Or is he someone who you feel just shamelessly prostitutes himself to say whatever he feels he needs to say to get an elected office?

I really want to hear people's views on this one. I try really hard to give each candidate in a race a fair break and hearing on their character and issues. Even if I pick one over another as all voters do when they enter the polling station, I appreciate having had the chance to have heard the candidates and that they have given me different choices. It's not personal to me . . . but . . . I do have issues with a candidate who would insult my intelligence by assuming me to be a totally gullible fool who will fall for anything no matter how obviously preposterous.

On that last bit, I have a problem with Romney with what I view is his lack of basic integrity and credibility, and I'd like to hear sensible comments on him to help me consider whether I am right or wrong in my negative general assessment of him that I have already.

I certainly expect politicians to be the masters of fudge, wiggle room, and protraction to give themselves flexibility on issues, to avoid getting pidgeonholed, to avoid completely polarising base supporters, etc. For example, I can understand Rudy Guiliani stating that he would appoint strict constructionist judges and that he personally opposes abortion whilst stating that he is pro-choice on policy and personally believes abortion to be a constitutional right. I can understand Hillary Clinton stating that if she knew then what she knows now that she wouldn't have authorised military action in Iraq. This is protraction, leaving onesself flexibility, trying to mitigate any perceived rocks and shoals for base supporters, etc. These kinds of statements aren't even necessarily inconsistent and, in fact, are actually more detailed explanations of one's views and why they hold them and/or acted as such, etc. I also understand that a person can modify or change their mind on issues over time. I also expect politicians to sense major turns of public opinion and to have a sense of self-preservation to pick them up, and to not take suicidal positions on issues. I also understand that politicians may disagree with me on some or even most issues, and may do so sincerely with personal integrity. That is actually standard for any election, and thus why we have different political parties, candidates, etc with elections.

But, the way I see it, there is a major difference between the above and trying to totally 'reinvent onesself.'

Romney has allegedly gone from being a pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-Brady gun law and strict gun control, pro stem cell research secularist as a Massachusetts politician the exact opposite of that on all those issues. He even just joined the NRA and said he was a lifelong hunter, which was quickly proven false.

IMO, someone doesn't have such a fundamental change of so many opinions like that, especially considering how polarising some of them are, so quickly and so conveniently for political aspirations. It seems doubly implausible coming from a politician who is supposed to be a professional ponderer of such issues. The kind of person Romney claims to be now wouldn't have had a chance in hell getting elected in a state as blue as the Caribbean (Massachusetts) but it is what he most likely needs to be if he now wants to get to be the Republican candidate for the POTUS.

So, looking at what I've seen and what his ambitions have been, it seems to me that he told the people of Massachusetts what they needed to hear on the issues to get himself elected governor of that state, and now he is telling the Republican base whatever they need to hear now to get the nomination for his next desired trip up the ladder.

As I see it, from his Massachusetts days to his present run for the POTUS, Romney is/was/has been one of the following:

1) dishonest with the people of Massachusetts when seeking their governorship about what he believed,

2) dishonest with the Republican base now about what he believes as he seeks their nomination for POTUS,

3) cares less about any of these issues and will say whatever he needs to say to get elected to any office he seeks,

4) doesn't really believe in anything firmly because he changes his opinions on fundamental matters like day and night,

5) sincerely has had major epiphanies on fundamental issues that have all coincidentally been convenient for his career aspirations and courtships.

I'm not buying #4 (which wouldn't impress me for being a proper person for elected office if they are that scatterbrained but at least I could say they weren't trying to play me for a sucker). I especially am not buying #5 at all given the odds of that.