Political Animal
Blog
When it comes to the Democratic strategy against Mitt Romney in 2012, the party has a few themes to choose from.
The first is that Romney is a far-right ideologue who intends to give millionaires tax breaks, end Medicare, privatize Social Security, give Wall Street free rein, and screw over the middle class on everything from health care to taxes. A vote for Romney, this argument goes, is a vote to take the country backwards, thanks to his Bush-on-steroids-style agenda.
The second is that Romney is an out-of-touch plutocrat who got rich laying off American workers. With so many still struggling and feeling the effects of the Great Recession, the argument goes, there’s no point in electing the champion of the 1%, a man who doesn’t even know what the middle class is, and a candidate even Republicans see as being “in the hip pocket of Wall Street.”
And then, of course, there’s the flip-flopper. No politician in modern American life has ever changed so many positions on so many issues. It’s almost impossible to find an issue on which Romney hasn’t taken both sides, and in nearly every instance, the reversals have been insincere, unprincipled, and politically motivated — Romney bases his beliefs on whatever way the winds are blowing at the time.
The question then becomes whether this third avenue would be an effective choice for Romney’s opponents.
Matt Yglesias argued the other day that it would not: “Flip-flopper argument against Romney will be bizarre in a general election. ‘Beware of Mitt, he’s more reasonable than he sounds!’”
The New York Times ran a piece raising a similar point, arguing that the flip-flopper charge carries risks for Dems, because it would remind voters that Romney used to be moderate and mainstream — qualities that many voters might find appealing.
Kevin Drum this week was thinking along similar lines:
My guess: the flip-flopper charge probably won’t get much traction. It’s mostly a problem for conservatives, who don’t fully trust that Romney is one of them, but by the time summer rolls around they’re going to be his most fire-breathing supporters. They’ll have long since decided to forgive and forget, and independents won’t care that much in the first place as long as Romney seems halfway reasonable in his current incarnation.
It’s possible that Obama can do both — Romney is a flip-flopper and a right-wing nutcase! — but if he has to choose, my guess is that he should forget about the flip-flopping and simply do everything he can to force Romney into the wingnut conservative camp. That’ll be his big weakness when Labor Day rolls around.
I’m torn on this. The argument against the flip-flopper charge is fairly compelling, and as a stand-along charge — “Don’t vote for Romney because he flip-flops” — the attack feels thin, regardless of accuracy.
But I’m also not inclined to dismiss it just yet. The point, I’d argue, is to incorporate the criticism into a larger critique: Americans just can’t trust Mitt Romney. It’s a broader charge, but a single theme: the flip-flops, the lies, the cowardly dodges, the poll-tested non-answers are all evidence of someone lacking in a fundamental integrity, too eager to say anything to anyone to advance his ambitions.
David Axelrod said this week, “Taking two positions on every issue, one on the left and one on the far right, doesn’t make you a centrist. It makes you a charlatan.” It’s not about Romney’s policy reversals; it’s about his lack of character.
I often think about the interview Romney did in late November with Fox News’ Bret Baier, in which the reporter asked, “How can voters trust what they hear from you today is what you will believe if you win the White House?” Romney struggled with the answer.
And therein lies the potency of the criticism. “Flip-flopper” may not be the most compelling attack, but once a candidate has been deemed “untrustworthy” by the American mainstream, it’s tough to win an election.
But I’ll concede it’s a judgment call, so let’s open this up to some discussion. Is the flip-flopper charge ultimately a losing argument against Romney, or is this something Romney’s detractors should embrace in the coming months?
Facebook
Twitter
bigtuna on January 07, 2012 11:25 AM:
maybe the theme of Willard Romney is a rich, entitled, unctious A**hole would work too
Quatrain Gleam on January 07, 2012 11:25 AM:
Why fuss over "flip-flopper"?
"Liar" is such a clearer term.
Eric Wilde on January 07, 2012 11:33 AM:
Quatrain is right. "Liar" is both accurate and unambiguous.
PVB on January 07, 2012 11:36 AM:
This is an important discussion because it begs the question of how this election should be framed. Is this election about choosing between the two people running for President, assessing their strengths and weaknesses? Or is it about choosing between two fundamentally different directions for the country, and therefore choosing between the two parties that espouse those two different directions? Is this election about choosing between using the power of government to rebuild the American middle class on the one hand, and starving and crippling the government so that it cannot interfere with the workings of the market (and the rich elites who control them), on the other?
If the election is going to be about choosing between two people, the flip-flopper argument is important. But if the election is about choosing between two fundamentally different visions for the country -- which I strongly believe should be the frame for this election -- the flip-flopper argument is a distraction.
The truth is that there is one thing you can trust in: as he has in this campaign, a President Mitt Romney will follow the dictates of the right wing that controls his Republican base, no matter what positions he has taken in the past. So this election actually IS about choosing between two different visions for the country, and we should not be confused and think otherwise.
RP on January 07, 2012 11:37 AM:
People don't like Mitt because he's inauthentic, period. The flip-flopper charge is effective because it reinforces that perception.
