Meet The Press: Mitt's Response To Flip Flops
Download | play 
Download | play (h/t David, PoliticsTV)
While seeing Tim Russert embarrass Mitt Romney by waving flip flops in his face is satisfying on a true schadenfreude level, Mitt's response to the flip flop charge should be looked at more closely as well...because he never really disputes it.
Well, you know, Tim, I was always personally opposed to abortion, as I think almost everyone in this nation is and the question for me is the role of government. And it was quite theoretical and philosophical to consider what the role of government should be in this regard and I felt the Supreme Court had spoken and government shouldn't be involved and let people make their own decisions. And that all made a lot of sense to me, And then I became Governor, and the theoretical became reality, if you will.
So, let me see if I have this right...when you were thinking about it, you respected the existing laws and the role government should play. It was logical to you. But then when the reality of respecting the rule of law came up for you, you just couldn't quite do it, opting to place higher value on your personal beliefs. Hmm..is there any other way to consider this but flip-flopping?
Romney is very careful to not bring his faith into the discussion of his change of heart, but I think the question must be asked in light of his "Freedom = Religion" speech: how many other established laws will you ignore because your faith or personal beliefs tell you otherwise?
What Russert missed when discussing his flip flop on abortion is... Romney said he changed his position after the cloning/stem cell issue. But thats obviously an excuse imo, and all Russert would have had to ask him is "when did you start to consider running for president?".
Romney's supposedly "pro life" actions as governor came late in his term (sometime in 2005 I think); Im sure that was AFTER he already decided he was going to be running for President. All his flipflops on hot button issues came after he decided he was going to run for President.
"who flipping cares about what that guy has to say"
from the looks of things no one on this Blog.
He has made "religion" a part of the debate and refuses to even explain his beliefs.
What a BUSHBOT!
I know nothing about Mormon doctrine and could not care less what "they" believe......as long as they keep it OUT OF GOVERNMENT.....and that goes for any religion, no matter WHOSE it is, or WHERE it came from.
That goes for any and ALL persons seeking public office, from which ever "party" or free standing "independents"!
Actually, that seemed to me to be a decent reply to the question. If you want to infer ill motives, knock yourself out, but as explanations of changes-in-position go, this one was way above average.
Imagine Hillary's explanation of voting for the war and then being against it and then voting for Kyl-Lieberman. I doubt that she could do better.
With that said, I still can't stand this guy.
MITT MITT MITT .... you are a liar and a cheat and swindler.... people he is a slick used car saleman.... wold you buy a used car from this man ...?? Well He wants to sell America a used politcal ideology ...
I just freaking love it that this man turned his back on those who voted for him only to have the religious right take a big bite out of his Mormon ass.
When you lie with pigs, you have to expect some of the slop to get in your hypocritical pig mouth.
Personally, I don't like the idea of consulting with theologians on public policy.
I wonder what theologians would say if Mitt was thinking about proposing a law that would require the stoning of gays.
Remind me again why smart blue states elect ass-hats like this for governor?
Stupid Git @ 7:
You're right. He DID mention faith in the reasoning for changing his position. He consults theologians, Nancy Reagan consulted astrologers. I contemplate my navel.
I don't have the transacript, but Romney accidentally brought up the issue of when life forms, and then quickly dismissed it - stumbling onto his next point. Russert missed an excellent opportunity to tie his abortion flip flop with his religious beliefs. Here's a quote from Wikipedia:
The plan of salvation, as taught by the church, describes humanity's place in the universe and the purpose of life. The church teaches that there was a pre-mortal existence, a place which existed prior to mortality in which all people and all life were created in spirit form.[40][41] Central to this is the notion that humans existed as spirits before birth, were raised by Heavenly parents and had essential human characteristics such as gender.[42] This general idea is also stated as "We lived in the presence of God."[43][44]
There are numerous ways to interpret this, but it seems that the best criticism of Romney is how he can justify his pre-conversion stance in light of the teachings of his faith. IOW, in addition to becoming a good Republican, did he also just recently become a good Mormon?
