Did Republicans have no choice but to nominate a serial flip-flopper like Mitt Romney? Perhaps so.
David Karol has an interesting post at the Monkey Cage in which he argues that Romney’s “very inconsistency was a necessary, if not sufficient, condition for his success in capturing his party’s presidential nomination this year.” But I think it goes further than Karol suggests. It’s not just that Romney had to switch his positions to be a credible potential nominee. I would argue that any Republican presidential nominee today would have to be a serious flip-flopper.
And here is the reason.
The Republican Party has been moving to the right very quickly in recent years. Almost no one taking the stances that Romney is taking now could have been elected as a senator or a governor from most states just a few years ago. So, if you were consistently conservative (like, say, Bachmann or Santorum), you were either doomed to service in the House or to being kicked out of the Senate. If you had a presidential résumé, conversely, it was probably because your views were pretty moderate a few years ago. Arguably, the only person who can get nominated in the current Republican Party is someone who has pivoted to the right rapidly in the past decade. Rapid polarization makes flip-flopping a necessity.
If flip-flopping is the necessary trait for a nominee of a political party that has pulled a hard right in recent years, then a Mitt Romney would have to be created if he did not already exist. They would have to have put together a soulless creature that could effortlessly move from, “I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country” and “I will preserve and protect a woman’s right to choose” to “I am firmly pro-life” and “The right next step in the, in the fight to preserve the sanctity of life is to see Roe v. Wade overturned.”
From “Look, I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I’m not trying to return to Reagan-Bush” to “The principles that Ronald Reagan espoused are as true today as they were when he spoke them.”
From “Well, that’s what we did in Massachusetts, and that is, we put together an exchange, and the president’s copying that idea. I’m glad to hear that” to “Obamacare is bad news … and if I’m president of the United States I will repeal it.”
From “I just signed a piece of legislation extending the ban on certain assault weapons” to “I do not support any new legislation of an assault weapon ban nature.”
From “I’m not willing to sit back and say too bad for Michigan, too bad, too bad for the car industry” to “That’s exactly what I said…. ‘Let Detroit Go Bankrupt.’”
From “I think there is need for economic stimulus…” (2009) to “I have never supported the President’s recovery act, all right, the stimulus, no time, nowhere, no how.” (2011)
That is some serious flip-flopping and only possible from a man who at heart is a serial liar. But then again, in the immortal words of George Costanza, it’s really not a lie if you believe it.
___
(The Romney source photograph is a Creative Commons licensed image from photographer Gage Skidmore.)
Follow MarioPiperniDotCom on Facebook, Twitter and Google+.
.
Mitt’s constant re-positioning on the issues reminds me of the head-spinning scene from The Exorcist.
Well the kind word would be “flexible” but I would say malleable is more accurate when it comes to Romney. Malleable meaning easily controlled. Taking a look at the list of billionaires who are Romney’s real supporters it isn’t hard to see what kind of country we would be under a Romeny presidency. Democracy is being auctioned off to those who can pay the highest price and those who would give several hundred thousand dollars to elect anyone are expecting their money’s worth.
Love the graphic Mario, excellent.
The party has admitted that they just need someone that can wield a pen and do what they are told. Again, the biggest threat to the country comes from the huge horde of non-rich that vote against their own interests, because Rush and company manipulate them. The manipulators could not pull it off, without the easly manipulated.
Exactly Cheryl. All the R hierarchy want is someone to sign what they create. The R’s who aren’t part of the 1% actually think Romney is on their side. They will have a rude awakening when the Mitt who tries so hard (and fails) to be part of the common people suddenly remembers he is part of the 1%, he will remember he doesn’t even like to associate with the other 99% except to fire those who don’t give him good service. It’s going to be every man/woman for him/her-self – unless you are part of the 1% and then they, of course, help each other.
unless you are part of the 1% and then they, of course, help each other… UNTIL IT COMES TIME TO EAT THE RICH.
Flip-Flopping, my arse, he is a mendacious bastard. Please, please sue me for libel, I live and post in the UK, it’s like shooting fish in a barrel!
I think the biggest problem here is not Mitt Romney’s flip-flopping – though obviously he’s a piece of crap and has no business in the White House in the first place – but that more independents do not get the fact that he’s a big phony and the polls are just too close together. How could such a phony win the Republican nomination and now is commanding almost 50 percent in the polls?
