As a resident of MA, allow me to say this:

DUH!

So subby is saying that Mitt Romney is a typical American politician?

Tigger: Wendy's Chili: vernonFL: My favorite Romney quote is "I can't hire illegal aliens. I'm running for President for Pete's sake!"

"I like those fancy raincoats you got there. Really sprung for the big bucks."

This one is yet to be beaten for me

"One of most humorous I think relates to my father. You may remember my father, George Romney, was president of an automobile company called American Motors ... They had a factory in Michigan, and they had a factory in Kenosha, Wisconsin, and another one in Milwaukee, Wisconsin," said Romney. "And as the president of the company he decided to close the factory in Michigan and move all the production to Wisconsin. Now later he decided to run for governor of Michigan and so you can imagine that having closed the factory and moved all the production to Wisconsin was a very sensitive issue to him, for his campaign."

I just learned of this one yesterday:

"If I'm the godfather of [Obamacare], then it gives me the right to kill it."

very true smitty. what you left unsaid is that makes him exactly like obama. pandering before he gets in, then shoving shiat down everyone's throat that he promised he would fight against before he got there. see public option, individual mandate, transparency, keeping troops in iraq, the power of the president to unilaterally begin a war without congressional consent, fisa, habeas corpus, indefinite detention, gitmo, etc, etc etc.

bobbette: Devil's advocate:

Is it really so bad for a politician to be responsive to what the electorate wants? To change his mind after discovering new information or sides of an issue?

Demonizing someone for flip-flopping effectively means you want politicians to never adapt or change based on changing circumstances or public opinion. Some of the worst decisions in American history occurred because politicians felt bound by their previously stated objectives and absolutely could not adapt to new information or nuanced situations (for example, LBJ's escalation in Vietnam.)

Didn't we already go through this sh*t with John Kerry? Back then, all the U.S. liberals were saying adaptability was a virtue.

Adaptability is fine, but doing a 180 degree turn(and sometimes BACK again) on pretty much every issue in existence is just pandering. There's a difference.

DeltaPunch: If you're looking to anger conservatives, however, just keep referring to Romney as the "inevitable nominee".

And complementing him about his similarities to Obama.

sprawl15: Diogenes: Kittypie070: Hey Diogenes, I love that windsock.

And you know what? If Romney had a real sense of humor he'd sell them, or Romney campaign branded Etch-a-Sketches.

Own the tools being used against you.

Kind of like the "Made in America" coffee cups that had Obama's birth certificate plastered on them.

Bingo

bobbette: Devil's advocate:

Is it really so bad for a politician to be responsive to what the electorate wants? To change his mind after discovering new information or sides of an issue?

Demonizing someone for flip-flopping effectively means you want politicians to never adapt or change based on changing circumstances or public opinion. Some of the worst decisions in American history occurred because politicians felt bound by their previously stated objectives and absolutely could not adapt to new information or nuanced situations (for example, LBJ's escalation in Vietnam.)

Didn't we already go through this sh*t with John Kerry? Back then, all the U.S. liberals were saying adaptability was a virtue.

Yes - it really is bad. The whole point of representational democracy is to entrust government to a set of folks empowered to do the right thing, regardless of popularity at the moment of decision. To merely reflect the majority of the moment on every decision concedes the ability to think in the best interest of the country, regardless of political palatibility. It's the whole "Profiles in Courage" scenario, where an unpopular decision is ultimately required because it's morally the right thing to do, and often times, becomes very popular in hindsight, once the wisdom is revealed to the masses.

bobbette: Devil's advocate:

Is it really so bad for a politician to be responsive to what the electorate wants? To change his mind after discovering new information or sides of an issue?

Demonizing someone for flip-flopping effectively means you want politicians to never adapt or change based on changing circumstances or public opinion. Some of the worst decisions in American history occurred because politicians felt bound by their previously stated objectives and absolutely could not adapt to new information or nuanced situations (for example, LBJ's escalation in Vietnam.)

Didn't we already go through this sh*t with John Kerry? Back then, all the U.S. liberals were saying adaptability was a virtue.

No, backing policies that your constituents demand is not flip-flopping, even if you held a different position before.

Romney though is a political windsock, and has projected an air of insincerity since 2007, and probably earlier than that, but that's when I first heard of him.

His policy changes seem to be based not on adopting to new information or nuanced situations, but what will garner him the most support from the Republican base.

