That bogus "Romney vs. Romney" business
An anonymous commenter on the post below (why is it, I wonder, that such commenters are always anonymous? Doesn't say much about their having the courage of their convictions, does it?) left a link to this hit piece from the far Left Boston Globe consisting of a "debate" between the "old" Mitt Romney and the "new" Mitt Romney.
It's worth noticing that in one case (Romney's comments about Reagan), the alleged "contradiction" in fact is no contradiction at all. There is nothing inconsistent about having been neutral toward Ronald Reagan during his presidency and admiring him today. I myself opposed Reagan when he was in the White House. I was horrified when he was elected. Today, I consider him the greatest president of my lifetime. Nor does an admiration for Romney's own father despite his regrettable diction preclude a philosophical affinity for the more ideologically inclined Great Communicator.
The point is that people of integrity (and intelligence, and thoughtfulness) learn. They grow. They change. He who does none of these things, conversely, probably hasn't learned much- or thought much, either. Such growth may or may not be reflected over time in the change of one's opinions. But to continue in the same opinion despite better evidence is not exactly to show much evidence of either intelligence or thoughtfulness. Or character, for that matter.
The remainder of the hit piece deals with "then and now" statements on issues on which nobody- including Romney- disputes that he has changed his mind. Now, I'm not sure whether our anonymous commenter is a liberal Democrat, or a supporter of one of Romney's opponents for the Republican nomination. Either way, he or she is clearly afraid of Romney- and to be either is to have good reason to fear him, indeed!
Below is Romney's own response to the "flip flopping" charges. To borrow a from that anonymous commenter, "Enjoy."
It's worth noticing that in one case (Romney's comments about Reagan), the alleged "contradiction" in fact is no contradiction at all. There is nothing inconsistent about having been neutral toward Ronald Reagan during his presidency and admiring him today. I myself opposed Reagan when he was in the White House. I was horrified when he was elected. Today, I consider him the greatest president of my lifetime. Nor does an admiration for Romney's own father despite his regrettable diction preclude a philosophical affinity for the more ideologically inclined Great Communicator.
The point is that people of integrity (and intelligence, and thoughtfulness) learn. They grow. They change. He who does none of these things, conversely, probably hasn't learned much- or thought much, either. Such growth may or may not be reflected over time in the change of one's opinions. But to continue in the same opinion despite better evidence is not exactly to show much evidence of either intelligence or thoughtfulness. Or character, for that matter.
The remainder of the hit piece deals with "then and now" statements on issues on which nobody- including Romney- disputes that he has changed his mind. Now, I'm not sure whether our anonymous commenter is a liberal Democrat, or a supporter of one of Romney's opponents for the Republican nomination. Either way, he or she is clearly afraid of Romney- and to be either is to have good reason to fear him, indeed!
Below is Romney's own response to the "flip flopping" charges. To borrow a from that anonymous commenter, "Enjoy."
Comments