"He doesn't actually believe anything."
"He's willing to say anything to get elected."
"He can't be trusted."
The right-wing nut charge isn't inconsistent with this argument. The point is simply that he was willing to say one thing to get elected in Mass., and another to get the GOP nomination. And if he doesn't actually believe anything, he'll be perfectly happy to continue pandering to the far right if elected.
chopin on January 07, 2012 11:40 AM:
Your dilemma is Willard is target rich but your audience is tone deaf. Just print and plaster "ANYONE but Romney" bumper stickers on every car in site.
Diane Rodriguez on January 07, 2012 11:40 AM:
The "flip-flopper" label is impotent, whoever the target. It is way overused to no particular advantage. Axelrod was clearly moving in the right direction with his comment. Changing positions can be represent genuine changes in belief or deeper understanding of an issue. In contemporary politics, most drastic changes in core beliefs that drive policy positions are aimed at specific blocks of voters. It's not whether you prefer soy milk or 2%, which is what the cries of flip flopper have come to mean to the general public.
The seriousness of policy changes, say from anti-abortion to following the law, requires a better explanation than a tired bumper sticker phrase. Romney has seemingly reversed himself on a number of significant core values that drove his policies in his earlier political life. No one asks him to explain those reversals. I seem to recall he saw a movie or documentary that changed his views on abortion. A journalist would probe that answer. Every time I hear the flip flopper label, I know lies will follow and interviewers will ask for more pabulum please. Continuing that line of attack lets Romney off easy.
smintheus on January 07, 2012 11:43 AM:
A lot of voters already think Romney is a flip flopper, a charge that's nearly impossible to avoid given his record. It would be hard for Dems not to embrace it.
Thing to do is to paint Romney with it early so as to make him (i) a figure of ridicule, and (ii) somebody not to be trusted. Once it has become universally acknowledged by the summer, drop it and shift toward the substantive policies and his past record that are anathema to voters. I don't believe at that stage voters will think, 'Hey this guy is such a jerk and so untrustworthy there's no reason to worry he'll actually follow through on his dangerous ideas.'
DAY on January 07, 2012 11:44 AM:
Some voters pull the lever based upon, "Which one do I want to have a beer with?"
Others are more visceral, asking, "How much will my income go down/taxes go up?"
Happily, Mitts loses to Obama on both counts. (unless you are a 1%er. . .)
Adam on January 07, 2012 11:44 AM:
All that really motivates him is will to power. He will say anything to get into the chicken coop. If you want to know what he'll do once he gets there, look at what he did at Bain.
BroD on January 07, 2012 11:45 AM:
I don't understand the either/or. Is there any dissonance among these narratives? I kind of roll them up, regarding Romney as a wooden puppet-man sponsored by corporate interests who will say anything to keep his sponsors happy.
pamelabrown on January 07, 2012 11:47 AM:
I think both tracks are appropriate with 2 caveats. First, the "out of touch plutocrat" should be more heavily weighted. Second, I'd avoid using the term "flip-flopper" but point to the underlying REASONS for his flip-flopping as Axelrod did with his charlatan statement. So we can add to that by focusing on his untrustworthiness and lack of authenticity.
Mac on January 07, 2012 11:49 AM:
Try PATHOLOGICAL LIAR. Romeny's not just a flip-flopper. Come on. That's like calling Bernie Madoff a shop-lifter. Seriously, the guy has got a problem. There's no there there.
57andFemale on January 07, 2012 11:53 AM:
"Flip flopping" in some cases can be explained (not in the middle of a sentence like Mitt but in soome cases). It's the utter lack of moral compass that is the problem. He does and says what is politically expedient with no sense of ethics or moral checks. He is absolutely terrifying. He is potentially the most terrifying president ever.
FlipYrWhig on January 07, 2012 11:54 AM:
I'm not sure why "flip flopper" would equate to "reasonable" in Yglesias's mind. Romney says what he needs to say to get the gig, to please the constituency, he wants/needs. He acted liberal in Mass. and ran as the Real Conservative in 2008-present. That's not "reasonable." That's Jon Huntsman's "well-lubricated weathervane" in predictable motion.
Dave in DC on January 07, 2012 11:54 AM:
The problem with the flip flopper charge is that it is too easily turned around. All politicians to the right of Dennis Kucinich and to the left of a Ron Paul or Rick Santorum change positions over time, and the President is no exception. All the flip flopper label establishes is that both Romney and Obama are politicians.
But the vulture capitalist label is far more damning because it can't be turned around as easily. A troupe of laid off victims of Bain Capital shadowing Mittens around the country in a time of economic peril telling the truth about Romney's avarice and insensitivity, and chiding him for his failure to support the American Jobs Act will be far more effective than branding him a flip flopper and much harder to refute.
chi res on January 07, 2012 11:55 AM:
What's the difference?
Somebody who gets rich by taking jobs away from working class families is obviously somebody you can't trust.
