Obama Camp Rips Romney Flip-Flops (Dems already honing in on Mitt-flops)

Newser ^ | October 13, 2011 | Mary Papenfuss,

[Cincinatus' Wife]

......"It's a "pattern time and time again," said senior campaign strategist David Axelrod. "It’s consistent with a guy who ran for the governorship and the Senate in Massachusetts as a pro-choice moderate who supported civil unions and environmental protections to the guy you see today hard after the Tea Party vote who has thrown all his positions over.” If "you are willing to change positions on fundamental issues of principle, how can we know what you would do as president?" asked Axelrod.

The Democratic National Committee has already established a YouTube channel called "Which Mitt" which highlights his Mitt-flops."..................

[fantom]

“Either the Rats know the fix is already in, and Romney will be the nominee, or they would rather run against someone else”.

It's both . Next comes waving the bloody shirt of Mormon fear. Well at least O has found new friends at this site . Not that it will help him much . The normals will soon get tired of the constant anti Mormon attacks from the extreme ends of both parties. Enter the snake handlers.

[juliej]

Obama has consistently been a COMMUNIST, AMERICA HATER AND APOLOGIST FOR AMERICA. He even wanted to apologize to Japan for Hiroshima! That should be receiving more publicity and that should be the final nail in the Obama coffin. The Obama presidency is dangerous. The GOP nominee must be supported to get this incompetent boob out of office. We have a pretty decent field.

[Arrowhead1952]

"Which Mitt" which highlights his Mitt-flops."..................

What is it with people from Massachusetts? Seems not all that long ago a certain senator from there was "for many things before he was against it" running as the dim candidate for president.

[AlwaysFrosty]

Unfortunately Perry's election has been lost in the debates.
In the hype running up to Perry announcing his candidacy you had someone who “looked” like a leader and had a command presence; however, in the debates he has been unable to have a command performance. I initially liked Perry but I was stunned at his lack of energy and his inability to stand out against these other candidates.

His lack of performance is critical...he looks confused, unsure, and at times is incoherent. None of that generates enthusiasm for his leadership, and it shows in his poll numbers. I also heard that he didn't take the advice of his staff to “practice” the debate ahead of time...again a bad decision and says something about his leadership potential. The sad thing was his performance hasn't improved. How does that happen?

These candidates HAVE to hit the ground running if they are going to have both the chance at gaining the nomination and winning the election. Perry should not be learning how to debate on the road to the presidency. His lack of a command performance is showing in his free fall poll numbers. I just don't believe he can get back on track.

Cain and Gingrich have had command performances in the debates and it is now showing in their rising poll numbers.

[jgge]

I am still supporting Perry till the end and I just donated to his campaign again an hour ago. I am not going to vote for someone based on 30 seconds zingers and sound bites in a debate because Presidents do not govern, enact policies, and work with Congress in 30 second sound bites.

[AlwaysFrosty]

I totally honor your right to continue supporting him! He could make a comeback...I was only making the point that unfortunately these debates have made/are making an impact in public opinion.
It is important that all “supporters” of candidates continue to support their candidate into the first few primaries. That’s when things will get narrowed real quick. Then we will all have to begin making a choice to get behind the one that emerges. Until then keep stumping for the one we like now.

[Vevey]

A sharp tongue does not necessarily mean a sharp mind. Global warming is not a hoax and calling it a hoax betrays great ignorance. Global warming is the latest in a never ending list of world end catastrophies based on the latest science. It's pretty clear there is global warming, the cause, amount, and consequence is subject to debate. There is also little doubt that alarmists on the left are using the doomsday arguments of the eco-extremists to impose a catastrophic energy policy. I think Romney must walk back his support for cap and trade as right now that regimen would be ruinous to the economy. Speaking of “out of touch” how out of touch is someone who uses the very same class warfare argument used by Obama? Calling Romney a “rich guy” as if it were a liability is obnoxious. Maybe you should contact the contractors and sub contractors Romney is employing in his house remodel and see if they think upgrading a second home is a bad idea. You sound more comfortable hanging out with the occupy Wall Street crowd than in being with conservatives. In fact, now that I re-read your post, I believe you are a leftist troll plant whose is here merely to sew discord.

In their 2007 endorsement of Romney, the National Review editors pointed out that in 1994, when he tried to unseat Ted Kennedy, “he ran against higher taxes and government-run health care, and for school choice, a balanced budget amendment, welfare reform, and ‘tougher measures to stop illegal immigration.’”

[AlwaysFrosty]

“The GOP base will stay home in droves just like McNuts in 2008”

No way! Not this time! The base is committed to electing the best candidate which will be ABO (Anybody BUT Obama). There is a great deal of rumbling in the ranks now because everyone wants their favorite to be the “one.” When the primaries are over the base and 55% of the general electorate will go out and vote for ABO. You're right many did sit home the last election, and felt self-righteous not voting...but in the end what did that self-righteous attitude cost them and America? People have repented and the game is on to change the name on the oval office to ABO!

[Cincinatus' Wife]

.....Global warming is not a hoax and calling it a hoax betrays great ignorance. Global warming is the latest in a never ending list of world end catastrophies based on the latest science.....

I was hoping you were quoting someone so read your post again. It's none of my business, but are you between 20 and 40? The reason I ask is because that means you were brainwashed for at least 20 and up to 40 years by socialists. You must read articles and studies by scientists who know and understand this. If you do, you will understand that it is a hoax designed to control -- once you do, so many other things will make sense to you.

[World'sGoneInsane]

Thanks for the link, that’s what it shows.

