Wednesday, June 27, 2007
|
|
More Flip-Flopping Thoughts
|
|
Posted by:
Matt Lewis at
12:00 PM
|
|
Ok, I've had some time to think about the flip-flopper issue. I am still concerned about someone who, at the age of 50, changes his positions on fundamental issues like life, campaign finance reform, etc. I am even more suspicious when that person runs for president a few years later.
So why should conservatives be especially wary of flip-floppers?
Precisely because conservatism isn't easy or popular. If a person merely allies with the ideology of least resistance, it is likely he will eventually align with the liberal side ...
|
|
|
As a 47 y/o who's had an embarrasingly late in life epiphany and made a wholesale rejection of my heretofore liberal beliefs, I say such radical change is certainly possible. Now, if you're talking about a mature individual becoming more liberal. Well, I'm with you there. |
|
It is possible to change your opinion on some matters. But the one issue that worries me when someone changes their mind is taxes.
George H. W. Bush called supply side economic "Voodoo Economics," then despite 8 wonderful years under Ronald Reagan and promising not to raise taxed, raised taxes.
Supply side economics has been proven to create economic growth and actually increase revenues to the Federal Government. So anytime a politician changes their opinion on this matter, I get worried.
|
|
My issue is that someone who flip-flops (which I take to mean a serial realignment of beliefs, and it seems that Romney has had more than one position on abortion) is not a leader. They are a follower, or "leading by Gallup."
This country needs a leader, not a "me too!" candidate.
(Though obviously someone who will lead us in the right direction.) |
|
|
Should say "Romney has had more than one 'epiphany' on abortion" in the parenthetical of my last comment. |
|
McCain has changed more important positions than Romney. Rudy and Thompson have certainly evolved a number of positions if not flipped outright.
The press hit Romney on flipflopping because he has moved against thier social agenda and that is unforgiveable.
They know that McCain is not converted on tax cuts. They are pretty sure that Romney is converted on social issues. They are pretty sure Rudy will be more of a social liberal than not. Thompson is an enigma but they will hit him like Romney since he is a suspect conservative.
Every politican makes some adjustments. Usually they will not make a major flipflop during thier first term (Bush 41 is an exception) as that will insure that there is no 2nd term.
During a second term there are no guarantees. Lets get a Rep for 2008 and worry about future flips in 1212. |
|
Not to speak to any specific issue or person, but anyone who has never shifted perspective on an important issue is probably not happily married!
|
|
Matt Lewis,
Campaign finance reform is not a "fundamental issue" as abortion is.
Nice try, though.
But it's interesting that despite the fact that you claim to be personally opposed to McCain-Feingold, you continue to support the candidate who co-authored it.
...and YOU are casting stones about personal convictions ?
Certainly, few of us agrees 100% with any candidate, but since you assert that campaign finance reform is a "fundamental issue" it's just interesting that it doesn't even affect your support for McCain.
If you want foresight into how Mitt Romney will govern as President regarding abortion, look at his pro-life record as Governor of Taxachusetts.
And if you want to know how McCain will betray the conservative base if he were President, look at his illustrious record of having done so in the Senate.
It'll be interesting to see if you ever write about John McCain "flip-flopping" on the Bush tax cuts, as well as on the punitive inheritance tax.
And McCain often calls for "energy independence," yet voted against drilling in ANWAR.
My guess is that as McCain's candidacy continues to unravel, your strategy will be to continue to pound away at Rudy and Mitt. |
|
McCain usually doesn't flip flop. He's usually just plain wrong.
onehotminute, are you such a devout Romneyite that you perceive everything attacking Romney as pro-McCain? There are other candidates running, you know. |
|
Ryan S,
We agree that McCain is usually wrong.
I will also continue to assert that he flip-flops on a few things, as well.
McCain was for tax cuts before he voted against the Bush tax cuts & supported the inheritance tax.
Yet McCain will tell you he still supports tax cuts.
McCain voted against drilling in ANWAR, before he stood on stage at the Reagan Library at the GOP debate last month and called for energy independence from the Arab states.
By the way, you asked me,
"onehotminute, are you such a devout Romneyite that you perceive everything attacking Romney as pro-McCain? There are other candidates running, you know."
I've written many, many comments in defense of Rudy Giuliani when Matt Lewis has attacked him.
I'm a Rudy guy AND a Mitt guy.
And I don't theoretically characterize any attack on Romney as necessarily "pro-McCain."
But when a McCain supporter such as Matt Lewis attacks Romney for the thousandth time, the strategy behind the attack becomes transparent.
When McCain drops out, I predict that Matt will be attacking Rudy and Mitt in order to benefit Fred. |
|
|
|