Mitt did consult with the LDS church early in the campaign. It was on the news here in Utah. EVERYthing concerning the LDS church is on the news in Utah. Besides all the strange beliefs the LDS church requirements can be described as, "Pay, Pray, Obey". Romney will consult with the LDS church. Romney will be required to pay 10% of his salary to the LDS church.
"I was always personally opposed to abortion, as I think almost everyone in this nation is..."
And that would explain why there have only been 12 abortions in the United States in the past decade.
nothing will make this piece of shit worth voting for.
I would argue that this is extremely consistent with conservative 'thought'. When a law is applicable to others, it is fine. Only when suddenly confronted with the issue personally can a conservative actually empathise with it. I find it amazing how many conservatives I've encountered gain liberal/progressive 'revelations' after personal experience whereas beforehand they were as absolute & closeminded.
So, Mitt is a muppet, but not because he is a flip-flopper but because he is a conservative.
'Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative. ' - John Stuart Smith
BC
Mitt you are phonier than a $3 bill. Get lost!
BC @ 15:
AMEN!!!
So, let me see if I have this right…when you were thinking about it, you respected the existing laws and the role government should play. It was logical to you. But then when the reality of respecting the rule of law came up for you, you just couldn’t quite do it, opting to place higher value on your personal beliefs. Hmm..is there any other way to consider this but flip-flopping?
Well, no. Of course it's flip-flopping. He's admitting it. Isn't that what we want from candidates? If they change their minds, they should say so openly, and explain why.
JTM @ 4:
Agreed in full.
Stupid Git @ 7:
Amen. Irony intended. ;)
Otay @ 9:
Good question!
motorfingaz @ 19:
A fundamentally flawed, winner-takes-all, single-member-office, electoral system.
^
I fail to see what the winner-takes-all system has to do with that. Or do you want three governors? Your answer has more to do with the way we elect Congress, not Governors. Point is: Romney was a lot more liberal when he ran for Governor. Still doesn't excuse the fact that they elected a Republican. To me, all Republicans are the same.
JeffS @ 21:
First, the system that we have promotes duopoly party government. It's called Duverger's Law (though it's more a tendency than a law), and it manifests itself in every country with our system. The choice will ultimately come down to a Democrat and a Republican. If, for whatever reason, people are dissatisfied with the Democrats -- even in a blue state -- the choice will be whether to opt for a different Democrat, or go with a Republican who doesn't seem as unpalatable as "the other party" typically does.
If we had a different system, far more political parties and perspectives would become viable. Blue states would have more choices among progressive parties than they do at the moment.
Secondly, a multi-person executive is not unheard of. (They have it in Switzerland.) It was actually an option the framers considered during the Constitutional convention.
Thirdly, even with a single-person office, Ranked Choice Voting, a.k.a. Instant Runoff Voting, would make numerous other parties viable, and likely prevent a Republican from being elected in a largely Democratic state.
Mitt needs some SSRIs
Kerry/Democrat changes mind = flip flopper
Romney/Republican changes mind = experienced decision
I guess I understand now.
I ask...no wait...beg America NOT to elect a President who thinks the END OF THE WORLD is a GOOD thing.
For Christ's sake don't do it.
And this is why I like Ron Paul, you odn't have to worry about crap like this.
Romney's appearance on M.T.P. was the most disgusting, nauseating, pathetic display of phony-ness I've seen in many decades of political watching. This man is a suit, nothing more, nothing less. What I wish Russert had done -- what I wish he'd felt he had the right to do -- was press on further in the inquiry about this sap's independence from his cult, er, I mean, religion. When asked if Romney didn't actually check with the leadership of the Mormon Church before throwing his hat into the ring, Romney reiterated twice that it was solely his own decision, based upon discussions he'd had with family and friends. This is a typical pol response. Typical in that it does not answer Russert's question; typical in that it is a non-sequitur, the most obvious (and stupid) fallacy of them all. Russert did not ask if he had discussed running with his family, he asked if he'd consulted the Morman bigwigs.
