Redstate

In this race is someone who is going to tell them what they want to hear, and have the unassailable background to back it up. That means, as far as I can tell, Sam Brownback. Who doesn't stand a ghost of a chance of getting elected.

It's terrible when theory meets political reality, I know. It really hurts when people need to grow up and realize that politicans say and do things that come back to haunt them. It especially hurts to realize that someone might be moving in the right direction even after having made statements like this. But if the criteria for rejection is this video clip, the Conservatives can go home secure in their priniciples but completely unable to win the Presidency in my opinion. I really hope that helps you feel better when you're looking at President Hillary Clinton or President John McCain.

And don't tell me that McCain isn't hated on this website. I've been around long enough to know how much most of the Directors despise him. Is that the man you want to see in office?

I don't want McCain. I'd willingly devote my time, talent, and money to help Mitt Romney. I wouldn't for McCain.

But the fact is that Mitt has been all over the map on a host of issues. If he can go from being against the President's tax cuts and for abortion in 2002 to being against them in 2007, why can't he flip back in 2009, after he's in the White House?

My problem with Mitt is this -- if he has changed his position on so many core issues so recently (and in some cases, more than once), how do we know what we'd be getting when he gets elected.

Take a Rudy. He's anti-gun. He's pro-abortion. He's pro-gay. We all know he is. We all know he has been. He hasn't run from any of it. We know where he stands and we can vote accordingly.

The more we learn about Mitt, the more we learn about the multiple positions he has held on multiple issues.

I know the problems with his past statements are gigantic. I'd like to hear him answer some of these concerns again. And even again if necessary. I don't know what it will take to convince people that he's actually changed his mind and he means it. I think that's a kind of "walk of fire" that the Governor himself is going to have to traverse.

I'd like to see him do it because I think he's far and away our best candidate right now. And I know he has a lot of enemies both liberal and conservative. But I'm going to sound like a naif here and tell you that I would like to see a former pro-choice politican win the Presidency on a pro-life epiphany, and do it with our support. I realize that it will take a lot to convince people that he's sincere before that happens.

And with that, I'm done for today.

At least Romney has been dealing with the issue. He has a dramatic conversion story and everything. In that way he has done a lot to defuse this already.

AFAIK, McCain hasn't dealt with his flipflop on the same issue at all. I'm sure if someone mentioned it at a campaign appearance he'd probably blow up and tell them to shut their trap and "vote for the vegetarians" or something equally clever.

---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Newt Gingrich has as much chance of becoming President of the United States as Frodo has of growing a tenth finger. But that's just me.

Which is why as a non-candidate Newt is still only polling 7 points below Hillary (50 to 43)in Rasmussen's last head-to-head poll? Like I said in another thread, all you people that think Newt doesn't have much of a shot need to stop buying into the MSM's automatic dismissal of Newt as a viable candidate. Newt is clearly above Romney in electability, and that makes him the only conservative alternative to Giuliani and McCain. If Newt makes a splash in Septmember/October and gets some momentum, Rudy had better look out.

www.draftnewt.org

Nuff said. He'll never win, as I've said before, unless a nuclear weapon goes off somewhere in America.

And let me guess...you were there when it happened. This is one of the most common attacks against Newt and yet I have yet to see a credible source to verify that he literally divorced her out of nowhere in a hospital room without warning.

www.draftnewt.org
www.newt.org
www.americansolutions.com

But none of these people were, either. Does that make it untrue? I don't know. In the court of public opinion it is true. Among law professors I know it is true. And I can tell you that as surely as the sun rises tomorrow it will be true for Newt Gingrich's presidential campaign.

Could someone go back and retroactively refute all of those websites? Maybe. Perhaps Newt could convince people that all of this was just a bunch of evil gossip. But you're not going to convince anyone I know in academia who believes it. It's much too important a belief for them to let go of, even if it *isn't* true.

I like Newt Gingrich personally and I really admire him as a Conservative. I think he's probably the foremost thinker/motivator we have on the Republican side of the fence. But I'll start thinking that his liabilities aren't that egregious the day NPR interviews him and lets him explain them. Until that time, I don't think he has a snowball's chance in h*ll of winning the Presidency.

