Reid was for it before he was against it….

Posted on by

Mitt Romney is under fire for changing his mind over a ten year span.

I know I don’t hold beliefs I held ten years ago. Ten years from now, I expect I’ll cringe when I am confronted with what I’ve posted in blogs.

However, Senator Harry Reid seems unable to hold beliefs for more than two days. Behold:

Dec 17:
Reid backs temporary rise in troops in Iraq

“If it’s for a surge, that is, for two or three months and it’s part of a program to get us out of there as indicated by this time next year, then, sure, I’ll go along with it,” said Reid, who will become the majority leader when Democrats take control of the Senate next month from Bush’s Republicans. He spoke on ABC’s “This Week” program.

What a difference two days makes. Dec. 19:
Frankly, I don’t believe that more troops is the answer for Iraq.

I do not support an escalation of the conflict. I support finding a way to bring our troops home and would look at any plan that gave a roadmap to this goal.

Of course, those who take Mitt to task will have no problem with this. After all, Reid is a liberal Democrat, and the one unalterable rule on the ‘Nacle and the Net in general is always “Charity and understanding for my party, none for the other.”

32 thoughts on “Reid was for it before he was against it….”

  1. Of course, I expect people to miss my point entirely and accuse me of being partisan. I’ll just say: I am not currently rooting for Mitt to win the Republican nomination. I do not consider myself Republican. This post has nothing to do with claiming Reid is worse than Mitt, or that Mitt should be let off the hook for changing political stances.

    In fact, it’s about the opposite of those points.

  2. Ten years from now, I expect I’ll cringe when I am confronted with what I’ve posted in blogs.

    Geez, ain’t that the truth.

    As far as Reid’s two statements, they arguably are not mutually exclusive.

    But that said, sure, I’ll agree with you that the Dems aren’t exactly being clear about what needs to happen.

    If it comes to that, there seems to be exactly zero difference in what Bush is saying needs to happen and what Hillary Clinton is saying needs to happen in Iraq. But at the same time, the Dems won by lambasting Bush, so they really need to chart a new course. But as of yet, neither party knows what to do with this.

    The reason is that, when it comes to foreign policy, there is no difference between the two. Bush’s foreign policy has always more resembled the usual Democrat line than the Republican line. Iraq is just as much a failure of Democrat foreign policy as it is a failure of Bush’s approach. And I say that as a Democrat.

    Both parties are in dire need of a little more hard-nosed pragmatic realpolitik, rather than glorious visions of international reform based on delusional calculations of American strength.

  3. Hmmm, so Reid’s change of thought on a strategic tactic is the same as changing principles in ideology?

    Methinks someone is frustrated that his candidate is having to face the fact that he is changing his principles to garner conservative votes and if a Democrat dare even sneeze the wrong way, he would be excoriated!…..

  4. It’s okay though. I’m starting to like the old Romney very well. He apparently voted for Paul Tsongas back in 1992. That’s who I would have voted for if I were of age (I turned 18 just 9 days after the Nov 1992 elections).

  5. Well, Romney’s statements are also, arguably not mutually exclusive.

    But I do wish there was more of a real choice offered other than “cut and run” and “stay the course hell or high water.” Reid’s suggestions in the blog post I read were (I thought) rather trite and uninspired.

    It didn’t help that the ISG tried to be all things to all people. Having read large portions of it, I found I could excerpt parts of it to support every possible political position.

  11. As far as Reid’s two statements, they arguably are not mutually exclusive.

    I agree. I always listen to the THIS WEEK podcast, and in the full context of what was being said, I don’t see a contradiction. Reid said,

    “If it’s for a surge, that is for two or three months and it’s part of a program to get us out of there as indicated by this time next year, then sure, I’ll go along with it. But if it’s put 40,000 more troops in there, you know, we’ve lost in Nevada about 30 troops killed. Scores have been wounded. We’re now are approaching 3,000 dead Americans, costing the American people $2.5 to $3billion a week. This is a war that we have to change course. The President has to do that.

    “If the commanders on the ground said this is just for a short period of time we’ll go along with that. But to put more troops in there, keep in mind, I repeat, the situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating. Those aren’t my words. Those are words of some of the finest patriots we have in this country, Democrats and Republicans, Iraq study group.”

    In total, Reid was showing respect for the military commanders, willingness to compromise, but his eye firmly on getting troops out of Iraq.

  12. Of course, we’ll get lots of explanations for why Reid’s comments are not mutually exclusive. As I’ve said, Romney’s stance on gay rights are also arguably not exclusive.

    But partisans don’t care – only their guys seeming contradictions need to be explained away. That’s my point. I see ways both Reid and Romney are just fine, and I see ways both are troublesome flip-floppers. But double standards always prevail, and most are too blind to see.

  13. I thought this bog was supposed to be pro-mormon not pro-republican. I don’t see how criticizing a Mormon in order to justify a republican is at all compatible with such a mission statement.

  14. If Romney voted for Tsongas in 1992, that would have been in the Massachusetts Democratic presidential primary.

    So, we learn that Romney was registered as an “independent” in 1992, and that in March he voted in the Democratic primary for Paul Tsongas.

    What does that mean? Not much. There wouldn’t have been much of a Republican primary that year, since George H.W. Bush was running for reelection, and did anyone thing Bush I would be challenged by either Pat Buchanan or David Duke?

