COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • atlasshrugs

    a nice video

  • manny

    Mitt Romney’s Deception
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwwcAa6nHm4
    He actually promoted “gay marriage” — implementing it in violation of the Constitution, without legislative authorization. Romney called the illegitimate court ruling “law.”
    Romney supported Kevin Jennings? ?gay? propaganda in the Mass. public schools, a ?Governor?s Commission on Gay & Lesbian Youth,? and Dept. of Educ. “Safe Schools” programs. He issued proclamations celebrating GLBT “Youth Pride” events.
    Romney included Planned Parenthood and its $50 abortions in RomneyCare.

  • NeoKong

    Nice job.

  • iidvbii

    Nice video…

  • sayoung80913

    Mitt’s wife also advocated for and donated to Planned Parenthood as I believe he did as well. Suppose he comes up with the rejoinder-”well, I said I was a firm believer in the separation between church and state, which is why I made those two differing statements”-how does he explain both him and his wife making PERSONAL donations to an organization that rabidly promotes abortions? No middle ground there Mitt…..

  • Vegas_Rick

    defenders can mount an attack on this. Nice job, Neil.

  • explodinghead

    nt

  • damianvincent

    that’s great can we share that? You should put your name as a watermark

  • damianvincent

    Don’t forget when he was a gay rights activist, he even pushed for gay scout masters at the boy scouts.

  • d_lamar

    Sorry if this is redundant, but is worth watching for those who haven’t seen it.

    http://teapartyorg.ning.com/video/mitt-romney-s-flip-flops

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    I really don’t like Mitt very much, but in fairness, could it be that he really had a change of heart? I know that there are some things I believed in to the full extent, that I now think are crazy.

    I hope that is the case because I think he has the upper hand in winning the nomination.

  • wennejunk

    I suppose the proof would be in the pro-life pudding:

    Have he and his wife been quietly volunteering at pro-life pregnancy centers?

    Have he and his wife been donating in not only equal, but greater amounts to the various pro-life counseling, adoption and pregnancy support centers?

    There are dozens of big ones and hundreds of small ones. His money (and time) could provide a strategic shift to these centers’ ability to save lives.

    In fact, leadership by Romney could even shift the balance of the debate – something a pro-life America could surely use and follow.

    So, in a reverse Jerry McGuire moment: “Show me the money”

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    I can’t tell you how many times at this site I’ve been told that Mitt Romney has been pro-life his entire career.

    Or that he was always pro-life, but made a truce on abortion.

    Only now I point out the truth: he promised not just a truce, but actively to defend legalized mass infanticide in Massachusetts. And further he claimed to be for legalized abortion since 1970, a point he made with a heartfelt story about his own mother.

    What change of heart did he have between running for Governor in 2002 and running for President in 2008?

  • SoFiMil

    Not so with flip-flop-flips within days of each statement. That being said, Romney’s a h—- of a lot better than Obama.

  • wennejunk

    Equal, but greater amounts compared to their previous PPP support.

    After all, if one has recognized the error of one’s ways, one surely would take robust steps to undo the damage he/she caused.

    Right?

    I’m sure there would be an easily verifiable record of donations and support going back to the point of the supposed conversion.

    Right?

  • jdaman

    He had a change of campaigns. When he was running for Governor he said he was pro choice, anti gun rights, and whatever else that that moderates and some independents believe so that he would get elected for Governor. Is he actually pro choice and anti guns rights? Yup. His record says so.
    Then comes 2011, and Viola, he’s pro life, pro gun, and very conservative just as he claims he’s always been! Why? Because we want a conservative candidate and so he instantly becomes a conservative candidate!

  • nvrepub

    nt

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    Obama is going down and the GOP is going to be awarded a landslide for voting NO against the whole ObamaDem agenda. For a preview, see 2010 elections which was the biggest Republican victory since 1948.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    .

  • Flagstaff

    Nothing untrue, just a convenient juxtaposition with the current position being shown first, followed by the previous, old, old position.

    I suppose the same could have been run against Reagan in the seventies, using his current words followed by “Vote Democrat!” from speeches years before.

    You think Romney is lying. We get it. There are others who think Perry is also lying, Bachmann is not a close friend of the truth, Newt would say anything to ingratiate the Ruling Class, Herman Cain just wants to sell his book, and Ron Paul is the only one “telling it like it is.”

    What is it about us that we can’t bear to take our own candidate at his word when it comes to his opinions, yet we’ll swallow whole a misstatement of fact from the mouth of the guy we like, but won’t listen to a reasoned explanation behind a policy difference if we disagree with the policy.

