flip-flop

Page history last edited by mike 1 yr ago

Vanderbilt poll explains why Romney's flip-flopper label sticks; Political scientist says anti-Mormon bias finds cover 1-18-2008

John Geer

Bias against Mitt Romney’s religion is one of the reasons that the tag “flip-flopper” sticks with the former Massachusetts governor but not his Republican opponents, according to Vanderbilt political scientist John Geer. “There is no question that Romney has changed his positions on some issues, but so have some of the other candidates,” Geer said. “Why does the label stick to Romney but not his opponents? At least some of the answer lies in Romney’s Mormon beliefs.”

Geer and colleagues Brett Benson of Vanderbilt and Jennifer Merolla of Claremont Graduate University designed an Internet survey to assess bias against Mormons, how best to combat it and its potential impact on the nomination process and general election campaign.

“We find that of those who accuse Romney of flip-flopping, many admit it is Romney’s Mormonism and not his flip-flopping that is the real issue,” Benson said. “Our survey shows that 26 percent of those who accuse Romney of flip-flopping also indicate that Mormonism, not flip-flopping, is their problem with Romney.” Benson noted that the pattern is especially strong for conservative Evangelicals. According to the poll, 57 percent of them have a bias against Mormons.

The poll, which was conducted by Polimetrix, included an oversample of Southern Evangelicals that Geer said measured bias with far more precision than previous efforts. The survey shows that 50 percent of conservative Evangelicals evaluate a moderate Christian candidate more positively than a conservative Mormon candidate.

The study’s findings suggest that criticizing Romney for flip-flopping is an effective campaign strategy because it sticks with two different groups: those who are genuinely concerned about Romney’s shifts on certain issues and those who use the label as cover for the fact that they do not want to vote for a Mormon for president.

“As the campaign continues to unfold, these data become increasingly relevant as the Republicans choose a presidential nominee,” Geer said.

Media Contact: Ann Marie Deer Owens, (615) 322-NEWS

annmarie.owens@vanderbilt.edu

A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z

Mitt Romney Flip Flops?

This campaign flyer from 1994 shows that Abortion is the only issue that Romney has changed.

http://www.politico.com/pdf/wmr_1994_senate_flier_side_1.pdf

Rep. Phil Gingrey shares his thoughts on Mitt Romney

Gov. Romney on '94 Debate w/ Kennedy

Governor Mitt Romney and Flip Flops

Governor Romney is a flip-floper

Reasons to agree

Reasons to disagree

It is not bad to change your position, or change it back. Being called a flip-floper emplies that a politician is lying. There is no evidence that Mitt Romney lies. In fact there is a lot of evidence that he tells the truth, and keeps his commitments.
The treatment by the MSM toward the 2008 candidates has been far more inconsistent than the supposed inconsistent by the candidates toward the issues. The question should not be who’s positions have changed the least. The question we should ask is who’s positions are best for America. And because anyone can advocate positions, the most important question is who is the most qualified to be POTUS.

You have to say what positions he has changed, in order to make that assertion. So see my responses (above) to the only two examples I have ever seen, as examples of his flip-floppery.
Governor Mitt Romney does not like flip-flopperyness, and has spoken against it.
A flip is changing your position. A flip-flop is changing your position, and changing it back. The only example I have ever heard of a Romney's flip-floping was his so-called change on Abortion. So changing your position once, would make Romney a fliper, not a flip-flopper.
As Grover Norquistthe, head of Americans for Tax Reform, writes, “Romney has a one-way, one-time migration on abortion to explain. … Senator McCain, meanwhile, was a Reaganite on taxes and then drifted for six years and now wants to come back. Same on guns. Same on judges. He was a two-way migration on several issues, and a lot of conservatives will have a hard time with that.” Mitt, on the other hand, “has undertaken a wealth of pro-life actions in public life, including supporting abstinence education and vetoing bills to expand access to abortifacient pills and to publicly funded stem cell research.” It seems clear that, when looking at the record, Mitt has been an advocate for life.

People who disagree:

James Bopp Jr

Flip: Changing opinion

Flop: Changing back

Mitt Romney

Flips

Abortion. Romney advocated states rights when it comes to abortion, and he declared a truce on the issue in Massachusetts. He said he would not change the laws. Now that he is running for president of the United States, he is asserting the same thing: each state should have the right to choose their abortion laws. So he has kind of changed his position from advocating that Massachusetts be able to remain pro-choice, to Massachusetts should remain pro-choice and other states should also get to choose their abortion policy, as he seeks to represent those from more states than Massachusetts. If you want to call that a flip, sure, go ahead. But I get to call you an idiot, if you try and call Mitt Romney a flip flopper, because a “flip flop” implies that he changed his position, and then changed it back again. And Abortion is the only issue that you could try and say his vies have changed. But even this is stupid. Is John R. Bohrer saying that we should never vote for someone whose views have changed? Did he really write a senior paper on JFK, Martin Luther King, and Cesar Chavez? Does he want to see examples were they advocated different things in DIFFERENT situations?

