Dear nowandlater,
"Just like Samuel Brownback's flip on abortion (Sam was prochoice in 1994),..."
That appears to be another falsehood, or at least, highly misleading.
Here's an article from New Republic (not a media source likely to try to put a conservative Republican in a good light) that indicates that to the degree that he "converted," he had already declared himself pro-life in the 1994 primary against another pro-life Republican.
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20061218&s=scheiber121806
Thus, unlike Mr. Romney, who was still endorsing Roe in 2002, Mr. Brownback was pro-life in 1994.
Furthermore, while Mr. Romney was a loud and proud member of the pro-abort coven, loudly proclaiming his commitment to the idea that it should be "a woman's choice, not the government's," even before becoming a pro-lifer, it appears that Mr. Brownback hadn't thought all that deeply about the issue. From the article:
"I'd heard from Tim Golba, a former president of Kansans for Life, who'd met with Brownback in 1994 to discuss a possible primary endorsement. According to Golba, it quickly became clear that there was little to discuss. Brownback was not only unfamiliar with the anti-abortion lexicon, he had a habit of dropping the hints used by politicians on the other side."
"Before the congressional race, Brownback had never really had to justify his abortion views. "
Thus, far from being the pro-abort champion that Mr. Romney was in 1994, it seems that Mr. Brownback was, still in his 30s, still working out his own beliefs on the issue. It appears that this election, his first run for federal office, helped him work out his views on abortion.
During the 1994 primary campaign, he campaigned as a pro-lifer.
And has been a stable, reliable pro-lifer ever since.
As well, another event that may have even strengthened his conviction was his eventual conversion to Catholicism.
No one denies that folks can mature and change.
However, on issue after issue, Mr. Romney's changes look like opportunism. He was pro-abort in 2002, having stated to pro-abort groups in Massachusetts in 2002 that the substance of Roe was correct, that there was a constitutional right to abortion. Then, after years of impassioned support for the pro-abort position, telling us that his rock-like commitment to abortion welled up from dramatic personal experience, in approximately 2004, he does an entire 180. He was pro-homosexual agenda, now he's not. He was anti-gun (and still is, in important ways), now he's not.
With Mr. Romney, we don't see a slow evolution that has resulted in a long-time stable social conservatism. Rather, we see someone who pretty much ran as a liberal in 1994 and 2002 while running in liberal Massachusetts, and then, once he decided not to run again in liberal Massachusetts, has decided to re-shape himself as a conservative, now that he wants to run for the conservative Republican Party presidential nomination.
At this point, to believe that he is sincere requres great naivete, or a desire for his election without regard to his actual positions.
sitetest
* a political style of aiming to increase one's political influence at almost any price, or a political style which involves seizing every and any opportunity to extend one's political influence, whenever such opportunities arise.
* the practice of abandoning in reality some important political principles that were previously held, in the process of trying to increase one's political power and influence.
* a trend of thought, or a political tendency, seeking to make political capital out of situations with the main aim being that of gaining more influence or support, instead of truly winning people over to a principled position or improving their political understanding.
Most politicians are "opportunists" to some extent at least (they aim to utilize political opportunities to their advantage), but the controversies surrounding the concept concern the exact relationship between "seizing a political opportunity" and the political principles being espoused.
Well, Brownback has flip-flopped on Iraq within the last week!!! I'd say he is very opportunistic and he is a classic flip-flopper in the same vain of John Kerry.
"I voted for the troop surge before I voted against it" One week ago he was for more troops and now he is against it because it is unpopular!!!!
"At this point, to believe that he is sincere requres great naivete, or a desire for his election without regard to his actual positions."
I counter:
At this point, to believe that he is NOT sincere requres great SKEPTICISM, or a desire for his FAILURE without regard to his actual RECORD.