Posted on 08/17/2007 4:38:57 PM PDT by rodomila
Here we are as conservatives expending an enormous amount of energy to effectively punish candidates for agreeing with us. Since when did it become a bad thing for a candidate to realize the influence of conservatives (and hopefully the correctness of their views) in the nominating process and react accordingly? Now, after excoriating Romney for becoming pro-life, we are seeing the entire foolish process repeated with Rudy becoming anti-illegal immigration. I can understand why the campaigns, angling for every advantage, do this, but why do conservative outsiders have to play along? Both Romney and Giuliani have a good chance to be the nominee and it's in our interest as conservatives to see that they agree with us as much as reasonably possible. That means shifts to the right should be welcomed rather than the occasion for gleeful gotcha (ideally, candidates would do their part by forthrightly acknowledging their changes of mind). Part of all this is the hangover from the flip-flop campaign against John Kerry in 2004. But the characteristic Kerry flip-flop—voting for it before voting against it—wasn't a flip-flop so much as trying to have it both ways. A flip-flop, of course, can tell us something about a candidate's sincerity and therefore the likelihood of his follow-through. I don't see either Romney or Giuliani, however, as saying things they have no intention of doing if elected. The only thing I'm troubled by in Rudy's immigration flip-flop is that it wasn't thorough enough and he still supports an amnesty in conjunction with his enforcement. But I guess if he decided to oppose amnesty, conservative flip-flop police would attack him all the more. Bizarre...
On the other hand, a lot of the mistrust is coming from members of Congress failing to follow through on campaign promises. So in a way, its a good thing that conservatives are keeping our politicians' feet to the fire.
I agree. Any republican running against Hillary has my vote. The stakes are too high. Let’s not lose the WOT because our candidate is not pro abortion enough. Amnesty is my number 2 issue, but WOT must be won, or what else really matters.
I don’t buy it. Too many times a pig-in-a-poke has turned out to be a hog-at-the-trough.
Duncan Hunter for President!
Ron Paul submitted a shrimp earmark before he voted against it.
Methinks after the primaries.
5.56mm
Those RINOs are plenty pro-abortion enough for me. That’s the problem.
. But I guess if [Giuliani] decided to oppose amnesty, conservative flip-flop police would attack him all the more.
is wrong. My biggest problem with Giuliani is the illegal immigration thing. He would win points with me if he opposed amnesty.
I remember the hours spent analyzing exactly what President Bush meant when he said he was a “compassionate conservative”.
It turned out that it meant big government in cooperation with Ted Kennedy.
Fool me once...
That's about the only thing he has said that I am comfortable with.
Romney is and always has been far too much of a nanny-stater for my tastes.
His stance on abortion, in fact any candidate's stance on the sunject, is so far down on my "litmus" test list as to not even matter.
People just love to be holier than thou.
He’s wrong. Their record doesn’t back up their words. Wouldn’t it be a shame if we elected someone who went back on his word after he was elected? I prefer to look to their past record instead of their present rhetoric.
We have every reason to distrust election year epiphanies.
How many times do we have to “accept” a move to the right to win an election, followed by a post election shift to the left. (read my lips etc., clinton’s allowing homosexuals in the millitary effort, HILLARY CARE!)
Trust but verify.
Guilini continues to be a NYC goverment lawyer seeking a political office.
Romeny’s shift just follows an anti-video game initiative and is hot off his one man race victory.
Could it be that these candidates are concerned a new player in september might overshadow them?
I wish to thank these 11th hour election day conversions. It will help remind pundits of the following.
1. The Mainstream IS conservative
2. DINO trumps RINO
3. You can’t fool all of the the people all of the time.
4. Big lie theory is only a temporary solution
5. The MSM wants to control the message and hates scrutiny.
How do you tell the difference between cheap pandering and changing one’s core principals?
ping
After all, we hated it when Clinton did it. Nothing has changed.
This is kind of like Hillary Clinton saying she is against homosexual based marriage.
100% unbelievable.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.