Medicated on December 18, 2007 at 10:01 PM

Great comments, and thanks for the link to the Robert Gay story.

I don’t buy into this whole “flip-flopper” argument, and I don’t think his record as Governor demonstrates any reason to doubt his sincerity. Perhaps someone can provide me with an official definition of the term “Flip-Flop.”

Medicated on December 18, 2007 at 6:10 PM

Start with this video and tell me what you disagree with:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNbGNHaNFtw

It has a timeline with many flops. I don’t think he honored his promise to Mass voters. Of course I could be wrong and the video could be dishonest. You tell me.

2 events in his life cause him to flop 2 different ways at convenient times on an important issue and promises. The stem cell one is flat out disputed by the scientist and sounds fishy anyway.

And Mitt’s position on states making their own choices vs. other options is confusing. Where exactly does he stand now. Or am I wrong on this also.

The budget, the uninsured, the big dig? The Olympics?

Medicated on December 18, 2007 at 10:01 PM

I don’t think mentioning Romneycare is going to strengthen your case.

In all honesty, do you really think Mitt would have stood up to the public opinion polls and the hostile Congress or do you think he would have started pulling us out? A man without solid principles prone to flip flops would have lost the war in Iraq.

tommylotto on December 18, 2007 at 7:10 PM

I most certainly do, but let me get this straight:
You’ve now tied Mitt’s devotion to success in Iraq as being directly related to his former public stance on abortion. You’ve also insinuated that, because of his change in position on abortion, he lacks the principles to take on challenges in the face of negative support. Forgive me for my inability to draw the same conclusion, but so long as you think that qualities transfer so well to other issues with Governor Romney, let me remind you of some other challenges. Like those faced when he set out to find Robert Gay’s missing daughter, or those faced with dozens of mismanaged companies on the brink of bankruptcy. Or you might consider the types of challenges a Republican governor would face getting elected in a staunchly blue state, then finding a way to stay conservative, and cut spending while working with an overwhelmingly blue legislature. The budget, the uninsured, the big dig? The Olympics? Those all mean nothing to you when it comes to assessing his level of commitment in a challenge? Once again, forgive me for my inability to connect the dots as easy as you were able to, but I don’t see the Iraq connection.

I do not care if he gave $150 to PP. I do care however that he is a tax cheat and made millions of dollars helping others avoid taxes by setting up sham Cayman Island companies. Low taxes are great. Tax cuts are great. But when taxes are owed they should be paid, not avoided by off shore schemes — particularly by those running for President.

tommylotto on December 18, 2007 at 2:04 PM

And on your tax shelter propaganda: Until you show me something demonstrably illegal, I will always come down on the side of free markets and business. I don’t criticize H&R block for finding ways to reduce your tax burden, but that’s not what this is about anyways. If the untaxed monies in question are for the sole purpose of injecting capital into a struggling American business (and ultimately, the American economy), I can say with even more certainty that I have absolutely no problem with it. This is not some criminal act, it’s a totally legal incentive that helped (and continues to) save struggling American companies.

if he is truly a “born-again” conservative, let him prove it by works, not just words.

right2bright on December 18, 2007 at 7:06 PM

Have you fashioned a cross for him to tie himself to yet? Better get cracking!

Would it be more accurate to say that it’s not a flip-flop, and that you just don’t believe he ever truly “flipped” in the first place? You either don’t believe his conversion, or you do and you’re concerned he’d revert to circa.94 Mitt….
Instead, we’re angrier at the guys that became more conservative as time went on, as if that’s a bad thing (or we just claim that it’s not genuine).
I have no way of knowing for certain if Mitt’s conversion was genuine…
All it took was one single moment in front of a sonogram (of my niece) to instantly change my mind; something that I’m sure has happened for a countless number of happy parents that once might have considered abortion as an option….
Maybe I’m giving Mitt too much credit. Maybe he is just pandering…
That being said, your point is well taken. I realize that for those of you that don’t believe a genuine conversion is possible, there’s no changing your minds on Mitt.
Medicated on December 18, 2007 at 6:10 PM