"I like Newt Gingrich personally and I really admire him as a Conservative. I think he's probably the foremost thinker/motivator we have on the Republican side of the fence."

Isn't that EXACTLY why you should support Newt? Romney isn't going to win anything unless he can overtake Newt. If you support Newt's ideas, then you should support him all the way until whoever gets the nom gets the nom. Newt won't get the nomination unless he can overcome his supposed baggage (which I will assert is no more than any other candidate). If he wins the primary, he can beat Hillary. If he loses the primary, then at the very least he will push Rudy, McCain, and Romney all to the right and will force them to actually put forth real ideas as opposed to 30 second slogans. This is win-win folks.

www.draftnewt.org
www.newt.org
www.americansolutions.com

Or actually, Newton Leroy McPherson, on Venus.

Has had a lot of very candid things to say about Newt Gingrich over the years, including this:

On the abortion issue: He initially sided up on the pro-abortion side, at least tentatively and then he encountered a radical feminist who backed him up against the wall and threatened him and so on and he said to me, 'If that is what they are about, then I'm with you.' And since that time he has had more or less consistent pro-life voting record.

...

And this

It matters when you look at what you replace the welfare state with. Because I don't buy, for example, a lot of the New Age kind of Third Wave Alvin Toffler nonsense that Newt is very much caught up in. I think his faith in technology, for example, is misplaced.

So that's Paul Weyrich of Heritage Foundation fame talking about Newt's eccentricities and assorted apostate positions.

Romney has baggage as well. Polls show something like 24+% of Americans would not vote for an otherwise qualified Mormon for president. Even if most of those people change their minds after a campaign, that's still millions of lost votes.

I have no problem with going over candidates with a fine-tooth comb. Vetting is an important part of the presidential primary process.

That said, Romney governed as a pro-life governor and today he says that he is pro-life. I think that what Shannon O'Brian said in that debate is very true - you have to look at how she governed. She first campaigned as a pro-life legislator, but she governed as a pro-choice legislator.

Same goes for Mitt. He governed as a pro-life, pro-family governor in a state where it wasn't popular. That is Mitt's track record. In contrast, Reagan governed like a pro-choice Republican governor, but then became dedicated to overturning Roe as president.

Mitt Romney's position was that he would not change the abortion laws of the state of Massachusetts, as governor. Massachusetts is a pro-choice state, so that means protecting pro-choice platforms from assault (which would not likely come from the overwhelmingly liberal legislature, but still...) and not pushing pro-life laws. It also means not making the commonwealth MORE pro-choice than it already was. He did this when he acted against embryonic stem cell research. In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, remaining in statis means protecting pro-choice laws and not pushing pro-life laws. The abortion law remained just as it was in Massachusetts from the time Mitt came into office to the time he left. And if he'd tried to do anything differently by pushing a pro-life agenda, still nothing would have happened.

And in reality, as governor, there's not a lot he could have done, anyway. It's called CHOOSING YOUR BATTLES. Why fight a battle likely to kill your chances, and even if you could theoretically win it anyway, there's not a lot of benefit because the impact you could have would be slight.

Now that he's running for an office where he could actually do something through the nomination of judges and justices, he is taking up the battle - and he's on the side of the good guys.

You know, most of the time, we complain about people "growing" in office or on the bench. And now, we have someone who appears to have actually "grown" in our direction, governed as a conservative, and we say, "thanks but no thanks."

While I understand the skepticism and the need for further vetting, I don't think it's wise in this case hold these statements against him too much when he has at least a moderately pro-life track record, robustly pro-life rhetoric, and no history of stabbing conservatives in the back like a certain other Republican presidential candidate.

When I realize that Hillary Clinton is in fact going to be the next POTUS. It's so obvious. It's so completely self-evident that I can't even begin to describe it. The Republicans and Conservatives are going to absolutely tear each other to pieces over past statements and Hillary is going to march right into the White House without getting a spot on her clothes. You guys are getting to be too smart for me.

I think that this debate about straight talk is really a debate about electability, not about "eating our own"...If these are the questions we're asking about Mitt right now, don't you think Hillary would use them against him? That's what the tests of the primaries are for.

