In the context of modest discussions here at Sound Politics about the early-starting Presidential race, Captain Ed raises an important point today that should be of interest to partisans on both sides of the aisle:
Inconsistency has to be considered in evaluating the candidates as the primary season progresses through 2007, but we have to be careful not to create a purity standard that none can meet. One of the purposes of the pro-life conservatives in engaging the political process is to win converts, just as it is with any political movement. It seems more than passingly strange to pursue conversions and then to persecute the converted -- and that seems to be what a few conservatives have done with Romney. If all that conservatives value is consistency, then let me introduce you to President Rudy Giuliani -- or President Dennis Kucinich.This is one of the reasons that Newt Gingrich called the extended primary race this cycle an "absurdity". Mitt has been in the race for a little over a month, and we're already chewing over all the inconsistencies in his record. We don't need a full year of this to understand Mitt Romney or any of the candidates. Instead, these early commitments will do nothing but allow both parties to rip all of their most viable candidates to shreds as their supporters do their best to kneecap their opponents. In the end, both major-party nominees will come to the general election as damaged as any candidates have been in long memory.
The good Captain is commenting on this column in the Washington Post disparaging Romney, essentially for not fitting established stereotypes for "pro-life" or "pro-choice" (for a different view on the matter see this column in the National Review).
Set aside for a minute the specifics of Romney's position on abortion. Set aside also current feelings one might have for a specific candidate. The point remains that the early stage beatings already being administered on many candidates are potentially troublesome (for a notable recent dust-up on the Democratic side see coverage here and here). If your candidate of choice hasn't suffered yet under the glare of an inquisitive media and anxious rivals rest assured, the time will come.
Captain Ed notes we may see the two most battered nominees of our time by the time this extraordinarily long primary process is settled.
Is that a good thing? Probably not, no matter who wins.
****
UPDATE: Here's some interesting analysis on the Hillary-Obama tiff from the Hotline blog.
Posted by Eric Earling at February 21, 2007 10:15 PM | Email Thishttp://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OWYwMzg3MzZkNDBmYzJhMGY5OTY5MjI3YTYxYzFkNDE=
Now I am in no way endorsing Romney or any other candidate at this point. It is just to early and so much can happen, to include the introduction of more candidates, to even begin to narrow down the list completely. I figure it will be early next year before anyone has a clear picture as to whom they may decide they want to endorse.
Posted by: TrueSoldier on February 21, 2007 10:32 PMAs for inconsistency, you will note that conservatives and Reagan Democrats hate inconsistency the most. We don't trust the government and when the people who are in charge of it flip-flop and change their positions, we easily write them off as being untrustworthy.
A man who changes his position and tells us he is now pro-life would likely not get the votes that someone who says he has always been less pro-life but would leave that matter to the states. One can be trusted, the other not.
Read My Lips, fool us once and we'll find someone else to support, you might be able to fool liberals by flip-flopping, it's a bit harder to fool conservatives.
Posted by: Doug on February 21, 2007 10:43 PM2) Primaries are good for purifying, through fire perhaps.
3) Those candidates who appear to be getting "chewed up" are not, they are just having light shown on them. It seems to me there was quite a race to be first and be in the spotlight. Now they have it.
Posted by: Michelle on February 22, 2007 01:07 AMThere are people out there who have the moral courage to stick to their guns even when it is not "enlightened" to do so. Romney is a spineless heel whose own words damn him to failure in the 2008 election. This country does not need him at the helm.
You can call it unrealistic if you want. But any man whose yes can mean yes one day and no the next is a POS who doesn't deserve to be President. Obviously the GOP has not learned a damned thing from the ass-whupping it got lsat November.
Posted by: ERNurse on February 22, 2007 03:54 AMAnyone notice the Democrats starting to eat their own, too? That cat fight in Hollywood between Clinton and Obama is taken right from the Republican playbooks. And boy, are they ever going after each other.
Personally if it is more then 10 years ago that they thought something different I don't really care. If its less then one I am very suspicious. Between that I want to know why. Was it that they discovered new information or had some major life conversion. Or was it that they were seeking election.
Changing opinions is not a sigh of a weak character if legitimate.
Posted by: Giffy on February 22, 2007 06:30 AMM&M, what is that old saying, "if you weren't a liberal when you were young, you have no heart and if you aren't a conservative when you are older, ...."? That means your viewpoints change as you mature.
One of the worst things I see in public office is the big SCORECARD, where one group or another rates a politician based on their votes- liberal or conservative or whatever else they choose to rank. Some of those bills that I completely agree with the concept, I could vote against because of the details.
Or, if I were younger, .... you get the point.
Posted by: swatter on February 22, 2007 08:22 AMAnd abortion and gay marriage are just two issues that a large portion of conservatives are dissatisfied with Romney on, as important as they are. This is not even touching his big government health care plan or his position on illegal immigration. He has the ability to turn off large portions of the conservative base.
This is not "eating our own" it is careful examination of the candidates. Shouldn't we examine them to see who is and is not best suited to represent us?
Posted by: Michelle on February 22, 2007 11:44 AMBut, gosh, he is so good at it. Gosh, his hair is so good. Gosh he won an election, even as a Republican, even in a liberal state by campaigning as a liberal (what magic!) and balanced the budget by raising taxes. He was rated the Number 8 RINO in America by Human Events.
For Eric that is all positive! Romney is the guy!
Those stupid conservatives - they expect for someone to be the supreme pro-life leader in the country that he actually should be a pro-life leader. Why won't they accept perfectly good lip service?
Lip service is great - it's so f-l-e-x-i-b-l-e. Can't they see how convenient that is? Don't they realize that it doesn't matter what you stand for, it doesn't matter what you do in office it only matters that you win? Those dumb conservatives!
Certainly a man may change his opinions. With Romney, in fact, I guarantee it.
The NRO author, James Bopp Jr., is one of the architects of the policy at "National Right to Life" that has them, and some of their affiliates, like Dan Kennedy of Human Life of Washington, with increasing frequency, endorsing pro-abortion candidates, sometimes over pro-life candidates.
It is inevitable that Mr. Romney will not be a conservative alternative to the left-wing candidates, McCain and Julie Rudiani. The question in the air for the GOP and, ultimately, America, is "how long will we tolerate a coalition of the Republican Left and their allies in the Mainstream Media choosing our candidates for us?
How do we change it?
#1: Ignore their self-fulfilling prophesies of "viability." It's all smoke and mirrors.
#2: Quit compromising on moral principle. We can compromise on lots of things but killing innocent people is not one of them. It is no different that Slavery Choice as an issue and we overcame that.
Why don't we support the best man to be the President, regardless of his hair?
Posted by: Doug Parris on February 23, 2007 03:07 AMHow about borders? What's the truth about all this border dispute stuff? Since congress hasn't been part of the treaties with Mexico, we have no record of how they would react if given power. So reporters, let's get some answers from these candidates.
And.. Israel? What is this candidate's stand?We have a horrid record with keeping promises ... we did help them get started. Any moral obligation there? What is this candidate's position on the "road map"?
What about all the stories about moslems not having to stick to our laws? They cry racism everytime they get caught for murder. What does this candidate think of sharia law and honor killing?
How about domestic Oil usage? Why can't we use our own oil? Does this candidate have an opinion?
The freedom of the press was not given so we could know the sex life of the movie star.
All good questions. We should know where they stand on all of them. Most of their own websites skirt all of the issues, but I think if you visit www.teamtancredo.com you'll find your answers about his positions atleast.
Posted by: Michelle on February 23, 2007 11:59 PM