You are hitting around the edges of the problem. Mitt has no political principal other than a desire to get elected. His flips and flops were all at politically convenient times. When he wanted to be Mass’s governor he had a pro-choice epiphany allegedly due to the death of a close relative during an illegal abortion. Then months before deciding to run for POTUS as a Republican he has another epiphany. But he wasn’t looking at sonograms like you — he was studying stem cell research. That excuse is just lame. You seem to have faith that he will not flip flop back again. Maybe you are right. Maybe not. However, you must realize that you are voting for a man without solid principles that is likely to blow where ever the political winds might take him. Bush has his faults. But he has a stubborn streak in him. He kept us in Iraq and gave us a chance for victory. In all honesty, do you really think Mitt would have stood up to the public opinion polls and the hostile Congress or do you think he would have started pulling us out? A man without solid principles prone to flip flops would have lost the war in Iraq.

Medicated on December 18, 2007 at 6:10 PM

Many of us consider flip-flopping not just changing your mind or understanding an issue from a different point and maturing. It gets down to timing…changing your course when it benefits you the most in obtaining votes or support, regardless of what you really feel (an opportunist, some would say). Many conservatives were liberal in their youth and morphed into conservatives. With someone like Mitt the transformation began at the onslaught of running for President. His “transformation” has taken place in the past 18 months or so.
My stand is the same as it has always been with Mitt…if he is truly a “born-again” conservative, let him prove it by works, not just words. Wait four years, let him live his life as a new conservative, and see if he stays the path. In the interim, give him a cabinet position where he can express his new found love of being a conservative. He has a lot of explaining to do, almost every major issue he has changed his position on recently.

Buy Danish, in vogue with a liberal ignorance you would categorize rational criticism as bigotry. Don’t stretch the truth in order to prove your virtuous motivation that lacks relevance.

maverick muse on December 18, 2007 at 6:40 PM

GFY, mm. I said nothing about bigotry. If however, you are anything like right2bright, you would categorize a statement such as “Jefferson had slaves” to mean that I endorse it.

Buy Danish @ 2:58 I don’t follow this thinking; it seems like an awfully rigid position. One could also hold it against a candidate if he consorts with anyone who received fertility treatments, or is involved with running a fertility clinic, because of the steps involved to produce a child in this manner. Besides, I share hors d’oeuvres with liberals all the time. That is in no way an endorsement of their positions on issues.
@ 3:42 I believe it is a huge stretch to say that his attendance at that event means that we now have to make a leap and conclude that he was untruthful when he said that he personally opposed abortion.

Rationalization. None the less:

Romney was supporting their FUNDRAISER =
a political ENDORSEMENT of their positions on issues. maverick muse on December 18, 2007 at 3:09 PM

Mitt Romney did not merely support Planned Parenthood’s reason for existence. Mitt planted his political butt at their fund raiser as his endorsement of their positions, specifically–according to Mitt’s interview w/ Russert NBC–on abortion.

Buy Danish, in vogue with a liberal ignorance you would categorize rational criticism as bigotry. Don’t stretch the truth in order to prove your virtuous motivation that lacks relevance.

Would it be more accurate to say that it’s not a flip-flop, and that you just don’t believe he ever truly “flipped” in the first place? You either don’t believe his conversion, or you do and you’re concerned he’d revert to circa.94 Mitt. If it’s neither then I’m afraid to say that we’re facing our second pre-emptive war… the one on flip-flops. We’re holding candidates accountable for flip-flops that haven’t even occurred. Why? Is it because we don’t think that any true conversion could be possible, at any time, throughout the half-century plus that each candidate has lived)? Fred’s lobbying clearly indicates his preference to appoint Planned Parenthood’s CEO to the Supreme Court. Mitt’s 15 year old you-tubes and hors d’oeuvres indicate that he shares Fred’s dream. Of course, McCain didn’t flip-flop or abandon conservatism ever; he was just being a “maverick.” Then there’s Rudy… he’s not called a flip-flopper because he was never that conservative to begin with… right? Evangelicals will endorse that undercover liberal over other viable candidates… but that’s not hypocrisy, right? Instead, we’re angrier at the guys that became more conservative as time went on, as if that’s a bad thing (or we just claim that it’s not genuine).