    What does it take to convince us that a candidate has actually changed his mind on an issue? Do we only believe them when the change is against their own political interests? We don’t like it when they disavow an previous “wrong” belief, but we also hate it when they defend, with the logic and situations of that time, an old position that we now consider “wrong.” That approach means that there is no way any of them can win with if they have ever “strayed” from the path of strict conservatism. They can’t recant and they can’t explain; they can’t win if they haven’t been perfect from the start.

    Why do we treat our own as if they were Democrats?

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Yes, we know Reagan switched parties.

    But on what issue did Reagan claim to have *always* been one way, then later claimed to have *always* been the other way?

  • Flagstaff

    and union president, switching to the Republican party was a big deal.

    He himself says the party left him, of course, but my statement stands as written. Using snippets of sound and type, juxtaposing Reagan saying “Vote Democrat!” as I’m sure he did many times, would be the same type of persuasive prose as what you did.

    As you note, I didn’t say you did anything wrong or unethical, I just pointed out that your video depends in great part on having the “old” Romney presented last. Were the segments switched, it would have a lot less impact, and might even be used to show that Mitt learned from his mistakes, so in a way my comment was also a compliment to your video presentation skill.

    Do you really believe he isn’t pro-life now and in the future, that he’s secretly still pro-abortion pro-choice?

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    If you had an actual issue Reagan flipped on, particularly one as important and a flip as total as Romney’s on life, you’d have brought it up.

    Instead, you fling up his well-known party switch, one that he never denied, unlike Romney who tries to pretend he’s only ever had one position on life.

  • http://www.itsaboutliberty.com IronDioPriest

    I just don’t believe Mitt Romney has. I’m not saying he hasn’t either. I’m just saying that based on the evidence, Mitt Romney has no guiding principles upon which he bases tough choices, aside from his desire to become President.

    America – particularly conservative “Tea Party” America – is crying out for a man or woman of principles, convictions, authenticity, and character to lead this nation at a time of great crisis.

    Mitt Romney is the antithesis of what the conservative electorate wants, and of what America needs. He is rudderless, ambitious, and apparently willing to say what he thinks he needs to say in order to garner enough votes to win, regardless of from whom those votes are garnered.

    No. Mitt. Romney.

  • Flagstaff

    I don’t claim to be a Reagan expert, and Romney doesn’t claim that he never took those now-heretical positions earlier in life. Certainly not in the clips you provided. There isn’t even anything contradictory between the clips if the time element is taken into consideration and the statements are placed within the context of two very different campaigns for two very different offices.

    As I said, it was a nice hit piece. Long on form, short on substance.

    Presentation: A
    Adding to the discourse: F

    (^;^)

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Converts are great, but a fresh, unproven convert isn’t necessarily what we’d want as a Presidential nominee. And we can’t even be sure Romney *is* a convert.

  • aesthete

    as though they are *politicians* who are applying for the most powerful job in America, and by extension, in all of human history. Seeking basic honesty and consistency is hardly a high standard — it is a standard that most employers seek even for menial jobs. It’s not Neil’s problem that Mitt Romney’s terminology has to be made elastic to make his position consistent.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    Anyone who would spend years running for president and carefully tailoring his message, is by definition too ambitious.

    Where are the core beliefs, where is the passion from the gut?

  • aesthete

    Reagan over time switched from holding conventional views to what were at the time view that were considered radical, provicial and unpopular? Reagan did not switch from being a Rockefeller Republican to a conservative to appeal to different core constituencies, and he was quite upfront about the details of how he became a conservative Republican. He did not pretend to be an arch-conservative; just a convert to Goldwater Republicanism. Mitt, through his words and actions, demands to be seen as an arch-conservative and particularly a pro-lifer. He went out of his way in ’08 to attack the pro-life records of people like Fred Thompson, who has been a pro-lifer for years while Romney was promising to uphold those fine pro-abortion laws in MA. Forgive me if I find criticism of Romney detractors on this issue hollow.

  • aesthete

    the context of this donation was Romney and his wife attending a Planned Parenthood fundraiser. You’re kidding me if you think that PP in the mid-90s was not already well-known for providing abortions.

  • Flagstaff

    to all of them, equally.

    You are inferring dishonesty where there may be none, simply because you don’t like somebody. Reread:

    What does it take to convince us that a candidate has actually changed his mind on an issue? Do we only believe them when the change is against their own political interests? We don?t like it when they disavow an previous ?wrong? belief, but we also hate it when they defend, with the logic and situations of that time, an old position that we now consider ?wrong.? That approach means that there is no way any of them can win with if they have ever ?strayed? from the path of strict conservatism. They can?t recant and they can?t explain; they can?t win if they haven?t been perfect from the start.

