Mitt Romney was labeled a flip-flopper over abortion. That was, in fact, the only legitimate thing that he changed his political stance on.
Why isn't Obama held to the same standard, especially when his flip-flops are only months/weeks apart? Mitt's abortion stance happened years before running for POTUS. Josh, that was your major beef with Mitt.......his flip-flops (which again, abortion was the only thing with any credibility). Well, I must say, you're championing a real winner.
The AP 7/5/2008 (Italics are my own words):
"On Iraq, Obama said that his trip there might lead him to refine his promise to quickly remove U.S. troops from the war." He was the guy to say "I will bring this war to a close. ... I am not searching for maneuvering room with respect to that position,"......didn't he?
"Obama recently supports broader authority for the government's eavesdropping program and legal immunity for telecommunications companies that participated in it." He voted against this a year ago.
"After the Supreme Court overturned the District of Columbia's gun ban, the handgun-control proponent said he favors both an individual's right to own a gun as well as government's right to regulate ownership."
"Obama became the first major-party candidate to reject public financing for the general election after earlier promises to accept it."
"He not only embraced but promised to expand Bush's program to give more anti-poverty grants to religious groups."
"He objected to the Supreme Court's decision outlawing the death penalty for child rapists, even though he has been anti-capital punishment."
"Obama also said 'mental distress' should not count as a health exception that would permit a late-term abortion, saying 'it has to be a serious physical issue,' addressing a matter considered crucial to abortion rights activists."
-----------
Okay.......The flip-flops that are bothering me the most lately concern energy. I was against off-shore drilling before I was for it. I was against nuclear power before I was for it........I think I'm against it again. I was always against coal burning.....except when I'm in Kentucky, Montana, or any swing state that might make me reconsider.
Fortunately for Obama, he can weasel his way out of most messes......he can make a pile of crap sound appetizing. It is my belief that Romney was too honest and straight-forward for his own good.
Josh, I know you are going to try to pull an Obama and make him seem flawless through a bunch of fluff and by redirecting blame........but you held Mitt to such a high standard, why is it so different now?
Labels
- Politics (82)
- Mitt (25)
- Barack Obama (8)
- John McCain (8)
- Family (7)
- Caricatures (1)
- McCain (1)
- Sports (1)
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(95)
-
▼
September
(30)
- Our Economic Crisis
- Is over yet?
- Hilarity ensues
- Their love will go on
- Never fear, McCain is here!
- McCain is a liar
- Completely Unrelated
- Obama is a Flip-Flopper
- Obama on National Defense
- Seriously Adrift?
- Some Obama Flip-Flops
- Obama on the AIG bailout......mingled with hypocrisy
- Do They Support Clean Coal or Not?
- Dum diddy dum diddy dum dum.
- All I know...
- John McCain doesn't think she's qualified.
- Red State Update: Obama Admits He's A Muslim?
- What Is the Bush Doctrine, Anyway?--click to read ...
- Sarah Palin has super-human powers! EnergyWoma!
- Choice = Improved Education
- Barack on Nuclear Energy.....The Long Version
- Obama, The Nuclear Energy Enthusiast
- Sex Ed in School - Is Kindergarten too Early?
- Crazy!.........Crazy Exciting!
- No title
- Obama Smears McCain-Palin As Lipstick On A Pig
- McCain leads Obama by 10% in likely voters
- Making child pregnancy an issue
- Obama: Running My Campaign Is My Experience
- Maybe Bristol should have been a Lefty Abortionist
-
▼
September
(30)
As you noted,
"Obama recently supports broader authority for the government's eavesdropping program and legal immunity for telecommunications companies that participated in it."
I hate that he did that. Plain and simple, I wish he would have taken a stand. No excuses. I would like to know why. But I bet it isn't because he wasn't 'converted' to vote for it.
Most of what you note are not in the same galaxy as Mitt's flips.
For example, voting on one bill is not a sign of a reversal in position. Politicians often are forced to vote against a bill that they wish could pass because of amendments, or because it has become neutered on the main issue, or because there is an important part of the bill that was added that supersedes the importance of the main bill, etc.
Politicians are often forced to change their approach when issues change, just like George Bush decided to get into the business of nation building in Afghanistan even though he claimed he wouldn't during the 2000 campaign. Nobobdy called that a flip-flop. Iraq on the other hand...
Speaking about government control at one occasion and touting gun-owners rights at different occasion is called talking to your audience. A rather different matter, I might say, than claiming you are the second coming of Ted Kennedy and then claiming you are the reincarnation of Ronald Reagan, hair and all. Mitt tried to remake himself as someone he hadn't been before. Obama, like all politicians, doesn't get everything he wants and you can't cram all of his future policy decisions into single quotes that concur with something he said before. Obama hasn't had a 'conversion' to a major policy that he vehemently opposed on moral grounds for decades like Mitt. Obama didn't switch his facades when he needed to switch constituencies to get elected like Mitt.
Also, only one of the five things you noted showed an actual change, one that I hate, admittedly, but the others like:
"He objected to the Supreme Court's decision outlawing the death penalty for child rapists, even though he has been anti-capital punishment."
Even I'm conflicted about that one. That's different than being pro-gay marriage when running for election in a liberal state and then being anti-gay marriage when you need the conservative vote. How about Mitt slamming the "the Eastern Elites" during the Republican Convention when he, himself, is a Gaziillionaire elitists from the liberal eastern state of Massachusetts. He might as well have stood up and criticized John Edward's over-done hairdo.
Obama's a politician. Mitt's an underdone pancake that gets flipped from side-to-side until it's burnt and bitter.
I believe that Mitt was sincere in his conversion. He was not pandering.
Don't you ever forget, I am Mitt's man to the end. I will NEVER call him a flip-flopper. I am willing to concede that people will think he flipped on abortion. I, however, don't see it that way. I HAVEN'T ADMITTED BUNK ESE!
Dude...I've done nearly 600 posts for Mitt Romney at my Florida site--please don't make me defend him anymore.
He said that he hopes that someday gays will be openly allowed into the military, but for the time being, the "don't ask don't tell" policy is working.
He said that he wishes gays would be allowed into the BSA...but since it is a private organization, he wouldn't tell them how to run it.
He said that he respected Catholic adoption agency's right to select homes with a father and mother. "Priests and the church can do whatever the heck they want".
He said that he would be a more EFFECTIVE gay rights' activist than Kennedy.......he was referring to discrimination in school and the workplace. It should be noted at the time, gay marriage was illegal and not on the table. Mitt Romney ALWAYS said that preserving the sanctity of marriage is not discrimination. It is a RELIGIOUS ceremony/institution that doesn't need changed by the government. He is an advocate for Hetero-marriages because studies show that children benefit the most when raised by a mother and a father.
Dude, Mitt NEVER changed his stance on Gun Rights! He still believes that many regulations need placed. He just didn't feel he needed to line up with the NRA a 100% to get their endorsement and candidly talked about his differences. Seriously Josh, I wish you would have done some research.
I didn't know Mitt flopped on gun control! That's another one, thanks!
By the way, you seem a little defensive about this subject.
"Speaking about government control at one occasion and touting gun-owners rights at different occasion is called talking to your audience."
Do I need to be able to read your mind to know what you implied by this? The way I read it, you accused him of flip-flopping/pandering on gun rights.