John McCain

Flips

Jeffy Falwell: Called Falwell an "agent of intolerance." McCain said that he would never back down from his earlier statement. Flip: McCain stated that Falwell is no longer that divisive figure and the two have discussed their shared values (not a "flip-flop" just sort of a flip.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/02/mccain-falwell

Abortion: In 1999, the “moderate” version of John McCain said that overturning Roe v. Wade would be dangerous for women and he would not support it, even in “the long term.” Here’s McCain in the San Francisco Chronicle: "I’d love to see a point where it is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to undergo illegal and dangerous operations." Flip: This morning on ABC, McCain — now aggressively courting the likes of Jerry Falwell — expressed his unequivocal support for overturning Roe v. Wade. Watch it:

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/19/mccain-abortion/

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me ask one question about abortion. Then I want to turn to Iraq. You’re for a constitutional amendment banning abortion, with some exceptions for life and rape and incest.

MCCAIN: Rape, incest and the life of the mother. Yes.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So is President Bush, yet that hasn’t advanced in the six years he’s been in office. What are you going to do to advance a constitutional amendment that President Bush hasn’t done?

MCCAIN: I don’t think a constitutional amendment is probably going to take place, but I do believe that it’s very likely or possible that the Supreme Court should — could overturn Roe v. Wade, which would then return these decisions to the states, which I support.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And you’d be for that?

MCCAIN: Yes, because I’m a federalist. Just as I believe that the issue of gay marriage should be decided by the states, so do I believe that we would be better off by having Roe v. Wade return to the states. And I don’t believe the Supreme Court should be legislating in the way that they did on Roe v. Wade.

Ethanol: The senator has been a critic of ethanol. That doesn't play in Iowa. So the Straight Talk Express has taken a detour.

McCain criticized TV preacher Jerry Falwell as “an agent of intolerance” in 2002, but has since decided to cozy up to the man who said Americans “deserved” the 9/11 attacks. (Indeed, McCain has now hired Falwell’s debate coach.)

McCain used to oppose Bush’s tax cuts for the very wealthy, but he reversed course in February.

In 2000, McCain accused Texas businessmen Sam and Charles Wyly of being corrupt, spending “dirty money” to help finance Bush’s presidential campaign. McCain not only filed a complaint against the Wylys for allegedly violating campaign finance law, he also lashed out at them publicly. In April, McCain reached out to the Wylys for support.

McCain supported a major campaign-finance reform measure that bore his name. In June, he abandoned his own legislation.

McCain used to think that Grover Norquist was a crook and a corrupt shill for dictators. Then McCain got serious about running for president and began to reconcile with Norquist.

McCain took a firm line in opposition to torture, and then caved to White House demands.

McCain gave up on his signature policy issue, campaign-finance reform, and won’t back the same provision he sponsored just a couple of years ago.

McCain was against presidential candidates campaigning at Bob Jones University before he was for it.

McCain was anti-ethanol. Now he’s pro-ethanol.

McCain was both for and against state promotion of the Confederate flag.

And now he’s both for and against overturning Roe v. Wade.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/11/13/8393132/index.htm

Politicians should be allowed to change their positions when they represent different people. Their job is to represent what the people want, as well as to do what they want.

Reasons to agree:

Let’s say someone is extremely qualified as a Governor, who happens to live in a liberal state. This person is the only person who could balance the budget and keep taxes down. But they would never get elected if they advocated all of their conservative beliefs. This person should be allowed to declare a truce on his conservative beliefs that would prevent him from getting elected, and keep these to himself, and get into office, keeping his promise to only advance those conservative issues that he said he would advance in the election. So this person finishes up the term, and kept his promise. He balanced the budget without raising taxes, and kept his promise to not advance his conservative beliefs that would have prevented him from getting elected in this very liberal state. Now this person is done with this state. He has done all that he could do. He balanced there budget, without raising taxes, and did kept true to his word on the truce that he made on those issues that would have prevented him from getting into office. He balanced their budget, and they spit in his eye every day. Now this candidate sees bigger problems than just the state budget that he balanced. There is a gigantic federal deficit. He sees himself as being uniquely qualified to balance the budget, and still promote pro-business agenda with his background in strategic business consulting. Should this person be kept from office because he declared a truce on issues that would have prevented a republican from getting elected in a liberal strong hold? Should this person have suffered a noble defeat, and stayed with his principals? Is defeat noble, or is it nobler to win, and serve your country?

George S. Patten said “The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his.” Republicans have this word called “RINO”. It means “Republican in name only”. Democrats have not used the word “DINO”. They beat us in the last election. They ran very conservative democrats. They get to be in charge. They get to set the agenda. Republicans seem to hate each other more than they hate the democrats. We need to come together and win. A house divided against itself can not stand. Should we use the word “RINO”? Is it good to be calling each other names, or should be talk issues. In stead of calling someone a RINO why don’t we try saying specifically what we disagree with. Not all republicans agree exactly on what the most important issues are. We are a coalition of like minded people. There is no pure doctrine. There is a platform, but no one agrees 100% with it. Some people don’t like this wording, some people don’t like that. Some people think some things should be emphasized more than others.

People have called Arnold Schwarzenegger, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, and about ever other candidate out there a RINO. Just Google “RINO” and any republican, and you will find another republican calling that person a Republican in Name Only. The term is stupid, because who determines what a true republican is? Apparently the person calling the other person a RINO is the only true measure of a true republican. Everyone who disagrees with him is a less than 100% pure.

Reasons to disagree"

Brownback

Brownback Flip Flops