Romney was the weakest candidate in '08, but finished in the top tier, making him the next guy in line. Santorum is the weakest in the field now and will be seen as the top guy going into 2016.

Republicans have gotten really, really bad at picking nominees.

meat0918: His policy changes seem to be based not on adopting to new information or nuanced situations, but what will garner him the most support from the Republican base.

To be more precise, what will garner him the most support from the Republican base in the state he's current speaking in.

bobbette: Demonizing someone for flip-flopping effectively means you want politicians to never adapt or change based on changing circumstances or public opinion. Some of the worst decisions in American history occurred because politicians felt bound by their previously stated objectives and absolutely could not adapt to new information or nuanced situations (for example, LBJ's escalation in Vietnam.)

There is a difference between changing one's position in, say, light of new information or world experiences.

And changing one's position with THREE farkING HOURS.

gameshowhost: Nadie_AZ: Bush Jr

What the fark has that mongoloid been up to lately?

Laying low and watching the primaries.

Perry made him look smart
Santorum made him look sane
Gingrich made him look ethical
Romney made him look like he had a good personality

This primary is a legacy builder.

Anyone who'd vote for a candidate who stands for nothing would also probably fall for anything he said.

The one thing Romney did right in his whole political career is the one thing he'll have to run away from the hardest in order to satisfy the RW derp brigade who've taken charge of the asylum. There's a big difference with evolving political positions over time and shamelessly pandering to whatever group you are talking to at the moment and Romney's campaign illustrates that difference every day.

bobbette: Devil's advocate:

Is it really so bad for a politician to be responsive to what the electorate wants? To change his mind after discovering new information or sides of an issue?

Demonizing someone for flip-flopping effectively means you want politicians to never adapt or change based on changing circumstances or public opinion. Some of the worst decisions in American history occurred because politicians felt bound by their previously stated objectives and absolutely could not adapt to new information or nuanced situations (for example, LBJ's escalation in Vietnam.)

Didn't we already go through this sh*t with John Kerry? Back then, all the U.S. liberals were saying adaptability was a virtue.

I have no problem with a person (including a politician) being flexible in his views, and adapting to new realities; I see it as a real virtue like you do. What galls about Romney is that he's "on your side" on one issue or another to your face, and denies that he ever held a contrary view before, when it is ever so easy to document what he claimed to believe before. Then to another group he panders to what they want to hear. His MA health plan was a model he should be proud of, but he abandons all reason to be the uber-Nobama. Got no time for that BS.

Will The Real Mitt Romney Please Stand Up featuring President Obama

bobbette: Devil's advocate:

Is it really so bad for a politician to be responsive to what the electorate wants? To change his mind after discovering new information or sides of an issue?

Demonizing someone for flip-flopping effectively means you want politicians to never adapt or change based on changing circumstances or public opinion. Some of the worst decisions in American history occurred because politicians felt bound by their previously stated objectives and absolutely could not adapt to new information or nuanced situations (for example, LBJ's escalation in Vietnam.)

Didn't we already go through this sh*t with John Kerry? Back then, all the U.S. liberals were saying adaptability was a virtue.


You are correct that that is not a bad thing. However there doesn't appear to be a shred of evidence that Romney switched positions due to new information coming to light. It literally looks to everyone that he switches positions to pander to whomever he's talking to.

The real test will be when the primaries end and the general starts. He can't keep up the rhetoric in any hopes of winning the national election; he's got to pull back left of he's going to get creamed. Unfortunately he'll get creamed regardless, because if he does pull back left, the right will melt down.

Seems relevant...

bobbette: Devil's advocate:

Is it really so bad for a politician to be responsive to what the electorate wants? To change his mind after discovering new information or sides of an issue?

Demonizing someone for flip-flopping effectively means you want politicians to never adapt or change based on changing circumstances or public opinion. Some of the worst decisions in American history occurred because politicians felt bound by their previously stated objectives and absolutely could not adapt to new information or nuanced situations (for example, LBJ's escalation in Vietnam.)

Didn't we already go through this sh*t with John Kerry? Back then, all the U.S. liberals were saying adaptability was a virtue.

Changing your mind based on the evidence is one thing. Changing your mind in virtually every policy position to advance your career is another.

Corvus: DeltaPunch: It's a bad move for Democrats to criticize Romney at this stage. That's the best way rally the conservative base around him. Instead, let them attack him -- there will be plenty of time for attacks once he's the nominee.

