Where was all the gnashing of teeth when Hatch Ran?

[_Yoda]

The flip-flopping is not quite as clear as some people make it sound. He said he'd be sensitive to gays, and then he said he'd support a marriage amendment. Hardly flip-flopping. More like clarifying his stance.

That's BS, Mak. He changed his view. Look at his old speeches. He admitted that his views have changed. He's been quoted as saying that "he was at a different place in his life" when he made the more liberal stances.

[_Jason Bourne]

He's done a complete 180 on both the gay marriage, and the abortion issue, and I think it is going to hurt him on both the conservative and liberal sides of the aisle.

I hardly think it was a 180.

The conservatives are going to question his true loyalty, and why he flipped. The liberals aren't going to like the new direction he's taking. It's a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation.

I believe people can change thie views and have no problem with it. Conservatives made a big deal over Kerry's "flip flopping" which I fond annoying. The man explained his positions and why he modified his views. I am ok with this. In fact, I have no problem with Hillary stating that yes, she initially supported the war in Iraq but if she knew what she knew now she would not have. I agree with her. I supported it as fisrt to but I do not support it much now and want to get out the best way we can. I think the war was mismanged totally after the initial invasion. So I am ok with Hillary and her change. Same with Romney. He has explained why he initially had a particular view and why it has changed. Big deal. People change their views all the time. Why is a politician locked into a view and opinion forever and ever?

Plus...there are liberal Republicans, like me, who could never bring themselves to get an abortion, but don't think that the government has a right to interfere, either.

Well then McCain or Rudy would be a better choice for you, or Pataki.

And before all of the TBM's on the board have a field day regarding my position on this...line up...you can all kiss my ass now. LOL

Well, well, be careful, I might take you up on it. Wink, wink.

[_Yoda]

Well then McCain or Rudy would be a better choice for you, or Pataki.

I am actually a Rudy supporter, in case you hadn't clued into that by now. LOL

Well, well, be careful, I might take you up on it. Wink, wink.

Naughty boy!

;)

[_Yoda]

I believe people can change thie views and have no problem with it. Conservatives made a big deal over Kerry's "flip flopping" which I fond annoying. The man explained his positions and why he modified his views. I am ok with this. In fact, I have no problem with Hillary stating that yes, she initially supported the war in Iraq but if she knew what she knew now she would not have. I agree with her. I supported it as fisrt to but I do not support it much now and want to get out the best way we can. I think the war was mismanged totally after the initial invasion. So I am ok with Hillary and her change. Same with Romney. He has explained why he initially had a particular view and why it has changed. Big deal. People change their views all the time. Why is a politician locked into a view and opinion forever and ever?

I actually respect Hillary's stance more than Romney's. When Hillary supported the war, she felt that she had been given all of the facts. Later, those facts changed. There was legitimate cause for her to change her stance based on those facts.

Frankly, in Romney's situation, it just seems like he was "playing politics". He said what he had to say to get elected in a very liberal state. And, I suppose that's fine. He's a politician. He even admitted to doing so. He explained that the reason he was a registered Independent was so that he could vote in the Democratic Primary and support the more conservative candidate.

[_maklelan]

The flip-flopping is not quite as clear as some people make it sound. He said he'd be sensitive to gays, and then he said he'd support a marriage amendment. Hardly flip-flopping. More like clarifying his stance.

That's BS, Mak. He changed his view. Look at his old speeches. He admitted that his views have changed. He's been quoted as saying that "he was at a different place in his life" when he made the more liberal stances.

I'll take a look. From what I'v ebeen exposed to through the media it's not that clear, but I'll look.

[_Mercury]

Hatch was not a serious candidate, romney has more of a chance. Nuff said.

[_Jason Bourne]

Hatch was not a serious candidate, romney has more of a chance. Nuff said.

yes. You see we agree.

Romney has a chance. Thus the floodgates of religous bigotry are open. One woutl have thought that JFK and the Catholic issue over 45 years ago had put such nonesense to rest. Society really has not changed all the much sense then I guess.

[_guy sajer]

Yes, Orrin wasn't a strong candidate. He ran in 2000, I think. Bush was the front runner that year, with McCain a strong second. I believe Hatch was even behind Keyes in most polls. Nobody cared about Hatch. The Republican nomination is wide open this year, and Romney has a decent shot at getting it. That's why his dirty laundry is being aired. You think it's bad now, imagine if he actually wins the republican nomination. That's when the mud will really start flying. This is nothing compared to what will be said about him in the fall of 2008.

Imagine if he does. Imagine if he runs against Hillary. We'll have millions of Republicans foaming at the mouth and voting for Hillary because they'd rather have her as president than a Mormon. Those are twisted, twisted priorities.

How's it twisted to prefer Hillary to a Mormon for President?

Is this a partisan political opinion or is there something behind it? Just curious.

[_guy sajer]

I mean really!!! I do not recall any such level of "The Mormon Factor" when Hatch ran. Oh yea a bit. But not like this.

You know why? People know Romney is a much more viable candidate and actually has a shot at winning. So, all holds are off and religous bigotry will reign free.

We see it here and we will see it more.

How do you define religious bigotry?

[_Mister Scratch]

Yes, Orrin wasn't a strong candidate. He ran in 2000, I think. Bush was the front runner that year, with McCain a strong second. I believe Hatch was even behind Keyes in most polls. Nobody cared about Hatch. The Republican nomination is wide open this year, and Romney has a decent shot at getting it. That's why his dirty laundry is being aired. You think it's bad now, imagine if he actually wins the republican nomination. That's when the mud will really start flying. This is nothing compared to what will be said about him in the fall of 2008.

Imagine if he does. Imagine if he runs against Hillary. We'll have millions of Republicans foaming at the mouth and voting for Hillary because they'd rather have her as president than a Mormon. Those are twisted, twisted priorities.

How's it twisted to prefer Hillary to a Mormon for President?

Is this a partisan political opinion or is there something behind it? Just curious.

I vote "neither." My guess is that it's just your average, run-of-the-mill TBM Persecution Complex.