[besson3c]

I don't get this sort of stuff:

Mitt Romney On Ohio Union Fight: Former Governor Backpedals Support For Anti-Union Bill

This has nothing to do with Romney or Perry or any politician in particular, because these sorts of accusations and political tactics unquestionably happen within both parties, so chill on the partisan cheap shots, mmkay?

Why does this sort of thing happen over and over and over again?

If Romney or anybody else is unsure about whether he supports something, why not just say that he is undecided or hasn't examined the issue fully yet? If he has changed his mind, why not just say so? Why would this be a bad thing? Why do politicians let this sort of thing go on? There is nothing wrong with changing your mind, in fact, in many cases this is a healthy thing. Nobody likes pandering, I get why this sort of thing might be used as a weapon, but can't it so easily by defused by just saying that you changed your mind?

Who actually thinks that one has to make up their mind and leave it set that way for years and years and years, no matter what realities unfold? Really, all a politician has to do is say that they've changed their mind because of factor x or factor y, and these sort of stories just go nowhere. As long as these factors seem plausible (and many issues have a number of factors that would give politicians easy outs), the politician will not be accused of pandering, he'll be accused of changing his mind - whoop de doo!

Also, if politicians are supposed to be leaders and we are electing them because they have all of these awesome leadership skillz, why don't they ever say that these sorts of things are ridiculous when they happen to whomever, and suggest to us Americans that we should not allow ourselves to be manipulated by this sort of thing which sort of seem to encourage politicians to never change their minds, which of course is not a good thing?

[Waragainstsleep]

There is a school of thought that believes changing ones mind to be a sign of weakness. I had a boss once who would give any answer at all to a question rather than admit he didn't actually know. He considered this a leadership trait/trick.

[Paco500]

It's generally crap. I agree that changing of ones mind on issues ca be a sign of thoughtful leadership and maturity. If I was a republican, I would not hold it against Rick Perry that he supported Al Gore in the past. My own political views have changed as I've aged. However in the case of Romney, he does show a remarkable habit of espousing whatever view is the most likely to get him elected. With him, I'd say fair game. He seems to have no convictions beyond what he thinks he needs to say to win.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I don't get this sort of stuff:

Mitt Romney On Ohio Union Fight: Former Governor Backpedals Support For Anti-Union Bill

Well what's not to get?

Let's look at what Romney said just last June:

Originally Posted by Mitt Romney

"My friends in Ohio are fighting to defend crucial reforms that the state has put in place to limit the power of union bosses and keep taxes low," Romney wrote on his Facebook page in June. "I stand with John R. Kasich and Ohio's leaders as they take on this important fight to get control of government spending. Please visit Building a Better Ohio for more information."

And look at what Romney is saying in Ohio now:

Originally Posted by Mitt Romney

"I am not speaking about the particular ballot issues," Romney said, according to CNN. "Those are up to the people of Ohio. But I certainly support the efforts of the governor to reign in the scale of government. I am not terribly familiar with the two ballot initiatives. But I am certainly supportive of the Republican Party's efforts here."

As you indicated above .... he's clearly backpedaling. The man is at a GOP phone bank that is designed to call voters to support the restrictions that the GOP legislature and governor placed on the collective bargaining rights of public employee unions. But now all of a sudden he's not speaking about "the particular ballot issues". Well he certainly had a lot to say last June! The reason why Romney is being as quiet as a church mouse about "the particular ballot issues" now is because Ohio is a key battleground state for the 2012 Presidential elections ... and 57% of the voters oppose what the GOP did while only 32% support it.

Now how did it come to this for Mr. Romney? He finds himself in this predicament for two reasons IMO ....

1. The GOP is really, really good at messaging. So much better than the Dems that it's not even funny.

2. The GOP overplayed its hand in Ohio (and Wisconsin) when it came to public employee union busting.


Because the GOP is so disciplined at staying "on message" they consistently framed the debate in terms of "limiting the power of union bosses". Getting "control of government spending". "Reducing taxes" and reigning in the "scale of government". These are generalities and platitudes that sound good to a lot of people. The problems arose when the general electorate realized what the specific consequences of the legislation would actually be. When they started to realize that it wasn't some generic "union bosses" ... it was their local teachers, and firefighters, and police officers being targeted ... they downright revolted. The GOP strategy was to play private sector workers against public sector workers. They pushed too far too fast and it backfired. Because the majority of the middle class private sector workers realized that local teachers, firefighters, and police officers aren't their "enemy". They are their friends and neighbors. And if they went along with snatching the rug out from under the very thing that maintained their tenuous hold on the middle class .... then eventually they would be next.