If you're looking to anger conservatives, however, just keep referring to Romney as the "inevitable nominee".

Heck Bush's "endorsement" was pretty much that. It was really pathetic. Like "We better get behind Romney because things will only get worse if we don't" type remarks.

I like to point out how Romney was the architect of Obamacare myself to them.

Here is Rubio's shining endorsement:

"It's increasingly clear that Mitt Romney's going to be the Republican nominee... we've got to come together behind who I think has earned this nomination and that's Mitt Romney."

Wow! What conviction! He went on to say "I will endorse Mitt Romney". I love the future tense, it's so fresh!

He is awarded no points and may God have mercy on his soul.

None of this matters. The second he wins the nomination, the GOP will start on his personality cult, and all the righties will band together to declare him the perfect choice for president, with nothing wrong about him. Heck, they'll probably claim Obama is the flipflopper, and Romney's never once taken anything but a firm stance on policy.

Basically, the same thing they did to Reagan, Bush II, and McCain/Palin. their ideology is driven by personality cultism, and as a result, nothing the leader says can be anything but true. Any sort of fact checking of contrary news reports will be blasted as liberal media, MSM lies, democratic propaganda, etc.

I hear his commitment to magic underpants and shameless pandering is unwavering.

Crapinoleum: bobbette: Devil's advocate:

Is it really so bad for a politician to be responsive to what the electorate wants? To change his mind after discovering new information or sides of an issue?

Demonizing someone for flip-flopping effectively means you want politicians to never adapt or change based on changing circumstances or public opinion. Some of the worst decisions in American history occurred because politicians felt bound by their previously stated objectives and absolutely could not adapt to new information or nuanced situations (for example, LBJ's escalation in Vietnam.)

Didn't we already go through this sh*t with John Kerry? Back then, all the U.S. liberals were saying adaptability was a virtue.

I have no problem with a person (including a politician) being flexible in his views, and adapting to new realities; I see it as a real virtue like you do. What galls about Romney is that he's "on your side" on one issue or another to your face, and denies that he ever held a contrary view before, when it is ever so easy to document what he claimed to believe before. Then to another group he panders to what they want to hear. His MA health plan was a model he should be proud of, but he abandons all reason to be the uber-Nobama. Got no time for that BS.

Exactly. No one cares if you change positions. They care if you do it, and then claim never to have supported the previous one. Romney has been shown to do this time and time again.

bobbette: Devil's advocate:

Is it really so bad for a politician to be responsive to what the electorate wants? To change his mind after discovering new information or sides of an issue?

Demonizing someone for flip-flopping effectively means you want politicians to never adapt or change based on changing circumstances or public opinion. Some of the worst decisions in American history occurred because politicians felt bound by their previously stated objectives and absolutely could not adapt to new information or nuanced situations (for example, LBJ's escalation in Vietnam.)

Didn't we already go through this sh*t with John Kerry? Back then, all the U.S. liberals were saying adaptability was a virtue.

There is nothing wrong with changing your mind in the face of new information.

There is everything wrong with lying through your teeth based solely on what sells to the people you're talking to.

Donnchadha: Seems relevant...


Not really.

Changing your mind about a law that requires people to wear seat-belts based on statistics that show they save lives. That is changing your mind based on new information. Or banning a chemical that is found to be toxic. That is changing your mind based on new information.


Not so much something like going from allowing to banning abortion. Where all of the information says that people will get abortions anyway. And it's better to have it handled by professionals than have young girls maimed or killed in backrooms like we used to do.

That is a purely emotional change in viewpoint that contradicts information.


False equivalence.

and you're forgetting the other part of that cartoon, republicans don't ever consider changing your position to be wise, politician or otherwise. they get around this problem by just pretending it never happened.

Hell, it was only a few weeks ago Romney was talking about how great it was that we stepped in and saved the auto industry. CNN had representatives from both parties and they showed clips of his actual words before (against saving them) and after (wasn't it great that we saved them). They went to the dem who pointed out the hypocrisy and then they went to the Republican who basically said "what hypocrisy, he's being totally consistent." How do you even argue with someone like that? There are no facts in the republican world so there is no flip flopping.

Shaggy_C: It means he lets his opinion change when the facts on the ground change. It's a good thing to have flexibility in a president. After all, wouldn't it be awful if the president voted against raising the debt ceiling while in congress and then actually followed through by not piling on billions in debt?