    So, vote in the Democratic primary to improve the race, or to make the Republican victory easier. So, vote for Clinton because you don’t think a young ex-governor of Arkansas (hah!) would stand a chance against Bush, or vote for Tsongas because you like his fiscal conservatism or because you think he’d lose in the general election to anybody. Just as there’s no I in team (although there is a “me”) there was no charisma in Tsongas.

  16. Thank goodness some people are capable of recognizing a mistake after only two days. We’ve been fighting in the middle east as a result of 9/11 (supposedly) for longer than the time we spent involved in World War II, and Bush still hasn’t learned a thing.

    Reid for President.

  17. Mark –

    now we get a little closer to my point: Why is it okay for Reid to change his mind, but not Romney? (if they even really changed their minds – when it comes to politicians, I’m suspicious of them all).

    Honestly, I find some of Romney’s change of position (most notably, on abortion) troubling, but then, I’ve never really considered voting for him either.

    I think I’m on a quixotic crusade, though. Too many people are too attached to their double standards to actually do critical thinking on the issue. See my last sentence in the initial post.

  20. I do not consider myself a democrat, or a supporter of Sen. Harry Reid, but I do feel you have taken his comments out of context. When looked at in their entirety it is easy to see the goal of Sen. Reid doesn’t change: His is willing to do whatever it takes to get troops out of Iraq. Oddly, the tactic of using partial quotes is a popular one used by many critics of the Church.

  21. Ivan, I’m all for allowing Romney to change his mind on any topic he so desires. Of course, if his position becomes one that is opposed to my own on any given topic, I’ll only be forced to conclude that he probably shouldn’t be elected President anyways. 😉

  22. Mark,

    It isn’t just that Romney changed his mind on some issues, but the convenient timing of those changes. Both in 1994 and 2002, he was quite moderate. In both those cases he ran for office in the State of Massachusetts, a fairly liberal state. Suddenly, as he shoots for the Republican nomination as president, he shifts hard right, because he knows he won’t get past South Carolina unless he is further to the right than McCain. The convenience of the timing is what tells me Romney is not being forthright with his change.

  23. Teancum –

    I feel the same thing is happening with Romney in regards to his stances on gay rights. So, no – your criticism of my post only works if my post was a criticism of Reid. Which it isn’t.

  24. No, Ivan’s post is not a criticism of Reid, except that it is. But Ivan is really bothered that people rightfully question why Romney ideologically believed one thing long ago, when he was running in a liberal state, and has changed dramatically now that he is running for conservatives.

  26. Like I said, it’s anyone’s game right now as far as my vote is concerned.

    Actually a major reason I like Mitt is because he saved the Olympics – which I volunteered for. As exasperated as I get about Utah, it’s still my homeland and I was extremely pleased to have my state make a good showing.

    I don’t know much about Hillary, except that she’s managed to get a massive bullseye stuck on her forhead by Conservative radio wonks. Anne Coulter hates her. But I’ve always considered that to be a badge of honor anyway. Personally, I’d be deeply insulted if I was being praised by Coulter. I’m suspicious that half the dislike of her may be simply because she’s an “uppity woman.” But I don’t know of any real reason to vote for her yet.

    Obama is kind of a blank slate for me too. I know he’s an African American who dresses very snappy. He made a neato trip to Africa and wrote a book about why America is an upbeat kind of place… Uh… That’s about it for Obama.

    I’ve always liked McCain and he’s probably the candidate I know the best besides Romney. Wish he’d won the 2000 Primary instead of Bush… Of course, his recent attempts to cozy up to Bush have been a bit embarassing for all concerned…

  27. I’m not going to get into the Ivan-Dan standoff, other than to say that what really bothers me is how it has become some major crime for a politician to change his/her mind or update his/her thinking. Nonetheless, if the whole 1994 Romney vs. 2007 Romney issue is what ends up costing him the nomination and them the Presidency Republicans have no one to blame but themselves for making “flip-flopping” a disqualifier. Even if Romney has good reason to change his mind, that act is no longer allowed.

  28. Seth,

    You should look more into Obama. I know he’s quite fresh to the political world, but the guy is like the complete opposite of Bush. He knows how to express himself in his speeches. He also writes his own speeches and is fairly eloquent. I know those are merely the cover of the book and the structure of the story, and we don’t know much about the plot itself, but I would recommend you look more closely at Obama.

  30. Zohar,

    Thanks for sharing that link.

    Mitt Romney happens to be setting out his stall as a rightwing Republican but I met a prominent Mormon the other day – a professor at an Ivy League University – who said she would never vote for Mitt Romney although she attends the same Mormon temple and believes in the same Mormon faith.

    Many Americans – emerging from the dark days of faith-based politics – find this very healthy.

    I like that part the best. I’m glad to see many conservative Mormons are getting away from the whole “you can’t be a good Mormon and a Democrat” crap. There is still much work to be done though in that field.

  31. We have a saying in AA:”God allows U-turns.” Anybody has the right to change their mind. I do it all the time.

  32. Chad Too: You’ve probably gotten the closest to what my point really is. I’m going to quote a comment I made over at BT that applies:

    Staying consistent and on point, standing for your beliefs – that can be a strength. Too bad in Bush’s case it also entails an inability to change his mind or change the course when needed.

    Of course, with Mitt Romney getting beat up for changing his mind over a ten-year period, it seems we punish politicians for both “staying the course” and “revising their opinions.” They can’t win – and neither can we, apparently.

    annegb –
    I totally agree.

Comments are closed.