I can email you back. I'm set up to receive emails via "Contact"

I sent a response in the E-mail.

I don't know exactly when you posted that comment, but remember to check Mitt's positions frequently for updates!

I haven't endorsed Kucinich yet, and I doubt that I ever will. ;)

Hey, don't sell Kucinich...short. Check out my post on "The Case for Kucinich"
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/brooksrob/2007/may/06/the_case_for_kucinic...

In fact I read it when you first posted it.

ok, believe me, ok.

Remember, I'm the guy who got Flip the Dolphin to give us his best impression of a cetaecean Mötley Crüe fan during the St. Anselm debate. The sad thing about Flip is that he doesn't have any boobs to flash, and it's kinda sad he hasn't wound up in anyone's tuna net yet.

LOL re: photo. Flip is a great concept. More power to him!

You mean he changed his position already? ::grin::

Donate to Fred Thompson's Campaign right here...you know you want to!

Just so no one misses the flips-to-be, here is the calendar for the next several months:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2007/03/20/what_...

ok, just for kicks, I spent a half hour and compiled this quick & dirty reading/viewing/listening list on Romney's flippery. It's by no means exhaustive, but it's worth checking out if you're not already familiar with the man's capacity for "flexibility". Enjoy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9IJUkYUbvI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_w9pquznG4&mode=related&search=

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/25/AR200705...

http://www.eyeon08.com/2007/01/05/efm-tries-to-cover-another-romney-flip...

http://www.eyeon08.com/2007/05/30/border-security-group-attacks-romney-f...

http://realitycheck08.org/2007/06/08/romney-distances-himself-from-his-m...

http://realitycheck08.org/2007/05/01/new-york-times-assails-gop-candidat...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDVKWBVk6xA

http://realitycheck08.org/2007/04/18/romneys-evolution-or-confusion-on-a...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/18/AR200702...

1994 letter to Log Cabin Republicans advocating gays serving openly in the military: http://online.logcabin.org/assets/pdf/romneylettertomalogcabin1994.pdf

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/04...

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/12/17/romne...

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?articleId=d7ff188e-e0d4-4d74-a40...

And just to copy the links from my previous comments in this thread so all the links are in one convenient place:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZWExN2NkNjdkNDYxNDM1MGUxNzE2YzU...

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/romneys-about-face-on-campaign-fundi...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktH1FpNqlOc

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=19672

A bunch of quotes and quips taken out of context and juxtaposed in the most unfavorable light.

I have seen the videos numerous times, traced the history, read a variety of viewpoints, and (gasp!) listened to the statements and read the numerous pieces / opeds from the actual candidate.

By the way, James Bopp rebuked the Politico piece for quoting him out of context. I'm pretty sure he would have dropped Romney like a hot potato long ago if he really had doubts about Romney on abortion. Yet he remains firmly in the Romney camp, which brings us back to credibility, something your hit piece parroting deeply lacks.

Well I guess it's just very convenient for you that the entire MSM and conservative media have gotten your guy completely wrong, so any quotes they present that show Romney's blatant flips must be assumed to be misleading. I guess that's one way to maintain a state of denial or to maintain doubt in the minds of others. I think the quotes, the video, the audio, and the pdf of Romney's letter to the Log Cabin Republicans all speak for themselves. But then again, I'm not clued in to the vast journalistic conspiracy among the MSM and conservative media to fabricate Romney's past positions.

I didn't expect to convince you of anything. I listed those links for anyone who may not have been following the reporting and commentary on the Romney campaign or done any research on his many flips. They can start with my list and I'm sure find much more.

see below (forgot to use Reply)

Soren Dayton from eyeon2008? Last time I checked he was a vociferous McCain shill. Hardly representative of the entire conservative media.

UnionLeader . . . no comment necessary, the name speaks for itself.

Boston Globe, Washington Post. Fair and Balanced . . . oh, wait . . .

That leaves some weak sauce hits on NRO and the Corner about some donations to personal friends in 1992. I'll take that.

With regard to your late responses, you rack up points for your dutiful shilling efforts, but lose them all due to bad form.

Have a nice night.

Try again. First, I said the conservative media AND the MSM.

As for EyeOn08.com, I don't know much about Soren Dayton, but I certainly won't take your word for it that he's "a vociferous McCain shill" (your objectivity is suspect, to say the least). I did see a couple of items that don't fit with that characterization. On April 2, commenting on the first quarter fundraising: "John McCain got $12.5m. Not so good… He is expected to have a high burn rate. What’s the COH? Read the statement for a little self-flagellation. All in all, Mitt Romney won the day." In June, as McCain was attacking Romney, Dayton was quoted as saying that McCain is just going to look like a “flip-flopping hypocrite” after all his complaining about the personal attacks of 2000. With "vociferous shills" like that, who needs enemies. But moreover, the quotes and other reporting in the EyeOn08 pieces are generally sourced to other, more established publications or other generally credible sources.

As for the New Hampshire Union Leader, what's your problem with it?? Editorially, it's a conservative paper. Learn a bit before saying something ignorant like "no comment necessary, the name speaks for itself" as an argument that a publication is not conservative: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Hampshire_Union_Leader

As for Boston Globe and WaPo, they are MSM.

Perhaps most importantly, it defies reason to think that all those clear statements in the quotes, the videos of the debates, the pdf of Romney's letter to the Log Cabin Republicans, the audio of Romney on immigration, etc., etc., are all somehow so out of context that they don't represent Romney's positions, and you offer no evidence to support that contention. You basically ask people to believe you rather than their own lyin' eyes.

As for your statement, "That leaves some weak sauce hits on NRO and the Corner about some donations to personal friends in 1992. I'll take that", are you kidding?? You either didn't read the NRO and the Human Events pieces or are deliberately misrepresenting what they said (to mislead others I presume, since you know I know what was really said in those pieces). So much for your command of the facts or ability/willingness to accurately represent them.

Regarding your characterization of my comments as "dutiful shilling efforts", well, you're putting the cart before the horse. I don't call Romney a shameless flipper because I dislike him, I dislike him because he's a shameless flipper. And I'm not devoted to a particular candidate for whom I would "shill". My current preferences are McCain and Giuliani (in that order) with Fred Thompson probably acceptable but a question mark at this point only because I haven't researched him sufficiently to know if he'll be my number 1, 2, or 3.

A shill, "pal" (to use your initial salutation to me), is you. You have either suspended any capacity for objectivity or you realize that Romney is a phony flipper but are, well, shilling for him. Good luck persuading the uninformed and the gullible.

Oh, and for anyone else interested in more substantiation of Romney's shameless flipping, here are a few more good links:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=11129

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Mitt_Romney

http://politicalgrind.com/2007/03/09/flip-romney/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/20/AR200612...

And this group has compiled quite a list (and even left some stuff out like his advocacy of gays serving openly in the military, his past statements re: immigration legislation and campaign finance reform, some of his gun control statements, etc.)
http://www.rightmarch.com/docs/RomneyDeception.pdf

That comment was intended for Bricklaven. (I've never forgotten to use Reply 3 times in one thread. I'm as forgetful on this thread as Romney is of his past positions.)