Look at this memo from Karl Rove's CrossroadsGPS group outlining GOP talking points against President Obama's push for the American Jobs Act:

Similarly, 70% of respondents initially favor Obama’s proposal to “give billions to states to stop layoffs of teachers and firefighters.” But when the same idea is described as “giving billions to states to keep government union workers on the payroll,” 52% turn against the idea.

Messaging.

Another one ....

President Obama hasn’t closed the sale with the public on his latest stimulus, but one theme does appear to resonate. It may be the result of larger environmental conditions, or he may be moving the needle himself, but Obama’s “tax the rich” mantra is getting traction: our poll found that 64% favor raising taxes on people with incomes above $200,000.

So why does the GOP consistently refer to the wealthy as "job creators" and advocate tax cuts for them ... even when they don't create any jobs in the US?

Messaging.

Romney was down with the union busting legislation in Ohio when it appeared to be a political winner for him. And now that it's turned out to be a sure political loser ... he's uh "distancing himself" from the adamant position he took just a few short months ago. And it's not just Romney. Politicians of all stripes do it. It's just that Romney is particularly inept at it.

OAW

[Big Mac]

Changing one's mind is not a sign of weakness, unless it's done repeatedly and on a number of different issues to the extent that it makes the public believe the politician in question has no solid values and will change his stances to suit the changing political winds. Such is the case with Romney in the view of many, especially among more right-wing Republicans like me.

And not only does Romney flip-flop, he flip-flops so dramatically and then denies that he ever held a different position. He could say that when he was the governor of a liberal east-coast state, he held slightly to substantially different views more in line with his state-wide constituents. But he doesn't do that-he tries to make believe he's always been consistent. It's definitely a liability for him if someone demonstrates his flip-flopping effectively. So far Perry and the other candidates haven't really done it, but you can be sure President BHO will if Romney's the nominee.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Well what's not to get?

Let's look at what Romney said just last June:



And look at what Romney is saying in Ohio now:



As you indicated above .... he's clearly backpedaling. The man is at a GOP phone bank that is designed to call voters to support the restrictions that the GOP legislature and governor placed on the collective bargaining rights of public employee unions. But now all of a sudden he's not speaking about "the particular ballot issues". Well he certainly had a lot to say last June! The reason why Romney is being as quiet as a church mouse about "the particular ballot issues" now is because Ohio is a key battleground state for the 2012 Presidential elections ... and 57% of the voters oppose what the GOP did while only 32% support it.

Now how did it come to this for Mr. Romney? He finds himself in this predicament for two reasons IMO ....

1. The GOP is really, really good at messaging. So much better than the Dems that it's not even funny.

2. The GOP overplayed its hand in Ohio (and Wisconsin) when it came to public employee union busting.


Because the GOP is so disciplined at staying "on message" they consistently framed the debate in terms of "limiting the power of union bosses". Getting "control of government spending". "Reducing taxes" and reigning in the "scale of government". These are generalities and platitudes that sound good to a lot of people. The problems arose when the general electorate realized what the specific consequences of the legislation would actually be. When they started to realize that it wasn't some generic "union bosses" ... it was their local teachers, and firefighters, and police officers being targeted ... they downright revolted. The GOP strategy was to play private sector workers against public sector workers. They pushed too far too fast and it backfired. Because the majority of the middle class private sector workers realized that local teachers, firefighters, and police officers aren't their "enemy". They are their friends and neighbors. And if they went along with snatching the rug out from under the very thing that maintained their tenuous hold on the middle class .... then eventually they would be next.

Look at this memo from Karl Rove's CrossroadsGPS group outlining GOP talking points against President Obama's push for the American Jobs Act:



Messaging.

Another one ....



So why does the GOP consistently refer to the wealthy as "job creators" and advocate tax cuts for them ... even when they don't create any jobs in the US?

Messaging.

Romney was down with the union busting legislation in Ohio when it appeared to be a political winner for him. And now that it's turned out to be a sure political loser ... he's uh "distancing himself" from the adamant position he took just a few short months ago. And it's not just Romney. Politicians of all stripes do it. It's just that Romney is particularly inept at it.

OAW

So what? Why doesn't he just say that he no longer wishes to speak about these issues now because his viewpoints are evolving and he is seeing things differently?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Changing one's mind is not a sign of weakness, unless it's done repeatedly and on a number of different issues to the extent that it makes the public believe the politician in question has no solid values and will change his stances to suit the changing political winds. Such is the case with Romney in the view of many, especially among more right-wing Republicans like me.

And not only does Romney flip-flop, he flip-flops so dramatically and then denies that he ever held a different position. He could say that when he was the governor of a liberal east-coast state, he held slightly to substantially different views more in line with his state-wide constituents. But he doesn't do that-he tries to make believe he's always been consistent. It's definitely a liability for him if someone demonstrates his flip-flopping effectively. So far Perry and the other candidates haven't really done it, but you can be sure President BHO will if Romney's the nominee.