America needs to become more informed I think. People need to read a newspaper once in a while and turn off that phony news station Fox News.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwtaIT-HR1c
Damn I’m getting old!
Rock on Lemmy!
Great Ramones influence.
Fidlerten: “How could such a phony win the Republican nomination and is now commanding almost 50 percent in the polls?” Below is an excerpt from an article in the Huffington Post this morning. Looks like people are not “turning off” but “tuning in” to Faux News. SCARY!!
“The bad news just keeps coming for CNN.
May was the network’s worst month for total viewers during primetime in over 20 years. CNN drew an average of just 389,000 primetime viewers from April 30 to May 27. In comparison, MSNBC drew an average of 674,000 total viewers, while Fox News boasted an average of 1,692,000 total viewers.”
Karen – If CNN and MSNBC lean left, and Fox leans right, what do those numbers tell you?
@Tommy
Short answer to your question: It tells me there are many more naive, misinformed fools on the right than there are on the left.
Longer answer:
a) Those numbers are deceiving. Most conservatives and Republicans choose to watch Fox as their only source for television “news.” Reason for this is that they’ve been conditioned to believe that anything other than Fox is part of the ‘Liberal Media.’ It’s a neat little trick that – divert any criticism of Republicans and conservative policies by making the case that the source of the criticism is part of a biased media. Prevents them from ever having to defend their policies.
Liberals and independents, on the other hand, watch CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS and NPR. Their numbers, therefore, are spread out over various news outlets as opposed to all being focused on a single source.
b) MSNBC leans left. CNN is pretty much down the middle. Fox does not lean right. It is the right.
Also, whether you’re willing to admit it or not, while MSNBC offers a predominantly leftish perspective on politics, it does not lie and manipulate the truth as is the case with Fox. Fox is pure bullshit. See my last Fox post for further proof.
c) Upwards of 20 million people watch American Idol on any given night. What do those numbers tell you?
@Tommy
What he said — thanks Mario! Misinformed fools that are like lambs being led to slaughter.
Mario – I watch MSNBC, and listen to it on Sirius. From my perspective, most of what they say is… how did you put it? Bullshit.
I would say that people watch what they like and/or agree with, which is why 20 million people watch American Idol. It’s also why many more people watch FOX. Brainwashing has nothing to do with it. They agree with what’s being said. They didn’t tune in with a blank mind and all of sudden turn conservative. If that were the case, why haven’t they turned liberal watching MSNBC?
Oh, and I know the usual response to that question. It’s because liberals are smart and conservatives are stupid. Ha! Beat you to the punch!
My guess is that there are more rational people than delusional people, and that’s why there are more FOX viewers.
@Tommy
1. You’ve conveniently disregarded most of what I wrote. Did you not see the part about liberals and independents spreading their viewing over numerous news channels as opposed to the majority of conservatives all zoomed in on a single source – Fox? Was that not a relevant point as to why Fox’s numbers are higher than any other single news channel?
2. I never said liberals are smart and conservatives are stupid. I just believe that your average Fox-watcher and a load of conservatives, for the most part, have been sold a sack of lies through a concerted effort on the part of the movers and shakers within the conservative movement over the last 40 years. There are a number of good books that deal with this subject. Here are a couple written by conservatives (or former conservatives).
Conservatives Without Conscience by John W. Dean
The Republican Noise Machine by David Brock
3. If you tell me that what you hear on MSNBC is bullshit because you disagree with what they say from a political, moral or philosophical standpoint…I can respect that. We each have our own beliefs. But if you tell me that you believe it is BS because it is lies and misinformation, then, honestly, you’re talking through your hat and have no basis in fact on that point.
My beef with Fox is not the politics. It’s the blatant lies and manipulation of facts all done under the guise of being a true outlet of news. They treat their audience as fools and they get away with it.
1. “Did you not see the part about liberals and independents spreading their viewing over numerous news channels as opposed to the majority of conservatives all zoomed in on a single source – Fox?”
I thought you were just joking. If only one channel can capture more viewers than CNN and MSNBC combined, I wonder why there aren’t more right leaning channels. After all, if they’re just brainwashing people, think of how many channel surfers could be captured and brainwashed if they had two channels. Hell, they could take over the world if they had 10 channels!
2. “I never said liberals are smart and conservatives are stupid.”
Now you’re really cracking me up. You say that all the time! You might not use those exact words, but your whole blog is meant to paint liberals in a more favorable light than conservatives. Putting down conservatives is what you do.
