Friday, December 28, 2007
|
|
Misled in NH and NY?
|
|
Posted by:
Matt Lewis at
3:49 PM
|
NRO has posted this editorial, criticizing the The Manchester Union Leader for endorsing McCain, and for bashing Mitt Romney:
The Union Leader’s advocacy of John McCain has become so fierce and lopsided that it has practically transformed itself into a pro-McCain 527 organization. It has not formalized the arrangement, which is lucky for it: If it had, McCain would, on his campaign-finance principles, have to try to shut it down.
There is a lot to like about Senator McCain, and we do not fault the Union Leader for endorsing him. We do fault its double standards. The newspaper counts it as a damnable “flip-flop” every time Romney has changed his position or even his emphasis. McCain can switch his views on the very same issues without a disparaging word from the Union Leader
Of course, the fact that two conservative publications are going at it over McCain and Romney shows just how messy this entire race has gotten.
NRO is correct to decry double standards, but the double standards are certainly not exclusive to the Union.
And while they are entitled to their opinion, I did find this line extremely concerning:
For us, the most important question about a flip-flop is whether the movement is in the right direction. I fundamentally disagree with this line of thinking.
Here's why: Conservatives have been burned by candidates who run as conservatives, only to "squish out" when they are in office. As such, we must insist on someone deeply rooted in a governing philosophy. While primaries have a centrifugal affect, actually serving in office is quite the opposite: Once in office, the temptation and immediate rewards will always encourage conservatives to become more liberal (and thus, be more popular with the media, etc.). So having strong moorings is essential.
Simply put, if someone is willing to flip for you, they will also be willing to flip on you.
|
|
|
What was the GOP(Gutted Our Principles)expecting, when they made it clear that Guiliani, Romney, and McCain are "OUR" conservatives!...........How stupid......After Hillary takes office, the EXODUS of conservatives from the GOP to the Libertarian Party will look like "Illegals" crossing into the USA! |
|
|
your posts are getting more and more stupid and desperate. take a holiday. and please stop with you whole "i made a this prediction" and "i'm on this show or that show". it really shows your insecurity. |
|
"Once in office, the temptation and immediate rewards will always encourage conservatives to become more liberal (and thus, be more popular with the media, etc.)."
Where does this put McCain? It won't effect him, because he's already liberal? Or is it that you just disagree with flip-flopping even if it is something you agree with?
I understand why people think Mitt is a flip-flopper, but the point is...so is McCain and so is the Huckster and they've done it in the last few months. They have no high ground. They're already "popular with the media" as the media doesn't call their positions flip-flopping. The really big change of mind Romney had was on abortion...but at least he's had legislation and has a record of being on the side of life. That's not just a statement he's made, it's action. And welcomed in my book. He's admitted he's wrong, and I think that's fine as well. If you all think Mitt is the only one that has flip-flopped...and that is your reason why you don't trust him...be careful...because you better look at your own candidate. |
|
Noonan was talking about Edwards, you brainless dolt.
|
|
Why should anyone give a rat's behind what you think about anything?
|
|
Why would anyone take Mittflop seriously?
As Peg Noonan said in her "be reasonable" column, "we can't have a president who spent two minutes on YouTube staring in a mirror and poofing his hair. Really, we just can't."
Sounds like Mittflip to me. |
|
|
Ronald Reagan and Henry Hyde were both pro choice at one point in their political careers. Would you say that their pro-life conversions revealed a weakness of character? |
|
At the risk of sounding like a politician, "flip-flops" need to be taken in context. Being pro gay "rights" in the early 90's when the issues were primarily employment/military related does not a flip flop make when the issues evolve to marriage and adoption of children. Being in favor of some tighter gun laws does not mean that one does not generally support the 2nd amendment right to bear arms.
John Kerry (the original flip flopper) tried to explain his way out of voting for the war. Hillary and the drivers license issue is the same thing - she couldn't tell where she stood in a span of 60 seconds. |
|
I too took extreme umbrage to the National Review's assertion that flip-flopping is not only acceptable, but is to be applauded when the flip-flop is in our direction.
BS.
The entire reason we oppose flip-flopping is because it reveals a weakness of character. An executive often must take stands that are at odds with public opinion. Flip-floppers are unable to do that. They are slaves to public opinion and to their own personal ambition, rather than the good of the nation.
Mitt Romney is saying all the things right now. But how can we be assured that he will not bail on is if public opinion turns??
The National Review has embarassed itself. I cannot believe what I am seeing. We BRUTALIZED John Kerry (rightfully so) for his flip-flops in 2004. Now, the National Review and many conservatives have flip-flopped on flip-flopping. They are sending the message that flip-flopping is perfectly acceptable so long as you are flopping in our direction. That is the most unprincipled, two-faced stand I have ever heard. It is shameful, it is embarassing, and it is fundamentally un-conservative. |
|
|
There was a time I supported Romney, but not now. He can't be trusted to follow through with his "current" conservative positions. Also, the conservative elites are pushing way too hard. It makes me suspicious. Don't get me wrong, if Romney wins the nomination, I will support him 100%. He is just not right. |
|
Appeal to contributors:
I have been reading this blog for years. I used to really enjoy it as much as any other blog. NRO's "corner" and this blog were the first I read every day. Since Hugh has joined the bloggers, it has become nothing but an mudslinging tool for the Romney campaign. I also used to listen to Hugh when he did the local morning show on KRLA. I cannot even listen to his show anymore, what a shame. Since this blog is nothing more than a Romney campaign site, I find I cannot read it as much as I used to without getting angry. I understand contributors will have their favorites and will be biased based on those preferences, I can live with that. But it has reached the point of absurdity. When Huckabee (of whom I am not a fan) started to catch up to Romney in Iowa, orchestrated attacks on him began via Hugh posts. The points he posted were stright from the Romney talking points memo. Then, McCain started his surge, especially in New Hampshire. Then the McCain attacks began on cue. Post after post filled of vicious attacks on an American hero. I am not a supporter of McCain, he's my second choice right now, I am a Thompson supporter. I ask the other contributors to save this blog! It is losing serious credibility. Save this blog.
|
|
Of course, at least the Union Leader is honest in its public support for John McCain---unlike Townhall's Matt Lewis, who just won't admit that he's a John McCain supporter.
|
|
|
|