S. W. James on January 07, 2012 11:58 AM:
If it is Romney, the strategy has to 1) pin his flip flop as negatively opportunistic (look at the amount of common-sense you have to forgo to become a loyal republican); 2) remind them that a President doesn't work in a vacuum and tie him to the GOP Congress (it doesn't matter if you think he might become moderate again, in order to govern he has to appease the Tea Party and Mitch McConnell); and among the 60%, hang him with his tax policy (only a junkie or the mentally deranged repeat the same failed behaviors, given over 10 years of evidence).
Jimo on January 07, 2012 12:00 PM:
I think it just allows a voter to ignore Romney's stated position on any issue with an 'I wish' self-lie that maybe Romney in fact agrees with the voter's own belief about that issue, thereby giving that voter permission to go ahead and vote for Romney despite Romney's objectionable position.
As with all rules, there is an exception: where a position is either (near) universally disclaimed or embraced. For example, the Mittster infamously remarked (on videotape!) that he's "not a Reagan style Republican"; he's "not trying to go back to the policies of Reagan-Bush."
For Republicans, of course, this is extremely worrisome given the mythological deification of Ronald Reagan to them. But, it is of little use for Democrats to point this out to Republicans given that Dems are no Reaganites themselves.
However, Reagan's legacy is sufficiently part of history and contains a vague glow of 'better times' and reasonableness and American strength to enough Democratic and independent voters that it might be useful for Democrats to point this out because, to the low-information voter, this makes Romney appear to be attacking someone with high net positives today.
Still, 99 times out of 100, this approach will fail. Given how rich (pun intended) the other lines of attack are, there's little reason for Dems to waste time on the flip/flopper approach.
William Slattery on January 07, 2012 12:01 PM:
These are uncertain times, so I want certainty. Show me endless videotape of Romney flip-flopping and I'll know that he only deepens my uncertainty. I won't vote for more uncertainty.
Just Dropping By on January 07, 2012 12:02 PM:
Maybe Democractic SuperPACs can run negative "Romney = flip-flopper" ads in conservative media markets to help drive down enthusiam for him?
zeitgeist on January 07, 2012 12:07 PM:
Three things:
1) While I appreciate Drum et al's arguments, they ignore context. If Romney were personally popular and people found him likable (think Clinton or even, for some, W) the flip-flopper argument doesn't work because each side sees something in his positions to validate their generally favorable views of the candidate personally. Polls show that Romney is not in this position, however: the flip-flopping label will stick because neither side trusts him to start with, which makes it a very effective attack for the reasons Benen suggests -- it goes to a bigger issue of trust.
2) It is a false choice, part 1: A political campaign is long enough, complex enough, and costly enough to involve more than one theme. Obama and the aligned 527s can easily spend adequate time painting Romney as both an unprincipled untrustworthy flip-flopper and an out of touch plutocrat.
3) It is a false choice, part 2: Most of Romneys notably flip-flops are on non-economic issues. So his flip-flopping can be portrayed as flipping between the two visions of Romney the Dems want to present. Sometimes, he's merely a typical plutocratic Republican, a callous, out-of-touch 1%-er who breaks up companies and lays off American workers to increase his own wealth, but other times he flips and is even worse - a plutocratic Republican who also wants to police your bedroom, take away your rights, and send you to war. You have three candidates in this election: Bad Mitt, Worse Mitt or Obama.
Gandalf on January 07, 2012 12:11 PM:
Dave in DC for you to say that flip flopping is what they all do is the tiniest bit accurate, Of course like everyone else politicians change their stances on issues but here's the big but in this whole discussion. Romney flip flops on almost everything. IOf he was acountry in a war you'ds never know what side he'd be on from day to day.
It's an issue t5hat a lot people are bothered by. It's not the onle issue but it mattewrs to many that the person they elect president at least has spine.
skeptonomist on January 07, 2012 12:14 PM:
The idea that Democrats could be saying "Mitt is more reasonable than he sounds" is pretty silly. After his nomination he will be much less rightist, maybe resembling his Massachusetts persona. Democrats would then be faced with trying to prove that his Republican-primary persona is the real one, or that flip-flopping is intrinsically bad. Hint: holding politicians to account for changing views is not a big thing with the media.
SteveT on January 07, 2012 12:16 PM:
If the White House makes this election about Romney, the country is f#cked. America needs Democratic majorities in the House and Senate.
Obama needs to define this election as a choice between two visions for America:
1. The Republicans think the middle class is paid too much and pays too little in taxes. The Republicans think the government should stand back and allow the Wall Street corporations to rip them off, poison their air and water and ship their jobs overseas.
2. The Democrats believe that hard work should be rewarded. Americans today shouldn't be worse off than their parents were -- working two jobs to stay ahead, burdened with debt and an underwater mortgage and living in fear that their jobs will disappear because some investment capital group buys out their employer. Democrats believe that government should have a role in protecting Americans from powerful multinational corporations.
And if (when) Romney argues that he believes in supporting Main Street too, then Democrats should drag out the flip-flopper issue, saying, "You say that now. But how can we trust you with your record of flip-flopping?"