3. “My beef with Fox is not the politics. It’s the blatant lies and manipulation of facts all done under the guise of being a true outlet of news. They treat their audience as fools and they get away with it.”
Do you have some examples of that?
My experience, after watching and listening to a couple of years’ worth of liberal programs (keep in mind, I’m here to learn who you guys are), is that for the most part liberals just mock the messengers, they rarely address the message.
For example, they don’t ever contradict the right’s ascertain that the left wants to redistribute wealth. Liberals try to convince their audience that whoever is saying that is “mean spirited”, and that “they don’t want to give their fair share”.
The “final plan” is never discussed. Liberals want to “fundamentally change American”, but they never say “to what”. I truly believe that if they were honest with their ultimate goals for changing America, it would sound so bad, to so many Americans, that they’d be laughed out of office forever. When the right warns people about it, the left calls them “knuckle draggers”, “wingnuts”, ‘tea baggers”, or some other derogatory term.
Anyway, that’s how I see it.
Okay, Tommy, I’m not going to pursue this issue further with you. I don’t know if you’re having a tough day but you sound more wingnuttery here than you ever have. On most days you put together a somewhat coherent (if flawed) argument. Not today. I’m not going to address silliness like:
Watching Glenn Beck reruns, are we?
And no, putting down conservatives is not what I do. Putting down lies, stupidity and intolerance is what I do.
As for your sarcastic response to the Fox numbers and the role of conservative media, you have no idea what you’re talking about. I imagine it’s not a matter you’ve ever looked into nor one you’re interested in looking into. Fox says the things you want to hear so it’s all good. It’s easier to just accept than actually do the reading necessary to discover the truth.
Haha. It must be the great Belgium ale I’m drinking tonight, but I could have sworn that you just mocked me, without giving me the examples I requested. Isn’t that making my whole point?
Mario,
You explained it very well to Tommy.
Fox News is popular because it’s the only place to go if you’re a bigot and you think your way of thinking should be shoved onto everyone else, and all the other more liberal sites spew forth so many facts that it’s just too difficult for your brain to comprehend.
And Tommy: it isn’t the liberals who want to redistribute wealth or even the ones who actually are redistributing wealth. Republicans are the ones who want to redistribute wealth. They’re the ones who are trying to end social programs that help the poor and needy while cutting huge tax cuts for the wealthy. They’re the ones who opened that Social Security lock box so that they could take that surplus that was there before George W. took office and place it in the hands of the wealthy through Bush’s tax cuts.
So yes, redistribution of wealth is a real thing and the facts says all the wealth is flowing to the top. Sorry if that fact is inconvenient for you and your friends at Fox, as they never talk about the fact that the wealthy have most of the wealth, thanks to redistribution.
Karen, you’re right, it’s scary. What is happening to our country when Americans turn to the lies and deceit of a channel like Fox for the so-called news that is actually just a right wing propaganda machine for the Republican Party.
At least we know if Republican finally end our democracy as they’re trying to do now with Voter ID laws and trying to get our president kicked off of the ballot in several states, that Fox News will be their state-run news channel after they install their dictator.
I just wish I could rant as cogently!
I think what we are all wanting to convey here is that ANY network organization that purports to deliver the “news” to the general public needs to do it with integrity in a responsible, professional, ethical, factual, honorable, truthful, fair and balanced manner. Fox News defines itself as “fair and balanced” but is far from it. It is a propaganda machine under the guise of professional journalism. This column I read this morning tells it like it is:
http://www.google.com/search?q=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chez-pazienza/fox-news-doesnt-care-abou_1_b_1561427.html
Personally, I want my news delivered by channels in the professional manner of Walter Kronkite, Edward R. Murrow, Ted Koppel, and Brian Williams, to name a few greats. To me, that is broadcast journalism at its best.
LOL ! – It seems that the “rationally self interested” Mr. Pane get less RATIONAL and More SELF-INTERESTED with each post.
It would seem that after losing our friendly debate Mr. Pane, you would pause to reflect on some things.
Unfortunately, that isn’t the case. Therefore I see you lose credibility and respect, with each statement you make.
What loss, GoldenSun? You were so rude with your belittling comments that I moved on to talk to someone sane, like Mario.
Tommy Pane, Mario is far too polite, just fuck off you ignorant, uninformed, unintelligent and less than half as funny as you think.
