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.

__________________
James Hoban. Irish Architect. Member of the Royal Dublin Society. Hoban designed and built the White House and based it upon the top exterior and interior two floors of Leinster House, then known as Kildare House, which is now the current Irish Parliament building. He was also a supervisory architect of the US Capitol Building.

Romney seeks power, and the Bush Machine feels that he has potential, and he realizes that Karl Rove is the guru who took a recovering alcoholic, who depended on his daddy to get him jobs, and in short order made him Governor of Texas and then President of the United States.

So Romney says what they tell him to say, because if you are going to fool people into electing you president, first you have to fool people into nominating you.

__________________
“The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine.”

Senator Thad Cochran, Mississippi (R)
on McCain

“I decided I didn’t want this guy anywhere near a trigger.”
Senator Pete Domenici, New Mexico (R)
on McCain

“My anger did not help my campaign ... People don’t like angry candidates very much.”

McCain on McCain

Bush's views on issues and values (a big government social conservative more or less in sum) whether one likes them or not, have been pretty consistent with what he has claimed them to be since first running for the POTUS (abortion, guns, etc). This is far from the case with Romney.

__________________
James Hoban. Irish Architect. Member of the Royal Dublin Society. Hoban designed and built the White House and based it upon the top exterior and interior two floors of Leinster House, then known as Kildare House, which is now the current Irish Parliament building. He was also a supervisory architect of the US Capitol Building.

Romney either suffered a head injury - or post-traumatic political ambition. Were he a friend of mine, I would recommend a psychologist, or a neurologist. The man has changed his stand on every issue - from one extreme of the penduluum over to the other.

I can't see how anyone can take him seriously - talk about flip-flopping! I truly hope he is the repub candidate - dems won't need to debate him. He can just debate himself using old video.

__________________
And there is distrust in Washington. I am surprised, frankly, at the amount of distrust that exists in this town. And I'm sorry it's the case, and I'll work hard to try to elevate it." --George W. Bush, Jan. 29, 2007

I think Romney is the perfect example of a politician who believes his election is more important to the country than any particular set of policies. So you could say he is perfectly sincere in his belief that getting himself elected is more important than being honest.

__________________
The most important political office is that of private citizen.
Louis D. Brandeis - First Jewish Supreme Court Justice

I'm trying to find out why he gets so much media attention for being a bottom runner. I think he's the choice of the hard right and they have influence in the news media. There is no other explanation.

Romney supports torture:

Romney said suspected terrorists need to be kept off American soil and he supported the use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" with the approval of the president.

Critics say too many detainees are in Guantanamo without trial and some have called for shutting down the facility, Romney noted. A report conducted last year based on an analysis of defense department data found that 55 percent of Guantanamo detainees were not found to have participated in hostilities against the US and only 8 percent were found to be al Qaeda members.

Romney's solution called for ramping up detention efforts at the military base on Cuba's coast.

"We ought to double Guantanamo," he said.

Complete article:

The Raw Story | Romney calls for doubling Guantanamo population

__________________
"To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."
~Thomas Jefferson

"There is Still No Such Thing As a Fair Tax"

It'll actually be quite interesting to watch if Romney gets the GOP nomination, as he'll make John Kerry's flip-flopping minor. Does anyone know of a single issue that Romney has yet stuck to in his political career? He seems to have changed his position on virtually every issue.

ahoy master and commander Mod!

i pick #1, with a caveat, but first, i'll admit to not knowing as much as you do about Mr. Romney's history, his voting record, or how nuanced his views were in the past.

imma give Mr. Romney the benefit of the doubt, that as a former CEO, he has a solid dollop of pragmatist in his outlook.

if Mr. Romney's intent as gov. of mass, was to work on things like crime, education, balancing a budget, etc...then perhaps he didnt want to get bogged down on these "side issues", you know, not let these fringe issues get in the way of getting down to topics that he might consider more relevant to the greater mass of the populace. despite what is written, i don't think guns, gays and abortion is what is primarily on folks minds, not mine, anyway.

