Mitt "The Flip" Romney was in the Master's denizen yesterday morning in Meet the Press. He fielded many questions, but Tim Russert (doing what he does better than most people do raising their kids) focused the questions on those adorable beachwear sandals: flip flops. Russert, as can be seen in the transcripts from yesterday's Q&A, asked Romney about his changed positions on abortion, stem cell research, immigration, support for Reagan-Bush, gun control, tax cuts, health care and his ambiguous support for Buckeye football (j/k). Romney, as polished as always, took the charges and tried his best to spin each situation.
On abortion, the former Massachusetts Governor claimed he had an Epiphany while examining the legislation on stem cell research. He essentially believed the process was wrong and led to his change of position. He admits he changed his position on abortion, and stem cell research, but that it's rather ludicrous to think folks will have a long, political career and never change their stance on a given issue.
True enough, but how many passes can a man get. Russert demonstrates time and again, from media sources to Romney's own speeches, the flip flops the former Governor has been able to pull off. All while conveniently appealing to the constituency whose support he's vying for. Hence, his current fire and brimstone stance against Gay marriage and federal laws protecting homosexuals in the workplace. This, of course, is a neat departure from his 2002 stance in favor of such initiatives.
This is demonstrated throughout the program, and the problem is quite fundamental. Romney does seem competent enough to be President, and his organizational skills of a massive bureaucracy like the Executive Branch ought not be doubted. But the questions must be asked: Is a vote for Romney a vote for the pro-life or pro-choice Romney? Will he have a neo-con foreign policy agenda or a more pragmatic one that the world requires? Will he re-enforce gun laws, or roll back gains made to keep guns off the streets of neighborhoods like Roxbury, Washington, D.C. and New Orleans? Expect this kind of confusion to serve as a liability for Romney among Independents when the time matters.
On abortion, the former Massachusetts Governor claimed he had an Epiphany while examining the legislation on stem cell research. He essentially believed the process was wrong and led to his change of position. He admits he changed his position on abortion, and stem cell research, but that it's rather ludicrous to think folks will have a long, political career and never change their stance on a given issue.
True enough, but how many passes can a man get. Russert demonstrates time and again, from media sources to Romney's own speeches, the flip flops the former Governor has been able to pull off. All while conveniently appealing to the constituency whose support he's vying for. Hence, his current fire and brimstone stance against Gay marriage and federal laws protecting homosexuals in the workplace. This, of course, is a neat departure from his 2002 stance in favor of such initiatives.
This is demonstrated throughout the program, and the problem is quite fundamental. Romney does seem competent enough to be President, and his organizational skills of a massive bureaucracy like the Executive Branch ought not be doubted. But the questions must be asked: Is a vote for Romney a vote for the pro-life or pro-choice Romney? Will he have a neo-con foreign policy agenda or a more pragmatic one that the world requires? Will he re-enforce gun laws, or roll back gains made to keep guns off the streets of neighborhoods like Roxbury, Washington, D.C. and New Orleans? Expect this kind of confusion to serve as a liability for Romney among Independents when the time matters.
2 comments:
For the truth about gay marriage check out our trailer. Produced to educate & defuse the controversy it has a way of opening closed minds & creates an interesting spin on the issue: www.OUTTAKEonline.com
The truth will set them free…
I'm for gay marriage, but i just watched (some of) that trailer... it's 10 mins long and starts with "straight people are the threat to the institution of marriage." Not exactly the way to diffuse a divisive issue or build a convincing argument.
Post a Comment