In all fairness, Russert did follow up with, "If the Mormon hierarchy asked you not to run, saying it would be bad for the church, would you still have run?" but this brought the same "I-only-consulted-with-family" answer. I just feel that Russert could have done more to inquire as to why Romney felt it necessary to consult with the Mormon leadership in the first place since the Dangerous Lunatic made the speech in College Station about how his faith was not going to play any part in his decision-making as a president. Is this guy two-faced or WHAT? This man is PURE BULLSHIT. If people can't see that, they're PURE BULLSHIT, too.
The GOP pols are beginning to remind me of the scene in Five Easy Pieces where Jack Nicholson and Karen Black, driving up to see his ailing dad, pick up a couple of lesbians on the road. The butcher of the two, played by a Greek-American actress, Helena Kallianiotes, keeps kvetching about this and kvetching about that...only to end up saying, "I don't want to talk about it." That's how I feel about the GOP bunch. If they're not Dangerous Lunatics like Romney, Tancredo, and Huckabee, they're hypocrites like McCain, liars like Giuliani, or scripted dimwits like Thompson. But, hey, I don't want to talk about it.
Tim, if you hadn't noticed the rest of my committed flip-flops. Let me tell you I am committed to what the Republican party wants me to be which is very hypicritical on their part and mine.
And Tim, you can see that the money I have made buying companies, closing them and selling them off in pieces and putting so many people out of work has been very profitable. You can see I have been blessed by God by my net worth.
I am so wealthy, I would have nothing in common with the average American people and therefore could rule as Bush with a clear conscience (with my God) over them and do what I think is best for them and most profitable for me if elected President.
Empty suit, opportunist, play doh barbershop hair, brainless, gutless, pandering blight. And those are his positives.
"oh really" makes good note of how Willard Moroni says that
“I was always personally opposed to abortion, as I think almost everyone in this nation is…”
Remember that these wingnuts are catering to the most extreme end of the GOP in order to get the nomination and this should bite them in the arse in the general election, though with the help of Fox and CNN it may not.
The key here is to note the strategy used by the right for years: when you state an extreme stance, which many GOP senators have a wide one, fictitiously include everyone else as sharing this stance. This pushes the discourse further toward the extreme and the moderates spend more time and energy trying to argue the point instead of advancing their own issue. Ignore it and continue to tell your own representative or candidate that you favor __________.
What other deeply held, personal beliefs would Romney find impossible to set aside in favor of the law?
what i didnt see here was any criticism of tim russert for the glee he showed in roving romney.
no one here criticized russert for his use of rove's "flip flopping" props and demonstration.
since when did changing one's mind about things become a sign of weakness? has no one here changed his view on anything ever in his life?
when we support this kind of anti intellualism, we become the kind of herd mentality folks of the radical right.
think about it.
btw, romney sucks ass. big time. ron paul willwin the nomination and then lose to edwards.
I saw the interview. Mitt answered all of the questions Russert asked him, and he answered them in detail. He is the only potential candidate I have seen who actually answers the questions. They aren't always the answers I want to hear, but at least he is answering the questions.
I have also never seen him bring up anything about his religion in an interview. It seems like Russert and most of the people on this blog are obsessed with his religion.
I could care less where he spends his Sundays. I will however vote for a guy who actually answers questions (even when I don't like the answer) and can balance a 3 billion dollar deficit in four years.
Gee Mitten, you pants are on fire. You should know what happens to people that lie. Is your holy underwear wet so you don't go up in flames?
Just what we need in the White House, ANOTHER lying RepubiCON. Better go to pray at the temple in Salt Lake and mayge you'll have a dream about telling the truth once in your life.
Comments are closed on this entry