It can go a long way to have unfavorable positions, but to be honest about them. Especially when the alternative is twisting in the wind and looking like an opportunist of the worst kind.

But who cares about Honesty in Politics? This President hasn't been "honest." Nobody on the Hill has really been "honest" when you come right down to it. I'm willing to make the Faustian bargain that the person who is more electable and who is willing to listen and move in my direction is the person that I want to see elected.

The past is the past. I couldn't care less about what Romney said during his run for the Governorship. I want to know what he thinks *now* and what he will do in *the future*.

Newt and Rudy should have clean slates in your mind as well?

If the past is the past then Newt has no problem and as long as Rudy tells us what he thinks now and what he'll do in the future, the field is wide open...

Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Senior writer for The Hinzsight Report

Yeah...Rudy has promised to be a socially liberal Republican president. I gave him a clean slate, and then I took him at his word. That's why I won't be voting for him in the primary.

No one has ever really quibbled with Newt's policy stands, so I don't see the need to really give him a clean slate. They just think that he is so well-known and unpopular, as opposed to Romney who, despite being a potential political rock star, is not well-known yet.

We haven't even gotten to the all-star break let alone opening day and these guys are already running like its Halloween.

My point was basically asking Alex if he feels that all of these candidates deserve to be evaluated by what they say now and what they will do in the future or just Romney.

Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Senior writer for The Hinzsight Report

That's what I think. I really do believe that our candidates should be talking more about the future than they do about the past. I'd be willing to listen to Rudy tell us why his past marriages didn't work out so well and why he thinks the 2nd Amendment is at least as important as the 1st if he chose to do so.

I would also defend Newt Gingrich if he chose to refute the allegations I talked about above, and did so convincingly.

I'd even listen to John McCain tell me why his past history isn't necessarily indicative of his future performance.

I'm willing to give all of these people a (relatively) clean slate for the benefit of our electoral chances. Of course I want to hear those explanations instead of having them avoid them. They're tough questions and each of our candidates should answer them. But none of these men has ever been killed and eaten for their past mistakes, and my guess is that none of them will be. I would like to hear them explain all of their past views but not in the manner of a forced confession. I want them to present themselves as they are, warts and all. I'm a big enough man to evaluate their true problems and try to understand them.

That the American people can't forgive. We're a generous and warm-spirited, gregarious bunch, generally. I would give all of these people a clean slate from which to work (unless real criminality was involved) if they all just decided to talk openly about their difficulties, instead of letting them show up like bombshells and concussion grenades. They have nothing to hide from me, and I have nothing to hide from them.

So down the road if they continue to avoid or duck these questions we can act accordingly.

Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Senior writer for The Hinzsight Report

Being wrong in America is no cardinal sin. Having walked down the wrong path for a time is not necessarily an indication that you'll always walk that way. We are the country of opportunity and second (and third) chances. But only if we can be sure people are accurately fessing up. Tell us the problems, work with us on them, and let's see where we go from there. I don't want big bombshells going off in July of 2008, and neither does anyone else. So let's cut the crap and get all this stuff out there right now, in my opinion.

That doesn't mean that we'll give people a free ride from here on out. But it at least will mean that we know what cards we've been dealt -- accurately.

Perhaps we need a “Coalition of the Chilling” for the Presidential Primary. Anyone up for forming one? Please email me at thorleywinston at yahoo dot com.

I'm not a South Park Republican, I'm a King of the Hill libertarian.

But apparently I must be the only one who thinks that Romney was honest then, and I think that he is being honest now. He promised to not change the abortion laws of the pro-choice Commonwealth of Massachusetts then. He didn't. Whether or not he was pro-choice in his heart, or just marketing his position in a way that convinced people he was pro-choice, I don't know.

He promises to be a pro-life president now. I think he will be.

I'm willing to make the Faustian bargain that the person who is more electable and who is willing to listen and move in my direction is the person that I want to see elected.

