Comments on: Mitt Romney’s Change of Mind

By: jm

jm — Fri, 02 Dec 2011 17:26:53 +0000

When I think of flip-flop, I think of someone flipping first, then flopping. In other words, you may start out pro-X, then anti-X, then pro-X.

In all honesty, I have flipped and then flopped on many things in my life, including substantial beliefs about core issues. I wish I had been more consistent, but I have not been. So I don’t judge this phenomenon as harshly.

I do wonder if some of the flipping and flopping, though, is influenced by the audience one is addressing. I do tend to judge that more critically.

Was Romney pro-life first, then pro-choice for the Mass. elections, then pro-life again? If he switched for expediency, then I admire him less.

By: Bret Lythgoe

Bret Lythgoe — Fri, 02 Dec 2011 07:39:39 +0000

I think that Raymond Takashi Swensen makes a good point, regarding Romney’s Mormonism. I agree, and would add that, considering the criticism, even bigotry (e.g., Perry’s pastor asserting that Mormonism is a “cult” a very unkind and bigoted statement) that the Mormon Church has been subjected to, Romney’s firm adherence to it, is a sign of his integrity.

By: Barry H.

Barry H. — Fri, 02 Dec 2011 01:04:40 +0000

This way of looking at it might be plausible if Romney had not also “changed his mind” on almost every position in which he found a previous position to be less expedient. Is there any flip, among his many, about which we could speak as you did of your own: “he had little to gain by it”?

By: Raymond Takashi Swenson

Raymond Takashi Swenson — Thu, 01 Dec 2011 18:50:55 +0000

The term “flip-flop” became current in presidential election discourse because John Kerry was constantly saying different things on the campaign trail to different audiences, basically at the same time. But that is NOT what Romney has done, in evolving his positions about abortion. He has called for reversing Roe v. Wade, which would allow each state to legislate a rule on abortion that reflects the conscience of its own citizens. Undoubtedly the majority of Massachusetts voters would leave abortion law pretty much where it is, while many other states would place significant restrictions on it, such as allowing it only in cases of rape, incest, or severe health threats to the mother. Even George W. Bush took a compromise position on Federal funding on fetal stem cell research, allowing it to proceed if it used existing liines of stem cells, but not if it involved new abortions.

The news stories about Romney’s service as an unpaid, part-time Mormon pastor in Boston years ago related that, in that capacity, he had strongly discouraged a woman from having an abortion, in line with Mormon teachings that abortion should only be contemplated if the pregnancy threatens severe physical or emotional harm to the mother. Romney clearly did not favor the kind of unrestricted abortion policy that Pro-Choice advocates insist on. But there is a difference between persuasivly teaching that viewpoint to fellow church members, and making it into a legal standard that governs the lives of people who are not of his faith.

The fact that people in the Left are seriously opposed to Romney as president demonstrates that THEY believe his conservative social principles grow out of his sincere commitment to Mormonism, and that he will follow those principles if he is elected. It is hypocritical of people to claim that Ropmney is not really committed to those principles, even as they criticize his solid loyalty to Mormonism, which is the source of his commitment to conservative social values.

By: Bret Lythgoe

Bret Lythgoe — Thu, 01 Dec 2011 13:37:01 +0000

While it’s certainly understandable that many are skeptical of Romney due to his flip flops, but, for good or bad, this is common, obviously, for politicians. He’s certainly (with the conceivable exception of Gingrich) the most intelligent, and probably the most stable.

By: Michael Pedersen

Michael Pedersen — Thu, 01 Dec 2011 03:32:53 +0000

Romney’s former rational positions on healthcare, and the need for civil discourse are the very reason he does not appeal to today’s republican party which appears to have been co-opted by the whack-a-moles. His flip-flopping to appease the radical right lowers him to their level.

By: Joe McFaul

Joe McFaul — Wed, 30 Nov 2011 18:34:25 +0000

I’m not a Romney fan, but, there is nothing wrong with a considered change of mind. We should expect politicians to educate themselves on various subjects and adjust their positions based on their education and experience.