i want to know me job is secure. that my healthcare is going to be dependable. that my job is secure. that my condo increases in value. that my job is secure. that i can continue to afford to fill my car with gas, and that my job is secure.

maybe mitt, deep in his heart, knows this?

maybe he doesnt want these other "major" topics (gays, guns, and abortion), derail his drive to address those other issues i mentioned.

mr. bere, if you met a girl pirate, someone who set your heart afire, and you knew she was the girl you really wanted, more than anything, would you let her stance on gun control keep you from getting her phone number and taking her out?

ahoy!

hail!

to expand on my answer...i live in the south now, imma originally from new york. two years ago, i thought it would be good for my business for the crew i work with all put yellow ribbon stickers on the bumpers on our cars. one of our employees had a dennis kusinich (sp?) sticker and i asked him to remove it.

not all of the folk who work with and for me happen to be big fans of the current admnistration, but if a yellow sticker helps grease the skids and allows us to get down to real business....well then, heck, whats really so terrible about that?

once we got the business ,we serve our clients faithfully and show full diligence and care.

to me, thats all that really matters.


aye.

Not only is insincere, (for the most part) I don't even like his new "opinions!"

~Ben

benjamin matey,

don't you think that in these polarizing times (now that i think about it, though, i can't remember a single presidential election that was not fraught with acrimony from both sides of the aisle), all of the top contenders for president have a hint of calculation behind their statments...aye, even a bit of insincerity that seasons many of their statments on divisive issues?

even John Mccain, the freewheeling skipper of the "straight talk" express, seems changed, now that he is now an actual contender, no longer the upstart rabble rouser? watching him dance around his new position on ethanol during his tim russert interview was intresting.

isn't it too much to expect any current leading contender to be completely honest with the voting public? especially at this stage of the contest, when the field is so crowded with hopefuls?

in short, isn't absolute candor and honesty too expensive, and risky?

did not the former mayor of new york, the mighty rudy, take a severe beating when he indulged in what seemed like a bit of honesty when he tip toed awkwardly into the abortion question during the cnbc debate?

He'll probably have changed them by next week anyway, just as soon as he gets some new polling data on what his new opinions should be.

Good points- but Romney changed his position on key issues in a way that just seems too contrived. Heck, I've even changed my opinions (as some here will attest), but I'm also not running for President. Plus, I sincerely believe what I post here, no matter when it was posted.

~Ben

yarrrr, aye!

i wanted to say, i voted that mr. romney was 'a lyin' when he changed his stance on abortion, gun control and stem cell research. i don't know, of course, what his true convictions are....and i don't know if he dreams of bein' president just so he can have the final word on them three issues.

but...since this is a poll, and it encourages us to hypothesize on the veracity of mr. romney's positions, i think mr. romney, and a good deal of the republican and democratic candidates, think these topics are a real drag on the actual debating of more weighty issues.

why should any of our choices be so truncated by the litmus test of these three hot-button issues? imma sick 'o it.

i think taking the right of choice away from a woman, and taking guns away from law abiding gun toting americans is political suicide. its one thing to talk about it, but doing it would end up defining and in my opinion, destroying anyone's presidency, because of the ensueing political fallout.

the government funding of stem cell research is another issue...i think many americans, and many polticians, wouldn't mind seeing some amazin' cures for those that ail from maladies that might be addressed by aggressive and unfettered stem cell research. the arc of stem cell research is still in its infancy, but for now, its just not safe for a republican to endorse it. in my view, thats too bad, but thats the way it is.

either way, i don't want someone who might be very qualified to lead this country to be crushed this early in the process, because of their stance on these issues (two of which to me, really aren't in play).

it would be intresting though, if mr. romney were saying the right things, at the right time, to the right people (no pun intended, mates), got elected, and turned out to really be pro-choice, pro-gun control legislation, and pro-government funded stem cell research.


aye!