Redstate

Posted at 2:09pm on Jul. 1, 2008 Don't Call Senator Obama a Born-Again Conservative [Updated]

It's important to set the record straight

By blackhedd

Since Barack Obama clinched the Democratic nomination, there has been a lot of confusion about where he stands on policy issues. It's important to set the record straight on such matters as using government funds for programs tied to churches and other religious organizations. Obama's position on this and every other issue is crystal clear.

With the single exception of expanded drilling for oil, Senator Obama is in favor of every policy position that is recognizably conservative, and he has been since the beginning of his public career.

This includes: gun control (against it), gay marriage (against it), faith-based initiatives (for 'em), the Iraq war (in favor of victory and a continued presence), public financing of political campaigns (against it), the death penalty for rapists (for it), lower taxes (for 'em), and the flag of the United States (for it).

The Senator has not yet announced his long-held and consistent position on abortion, but he does think the conservative Supreme Court is doing a darned fine job.

Update: And Obama adds welfare reform to the list of conservative policies that he's consistently been in favor of all along. H/T Brother Moe.

All characterizations of Senator Obama's consistently-held positions as "liberal" or "left-of-center" are either unfortunate misrepresentations by political opponents (which he regrets), or legitimate misunderstandings caused by hurried or inartful statements by himself or his associates (which he also regrets).

It has been alleged that Obama is a born-again conservative. This mischaracterization is also unfortunate, as the term "born-again" implies some kind of recent conversion experience. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

That is all.

-Francis Cianfrocca

Posted in 2008 | flip-flop | Obama — Comments (12)/ Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 9:13pm on Nov. 26, 2007 Mitt Romney: Flipping In The Right Direction.

By Martin A. Knight

I've seen quite a few folks on the Right attack Romney for moving from Left to Right (I do believe his 2002 campaign was more conservative than the one he ran eight years earlier) at suspiciously all-too-convenient times but ... strangely enough, I'm yet to see anyone show me anywhere where he moved from Right to Left.

Consistent movement from Left to Right is a good thing, I would think. At least, being a conservative, I tend to like it when I see someone coming over from the other side. Like I've said before, Romney is not a "flip-flopper," he's a "flipper" ... and as far as I can see, he only flips one way.

Posted in 1994 | 2002 | 2008 | Archived | democratic nomination | flip-flop | Massachusetts | Mitt | Romney — Comments (34) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 5:55pm on Nov. 9, 2007 The Trouble With Mitt Romney (Part 3 of 5)

By Dan McLaughlin

The third of a five-part series on why Republicans who are serious about winning the White House in 2008 are wasting our time on Mitt Romney. For background, check out Part 1, Part 2, my explanation of why I'm with Rudy, and my take on Mike Huckabee.

III. What, Precisely, Does This Man Stand For?

In Part III, we take on the issue that has dogged Mitt Romney throughout his campaign for the presidency: the charge that he is a flip-flopper. The fact that he has that reputation is itself damaging, as John Kerry could tell you; it's not as if the Democrats will not know how to make maximum use of it if Romney wins the nomination (I'd advise him to avoid windsurfing in the interim just to be safe). What I'd like to explain here is precisely why it is that the flip-flop label sticks so easily to Romney when it doesn't seem to attach to other politicians who have changed their positions now and again.

Posted in 2008 | 2008 Presidential Campaign | flip-flop | Mitt Romney — Comments (73) / Email this page » / Read More »