SPrintF on January 07, 2012 12:27 PM:
Mitt Romney has been consistent from day one. He has never flip-flopped. Not really.
The constant in Romney's character is this: he is an opportunist. He will say and believe whatever is necessary for him to advance his agenda; his agenda, of course, being his personal advancement.
I think Romney is genuinely puzzled by why the public doesn't understand this. Surely, he thinks, everyone in the world is just like him: a shameless shapeshifter out for himself.
JC on January 07, 2012 12:30 PM:
The flip-flopping feeds into a bigger theme: Romney's a phony.
There are so many examples of Romney's phoniness that are both flip-flopping to appease primary voters and otherwise. I heard a snippet of a Romney stump speech yesterday or this morning, for example, where a military plane flew overhead during his speach and Romney told the crowd that "that's the sound of freedom." Made me cringe and, I suspect, made others do so because it sounds so calculated and inauthentic coming from him.
jsjiowa on January 07, 2012 12:34 PM:
I don't think "flip-flopper" by itself works, even with video of his many different positions. It can (and perhaps must) be part of a bigger theme about who you can trust to do the right thing.
Romney was able to convince the Des Moines Register that his different positions were not inauthentic flip-flopping, but a genuine move towards more conservative beliefs. These were editors who closely look at all the candidates every four years, and they didn't see his position shifts as opportunistic. I have a feeling there's a good portion of the public that will likely conclude the same.
But if you make it part of a larger theme of trust, then you may create doubt in more minds. Do you trust someone who puts hundreds, maybe thousands out of work -- who operates a business with absolutely no concern for the effect on the employees, who walks away with millions in profits but leaving a company bankrupt? Is that the right way to operate a business? Is it moral? Do you trust that person? Is that person even consistent with the positions they've taken in the past two decades? Does he continue to push as truth falsehoods that independent fact checkers have debunked? Do you trust him to tell you the truth, to always do the right thing?
I think that line of attack builds on perceptions that he is plastic. An article I read yesterday says that negative ads that build on existing perceptions succeed, but other attacks are not as successful. This is the line the Obama SuperPACs are going to need to pursue: trust and authenticity. I don't think the majority of people will say that their gut feeling towards Romney is trust.
Dave in DC on January 07, 2012 12:38 PM:
Gandalf -- you're preaching to the choir. The choir knows the truth of what you are saying. But what about the general public? Our stenographers masquerading as media will simply repeat mindlessly Romney's "I know yor are but what am I" defense against the flip flopper charge. The plutocratic vulture capitalist charge, especially if voiced by his victims, will be far more effective.
I'm not suggesting we should abandon the flip flopper charge entirely, but I don't think it should be the primary focus.
In any case, if the economy doesn't improve none of it may matter.
Lev on January 07, 2012 12:49 PM:
I think going after Mitt as a right-wing nutjob makes sense. What's he going to do, disagree? Say he used to be moderate? Repubs love that. This way, you basically trap Romney.
chi res on January 07, 2012 12:51 PM:
In any case, if the economy doesn't improve none of it may matter.
This is the kind of political nihilism that will lose the election.
Does the economy need to improve? Certainly. But no matter what, we need to work our butts off in every way possible to defeat these idiots and ensure the reelection of the POTUS and establishment of workable majorities in the Senate and House.
Because, the truth is, if we lose in 2012, the economy, at the least the part that would benefit the 99ers, won't get better for another decade. And things will get much worse on countless other issues.
Fuck the gloomy predictions and naysaying! Get to work! We don't have any choice but to win this one.
cwolf on January 07, 2012 12:59 PM:
The Mittster is a Lying POS;
would be my choice.
schtick on January 07, 2012 1:03 PM:
Skip the flip-flopping bit. Just go with he'll say whatever the people will believe to get voted in, then remind them of the promises of the 2010 Congress. Where are the jobs Congress and a "job destroyer" President would be certain disaster. I think people would see it. Maybe. Well, voters are slow learners and have short memories. Mebbe not.
max on January 07, 2012 1:05 PM:
Mentioning his general views on big things like Medicare, Social Security, etc. is a good start, but I think the out-of-touch plutocrat is the most fertile ground to take down Mitt. Arguing with him about his positions would be like trying to mail Jello to a wall. Just dig up a few dozen victims of Bain Capital's "buy and shut down" business practices and let them have their say. It also might be funny to turn loose some documentary filmmakers to see if anyone can find a middle class person who is Mitt's friend.
Kane on January 07, 2012 1:10 PM:
Because Romney has a reputation of having no core principles, voters tend to assume the worst outcomes, not the best outcomes. Democrats believe that he will govern further to the right than he claims, while Republicans believe that he will betray them once he is office by moving to the left. Independent voters won’t know what to believe, which will make the attack ads of Romney being a flip-flopper all the more effective.
jjm on January 07, 2012 1:11 PM:
Take hints from Huntsman: the well-oiled weathervane is a good one. Axelrod's statement is another.