    Personally, I’m more interested in current behavior and recent policies than in ancient history.

    **”Mitt Romney?s terminology has to be made elastic to make his position consistent.”**

    Which terminology would that be? Direct quote, please.

  • radicalrighty

    It can happen. It happened to me halfway through my wife’s pregnancy. My thinking went from, “it’s none of my business what women do with their bodies,” to, “how can anybody say this baby is not a human being?”

  • irishgirl

    http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/fischer/111010

  • irishgirl

    I can understand anyone when they’re young (and I mean 18, 19 or so) believing one thing and then having that opinion evolve and change with more knowledge and experience, but having one opinion when you’re middle aged running for gov and should have all facts at hand, etc and then flip flopping later due to your campaign, uh……….no.

  • wacowboy

    and have come to this conclusion

    I would say the difference between a real change of mind or heart and simply being a “flip-flopper” is to look at a candidate’s pattern of forming opinions regarding the issues.

    If the opinions formerly held were politically expedient at the time, and if the current positions are also politically expedient, then a person reads more as a flip-flopper.

    If a person shows a trend toward conservatism or away from it, regardless of political expedience, then that would seem to be more of a change of heart.

    In Mitt’s case, we need to ask ourselves these questions. Have the changes of mind been borne out of political expedience or a real change of heart? One can certainly see the expedience of running as a pro-choice republican in blue Massachusetts, at the same time, it also appears politically expedient to run for president as a hard and fast social conservative.

    Where his heart or mind really is, only he knows. But his policy views on many things lead me to think that his answer would be “whatever will give me the best chance to get elected.” And if I have that impression, I don’t know who he really is.

    We need to be examining all the candidates and their records so that we know who we really are choosing and what we really will get from that person.

  • horsewithnoname

    but amazingly very few views. It really needs to go around.

  • horsewithnoname

    I wonder why he did not run for gov in UT or MI?

  • drivlikejehu

    There’s no question Mitt is a “flip-flopper.” But the real issue is how he would govern if elected President.

    If Obama loses, it means the GOP will control the White House, Senate, and House. Would Romney suddenly revert to his leftist ways in that situation? Would he nominate liberals to positions in the executive and judicial branches? I don’t think there’s any chance at all he would behave that way.

    On the other hand, would he push for bold reforms? No. He could be pushed to it by conservatives on the Hill, but Romney would always look to avoid risk.

    The ultimate question then is whether another GOP candidate: (a) would win, (b) is a real conservative, and (c) has the political skill to get big reforms to his desk. The last point is important because that’s what would really make a difference.

    I don’t see a candidate right now who meets those simple criteria. Which isn’t to say conservatives should support Romney, but just that there isn’t a clear choice at all right now.

  • horsewithnoname

    as I have changed mine over time. Was considering Romney before until I learned more about him, and viewed the videos – stunning in conviction in those debates as he is stunning now and I said to myself – wtf?

    Is it written anywhere or has he explained how he he has evolved in his views?

  • http://www.rightproadvisors.com erinmist

    Ronald Reagan had a similar shift in views on the abortion issue, according to a Los Angeles Times article headlined “Romney isn?t the first to flip on abortion.?

    In 1967, Reagan signed a liberal abortion law legalizing the procedure in cases where a woman?s mental as well as physical health was at risk.

    The number of abortions in California soared after the bill was passed, and Reagan came to regret singing it. By the time he ran for president in 1980, Reagan had declared his support for a constitutional amendment prohibiting all abortions except to save the life of a woman.

    Regarding the “sincerity” of Romney’s conversion, a man well revered and admired here at Red State — Senator Jim DeMint — had this to say: “He feels passionately that the value of human life begins at conception. The idea that he might have changed his mind is very appealing to me, because we?re not going to win that debate unless people change their minds and think it through.?

    I’m actually a Perry supporter, and would rather not pull the trigger for Romney unless he is the nominee.

    But if we treat those who convert to pro-life this way, arguing they aren’t pure enough”, we’ll never win this argument. I shudder to think if the Internet had been around in 1980 who would have saved us from Jimmy Carter. Gaffe-prone radical Reagan, or establishment RINO John Anderson? Tea Partiers staying home in droves because “back in the day” Reagan supported and signed a law that made abortion on demand in California a reality.

    Sigh…I lament that we just continue to eat our own…

  • avgjo

    Watch out, Mr. Stevens; if Mitt gets the nomination, Obama’s people might try to hire you to make their ads ; )

    I wish Perry would do so , now. Then we’d not have to worry about a Romney candidacy.