Nov. 15, 2007
The GOP's Flip-Flopping Four
National Review Online: Top Republican Candidates Have Switched Stances On Key Issues
-
Photo
(AP / CBS)
-
Play CBS Video
Video
Thompson Ad Touts Consistency
"I've been a conservative my whole life," says Fred Thompson in this 60-second ad. Thompson points to his "100 percent pro-life voting record" and says rights "come from God and not from government."
-
Video
McCain Ad: 'Outrageous'
John McCain hits wasteful spending in Congress - "$233 million for a bridge to nowhere" - and takes another dig at the $1 million "for a Woodstock Museum... in a bill sponsored by Hillary Clinton."
-
Video
Romney On Switch To Pro-Life
Mitt Romney tells Bob Schieffer that he has revised his beliefs on abortion and is pro-life. The former Mass. governor also addresses accusations that he repeatedly flip-flops on issues.
-
Interactive
Campaign 2008
Profiles of the candidates, polls, fund-raising, blogs, video and more.
-
In-Depth
2008 Presidential Hopefuls
Profiles and the latest news on the Democrats and Republicans running for the White House.
The four leading Republican candidates for president have demonstrated that they have four distinct styles of flip-flopping.
Mitt Romney is the most notorious flip-flopper in the field, and his most notorious flip-flop concerned abortion. He claims that a conversation with scientists about human cloning made him see how abortion had devalued human life. Nobody can prove that Romney isn’t telling the truth, but nobody quites believe him, either. Romney has also changed positions on guns, immigration, and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. But it is not the number of his flip-flops that has impressed people so much as how they have altered his political character. He was a moderate technocrat a few years ago, but has become a culture warrior.
Rudy Giuliani presents himself as a man who respects conservatives too much to pander to them. Social conservatives, he argues, should trust him more since he doesn’t alter his positions to suck up to them. But Giuliani has switched his positions on guns, partial-birth abortion, immigration, and civil unions, in each case moving rightward. He has been pretty consistent in his flip-flop methodology: He finds some detail that justifies the switch. The detail is usually bogus. He said, for example, he was able to support a ban on partial-birth abortion because it included a life-of-the-mother exception - but the one he had opposed had included that exception, too. He said that he would no longer support the lawsuit he initiated against gunmakers, primarily because the case had “taken several turns and several twists that I don’t agree with.” (He then qualified that with a “probably.”) But the principal turn is that the plaintiffs have scaled back their demands. He came out against “comprehensive” immigration reform not because it included amnesty, but because it didn’t create adequate databases.
When Al Gore flipped from pro-life to pro-choice during his first run for president, one of his aides told a reporter that his strategy for dealing with his past was to “deny, deny, deny.” Fred Thompson seems to have copied his abortion strategy from the man whose Senate seat he took. The difference is that it’s a pro-choice past that he denies having. He distinguishes himself from Romney on abortion by saying that he, Thompson, was with pro-lifers yesterday and will be with them tomorrow. What Thompson can’t admit is that he wasn’t with pro-lifers the day before yesterday.
John McCain’s main flip-flop has been on taxes. He voted against Bush’s tax cuts, but now he wants to keep them. He justifies the switch by saying that circumstances have changed. He hasn’t apologized for his earlier vote. But to allow the tax cuts to expire now would be to raise taxes. As David Brooks noted the other day, McCain is never terribly convincing when he does something he doesn’t believe in. Earlier this year he said that tax cuts always raise revenue. It’s a nonsensical claim, but it also makes his overall argument impossible to sustain. One of his principal objections to the Bush tax cuts was that they would increase the deficit. If he now thinks that tax cuts increase revenue, he was wrong and should say so.
If I had to judge the matter, I’d say that Thompson and Giuliani go about their flip-flopping with a bit more dishonesty than Romney and McCain. But if you want edification, look away from the whole field.
By Ramesh Ponnuru
Reprinted with permission from National Review Online.




Giuliani flip-flops on gun control after 9/11 attacks?
These dumbos can''t even come up with a decent excuse for their pandering!
Just the facts folks.
Before the flip the dollar flopped to record lows; what''s in your wallet today is worth less than seven years ago. Record budget balancing flopped to record debt payable for generations to come. Bankruptcy flopped to record losses for Americans; losses of their houses! ! ! Healthcare flopped to more Americans are living without health coverage than ever in our history. George Bush''s plan to save social security flopped; he''s flipped that to the next administration.
Vote more Republicans out of office in 2008 and this country will move more towards success, away from failure.
Just the facts folks.
Posted by perception5 at 01:28 PM : Nov 15, 2007"
You wouldn''t know a fact if it bit you the a$$.
Please P5, you''re the poster boy for the lying Republiscum, you''ve made it an art form, you can lie without even moving your lips. Actually for you that''s not too difficult since you spend most of your life talking out your a$$.
Anyone who believe that truth/lying is the exclusive domain or even more predominant in one party or the other just isn''t dealing with reality. Any one remember "I did not have s3xual relations with that woman"? Did anyone watch Hillary in the last Dem debate? Did anyone listen when Pelosi said what the Dems would do once in power? Or how Reid slammed the GOP for Jack Abramoff...until it was revealed that he received payments from Native American tribes as well? They''re all crooked....and until you people hold BOTH parties accountable....YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM!!
Lastly, those of you slamming NRO.....what do you want? Usually you slam them because they tend to be PRO-conservative. Now they write a piece slamming GOP hopefuls....and you slam them anyways?! You are smart enough to realize that this article works in your political favor, aren''t you? AREN''T YOU? I guess that''s debate-able.
Frank Bowers in Austin, TX
Perception5''s (@ 1:28)elevator doesn''t go anywhere NEAR the top floor, as many of you pointed out. First of all, the name. Perception5, for someone who obviously doesn''t perceive very much? Then he boasts,"just the facts" without offering any?
As for the many flip-flops all across the spectrum? If principles and consistency get in the way of corporate sponsors and K Street lobbyists, guess who wins? Campaign finance reform, anyone?
A frequent poster, alanrobisch, has, in other posts, argued with some articulation that, in the name of "free speech" there should be no restrictions on political donations from ANYONE! I couldn''t disagree more. That would (has?) put all elections in the hands of the wealthy, the richest corporations, and certain "causes" that by their nature have the ability to raise large sums from individuals (e.g. the NRA, the "Moral" Majority, labor unions, etc.). NOT a good idea!
We don''t have enough Democrats to deliver. That will change next year when we kick some more weasel repubs to the curb.
http://www.hucksarmy.com/video.php
-
by quatrops
November 17, 2007 12:04 PM PST
- As long as NRO is attempting to look "fair and balanced", I''d like them to take a look at the progenitor of the Bush dynasty, PRESCOTT BUSH who, interestingly, has been given little attention in the media''s right.
-
Reply to this comment
-
See all 21 CommentsPrescott, who in the ''30s could have been described as a "never met a fascist German businessman I didn''t like" type of guy, had a long record of promoting business deals favorable to the Nazi regime.
It wasn''t until late December ''41 that FDR made trading with the enemy illegal. Until then Prescott, with only his own moral principles to guide him, had no difficulty enriching the family treasury by promoting commercial deals favorable to Nazi Germany.
One only has to look at the more current history of the moral mindset of his heirs to be reminded of the adage " . . the sins of the father . . ".