The difference between change and flip-flopping concerning Romney.......
By romney08 Posted in 2008 — Comments (9) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Acknowledging that Mitt Romney has changed most, if not all of his social political views, I still feel that it is fallacious and inaccurate to classify him as a flip-flopper.
This will start with the presupposition that political flip-flopping is defined by the actions of Senator Kerry in 2004. If the term was as well known before that, it is beyond me, and please correct me if it is more applicable to Romney.
John Kerry had countless different positions on Iraq, the most important issue of the campaign, that would shift and evolve by the week and by whatever news came out. No one could definitively state what Kerry planned to do in Iraq up to election day.
For the war, against it, for the surge, against it, for the funding, against the funding, against dialogue with Iran, for that dialogue etc.
Romney on the hand, has indeed shifted on social issues, but his shifts have all been in the same direction. Beyond that, his governing as a conservative gives credibility to his explanation of growing wiser over time and with experience.
If Romney were to shift his views on abortion multiple times during the campaign, that would indeed make him a flip-flopper in the mold of Kerry, or as Brownback's supporters say, "Another flip-flopping Liberal from Mass".
Until I see that, I'm comfortable supporting him. Do I believe that his conversion is as legitmate and genuine as he claims? The skeptic in me tells me no, it is far too convenient. But the pragmatic side of me tells me he simply couldn't go back to being socially liberal once elected. It would be political suicide. A presidency is a team: the Chief Executive surrounds himself with many influential people, and all the significant advisors to Romney have been very conservative thus far.
Most importantly, whether we agree that Romney is the best candidate to carry the GOP mantle or not, I think we should be cautious in scaring away converts to conservatism. This is not to say that those questioning Romney's authenticity are doing so maliciously or should refrain from doing do, but it would be a small-tent party indeed if we forbid former liberals from entering.
Just my two cents.
His emphasis on issues related to homosexuality has certainly changed. I do not think that he would currently consider himself "to the left of Ted Kennedy" on Gay rights like he did in 1994. But point taken, I'm not sure how that would be applicable to specific policy changes.
Romney was for gay civil rights in 1994. Back then, civil rights for gays did not include same sex marriage. It was barely a glimmer on the horizon. What the gays were after was equal opportunity in employment, housing, etc. Romney made the argument in 1994 that he could better serve the gay community than Kennedy because Kennedy was an extreme liberal and thus was marginallized. Romney could work with more people and get more done for them.
That was certainly a valid arguement, you must admit. It is only "more liberal" than Kennedy if you argue that working for all people to obtain basic civil rights is a purely 'lefty' stance.
I have seen a quote from back then where someone did ask him about same-sex marriage. He was against it. I cannot find the link unfortunately. Sorry.
Flash forward 12 years. Romney still holds the same position. He supports full civil rights for homosexuals but has worked tirelessly against same sex marriage.
So, no change.
And if anything, it shows consistency beyond the obvious, because the nature of the homosexual rights movement has moved so drastically forward that to be at the forefront of it then, but not now, is quite impressive.
He certainly isn't to the left of Ted Kennedy now on Gay Rights, but as you stated, he hasn't changed, the movement has.
[...I am not saying that I cannot be fooled. I am simply saying that I have been seeing the most obvious ploys for, well, years now: so when you do something this amateurish I take it as a personal insult. At least try.
[Somewhere the heck else, and take your anti-Mormon bigotry with you. - Moe Lane]
McCain - Taxes - 2001 - opposed Bush Tax Cuts, Now supports their extension,
Guns - 1994 opposed assault weapons ban, high NRA rating, 1999 says supports assault weapons ban and numerous other gun regulations, etc.
Roe v. Wade - 1999 says opposes overturning would lead to illegal back alley abortions, 2007 - says should be overturned,
McCain and Judges - says now wants Strict Constructionists on the Bench - 2005 enables opposition party to filibuster these same Judges in 'Gang of 14 Deal', etc.
Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson - 2000 - Calls them "agents of intolerance", today is actively courting their support.
How about Rudy?
Rudy who talks about himself as the great welfare reformer - actively spoke out against the Federal 1996 Welfare Reform Act.
Guns - Now says he believes in the second amendment and your right to own a gun. In 2000, files a lawsuit against the gun industry that if successful, would lead to the bankruptcy of gun manufacturers and limit your ability to obtain a firearm.
Abortion - recent change in position on Partial-Birth Abortion ... etc.
I am sure video could be brought up on all of this.
Thank god You-Tube was not around in 1980 or we would be talking about Ronald Reagan as that abortion-loving, tax-hiking governor of California (He did vote for tax increases as Governor of California and switched his position on abortion in 1975 - one year before challenging Gerald Ford for the nomination - look it up!)
In regard to Romney, I have to admit it was a nice touch for you to quote from the Democrat's hit piece on their website.
The two key issues that have some legitimacy here are obviously Mitt Romney's change in his abortion position and to a lesser extent gay rights (mostly this from 1994).
Conservatives may have different perspectives on his health plan (which was designed in concert w/ the conservative Heritage Foundation).
Also, the attacks on his fiscal record are awfully weak. This amounts to a few fee increases and some tax loopholes that were closed being called tax increases. By that standard, everyone that voted for the last Federal Budget is a tax-raiser.
The truth is that during Mitt Romney's tenure as governor the state budget grew only slightly over 3% a year, one of the slowest in the nation. He also implemented a voter approved tax cut and submitted budgets several times that included tax rate cuts.
Also, his record on judges has been covered fairly extensively before. Mitt had to get these nominees through a committee that had 8 Democrats and 1 Republican. None of these were higher than district level, with the criteria being that they be tough on crime. The governor did not get to appoint any judges to the supreme court, where his criteria would have been different.
Additionally, one can be heartened by the fact that he spent almost his entire term fighting the State Supreme Court in regard to their activist decision involving marriage. He definitely understands the problem with an activist judiciary.
One can disagree about who the best candidate is, but do we really have to start posting hit pieces put out by the Democrats?
Let's be honest, these people are all politicians and they all pander. These things need to be looked at from that perspective.
My above comments were directed at those.
Acknowledging that Mitt Romney has changed most, if not all of his social political views,
Romney has changed one that I am aware of, abortion and right-to-life. On everything else, he has been very consistent.
Gay Rights: Pro-civil rights, anti-same sex marriage.
Gun Rights: Pro-self defense, sporting, and hunting. Anti-assult weapon. The NRA gave him a 'B'.
Which other social political view do you think he has changed?
Other than that, a very good piece.