I have no way of knowing for certain if Mitt’s conversion was genuine, but I do know that personally, I spent the majority of my youth as a catholic-conservative that didn’t care at all about abortion. Even during a pregnancy scare, the option remained on the table. All it took was one single moment in front of a sonogram (of my niece) to instantly change my mind; something that I’m sure has happened for a countless number of happy parents that once might have considered abortion as an option. One moment and a lifetime of callous disregard took a total u-turn. When it comes down to business, it cannot be a negative trait for Mitt or any other to support life. Maybe I’m giving Mitt too much credit. Maybe he is just pandering, but if pandering equates to supporting life in every decision as governor of ultra-blue Massachusetts, I’m not going to be all that worried. Some of you continually throw out this garbage about Mitt allowing $50 abortions. It’s a total crock, the Supreme Court of Massachusetts allowed it, and Mitt has made no secret of his disdain for activist judges. Lets also not forget the hundreds of politicians working against the interests of the pro-life movement in the Massachusetts Government. Looking at his record, I have absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe that, after he is elected, Mitt would suddenly start getting cozy with Harry and Nancypants. I certainly have no reason to believe that he’d appoint activist judges to the courts.

That being said, your point is well taken. I realize that for those of you that don’t believe a genuine conversion is possible, there’s no changing your minds on Mitt. That likely means you’ve spent a lifetime on the right side of life issues, so I’m certain the sincerity behind Mitt’s words are vital to making you trust him. Because of my own conversion, I have no trouble believing Mitt. I’m certainly anxious to see how it plays out

WasatchMan on December 18, 2007 at 3:52 PM

Good link.

What I don’t like is seeing an already disorganized and divided party squabble over petty things like this.

Medicated on December 18, 2007 at 2:25 PM

“This” only refreshed an issue that was never settled. To some votors the abortion issue or Mitt “going where the wind blows” is important for many reasons. If most everyone here wants to sweep it under the rug, that’s fine but it will still be a reason that many will not vote for him.

It seems like you (and many here) think it won’t be a major issue (or even brought up?) a few months down the road when it really counts. Maybe, but I’d still be interested in statistics on how many voters would turn on him when they are better informed of his pro-choice flip-floppage and weak past/present explanations.

http://killbuckcreekpolitics.wordpress.com/2007/12/16/glenn-beck-meets-huck-face-to-face-mormon-hating-evangelicals-are-a-cult-and-how-this-relates-to-muslims-and-terrorism/

maverick muse on December 18, 2007 at 3:09 PM

I believe it is a huge stretch to say that his attendance at that event means that we now have to make a leap and conclude that he was untruthful when he said that he personally opposed abortion.

And if we’re going to be purists on the abortion issue, then we should also be up in arms about fertility clinics.

tommylotto on December 18, 2007 at 3:08 PM

The funny thing is that off shore tax havens don’t bother me in the least. I would be a hypocrite if I said they did. I have a feeling that a lot of Republicans have them.

Allahpundit on December 18, 2007 at 2:40 PM

Umm, no. I was so fired up I had to comment on that right away. Mea culpa.

Romney was supporting their FUNDRAISER = a political endorsement of their positions on issues.

ZOMG! Tommylotto turns on Mitt. What happened? Did his check bounce?

Bill C on December 18, 2007 at 2:14 PM

I’ve never been in Mitt’s pocket. I’ve just been holding my fire until recently. There are certain things that should just disqualify a person from the Presidency, and I’m not talking about silly stuff like appearing in drag, I’m talking about giving legal advice to terrorists or establishing sham off shore companies to cheat on taxes. These are offenses too great — regardless of their current stated position, amount of hair or where they are from — to overlook in my book.

While supportive of abortion rights, he claims he personally opposed the practice even at the time. It’s hard to take that seriously after seeing him share hors d’oeuvres with providers.

Bryan,

I don’t follow this thinking; it seems like an awfully rigid position. One could also hold it against a candidate if he consorts with anyone who received fertility treatments, or is involved with running a fertility clinic, because of the steps involved to produce a child in this manner.

Besides, I share hors d’oeuvres with liberals all the time. That is in no way an endorsement of their positions on issues.

Anyhoo, I’m importing my comment over from the headlines which didn’t make it here :-)

It’s never the action, it is the cover up.

Bill C on December 18, 2007 at 1:50 PM

Surely you jest! That statement is comical.

Buy Danish on December 18, 2007 at 2:05 PM