I'm fine with a politician changing his mind and stance based on what he/she learns and adopts.

The real fun will be trying to explain why he changed his mind back again when he's running against Obama. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised to see him advocate stances to the left of Obama in the General Election.

Shaggy_C 2012-03-30 04:59:32 PM

(farky'd as: Reagan's goal was the destruction of a strong middle class)

[flarpityblat]

Ruh-roh, Raggy_C, you've been demoted from Grey7 to Grey3.

Mikey1969: There is one position that he doesn't flip-flop on, and that is the position of flip flopping itself, he has been consistent in that regard...

Actually, He hasn't even been consistent on that.

imontheinternet: Romney was the weakest candidate in '08, but finished in the top tier, making him the next guy in line. Santorum is the weakest in the field now and will be seen as the top guy going into 2016.

Republicans have gotten really, really bad at picking nominees.

I don't think Santorum will be the nominee in 2016 as all the better Republican candidates are sitting out this year. He might still run, though.

Antimatter: None of this matters. The second he wins the nomination, the GOP will start on his personality cult, and all the righties will band together to declare him the perfect choice for president, with nothing wrong about him. Heck, they'll probably claim Obama is the flipflopper, and Romney's never once taken anything but a firm stance on policy.

The GOP has been working on his personality cult for months now. Southerners and Evangelicals are not going to uniformly fall in line for a mushy Mormon android. He doesn't even have the God-fearin' War Hero credentials Bob Dole and John McCain had, and we know what problems they had with the godbotherin' base. Hell, a Palinesque VP pick might not even save Rmoney at this point.

So what you are saying is that Romney has explored every side of an issue. Sounds pretty open minded and bipartisan to me...

Maybe his ego will actually make him want results?


/nah

He also seems to have a problem with modern art museums on 11th Avenue.

In a world of vacuum pumps and Babbage counting machines, Rmoneybot is the quantum computer of politicians. He is so advanced that he is on every single side of every issue making him the best candidate to any voter regardless of their positions on any topic. Let's stop fighting amongst ourselves and get behind this truly evolved politician for the 21st century.

It's called compromising.

DeltaPunch: Nadie_AZ: DeltaPunch: He's always been a moderate, a Mormon, and an outsider in the GOP. In 2008 there are instances of Huckabee, McCain and other candidates actually making fun of him behind his back (I think McCain called him "soulless" once).

McCain said that? It sure does seem to be the case.

To be fair, McCain loves to belittle people.

There's some story where McCain and Huckabee were urinating before a debate and trash-talking Romney. Apparently Romney walked in while they chatting and overheard them. Too lazy to find a source now, but I guess some staffer was there and witnessed it...

It was Huckabee who said he didn't think Romney has a soul. McCain was rather more direct (it's from "Game Change", about the 2008 campaign; how little has changed since then...):