[Vevey]

Please...I've read much of the literature pro and con. I've decided it's not a hoax. I think Romney is correct. There is global warming and man possibly contributes to it. You really need to understand that just because there are a group of scientists that support the proposition you were predisposed to believe does not mean the scientists who hold a contrary view are wrong. The consensus of the anti-global warming scientists is that the hockey stick is bogus, the data manipulated, and the conclusions not supported empirically. However, they don't make the leap to climate change denial; rather, they say the planet gets hotter, the planet gets cooler so we really cannot say the extent to which man plays a role.

I guess “brainwashed” is the right’s equivalent of the left calling someone racist. Disagree with Obama, you're a racist. Disagree with a conservative, you're brain washed. Next time you wish to challenge a point, I suggest you refrain from name calling and simply cite a reputable source. I can easily evolve (like Mitt on choice/abortion).

I am not posting links to articles supporting global warming/climate change for 2 reasons: 1.doing so here is a waste of time and 2. I don't care about global warming. What I care about is making sure that whoever is elected will NOT champion policies designed to address the issue. There is so much uncertainty concerning man's role in climate change that it would be foolish changing an entire economy to address what is quite possibly a non-problem or a problem that would be better addresses down the road with better technology and science. My problem is also calling the issue a hoax. It marginalizes the speaker causing the listener to take less seriously valid points the speaker raises.

I understand the fear that Mitt is not a conservative (as Rush pointed out); however, at some point people need to grow up and realize that there is not a conservative in the present field that will beat Obama (other than perhaps Perry if he learns how extemporaneously to articulate a coherent thought).

[Vevey]

Vevey...you’re a senile idiot. Davis beat Simon not Lungren

[Cincinatus' Wife]

I’m sorry you have been so influenced by bad science. Consensus is NOT a science-minded state. Major players in the Climate Change School of Thinking are upping the ante by telling the public it is better to keep “skeptics, contraians” from being given a seat at the news table, as their views represent a danger because they confuse/disrupt accepted consensus and that cannot be allowed because danger to the planet is so acute.

Look up Trofim Lysenko and Lysenkoism.

Perhaps you are in a career that uses climate change as it’s purpose for being. If so, certainly those are marketable skills, modeling is very techie and could find many good uses.

[Vevey]

I think you’re a Perrynista. Perry = Texas= fossil fuels = subject to cap/trade restrictions = posts represent industry shill lacking credibility. No?

Seriously, I believe you have critically evaluated the arguments of both sides and reached your conclusion based on your assessment of the weight of each argument. However, you’re actions are very Obama like inasmuchas you think you’re that much smarter than me (and everyone else who accepts climate change) that you but not us can sort real from bogus science. Perhaps you have a PhD in climatology...in which case, I will defer to you’re expertise.

[Vevey]

Your...not you’re (tough to worlk on Blackberry)

[TheOldLady]

Click the Pic               Thank you, JoeProBono

Gary and Harriet Had a Fight
Gary Has Taken Up X-Treme Skateboarding Competition

Follow the Exciting Adventures of Gary the Snail!

Abolish FReepathons
Go Monthly

Planning to donate at least $10? You can sponsor
one or more New Monthly Donors for no additional cost
FReepmail TheOldLady

[ncalburt]

You cant handle the sad facts about Mittens.Global warming is a huge hoax . I recall in college how a prfessor called it
a scam created by university professors to insure an open checkbook .
Romney is a richboy and is so out of touch that he decided to expand his San Diego breach side mansion during this depression. This guy ram thru Romneycare and his aides were Consulted in creating Obamacare . His choice for the EPA works for Obama’s reckless EPA right now
Your name calling won’t wipe out the facts about mittens .

[Admin Moderator]

Thousands of AGW scientists around the world claim zotting trolls causes global warming and depletes the ozone layer.

I could care less. Here's to you, vevey.

[ncalburt]

Mittens is awful and the tea party voters will stay home.
Mittens will keep Obamacare in place , peddle more global warming bs
Using the EPA and in fact his choice for the EPA works for Obama ‘s EPA . We will not work for Mittens or give this miltimillionaie a dime.
I have Tea party relatives who dislike as much as Obama.
We are screwed if Mittens gets the nod.
The Obama media will paint this guy as the aloof and out of touch rich kid who is rebuilding his pacific beachside mansion during a massive recession. It will work .

[darrellmaurina]

23 posted on Thursday, October 13, 2011 7:02:33 AM by Haiku Guy: “It is not their primary. It’s our primary. So we should not worry about what the Democrats want or don’t want, and start worrying about what we want. If we pick Romney in the primary, the best we can do in 2012 is either Romney or Obama as President. I think we can all agree that neither of those is a particularly good result. Let’s pick a candidate whom we would actually want to win.”

I wish it truly were “our” primary.

Unfortunately, due to crossover votes in states that don't have voter registration laws, and due to the likelihood of President Obama not having a left-wing opponent in his own party's primary, we're going to see large numbers of independents and moderate Democrats choosing to vote in the Republican Party's primaries.

I understand the problems of having a caucus system in states which, unlike Iowa, do not have a strong tradition of locally-oriented grassroots political activism. However, mandating political party registration that is publicly registered on the voting rolls and must be selected prior to the ordinary cutoff for voter registration (typically a month or so in advance in many states) seems like a reasonable solution.

The alternative is stuff like what happened in our last local election in our county for prosecuting attorney, where the sole Democratic candidate, a well-known local attorney who served many years ago as the county prosecutor, publicly announced that he was going to pick a Republican Party ballot and vote for the weakest of the Republican candidates and encouraged others to do the same on the grounds that it would make it easier for him to win the general election in the fall.

Under Missouri law, that Democrat did nothing illegal or unethical; in fact, he probably did the right thing by publicly disclosing that he had picked a Republican ballot, since he didn't have to tell that to anyone. Requiring political party registration reduces that problem, and creates a publicly checkable track record to see if candidates or their financial supporters have a history of switching political party affiliations when convenient.