Here we go all over again. Read my lips and bring ’em on. It’s the economy, stupid. Gotcha!
Which is to say, the stupid season is upon us. Same story, same characters, same plot twists. And yes, the same insanity. Plus ca change and all that.
To the familiar litany of cliches above, one hastens to add, “I was for it before I was against it,” the sine qua non of that quintessential political bugaboo — flip-floppery.
A politician may be able to survive cavorting with prostitutes, sexting with coeds and commingling with interns, but heaven forbid he should change his mind — the transgression that trumps all compassion.
Or thinking.
After all, thinking can lead to that most dangerous territory for a politician — doubt — and, inevitably, the implication that dare not be expressed: “I could be wrong.”
Those most averse to engaging in the sort of thought that could lead to self-doubt are, alas, those who constitute the political party base. These sometimes-wrong-never-in-doubt constituents are relentless in demanding ideological purity from their candidates and routinely banish those who don’t measure up. Thinking men and women need not apply.
These same folks also happen to constitute a minority of Americans, yet they control the debate. The rest of us are left to pick among the ideologically approved scraps.
The flip-flop is nothing new, of course. The archives of the New York Times reveal an early first political reference in 1890 when John W. Goff, candidate for New York district attorney, accused his opponent of a “great flip-flop.”
The term seems to have increased in popularity with each decade. Now, hardly anyone escapes the charge of flip-flopping, which in today’s man-up, grizzly mama freakosystem is tantamount to being weak and lacking in conviction. Witness the unfortunate John Kerry, who in 2004 was mercilessly maligned as a flip-flopper after he allegedly shifted his support for Iraq war funding. It was unhelpful that Kerry himself said that he voted for the funding before he voted against it.
Subsequent explanations of what he meant never gained traction because slogan beats reality every time. And besides, those ads showing Kerry flipping from one side to another while windsurfing were too much fun.
This go-round, it’s Mitt Romney (once again) who has been tattooed with the flip-flop label. He has indeed changed his mind on abortion and gay marriage, both of which he previously supported.
I have to interrupt her here. When he ran for governor in 2002, Romney declared his opposition to both same-sex marriage and civil unions. “Call me old fashioned, but I don’t support gay marriage nor do I support civil union,” said Romney in an October 2002 gubernatorial debate. He also voiced support for basic domestic partnership benefits for gay couples. His position is the same today.
In 1994, he wrote a letter to the Log Cabins saying that he thought that legal discrimination - and he specifically mentioned things like housing, don’t ask-don’t tell military policies, and credit - should be ended against gay people. MARRIAGE was on NOBODY’S agenda at that point, only a couple of years after Stonewall.
Romney originally tried to work with the gay community, in 1994, when they were not interested in gay marriage. In 1994 they were interested in not being discriminated against in the work place. Now the gay community is advocating different things, that Romney does not support. So saying Romney supports or supported the gay community is a vast over-simplification. Which gay community, and how did he support them?
On the day the decision went into effect, dozens of gay couples descended on Massachusetts’ city and town halls to get married. The TV cameras sought out Governor Romney for his response to the day’s events. The media no doubt expected him to toss some red meat to the knuckle-dragging conservatives that Romney was courting in anticipation of a presidential bid. Instead, Romney pleaded that the public and gay marriage critics in particular bear in mind that this was a happy and joyous day for many individuals, and act respectfully and accordingly.
As governor of Massachusetts, he orchestrated a near-universal health-care model that included mandatory insurance, a position he opposes as part of President Obama’s federal plan.
When Romney said he would be a better advocate for gay rights than Ted Kennedy, gay marriage was not as big a deal as it is now. You think I’m making this up, but it wasn’t a big deal in 1994. Look it up. Romney never said he was going to advocate for more gay rights than Ted Kennedy, just that Mitt Romney, as a republican, would help mainstream some basic gay rights, in a way that Ted Kennedy never could.
Romney did not leave the gay community the gay community left him.
