Commentary: Everything You want to Know about Mitt Romney....

[Prosperity]

Yeah, you're right.

I should have known better that to draw that conclusion from all the people throwing around labels like "liar", based on nothing other than the fact that a politician doesn't have a lifelong pattern of always adhering to The Party Line.

Ummm it seems to me that the pattern I am talking about is a life long pattern of adhering to the Party Line, depending on where the party stands. Massachusetts' GOP --> GOP -->Tea Party's GOP

[Larry]

Ummm it seems to me that the pattern I am talking about is a life long pattern of adhering to the Party Line, depending on where the party stands. Massachusetts' GOP --> GOP -->Tea Party's GOP

And perhaps The Party Line has changed, over time, because the situation has changed, over time?

[Prosperity]

And perhaps The Party Line has changed, over time, because the situation has changed, over time?

well obviously something changed, and depending on what the "situation" is that changed the party, changing along with the Party can show an adherence to the Party Line w/o regard to beliefs or honesty, or instead innovative and responsive thinking. Since this is the GOP we are talking about, and since the current state of the GOP is, to put mildly, bat **** insane, I am going to go ahead and conclude the former.

[nonniey]

It's amazing how failure to place ideology above reality has become a character flaw.

Wow, another knock on Obama. From Larry???? I thought you might be joking when you said you could vote for Romney. Would you really consider voting for Romney over the Idealogue Obama?

[SnyderShrugged]

Yeah, you're right.

I should have known better that to draw that conclusion from all the people throwing around labels like "liar", based on nothing other than the fact that a politician doesn't have a lifelong pattern of always adhering to The Party Line.

---------- Post added December-28th-2011 at 09:34 AM ----------

Really?

So, say, "belief that it is the role of government to create the best possible environment for it's citizens", isn't a core principal?

Or you know that Romney doesn't have it?

Yes, Really. If he had core principles, regardless of his opinion on the role of government, then he would not change his stance so easily simply in the spirit of gaining votes. Its not difficult to understand to anyone who doesnt choose the role of ES contrarian whenever they possibly can

[Larry]

Yes, Really. If he had core principles, regardless of his opinion on the role of government, then he would not change his stance so easily simply in the spirit of gaining votes. Its not difficult to understand to anyone who doesnt choose the role of ES contrarian whenever they possibly can

Funny. I noticed that in your rush to try to label me, that you didn't answer my question.

Do you believe that the value I listed isn't a core principal? Or do you believe that you have sufficient knowledge of Romney's thought processes to pronounce that he doesn't have it?

[Riggo-toni]

In other words, pragamatist, not idealogue.

Huntsman is a pragmatist, Romney is a waffle. The difference. A pragmatist pursues effective policies, a flip-flopper pursues poll numbers. Romney's record as governor was dreadful. He is the GOP version of Dukakis - a technocrat who inherited good government from his (principled) predecessor (William Weld), took credit for what his predecessor put in place, accomplished nothing on his own, save for the healthcare bill he wants now to almost run away from, and was 47th in job creation.

Huntsman's positions have never really changed that I'm aware of. His more moderate positions on things like gay civil unions were presented DESPITE considerable popular opposition from uber-conservative Utahns. He inherited a stinkfest of an economy and turned it around through tax reforms and other measures. Too bad he won't throw enough spitballs at Obama to appease the inquisitionists of the GOP.

[NoVaO]

Darn overacheivers and their desire to be president.

I will add that any article that paints Romney as a pragmatist is going to be attacked viciously by his opponents. Obama is a pragmatist IMO, and the only thing preventing him from success as a president is the fact that he is a horrible politician. Romney is a very good politician.

Hmmm...is he? He left office in Massachusetts with an approval rating in the 30s. I believe he is something like 5 for 17 in actual elections (including primaries during his run in 2008).

Now, there are things he does that are very political in nature. Buying the hard drives and erasing all emails from the time he was governor to limit opposition research is good politics I suppose. He can be very slippery in discussing his flip flops and it takes a skilled politician to maneuver out of what were clear changes of position based on electoral politics.

I also think you underrate Obama's skill as a politician...though you might just be talking about the politics of governing, while I'm referring to politics in a campaign. If its the politics of governing, I'm right there with you.

[visionary]

I know one thing about Romney. He's leading the latest polls in Iowa right now.

Is Romney the new anti-Romney?

Or perhaps the new anti-Paul.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/28/9777833-romney-tops-field-in-iowa-while-gingrich-slides

[SnyderShrugged]

I know one thing about Romney. He's leading the latest polls in Iowa right now.

Is Romney the new anti-Romney?

Or perhaps the new anti-Paul.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/28/9777833-romney-tops-field-in-iowa-while-gingrich-slides

Take it FWIW

http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2011/12/paul-camp-rejects-cnntime-poll-108958.html

[Madison Redskin]

Larry:

I do not know Mitt Romney well enough to say, with absolute certainty, that he is an unprincipled opportunist. Principled politicians sometimes change their positions based on changing circumstances, newly discovered facts, and new experiences. Moreover, quotes can be taken out of context, misconstrued, and otherwise contorted to appear to be in conflict with other quotes that were uttered by the same individual.

However, Romney, who is both bright and articulate, has changed his position on so many issues in such dramatic fashion that I am fairly confident that he is an unprincipled opportunist. For example, consider the following:

• Romney on Abortion: Romney, Oct. 29, 2002: “I will preserve and protect a woman’s right to choose.” Romney, Dec. 16, 2007: “The right next step in the, in the fight to preserve the sanctity of life is to see Roe v. Wade overturned.”
  

• Romney on Obamacare: Romney, June 24, 2009: “Well, that’s what we did in Massachusetts, and that is, we put together an exchange, and the president’s copying that idea. I’m glad to hear that.” Romney, Oct. 18, 2011: “Obamacare is bad news ... and if I’m president of the United States I will repeal it.”
  

• Romney on Reagan: Romney, Oct. 25, 1994: “Look, I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I’m not trying to return to Reagan-Bush.” Romney, May 25, 2010: “The principles that Ronald Reagan espoused are as true today as they were when he spoke them.”
  

• Romney on Amnesty for Illegals: Romney, March 29, 2006: “We need to begin a process of registering those people, some being returned, and some beginning the process of applying for citizenship and establishing legal status.” Romney, November 22, 2011: "Amnesty is a magnet. People respond to incentives. And if you could become a permanent resident of the United States by coming here illegally, you’ll do so."