I don't like flip-flopper label at all because it borrows from the right wing strategists--reminding us more of the people holding up giant flip flop sandals to mock Kerry than of Romney's giant flaws.
It may have worked then not because it was novel, but because it was basically UNTRUE: they were promoting a lie with PR and eye-catching imagery because they needed to exaggerate and demonize something that Kerry legitimately did -- he changed his some issues.
Let's be more imaginative, more creative! new labels, new images, and then the good old simple ones like LIAR will be, I think, more effective.
I also like the suggestion above that we should question Romney's will to power? What's really driving this multi-millionaire who has no reason to be so driven? ? Impartial love for his country? {hah!] Desire to protect the 1% (that one will stick)? Religious imperatives to takeover the top on behalf of his faith?
J.D. Rhoades on January 07, 2012 1:11 PM:
Is the flip-flopper charge ultimately a losing argument against Romney
Maybe you should ask John Kerry.
tolkien on January 07, 2012 1:17 PM:
The problem for Obama is that this election won't be about Romney, elections where one person is an incumbent almost never are, this will be about Obama, and, particularly, about what has happened to the US economy under Obama. The fact is that unemployment, underemployment, wages, and job conditions, have all gotten much worse under since January of 2009. The only way to get Obama reelected is to point out (quite rightly) the many ways in which the Republicans have successfully sabotaged the US economy despite Democratic efforts to save it, and how Romney is cast in the same mold.
In order to that the Democrats, and Obama especially, will have to completely end the mealy-mouthed, pro supply-side economics, and clearly come out in favor of direct government solutions to the economic problems. They will have to clearly articulate a vision of America where government is seen as the defenders of the people against the rapacious corporations.
If they fail in any of this, or don't bother trying, Romney will get elected no matter how bad Obama paints him, as people will not like what has happened over the last 4 years and throw out the person they believe responsible for their problems.
Dennis G on January 07, 2012 1:19 PM:
I think the focus of third line of attack isn't really that "Mitt is a flip-flopper", rather it is that Mitt is a liar--that he is dishonest. His flip-flopping is not a sign of his ambition or secret moderate goals. They are just more evidence of his causual lies and how he lies about everything, big and small. The core issue/message here is that Mitt Romney cannot be trusted.
I think it might be useful if some group made a contest of Romney's lies with a cash prize. One could list the lie with documentation of why it was a lie and then offer a $10,000 prize to anybody who could prove--with real evidence--that Mitt is telling the truth. New lies with new cash prizes could be promoted weekley (or even daily).
A cash prize that can never be collected might help to get folks in the media to cover the way Mitt causually lies his way through every day of the campaign.
Cheers
Poly on January 07, 2012 1:25 PM:
The first two strategies are potent, and they should be used in some capacity. However, I do see how some could actually rationalize looking beyond these themes. But the larger critique that Americans just can’t trust Mitt Romney, is one that is difficult to get beyond. If people feel that they can't trust him, it's difficult to see how people could vote for him.
thundermonkey on January 07, 2012 1:31 PM:
I agree that flip-flopping is a useful line of attack which can be done in conjunction of others, but that it needs better branding. Liar works much better, but it needs to be done with a bit of humor to avoid appearing strident to the undecideds.
How about ads with CGI effects showing his nose growing bigger when he takes a popular but obviously insincere stance like (to take one example) being pro-choice?
Kane on January 07, 2012 1:41 PM:
One strategy that cannot be underestimated is to highlight Romney's overall dickishness. People don't like the guy, and he doesn't come across as someone who likes people. It's only January, but the animosity toward Romney feels as if we are in mid-July of the campaign.
SW on January 07, 2012 1:45 PM:
Flip flopper is a useless argument. Although Romney is a rather shameless example of the breed, it beats the alternative of sticking with an ideology even when the facts tell you that it isn't working. This is not a sign of principle, it is a sign of stupidity or of being bought off by those who support the failed ideology.
The best and most productive way to attack Romney is that he simply represents great wealth and policies that would comfort the comfortable in the vain hope that this would somehow make every else's life better. This is the standard Republican stchik. Lavish money tax breaks and policy goodies on the 1% and this will somehow magically benefit everyone else. We have been trying that crap ever since Reagan. How's that working out for us? This is the line of attack against Romney. He is the poster child for this ideology. And his entire rap plays right into it. If you can't turn him into Mr. 1% you have no business being in politics in the first place.
drinking jim crow on January 07, 2012 1:46 PM:
Matt Yglesias argued the other day that it would not: �Flip-flopper argument against Romney will be bizarre in a general election. �Beware of Mitt, he�s more reasonable than he sounds!��
America in a nutshell: don't vote for the guy who actually has been a reasonable moderate over the last four years while guiding the country's recovery from the policies of the last wingnut who ran things; instead ignore the constant stream of nonsense coming from the current wingnut's camp and cast your vote for him because by golly he was somewhat reasonable years ago when it suited his political goals.
jcricket on January 07, 2012 1:49 PM:
The best short description of Romney is:
Snake Oil Charlatan.