That's the problem--the majority of the electorate is NOT willing to make that bargain. Character counts! Thus, paradoxically, the person who flip flops to gain support, ultimately becomes less electable. This is precisely why Giuliani has such good favorable to unfavorable rating and Romney doesn't. As much as I disagree with Giuliani, at least I respect him for not pandering to me. As long as Romney is seen as Hillary-like politician willinig or do whatever is necessary for his own political ambitions, then he's not electable.

She knows what she said in front of CodePink back in 2003. And so does everyone in the Congress. Heck, if George W. Bush was being "honest" he would have taken the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group instead of insisting on the troop surge. This idea of "honesty" in politics is something that I don't think really computes. It never has. What you want, and what you hope for, is the person who is going to do what you'd prefer IN THE FUTURE.

Heck, if we dig into Rudy Giuliani's and John McCain's record we're going to find all sorts of evil-sounding "dishonesties". Sometimes the people here on RedState are asking for someone so pure that they don't exist. Unicorns don't exist, either, and neither does Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. But I can tell you that if any of the Donks currently at the front of the pack win, you'll be wishing that one of our "dishonest" Republican politicians did.

I appreciate Rudy's honesty, but in the end character and leadership qualities must be balanced against the direction they intend to lead us. I respect Rudy's leadership qualities, but I don't like the direction that he intends to lead us on very important social issues.

If one expedition is being led by a great leader, but he is going to lead them off the edge of a cliff, what good is that? I'd rather have a mediocre leader who leads an expedition towards the proverbial "land of milk and honey."

Also, I don't consider a politician who comes around the correct view to be an opportunist of the worst kind. I consider those who claim to disagree with a policy but don't want to make any opportunities, so they vote on non-binding resolutions in order to straddle the fence to be opportunists of the worst kind.

I fail to see how being honest about actively promoting the legalized killing of babies is a good thing. Unless it's being honest that you were once for it and now against it. The former is a sin, the latter is called repentance. I guess we love the sinner but call those who repent a flip-flopper?

www.mymanmitt.com

Or at least I hope not.

If you are going to withdraw support for a candidate because, even though he is pro-life now, he has past statements that indicate pro-choice stands, it would be absolutely terrible to go with the guy who says, "yup...I'm a social liberal, albeit I must apolgoize for being unapologetic about it."

I would find someone who did that to be rather revolting.

I presume that Erick was saying that he is uncomfortable that Romney is firm in his stand now, which I could understand, and is seeking out another candidate that he thinks is more bankable.

He has taken more positions on abortion and gay rights than the number of sexual positions documented in the Complete Illustrated Karma Sutra. He has no credibility and neither do you.

He has lots of credibility. I judge a man be his deeds. I've lived in Boston the last four years and watched him take the lead and fight gay marriage, fight illegal immigration and fight embryonic stem cell research. I dont need to listen to clips from 1994. May I ask what your guy has done on the above referenced issues?

By the way, when is Rudy going to flip-flop. I mean he still doesnt beleive this liberal crap. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVBtPIrEleM - Does he? I hope he flip flops. Otherwise, he is an unacceptable alernative. When will Rudy have the guts to step up and announce that he supports McCain Kennedy. McCain is wrong on the issues, but at least he has the courage to state his positions.

I would have to say that the answer is yes.

I'm not a South Park Republican, I'm a King of the Hill libertarian.

It's what Democrats want to hear about their candidates who are running for president - about their pro-war votes.

And it's what I want to hear from Mitt Romney about his pro-choice statements. He has said he was wrong, and I believe him.

Romney should run on his record. It's a good record to run on that is consistant with what his present position is.

I think that it is no small thing that when Romney was forced to govern, he governed pro-life and pro-family.

.

When I think of a Rudy or McCain administration I think of token Democrats in the Cabinet and Souters on the bench in an effort to get pats on the back from the MSM.

Rudy is peaking now. He will not increase significantly and then he will crash and burn in the GOP primary, is my feeling. Right now 58% of Republicans still think that he's pro-life. When they find out that he's not, they will look for someone else. When they find out that he is supportive of same sex civil unions, they will run to someone else.

I think they will run to Romney before they run to McCain.

Romney has always opposed gay marriage. The only "flip-flop" in question is on abortion.