Hey guys, let’s keep it civil, please. We can disagree without the personal attacks. Let’s fight the ideas and not the individuals. There’s a lot more leeway in dealing with politicians and public figures. With our readers and the people who comment here, let’s stay away from abusive language.
Thanks.
Sorry Mario, just seemed the guy wasn’t listening and contributing much to the discussion.
Thanks Mario.
Tommy Pane, do you know very much about the person’s name you have taken as your tag?
I live in the UK, Brighton which is not far from Lewes. Where your namesake was a Customs Officer, he was also a member or The White Hart Debating Society, of which I am proud to be a member.
I’m sure he is quietly spinning in his grave at the thought that some one has usurped his name in this way. He was an enemy of conservatives all his life. Meaning of conservative, one who wishes to protect the status quo. This was definitely not a description of my hero Tom Paine. So please cease and desist your usurpation of his name to p[protect a thread of political thought he would have not espoused.
Please, as I do use your real name. I stand beside my words under my own name. You insult a great man by trying to take some kudos from your use of his name.
Yours,with somewhat more respect than last night!
Pete Hockley!
And an answer to all your points!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laxOAV-8Jn4&feature=em-uploademail
Mr. Pane,
Our recent lively discussion concluded with the realization that your so-called “Libertarian” beliefs are neither based on “Christianity” or the knowledge of the “Founding Fathers” or the “Constitution”. The usual Trinity of political discussion.
The only person of reference that you agreed with was Ayn Rand, a women from Russia who was basically anti-government in general and definitely “anti -government programs” but… collected social security til her dying breath.
Furthermore though you seem to care about individual “property” the main focus of your “self interests” was MONEY… because you hate paying taxes.
You said NOTHING when I mentioned “state governments impose trans vaginal probes, impeding or eliminating long hard fought for rights of voters, workers, minorities and womens rights”, apparently none of those were in your “SELF INTERESTS” – even though “property” in the form of the fundamental rights of Americans were being aggressively eliminated.
And lastly we concluded by establishing YOUR “example of “Libertarianism,” YOUR philosophy, is based on nothing but man made fantasies and unreachable ideals mainly founded on personal GREED and NOT “self-interests” – rational or otherwise.”
Yes we are ALL “free to believe what we want” as you stated, but a “rational” person would have a strong foundation, documented examples or at least some sort of empirical evidence, that those beliefs ARE “rational”.
Rant on my dear friend but “truth” may seem “rude and belittling” when face to face with it !
Mr. Hockley – I Love political satire – because so many truths are realized in jest.
Bill Maher is one of the few masters of political satire – thanks for the link !
Me, protect the status quo? You haven’t read very many of my comments, have you Peter? You brag about belonging to a an organization with a 250 year history, and you accuse me of protecting the status quo.
Like Paine, I have consistently stood against institutionalized restrictions on people’s free choice. The left uses government to control people, the right uses religious dogma. Which side do you subscribe to?
None, you are too busy seeing it as either, or!
And still not offering your real name. I really should learn and not feed the trolls!
When someone joins the Libertarian Party they’re required to sign a pledge to not initiate force against another individual. Shades of Grover Norquist – isn’t signing pledges a form of “controlling” ?
There are libertarians AND libertarians, and sometimes different camps despise each other– or don’t seem to be aware of each other.
Libertarians love abstract, fact-free arguments, attempting justifications for why property is an absolute right.
Mainly because “fact-free arguments” can’t be proven or dis-proven. Distaste for facts isn’t merely a habit of a few Internet cranks; it’s actually libertarian “doctrine”.
Some people aren’t much bothered by libertarian-ism’s lack of real-world success. After all, they argue, if no one tried anything new, nothing would ever change.
Generally libertarianism goes with intellectual fraud. It is a system that is untestable, perhaps because it’s proponents fear testing it.
Since we can’t see it in action, we can’t point out its obvious faults, while the “ideologue” can be caustic and/or critical about everything that HAS actually been tried, and which has inevitably fallen short of perfection.
Imagining oneself on a self righteous political pedestal is “PIOUS BOLONEY” !
I just wish I could rant as cogently! At the risk of repeating myself.
GoldenSun – Which plank(s) in the libertarian platform do you disagree with, and why?
Why do you want to know my real name, Peter? Why am I a “troll” and GoldenSun isn’t?
GO WISCONSIN AND AMERICAN LABOR !!
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital.
Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if
labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and
deserves much the higher consideration.”
- Abraham Lincoln