Batgirl's political thoughts

[BigFatMeanie]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Time Magazine listed quite a few:

Those close to Romney doubt he was ever as committedly pro-choice as those comments might have made him seem. More likely, this school of thought argues, Romney figured abortion restrictions were not apt to come to the Governor's desk in a state as liberal as Massachusetts. Says longtime friend Joel Peterson, founder of a Salt Lake City equity firm: "He knew that they would never come up for a vote, so he took it off the table. Does that sound politically expedient? Maybe."

Now that he is in a presidential-primary battle in which Evangelicals account for a quarter of the electorate, however, Romney says the landmark Supreme Court decision on abortion, Roe v. Wade, has "cheapened the value of human life." And that's not the only place where he seems to have retrofitted his views to the tastes of the voters he is trying to win. Whereas Romney dedicated himself in Massachusetts to "full equality for America's gay and lesbian citizens," he now describes himself as "a champion of traditional marriage." As a candidate for Governor in a state known as Taxachusetts, Romney dismissed the idea of an antitax pledge as a gimmick and refused to sign it; as a G.O.P. presidential contender, he was the first in the 2008 field to put his name on one.

In Massachusetts he bucked the National Rifle Association by supporting the Brady Bill and an assault-weapons ban, boasting, "I don't line up with the N.R.A." Lately what he brags about is that he joined the gun-rights organization as a life member--last August. Romney has been so eager to prove his Second Amendment bona fides that he boasted in New Hampshire, "I've been a hunter pretty much all my life." But then his campaign admitted he had actually hunted only twice, once as a teenager and then last year, on a trip with G.O.P. donors. That was followed by still more clarification: Romney insisted he has hunted small animals for many years, though he does not actually own a firearm. "Leave it to Mitt Romney to shoot himself in the foot with a gun he doesn't own," wrote Boston Globe columnist Joan Vennochi.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...9536-2,00.html

After a bit of quick googling, here is how I would score it:

• Abortion - I think he flipped
• Gay rights - I think he flipped
• Taxes - I don't see a flip here. He stated in 2002 that he was against raising taxes but didn't want to be bound by the pledge (I don't blame him as Massachusets was in dire financial straits at that time). While signing the pledge now is certainly political grandstanding, I don't believe it rises to the level of a flip. In other words, he hasn't changed his core position on taxes - he's just engaging in political posturing.
• Guns - Not a flip. I don't think he's ever changed his position on guns. He may be trying to portray himself now as more of a gun-lover than he has been in the past but it's not as if he previously stated he was "anti-gun" and is now trying to change his position to "pro-gun". Many gun lovers also don't line up with the NRA on various things so that specific statement doesn't mean a lot. I see this as a case of political puffery/aggrandizement/posturing but not a flip in position.

In summary: Two legitimate flips (that's one more than I had originally credited to him) and two cases of political posturing that a partisan Times attempts to construe as a flip. I will concede that he is more flip-floppy than I originally thought but he doesn't yet meet BigFatMeanie's Official Level of Flip-Floppiness to be labeled a bona-fide Flip-Flopper. If you can come up with one or two more legitimate examples of flips then I will be ready to concede that he is indeed a Flip-Flopper.

As a side note, some interesting questions to consider are:

• What is the difference between changing one's mind when presented with evidence and being a flip-flopper?
• How much flip-flopping is necessary to be considered a bona-fide Flip-Flopper? A single flip? Two flips? 3 or more?
• Is a flip necessarily a bad thing? If so, does the timing of a flip or the nature of the particular issue make some flips worse than others? (I think so)

Obviously there will never be agreed upon answers to these questions but they are interesting to consider nonetheless.

My personal take on Mitt:

He may likely be a flip-flopper on social issues (I'm not conceding that yet); however, I am not a social issues voter. I'm a greedy capitalist pig and thus I vote mainly based on economics. That is why Obama and Clinton are complete non-starters for me - both are Socialists. Mitt is a hell of an executive and definitely a capitalist so I like him for that. Also, I happened to grow up next door to Romney's National Campaign Finance Director (Darren Zwick) so I have a slight personal tie to the Romney campaign. I won't be heartbroken if Romney doesn't win the primary but I'm pretty sure that no matter who wins the Republican primary will get my vote in the national election when the only alternative is a Socialist. (For better or worse, Libertarians, Independents, and all the other wannabes out there just aren't viable alternatives)

[Archaea]

In looking at another form of analysis, what is wrong with flipping?