The candidates lined up at the urinals, Giuliani next to McCain next to Huckabee, the rest all in a row. The debate was soon to start, so they were taking care of business and laughing merrily at the one guy who wasn't there...poking fun at him, mocking him, agreeing about how much they disliked him. Then Willard Mitt Romney walked into the bathroom and overheard them, bringing on a crashing silence.
Romney was the guy on whom much of the smart Beltway money had been betting from the start. His resume was impressive: former CEO of Bain and Company and founder of Bain Capital, savior of the blighted 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics; one-term governor of Massachusetts. His pedigree was glittering; his father, George, has been governor of Michigan and a presidential candidate, too. His personal life was impeccable: he had married his high school sweetheart, Ann, with whom he had had five strapping sons. He was well-spoken and terrific-looking, with blindingly white choppers, a chiseled jaw and a helmet of glossy dark hair.
Romney was running a textbook Republican campaign. He had hired a squad of A-List consultants, pollsters, and media wizards. He'd raised more money than anyone in the field and had millions of his own to draw on. He'd courted the GOP Establishment, worked to neutralize the most potential sources of opposition, racked up oodles of endorsements and carefully tailored his policy positions to appeal to social, economic, and national security conservatives, the three legs of the Republican stool.
But Romney's efforts to get right with the Right landed him in trouble. For most of his life, he had been a middle-of-the-road, pro-business pragmatist, unequivocally pro-choice, moderate on tax cuts and immigration. Running against Ted Kennedy for the Senate in 1994, he pledged that he'd do more for gay rights than his opponent and declared, " I don't line up with the NRA" on gun control. By 2008, Romney had reversed himself on all of this, which quickly gave rise to the charges of hypocrisy and opportunism. Even before he announced his candidacy, a YouTube video began making the rounds that captured him firmly stating his liberal-ish social views, comically juxtaposing them with his newly-adopted arch-conservative stances. From then on, the flip-flopper label was firmly affixed to Mitt's forehead.
Unlike Giuliani, Romney had no reticence about slashing at his rivals. But the perception of him as a man without convictions made him a less-than-effective delivery system for policy contrasts. The combinations of the vitriol of his attacks and his apparent coreless-ness explained the antipathy the other candidates had toward him. McCain routinely called Romney "an asshole" and "a farking phony". Giuliani opined, "That guy will say anything." Huckabee complained, "I don't think Romney has a soul."
His own team's view was more generous, but no less damning. For all Romney's business acumen and affectations, he sometimes gave PowerPoint presentations instead of stump speeches. His advisers found him indecisive...an incorrigible vacillator. He would wait and wait, asking more and more questions, consulting with more and more people, ordering up more and more data. The internal debates over his message and even his slogan went on for months...without end or resolution.
Worse, Romney had a propensity for stumbling into the wrong kind of headlines. There was the story about how his gardeners were illegal aliens. There was the one about the time he and his family went on vacation and put their dog in a crate strapped to the roof of their car for the twelve hour drive. Oh...and also the one about his life-long devotion to hunting, which turned out to mean he'd done it twice. "I'm not a big game hunter", Romney said, and then explained that his preferred prey were rodents, rabbits, and such..."...small varmints, if you will."
Romney found his failure to break through frustrating. "It's not fair", he said to his aides. He was being defined as a flip-flopping Mormon...or a Mormon flip-flopper. He couldn't fathom why the caricature of him was sticking, had no ability to see himself as others might. When Romney's staff showed him the devastating YouTube video, his first reaction was, "Boy, look how young I was back then."

Daraymann: It's called compromising.

No, compromise is what happens when you have a starting position. Mitt Romney has no starting positions, except that he believes he should have more power than he already does. I will not support such a man.

BuckTurgidson: It was Huckabee who said he didn't think Romney has a soul. McCain was rather more direct (it's from "Game Change", about the 2008 campaign; how little has changed since then...):

Wow. Romney should have been a scientist, not a politician.

PonceAlyosha: I will not support such a man.

A man with such underwear does not need the support of a mortal.

thamike: [t2.gstatic.com image 640x385]

He also seems to have a problem with modern art museums on 11th Avenue.

Ahh good ole Republican wit... That's some clever shiat right there.

It's sad because the Romney that ran Massachusetts was a pretty good politician who probably would make a good President. This current version of Romney sucks.

Jesterling: thamike: [t2.gstatic.com image 640x385]

He also seems to have a problem with modern art museums on 11th Avenue.

Ahh good ole Republican wit... That's some clever shiat right there.

Right? I nearly coughed up a lung when the poignant nuance really hit me.

soy_bomb: So what you are saying is that Romney has explored every side of an issue. Sounds pretty open minded and bipartisan to me...

No he says whatever gets him elected. They are not the same thing. He didn't learn something new about, healthcare mandate, abortion, gay rights. etc., What changed his rhetoric was from running in a liberal state to running in the GOP primary.

Integrity
is a concept of consistency of actions, values, methods, measures, principles, expectations, and outcomes. In ethics, integrity is regarded as the honesty and truthfulness or accuracy of one's actions. Integrity can be regarded as the opposite of hypocrisy,[1] in that it regards internal consistency as a virtue, and suggests that parties holding apparently conflicting values should account for the discrepancy or alter their beliefs.

BuckTurgidson: It was Huckabee who said he didn't think Romney has a soul. McCain was rather more direct (it's from "Game Change", about the 2008 campaign; how little has changed since then...):

I ask this in all seriousness... does he have Asperger's or something?

soy_bomb: So what you are saying is that Romney has explored every side of an issue. Sounds pretty open minded and bipartisan to me...

You must have voted for Kerry.

HeartBurnKid: BuckTurgidson: It was Huckabee who said he didn't think Romney has a soul. McCain was rather more direct (it's from "Game Change", about the 2008 campaign; how little has changed since then...):

I ask this in all seriousness... does he have Asperger's or something?

No, he's just never been in a position of actual weakness, so he can't empathize with anyone in one.