I understand, but like I said, there are so many easy outs for reasons behind changing one's mind, why doesn't he just use one of them?

[OAW]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

So what? Why doesn't he just say that he no longer wishes to speak about these issues now because his viewpoints are evolving and he is seeing things differently?

Because that's not what's going on. His viewpoints aren't "evolving". He's just trying to have it both ways. And he's banking on the average person not noticing.

OAW

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Because that's not what's going on. His viewpoints aren't "evolving". He's just trying to have it both ways. And he's banking on the average person not noticing.

OAW

Okay, I'm not up on this particular story so maybe you are right, but what about generally speaking when this happens? It happens a ton.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Okay, I'm not up on this particular story so maybe you are right, but what about generally speaking when this happens? It happens a ton.

Indeed. It happens a lot because at the end of the day we are talking about politicians. And the objective of the typical politician is to obtain and retain political power. Some have no qualms with shifting with the political winds from one day to the next in order to accomplish this objective. And if abandoning a previously held position faster than a stripper abandons a g-string serves that purpose then that's what they will do. As I said earlier, Mitt Romney is just particularly inept at coming up with some semblance of a plausible explanation for his ever-changing positions. Which is why he has a well-deserved reputation as a "flip-flopper".

The bottom line is that Mitt Romney is a northeastern, moderate Republican. A business oriented "Rockefeller Republican" so to speak. And "Establishment" guy through and through. But the problem is the modern day GOP has shifted radically to the right. It's now a party that's rooted primarily in the South and dominated by socially conservative, Christian evangelicals with a distinctly anti-government, anti-establishment outlook. The only reason Romney is the purported "front runner" is because he had the personal net worth to continue financing his 2008 presidential campaign. It was never really disbanded after he lost to John McCain. It just morphed into his 2012 campaign which allowed him keep his political organization intact and continue to campaign for the presidency and build his national name recognition. The problem is that in order to do that he has to get past a GOP primary that's decided by the "Tea Party" crowd ... so now he's shifting his positions to try to show that he's just as "conservative" as they are when that's simply not the case. Back in the days before the internet and the 24 hour news cycle it would have been a lot easier to get away with this. But these days ... not so much. It's just way too easy to dig up video footage of Romney advocating the polar opposite of whatever position he's now taking all of a sudden in order to pander to the GOP base. To their credit they see through these shenanigans and view him as a fake and a phony. A "flip flopper extraordinaire". Which is why he hasn't been able to consistently poll higher than 25% of GOP primary voters.

OAW

[besson3c]

Okay, but forget Romney even... It seems that many politicians are accused of or accuse others of flip-flopping and rarely do we see a politician take the out I'm describing, they always try to suck it up and blow it off somehow, so this sort of tactic continues to have traction even when the accusation is a stretch.

If you want we can talk about John Kerry, Obama, Perry, and pretty much any politician except for Ron Paul.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I understand, but like I said, there are so many easy outs for reasons behind changing one's mind, why doesn't he just use one of them?

Romney has tried to do so to an extent, but his explanations of his flip-flops aren't credible.

[The Final Dakar]

There's some definite parallels between Kerry and Romney. Must be the Massachusettes factor.

Anyway flip-flopping is a political buzzword to describe someone who changes their stance because it's politically expedient. I'm all for politicians changing their stances based on personal revelations or the will of their constituency, but in the case of Romney it seems like nothing more than transparent pandering to win the nomination. Likely counter-productive, too.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

There's some definite parallels between Kerry and Romney. Must be the Massachusettes factor.

Anyway flip-flopping is a political buzzword to describe someone who changes their stance because it's politically expedient. I'm all for politicians changing their stances based on personal revelations or the will of their constituency, but in the case of Romney it seems like nothing more than transparent pandering to win the nomination. Likely counter-productive, too.

I'll keep my eyes and ears open for examples that involve people who aren't Romney and Kerry, cause I know what you are getting at here. I just think this happens with a number of politicians, even ones that don't chronically pander. The word seems to be used interchangeably with simply changing one's mind, but I can't think of any concrete examples of this right now.

[qijino1236]

God, I am glad I found some other people who think about the "flip flop" buzzword. And nowadays that word is so demonized that probably some politicians don't do anything in order to avoid being called a "flip-flopper" I understand that flip-flopping can be a bad thing under certain circumstances. But flip flop also can be good. What if in an alternate universe Cheney got shot in 2004 and then Bush contemplated getting out of Iraq afterwards. Would he be afraid to throw away his pride and get out of Iraq for fear of being called a "flip flopper" by crazy people? Who knows, I just don't think the action of flip-flopping should be so demonized...people may change there mind for the better. That is what we need in this world now..."better" not fear.