Isn't the question whether a president will be an effective executive and an effective administrator?

Don't several of the candidates have proof they might be able to do that?

This is the main problem, with Senators, they have voting records but no record of executive leadership.

Conversely, the two main Republican candidates, Romney and Giuliani have both served in executive positions, and demonstrated some levels of success in executive capacities.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by BigFatMeanie

I didn't spend a ton of time on the site you linked but in the time I did spend, I couldn't find one issue that Romney has changed his position on other than abortion. I personally think the whole "flip-flopper" label is something that the media has tagged him with and is desperate to perpetuate. Your comment from yesterday about his frequent position changes shows that you have bought the media's myth to some degree.

I'm sorry to disagree, BFM. And frankly, I'm a little insulted. If you research the matter, and trust me, I've spent wayyyyyyy too much time reading about this stuff, it becomes really clear that Mitt redefines his positions for the constituency to which he is advertising. To argue otherwise is absurd.

Let me reiterate: this is his right and perhaps that's what successful politicians do, but there's no point in denying it.

Mitt has reversed positions on
~abortion
~civil unions
~gun control
~campaign finance reform
~the Bush tax cut
~immigration legislation
~the Department of Education (he once suggested abolishing it on states rights grounds, now he says he's a "huge supporter" of No Child Left Behind.)

[Insensitive PAP]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Honestly the consensus on Battlefield Earth is that it's pulp trash. Poorly written windbaggery. Google Romney and Battlefield Earth and you can read some lines culled form the novel that are hilarious they're so bad. Your friend is probably a Scientologist. I've not read Battlefield Earth myself, but I have read a few reviews, all poking fun of it.

My take on this is that Mitt may be a budding billionaire and a genius, but he aint much of a reader.

good reviews has a lot to do with the book being well written, and I doubt L. Ron Hubbard is John Steinbeck.

I did google the results though and the first to come up was for randomhouse and Battlefield was ranked #3 by readers, but maybe readers aren't much of readers.

http://www.randomhouse.com/modernlib...estnovels.html

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by Archaea

In looking at another form of analysis, what is wrong with flipping?

Isn't the question whether a president will be an effective executive and an effective administrative?

This is salient.

I do not deny Mitt his right to flip. Or to flop. you can make a strong argument that that's just what successful politicians have to do. And all the candidates have done so to one extent or another.

[MikeWaters]

If Romney flipped and adopted a morally tenable position on Torture, then maybe I could support him.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Insensitive PAP

good reviews has a lot to do with the book being well written, and my guess is that L. Ron Hubbard isn't John Steinbeck.

I did google the results though and the first to come up was for randomhouse and Battlefield was ranked #3 by readers, but maybe readers aren't much of readers.

http://www.randomhouse.com/modernlib...estnovels.html

It's Scientologists stuffing the ballot box. There was a big scandal about the cult buying the book by the box car to keep it on top of the NY Times best seller list.

Here's a funny article about this issue:

http://www.slate.com/id/2165373/

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

If Romney flipped and adopted a morally tenable position on Torture, then maybe I could support him.

He will have to retract that statement. What I find terrifying is that the comment was met with overwhelming cheers and applause from the audience.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

This is salient.

I do not deny Mitt his right to flip. Or to flop. you can make a strong argument that that's just what successful politicians have to do. And all the candidates have done so to one extent or another.

I'll be one of many to admit, when I'm reviewing the arguments and debates I often listen to accusations of inconsistency, but after too many decades of looking at it, I'm flipping.

Maybe flipping isn't bad, as it's merely a politician giving his populace what they want. Is that such a bad thing?

In Guiliani and Romney, both seemed to have cleaned up messes under their administrations. Those may be the most salient points of leadership, both under adverse conditions.

What have any of the Senators done? The may co-sponsor some legislation but have not really even acted in senior leadership positions in the Senate. Other than a popularity contest, what have they achieved? Not much.

The times the Dems have won, they did so with former Governors.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

If Romney flipped and adopted a morally tenable position on Torture, then maybe I could support him.

Other than doubling Gitmo, which seemed to more of a passing comment, where has Mitt expressed an opinion on torture. And why do you make that a litmus test when it doesn't affect your pocket book?

Do you really believe that's going to be a central issue of the next president's presidency? I don't.

I see the next president extricating us from Iraq and getting out of the nation building business.