What he's selling is no remedy for anything, and it's unknown content might kill.
navamske on January 07, 2012 1:53 PM:
I don't know why the flip-flopping charge wouldn't work against Romney. It worked against Kerry, and he wasn't an actual flip-flopper -- at least, no more so than Bush, who was against the creation of a Department of Homeland Security and then was for it and declined to testify before the 9/11 commission and then agrred to do so.
Kane on January 07, 2012 2:02 PM:
Democrats don't need to devise a strategy focusing on Romney's flip-flops because Romney will remind us of his history of flip-flops throughout the campaign as he continues to offer more flip-flops. It's quite obvious that his flip-flopping is not a trait that he can turn off. Just point them out when they occur.
leo from Chicago on January 07, 2012 2:05 PM:
"...the party has a few themes to choose from.
Just say the guy looks french.
Camus on January 07, 2012 2:30 PM:
I'm much fonder of the "he's a plutocrat doing the bidding of the 1% approach" but it certain circumstances like on social issues (abortion-gay rights) the flip flopper/liar
approach has some value.
Camus on January 07, 2012 2:32 PM:
I'm much fonder of the "he's a plutocrat doing the bidding of the 1% approach" but it certain circumstances like on social issues (abortion-gay rights) the flip flopper/liar
approach has some value.
ump902a on January 07, 2012 2:32 PM:
The articles you mention assume that Romney's current positions will be the ones he takes once he is nominated. He will move back toward the center as November approaches and, at that point, the Dems run ads showing Romney during the primaries, comparing him now with his new "centrist" positions. The flip-flopper question asks itself. As stated many times in this thread, trustworthiness becomes the issue.
mike reilly on January 07, 2012 2:39 PM:
Stick with the Bain Capital stuff. It's perfect for this kind of climate where people are getting downsized left and right.
low-tech cyclist on January 07, 2012 2:40 PM:
You don't make an argument about flip-flopping.
You make a song, an ode to Romney and his lack of constancy, and put it on YouTube.
You've already written the key line of it, Steve:
"It seems to me that you live your life
with a finger in the wind."
Some Democratic PAC should get some wordsmiths cracking on the rest of the lyrics, get a competent singer to perform it, publish the link in a number of places, and let it take off.
And let the Obama campaign, the DNC, etc. say, "we're not getting into that debate, but if the shoe fits..." and leave it at that.
nerd on January 07, 2012 2:56 PM:
The problem, as so many folks above pointed out above, is not the flip-flops per se.
The problem is: when was he lying? And if he wasn't lying when he chose to say a different thing than he said before, did he really change his mind? And if he could change his mind about so many things so radically, what the hell will he do as President?
In short, changing your mind on a few key issues is ok. Changing almost everything is the sign if a liar or unstable person. Either way it is a sign the person should not hold a position of responsibility.
Rw on January 07, 2012 3:11 PM:
He's Make-It-Up-Mitt, and has no regard for principle or the truth, just what is convenient in the short term. I'll bet that at some point he claims Obama is the flip-flopper.
jjm on January 07, 2012 3:57 PM:
One more thought.
Perhaps the best idea would be to start an untrue rumor about Mitt since the GOP voters appear to be so very gullible.
How about: like Mitt won't release his tax returns because he lists more than one wife as a dependent---
rikyrah on January 07, 2012 3:57 PM:
I can't believe that folks don't think flip-flopping isn't a serious path.
John Kerry flip flopped on basically ONE issue - the Iraq War.
Willard has flip flopped on EVERY issue.
That doesn't make him a flip-flopper.
It makes him a HUMAN CIPHER WITH NO CORE.
and THAT is the issue with Willard.
T2 on January 07, 2012 4:07 PM:
The fact is Romney has no integrity. Obama can run on that, and when he's asked for an example, he'll have a boatload. Flip-flopper is just a phrase, but a man's Integrity is something everyone understands.
MNRD on January 07, 2012 4:12 PM:
The thing is that we are not running against Mitt as a mere run-of-the-mill flip-flopper. We are running against Romney as an outright fraud - a serial liar - a man who makes and breaks promises as casually as the rest of us drink a glass of water.
Romney has embraced the bulk of George W. Bush's policies, including Bush's neo-conservatism. Romney is far less authentic than Bush. Romney is far less honest and far less trustworthy than Bush. Romney is the type of politician who could casually lie the country into a war (Iran), casually lie about what is really going on in that war, casually lie about the costs of that war...
Odds are that Romney would not only take us down a similar path as Bush, but that it would be worse because Romney is far more dishonest and dishonorable than Bush.
booch221 on January 07, 2012 4:22 PM:
All of the above.
Romney is a far-right ideologue who intends to screw over the middle class on everything.
He is an out-of-touch plutocrat who got rich laying off American workers.
And he is a craven flip flopper who lies.
You base a campaign on ALL OF THESE to support the over arching narrative: He's untrustworthy.
biggerbox on January 07, 2012 4:35 PM:
It isn't that he's a flip-flopper, it's that he's a lying sonuvabitch.
