Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSS
New at Reason
They flip! They flop! They flip and flop and flip! Flip flip flip, flop flop flop—the Edwards and Romney show! (Brought to you by Steve Chapman.)
Comments to "New at Reason":
Grotius | June 11, 2007, 7:29am | #
Steve,Are Romney and Edwards unique or extreme in their flip-floppery or just more obvious (as compared to other politicians)?
Legate Damar | June 11, 2007, 8:08am | #
Clearly not unique, but under "extreme" (more switches and larger switches in a shorter period of time than the vast majority of politicians) and "obvious" (especially Hair Boy), they both get bonus points.Grotius | June 11, 2007, 8:16am | #
Legate Damar,I'm generally pretty skeptical of the "common perception" of a politician. It may just be that both Romney and Edwards are less adept in hiding their flip-floppery (if they are indeed flip-floppers).
John Tabin | June 11, 2007, 8:50am | #
Best "New at Reason" ever.I'm just going to come out and say this: I don't think Edwards' hair is that great. It's a little helmetty, and I don't know where this idea that he's got super-hair comes from.
Brian Schmidt | June 11, 2007, 11:34am | #
Well, another stupid "equivalence" piece by a journalist who doesn't feel like doing actual work. It's hard to think of an issue that Romney hasn't flipped on. What about Edwards? Got anything besides the Iraq vote? What about that China vote - you called it out to attention, are you implying he's flippled. What else do you have, besides your feelings that he seemed more moderate then than he does now?Sorry, but this type of stuff is really annoying.
Isn't the essence of a republic that you are electing someone who will represent the wishes of the populous? Doesn't that require shifting your stance on an issue along with public opinion? I would argue that a stubborn leader is worse than a flip-flopper.
jh | June 11, 2007, 3:04pm | #
If Romney had complete integrity, we wouldn't be having this discussion, because he wouldn't be a viable presidential candidate. The stances he's advocating now to win the Republican nomination, if he had advanced as a candidate for governor of Massachusetts, would have caused him to lose the governorship race. This, in essence, is why virtually all elected politicians are scum -- to win, and keep getting reelected, they have to deceive people into believing they hold convictions different than their actual ones. When I was running for office two years ago, I was going door to door, and I kept finding people who had met my one of my opponents who held the exact same views as the voter. When my opponents met with pro-life pro-war anti-gay conservatives, they held the exact same views, and when my opponents met with pro-choice anti-war pro-gay liberals, they held the exact same views.I'm Mormon, and ironically, the lesson I taught in the priesthood session was on "integrity". This same lesson was taught churchwide yesterday. I wonder if Mitt attended the session in his home ward, and if the teacher asked the awkward questions I would have asked?
Au standard | June 11, 2007, 4:24pm | #
what a deep intellectual piece from Chapman...it was like some lightweight article from a standard newspaper..oh wait he writes for the Trib.....I mean really....this is an issue..politicians change positions?...shocking...anyway isn't this what we want them to do anyway?....would this article be posted in reason with the same take if we were talking about republican politicians changing their positions on Iraq and adopting an anti-war stance....doubt it....This was the most puerile piece ever posted hereno1usestheirnamehere | June 11, 2007, 11:31pm | #
"Coming from the home state of Jesse Helms..."That is a prejudicial statement and thus shows the slant of this entertaining piece.
How about:
Coming from the home state of Senator Terry Sanford, who was very progressive, the opposite of Helms, and elected by the same democrats that elected Republican Helms?
So, I'm considering subscribing to Reason. I purchased the latest issue and was impressed. Then, I read this article. Not only is it poorly written, but it just doesn't seem to achieve its objective. Brian Schmidt is right: what has Edwards flipped on? Perhaps, he is a flip-flopper, but a reader of this article comes away with no evidence of that. Romney is a joke, but this article does a poor job convicting him of flip-flopping. Surely, you could do better than this. Please explain the points about Edwards. My plans of subscribing are now on hold, and not because I have any attachment to Mr. Edwards.
Brian Schmidt | June 13, 2007, 11:46am | #
Chapman apparently can't think of anything to say in defense of his assertion without evidence that Edwards has flipped on a lot of issues. Anyone else? Can anyone come up with issues besides Iraq where Edwards has changed his mind? Ideally they should be moral issues, which are the kinds where Romney's conversion has a ridiculous timing, but if you can't find that for Edwards, at least give us a policy switch.
