On flip flopping

[UKMustangFan]

Randy, if you don't mind me asking, and maybe this isn't the right thread for it, but....Why do you trust Newt Gingrich more than Mitt Romney?

[Randy Parker]

Randy, if you don't mind me asking, and maybe this isn't the right thread for it, but....Why do you trust Newt Gingrich more than Mitt Romney?

 

I don't mind at all. First of all, you are right that I do trust Newt more than Mitt because to my knowledge, he hasn't changed his mind on as many issues. From my vantage point, Mitt is a totally different national candidate than he was as a state candidate in Massachusetts. The reason for that, I believe, is that he had to be more to the left in Massachusetts to get elected & now he has to be more to the right to get the national nomination for the GOP. In short, I have no idea where Mitt truly stands on issues. I know what he said in Massachusetts & I know what he is saying now. My question is: Which one is real?

 

With Newt, I do have some serious issues about how he has handled things in his personal life. And unlike a lot of folks, I do think that has a bearing on how you will govern. If you're not faithful to your wife--the person you've committed to spending the rest of your life with--why should I expect you to be faithful or honor your word with the American people? I have serious issues with Newt in this regard. In no way do I condone how he's handled himself over the years. Do I trust him fully? No way. But if I have to compare the two, he gets the nod over Romney. But that doesn't say much for Newt in my mind.

[leatherneck]

I don't mind at all. First of all, you are right that I do trust Newt more than Mitt because to my knowledge, he hasn't changed his mind on as many issues. From my vantage point, Mitt is a totally different national candidate than he was as a state candidate in Massachusetts. The reason for that, I believe, is that he had to be more to the left in Massachusetts to get elected & now he has to be more to the right to get the national nomination for the GOP. In short, I have no idea where Mitt truly stands on issues. I know what he said in Massachusetts & I know what he is saying now. My question is: Which one is real?

 

With Newt, I do have some serious issues about how he has handled things in his personal life. And unlike a lot of folks, I do think that has a bearing on how you will govern. If you're not faithful to your wife--the person you've committed to spending the rest of your life with--why should I expect you to be faithful or honor your word with the American people? I have serious issues with Newt in this regard. In no way do I condone how he's handled himself over the years. Do I trust him fully? No way. But if I have to compare the two, he gets the nod over Romney. But that doesn't say much for Newt in my mind.

 

Randy, I consider Ron Paul to be one of the straightest shooters of the candidates (he can't get elected and has some positions that many consider to be rather extreme, but I consider him to be pretty honest) and I assume you'd agree with me on that point.

 

Here's a link to Paul's campaign site addressing Newt's flip flopping: http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2011/11/25/flip-flopping-newt-gingrich/

 

Assuming it's accurate, Newt is quite the flopper too. I'm seen other articles that have concluded that Newt's flopped more than Romney. If Newt is the flopper that has been reported, you have Romney who has flopped but lead a personal life that I consider exemplary from all that I've heard. Then you have Newt, also a flopper but has lead a personal life that I think is disgusting.

[Randy Parker]

To Randy: I get the whole conviction thing; I really do. However when those convictions no longer match what a majority of Americans want, should he say the heck with the public? Should he try and force policies and legislation that is not looked on favorably by the public just because he believes in them? Does he play hardball with a Congress, whose opinions may match up more favorably with the public opinion, in order to push his convictions and agenda, and then risk creating a relationship with Congress that is acidic and destructive? Again I understand the attraction of people with conviction. Conviction in beliefs is a very admirable quality. I'm just not convinced having a strong and unwavering conviction to one's beliefs is an effective way to lead. If a leader cannot convince his/her subordinates/troops/employees/followers/voters that his convictions are correct, then he/she needs to either resign or place his convictions on the back burner and follow the convictions of his subordinates, etc. Frankly I think Bill Clinton did an admirable job as the President because he was willing to do the latter. Had he not engaged in the lieing, I think he would be regarded as one of our best Presidents in recent history.

 

I think it depends on the issues. I'm sure there are times when you should strongly consider public opinion and things of that nature. But there are other times when you stand by your beliefs. I believe one of our nation's early leaders (I'm thinking an Adams, but not sure) said, "Sometimes majority opinion just means you have a lot of fools in one place." Standing by what you believe in certain scenarios may not score political points & it may even lead to your political demise. But that's not always a bad thing IMO.

 

Randy, I consider Ron Paul to be one of the straightest shooters of the candidates (he can't get elected and has some positions that many consider to be rather extreme, but I consider him to be pretty honest) and I assume you'd agree with me on that point.

 

Here's a link to Paul's campaign site addressing Newt's flip flopping: http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2011/11/25/flip-flopping-newt-gingrich/

 

Assuming it's accurate, Newt is quite the flopper too. I'm seen other articles that have concluded that Newt's flopped more than Romney. If Newt is the flopper that has been reported, you have Romney who has flopped but lead a personal life that I consider exemplary from all that I've heard. Then you have Newt, also a flopper but has lead a personal life that I think is disgusting.

 

Valid points on the personal lives of Romney & Newt. I've acknowledged that is an issue for me. And in no way is Newt guaranteed my vote. It's just that when I compare the two, my preference as of January 27, 2012 is for the former Speaker.

[leatherneck]

I think it depends on the issues. I'm sure there are times when you should strongly consider public opinion and things of that nature. But there are other times when you stand by your beliefs. I believe one of our nation's early leaders (I'm thinking an Adams, but not sure) said, "Sometimes majority opinion just means you have a lot of fools in one place." Standing by what you believe in certain scenarios may not score political points & it may even lead to your political demise. But that's not always a bad thing IMO.

 

 

 

Valid points on the personal lives of Romney & Newt. I've acknowledged that is an issue for me. And in no way is Newt guaranteed my vote. It's just that when I compare the two, my preference as of January 27, 2012 is for the former Speaker.

 

Fair enough, although I'll mention as to the honesty and trustworthiness issue that I think there is some credence in the belief that if a man will cheat and deceive the woman he married, he'll cheat and deceive everyone.

[woodsrider]

If a candidate changes his position on an issue he/she better have facts to support that change. Like UKMF stated, if Romey would just say he is against Obamacare because he has seen first hand that it doesn't work I feel like he would get much more credibility then the crap he is saying now.

 

When a candidate changes positions just to change it's pandering.