The message has to be that he just makes stuff up. That way, you can simultaneously discredit any of the many fictional attacks he's made against Obama AND remind people that he has no firm policy positions that we know of. He's been lying to his own party, now he wants to lie to America.
You can't trust ANYTHING he says. Not just about his positions, but about Obama's, either.
SW on January 07, 2012 4:45 PM:
A person who changes his position on the issues is often portrayed in this political climate as a flip flopper. Well, sometimes it is the right thing to do. When the facts change your position better change or you are what we call an ideologue.
Romney's problem isn't that he is what the press might be goaded into labeling a 'flip flopper' but rather that he is a liar. This is, as Paul Krugman has pointed out, a problem for the press, because they don't like to call someone a liar. They would much rather use a term like 'flip flopper'. It is so much more 'civil'. But as Newt Gingrich pointed out the other day, the proper descriptor for Romney is indeed liar. And the press is simply going to have to come to grips with it.
j on January 07, 2012 4:56 PM:
Anyone here seen the film 'The King of Bain' made by a former worker of Romney's team on his former campaign for something or other. It is a tell all on the lives destroyed by Romney's greed and apparently has been 'bid on' by a super pac supporting Gingrich.The trailer is soon to be online.
slag on January 07, 2012 5:07 PM:
"It’s not about Romney’s policy reversals; it’s about his lack of character."
Agreed completely. And when you look at the policy reversals, the spokesmanship for the 1%, and the Bushiness, they all work together. All of those views form a picture of a man who cares only about his own clan and uses anyone outside that small group to get ahead. Romney looks and acts utterly soulless. Which means he's got the aging frat boy and wannabe votes all sewn up. And he'll have to work really hard for the rest, if the Obama team does its job well enough to demonstrate that this election is about choosing the best President--not throwing a tantrum.
j on January 07, 2012 5:12 PM:
ABC news says that Romney avoids US taxes using offshore
accounts like the Cayman Islands and others, and this man wants to raise taxes on the poor!!!!!!!
chi res on January 07, 2012 5:12 PM:
Mitt won't release his tax returns because he lists more than one wife as a dependent
I thought you wanted an untrue rumor.
wonkie on January 07, 2012 5:19 PM:
It would be a serious mistake to give up the flipflopper meme. For one thing, it has stuck already. Also it won't remid people that he used to be amoderate--it will convice people that he cant' be trusted because he might repudiate any positio he is taking. It's really stupid to throw away a good meme.
And that NYT article? Concern trolling.
marcelle on January 07, 2012 5:38 PM:
If "it's the economy, stupid," then the fact that he made millions by laying off workers is the most important.
Rimac on January 07, 2012 5:51 PM:
Here's a reason not to completely reject the flip-flopper message: because if there is no cost to changing his position, then Romney can move to the center after he wins the nomination. It is hard to attack someone's positions if he can always change them. So it helps to keep a minor theme of flip-flopper because it makes it harder for Romney to soften his hard right primary positions.
And let's not forget the anti-dog theme that Gail Collins keeps writing about!
MassachussettsLiberalinDC on January 07, 2012 5:52 PM:
I agree that it would be best to fold the charge into a larger theme about being trustworthy, but imagine a third party ad showing large crowds waving flip-flops with a tag line such as "this is what republicans used to think about candidates with records they consider untrustworthy." End with a wide shot of the childish republican antics from the 2004 Convention.
justsomeguy on January 07, 2012 6:02 PM:
Does flip-flopping matter ?
I suspect that in this case, as in many, the answer is IOKIYAR.
In a general election it is something for which Mitt would be largely be forgiven, Obama ruthlessly savaged.
Doug on January 07, 2012 6:27 PM:
It's not the "flip-flopping", it's that he'll drop ANY core value he may have to get a vote. THAT'S what needs to be emphasized in every political ad Democrats create.
In 30 seconds, beginning with a weathervane and dissolving into, first Mittens' previous deeply-held conviction about abortion. Then another dissolve into his current deeply-held conviction about abortion. Followed by a concluding dissolve into the weathervane. Rinse, insert new theme (taxes, Bain, etc), and repeat. Heavens know Mittens has prostituted himself enough to provide dozens of such ads!
Even if we had to pay Huntsman for the rights, it would be worth it...
Texas Aggie on January 07, 2012 6:43 PM:
Let me add my vote for the flip flopping as a measure of his integrity or lack thereof. In and of itself, flip flopping isn't any big deal. It didn't hurt McCain who held the record until Romney came along, so it won't hurt Romney either. What might work is to use it as one measure among many to show that he can't be trusted and his word is absolutely worthless. I liked the "well lubricated weather vane" image.
Pal2008 on January 07, 2012 9:33 PM:
Does flip-flopping matter?