On the day the decision went into effect, dozens of gay couples descended on Massachusetts’ city and town halls to get married. The TV cameras sought out Governor Romney for his response to the day’s events. The media no doubt expected him to toss some red meat to the knuckle-dragging conservatives that Romney was courting in anticipation of a presidential bid. Instead, Romney pleaded that the public and gay marriage critics in particular bear in mind that this was a happy and joyous day for many individuals, and act respectfully and accordingly.
When he ran for Senate in ’94 against Ted Kennedy, the opinions of Mitt Romney’s church was a recurring subject of discussion, thanks largely to the efforts of the Boston Globe. One of the things that the theologians at the Globe noticed is that the tenets of Mormonism regarding homosexuality weren’t particularly accepting or tolerant. The Globe kept implicitly pressuring Romney to make the choice – gays or his church. (Oddly, Ted Kennedy’s Catholic faith didn’t trigger any similar demands or curiosity on the Globe’s part.)
Blitzer: Let’s talk about abortion rights, because, on this issue, you have changed your opinion.
Governor Mitt Romney: Yes. You know, I — when I was elected governor…
Blitzer: You used to support a woman’s right…
Governor Mitt Romney: Well, what…
Blitzer: … to have an abortion.
Governor Mitt Romney: Well, when I was elected governor, I said that I didn’t support abortion, but I wouldn’t change the laws in Massachusetts. And people said, well, that is effectively pro-choice. I didn’t argue with them. I didn’t take the label pro-choice. But I did take the label pro-life, following the debate associated with stem cell research.
I sat into my office. And a provost of Harvard University and the head of stem cell research came in and said: Governor, this isn’t a moral issue, because we kill the embryo after 14 days.
And that struck me as being a — just a blow to the gut, because I recognized that we had so cheapened the value of human life, through the Roe v. Wade mentality, that I could no longer stand on the sidelines, if you will. I had to take sides.
And I call myself firmly pro-life.Other Abortion Questions of Romney:
- George Stephanopoulos
- So do you now believe that abortion is murder?
- Should women who have abortions and doctors who perform them be jailed?
- If it’s killing, why should states have leeway?
- What do you believe the punishment should be for an abortion?
- Wolf Blitzer
- Have you changed your opinion on Abortion?
- What is your current position on abortion?
- How do you account for your change on abortion?
- 1st Debate
- Would it be a good day for America if Roe v Wade was repealed?
- Have you always been for life or effectively pro-choice?
- When you said that being a pro-life president entails more than just appointing strict constructionist judges, was that directed at Giuliani?
- 2nd Debate
- What would you say to someone who lost a wife or a daughter to an illegal abortion if you named the Supreme Court justice who tipped the balance and over turned Roe v Wade?
- Governor Romney, during this campaign, you have been criticized — and again tonight you’ve been criticized — for changing your position on some issues. You say that it’s a part of learning from experience. Can you point to an area in which your learning from experience led you to change to a position that is less popular with the Republican base?
- Katherine Jean Lopez
- Were you faking it when you said you were pro-choice?
- Dan Balz, David S Broder and Ruth Marcus
- Do you support making abortion illegal?
- Mary Katharine Ham
- What do you think about the partial-birth abortion ban?
For more, go
here. Now back to Kathleen.
Never mind that Romney couched his comments with enough disclaimers to leave a T. rex wiggle room, even saying that he didn’t know the degree of human contribution, the crux of the debate. The mere mention of a human role (vs., presumably, a divine plan) was enough to bestir the guardians of scientific inquiry at Conservatives4Palin, who averred that Romney is “simpatico” with Obama and that he “totally bought into the man-made global warming hoax.”
Ah, yes, Romney the tree-hugging, flip-flopping Obamaphile. Isn’t he a Muslim, too?
On the issue of global warming, it is worth mentioning that the conservatives’ anti-global warming golden boy, Bjorn Lomborg, a Danish author, professor and environmental writer, has adjusted his thinking on the matter.
Although he has always maintained that cost-benefit analysis has to be part of any calculus in combating climate change, he also has said that global warming is “man-made and it is an important problem. But it is not the end of the world.”
In a saner world, we would not distrust those who change their mind but rather those who never do.
June 12th, 2011 at 11:16 am
Mitt never supported gay marriage. Please fix that in this article.