Quote:
Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon
I'm sorry to disagree, BFM. And frankly, I'm a little insulted. If you research the matter, and trust me, I've spent wayyyyyyy too much time reading about this stuff, it becomes really clear that Mitt redefines his positions for the constituency to which he is advertising. To argue otherwise is absurd.
Let me reiterate: this is his right and perhaps that's what successful politicians do, but there's no point in denying it.
Mitt has reversed positions on
~abortion
~civil unions
~gun control
~campaign finance reform
~the Bush tax cut
~immigration legislation
~the Department of Education (he once suggested abolishing it on states rights grounds, now he says he's a "huge supporter" of No Child Left Behind.)
|
I was asking for examples/links - I wasn't just going to take your word on it. I believed that the media drumbeat about Romneys flip-floppiness was without evidence. I believed this largely because I hadn't seen any evidence (and the one link you gave didn't really provide any). Thus, I was prepared to give Romney the benefit of the doubt until shown evidence to the contrary.
Cali has done a good job of providing evidence:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cali Coug
|
Thanks for the links Cali - evidence is what I was asking for and evidence you provided. I would say there is at least one additional genuine flip among the above listed links. That brings us to a total of a least three legitimate flips (arguably more but there isn't any need to argue them because three is enough). Drum roll...
I now concede that Romney is a bona-fide Flip-Flopper (but he still has the most presidential hair
)
That being said, I make no apologies about the fact that I asked for proof. If people didn't/don't like the fact that I asked for proof then there isn't much I can do about that. So be it.
Cheers,
BFM