I'm with you, the core fault is Romney's total lack of integrity. Calling him a charlatan is a start except most Americans are too ignorant to know what a charlatan is or what that translates into for a presidential contender. A Mormon Bishop bearing false witness against the President of the USA for personal gain. Sounds like a good guy to vote for, eh?
prohb on January 07, 2012 11:35 PM:
What about the fact that his campaign uses lies in its ads.
prohb on January 07, 2012 11:39 PM:
What about the fact that he and his campaign lie in his ads.
Anonymous on January 07, 2012 11:46 PM:
Romney's inconsistencies are notorious. They are integral, part and parcel, and interwoven into the larger issue of trust. Voters look for someone they can trust. So consistency matters. Honesty matters. Confidence matters. Romney fails on all accounts. By the same token, Romney places investing in corporate capital first over human capital. All together these things combined create a sense of distrust that coincide with the question of Romney's vision for the country.
Voters need to feel confident that the person in office will do what is right for the entire country, not just a small segment of the population. So it is instructive to note in-conjunction with remarks like "corporations are people," "we cannot raise taxes on job creators," etc. and his proposals to voucherize Medicare, to privatize Social Security & unemployment benefits along with statements on a host of other things related -- including allowing foreclosures to hit rock bottom & believes bailing out the automobile industry was a huge mistake despite evidence to the contrary -- translates into a dystopian vision for the 99 percent & reinforces the perception that Romney would rather cater to Wall Street than Main Street.
I don't know how you communicate that in terms of sound-bites, but Iam sure there is a way. Of course so much of it depends on the voters paying attention.
Last but not least: While pinning Romney down on specifics has proven to be difficult it highlights the question of trust. Voters need to know who they are voting for.
serena1313 on January 07, 2012 11:48 PM:
Romney's inconsistencies are notorious. They are integral, part and parcel, and interwoven into the larger issue of trust. Voters look for someone they can trust. So consistency matters. Honesty matters. Confidence matters. Romney fails on all accounts. By the same token, Romney places investing in corporate capital first over human capital. All together these things combined create a sense of distrust that coincide with the question of Romney's vision for the country.
Voters need to feel confident that the person in office will do what is right for the entire country, not just a small segment of the population. So it is instructive to note in-conjunction with remarks like "corporations are people," "we cannot raise taxes on job creators," etc. and his proposals to voucherize Medicare, to privatize Social Security & unemployment benefits along with statements on a host of other things related -- including allowing foreclosures to hit rock bottom & believes bailing out the automobile industry was a huge mistake despite evidence to the contrary -- translates into a dystopian vision for the 99 percent & reinforces the perception that Romney would rather cater to Wall Street than Main Street.
I don't know how you communicate that in terms of sound-bites, but Iam sure there is a way. Of course so much of it depends on the voters paying attention.
Last but not least: While pinning Romney down on specifics has proven to be difficult it highlights the question of trust. Voters need to know who they are voting for.
John Peterson on January 08, 2012 1:34 AM:
Of course it matters -- if you flip-flop where my interests are concerned....not so much if I do where yours are concerned.
Grimmstail on January 08, 2012 1:43 AM:
Simply calling Romney a flip-flopper probably would be a fairly weak line of attack. But I think the usefulness lies in the assumption that he will necessarily pivot somewhat to the center once he has the nomination locked. (Though I think this eventual move to the center will be as minimal as possible given that he can't drive off the part of the GOP base that feels it can't trust him.) Should he make statements that would bring him closer to the expectations and desires of independent/centrists the Obama campaign would want to bring out quotes/video from only a few months earlier headlined with the question "He tells you what you want to hear, but what does he really believe?" Or something better that what I wrote hopefully.
AbbeFaria on January 08, 2012 7:14 AM:
After reading this thread, I suddenly feel very worried about Romney. Most of the previous discussion assumes that his campaign themes in September and October will be the same as those he uses now. But we should remember that because he has taken any position on any subject, we can expect that will say or do anything he needs in order to win. Right now he is running for the Republican nomination, so he has to appeal to a certain audience. If he runs for President, he will say just what he needs to win the general election, and this may not be what the says now. The blogs and lots of newspapers will scream and call him a flip-flopper. This may not matter to most people, as long as he says enough things to enough people to make them vote for him.
Jim Keating on January 08, 2012 1:06 PM:
I believe that the Democratic population is most afraid
of a Tea Party ideologue getting elected president. Romney
being a flip flopper is actually comforting for thinking
Democrats. The carrying out of policies put forward by
most Conservatives would destroy the nation; if we have
a legislature and president from the Republicans we had
better be prepared for change. This change may cause a
popular revolution. This is why Romney flip flopping
is some what comforting.
trnc on January 09, 2012 9:59 AM:
The opposite tack may work by boxing in Mitt. A statement from the Dems along the lines of "we understand Mr. Romney has to take the extreme right wing view on issues in order to get through the primaries. We believe he will return to the more moderate view once we get into the general election." If he becomes more moderate in the general, dems say, "See, we told you he was just pandering. Or maybe he's just pandering now. It's hard to keep up with all the different positions." In other words, save the flip flop charges for the general because he'll have a hard time convincing people that he's had a sincere change of heart in the last 4 months.