Originally Posted By ecdc <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/23/romney.editorial/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITI CS/12/23/romney.editorial/index.html</a> I wouldn't go so far as to say Romney "must be stopped" - as if he's some sort of dangerous criminal. But I'm definitely on board with the phony part. I heard someone who knew his father, George Romney, quite well say that George was a "visionary leader," while Mitt is a "cautious manager."
Originally Posted By gadzuux "Phony" has been my gut impression all along. It didn't much matter since I would never vote for him under any circumstances anyway, but I don't see that as a cheap shot or just empty name-calling - I think it's accurate and to the point. And this is coming from people who actually know him.
Originally Posted By SuperDry What Romney's being accused of is nothing that any any number of national candidates that formerly held statewide office have had to do. The "litmus test" issues are different for state and national candidates, paradoxically sometimes even within the same party, so some amount of this is almost required in order to switch from statewide to national office.
Originally Posted By utahjosh I don't see him as a phony. At least not any more than ANY other candidate with a chance. To me, it's more of a statement of the sad state of affairs of high politics these days. In order to be elected, you MUST pander to the people at large - and know that you are doing it for the good of the country and to be able to serve the best you know how. I think Mitt has the know-how and the values to lead this country, and I hope i'll be able to vote for him.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 Aren't all politicians phoney? It's just that the succesful ones never get found out.
Originally Posted By ecdc I guess I just think there's phony and then there's phony. Sure politicians have to pander and have to hedge and give non-answers in debates to real, tough questions. It sucks and I hate it as much as the next guy. But saying you're a lifelong hunter when you've never really owned a gun, just to pander to the right? To join the NRA just a couple of months before your candidacy? To be pro-choice at one point, then flip-flop to pro-life? To be for stem-cell research and then against it? To say you'll be a bigger supporter of gay rights than Ted Kennedy, then turn around and say you favor a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage? Furthermore, it's one thing if these kinds of things change over a lifetime of experiences or while governing. I hate the thought that our politicians can't ever change their minds or they're labeled flip-floppers. But Mitt Romney's changes all occurred in like a five month period. Seriously. Moreso than any other candidate, he has deliberately and carefully constructed an image for himself that makes him look like the "conservative religious" guy, because before anyone took Huckabee seriously, the front-runners were John McCain and Rudy Guiliani. Mitt's transformation has been so public, so deliberate, and so "managed" that he invites this kind of criticism.
Originally Posted By barboy I think I would rather plunge my head in a bucket of snot or worse be forced to listen to Sanjaya sing "You Really Got Me" before I would vote for Romney.
Originally Posted By tiggertoo Romney rubs me as a used car salesman; will say anything to get a vote. He saw a void for a Christian Right candidate, any he exploited it. If he was running against Huckabee without a centrist candidate (like Giuliani) running, I have little doubt he would have run much more to the left as he did in Massachusetts---and he might have won the nomination believe it or not. He was attempting to cater to those who had the least affinity for him, evangelicals, many of whom wouldn’t vote for a …gasp…Mormon, even if they had no other Republican alternative. Besides that, he might have avoided the flip-flopping tag had he remained a little more to the left, taking a huge club away from his detractors. BTW, I don’t mean to scare anyone, but we already had a Mormon as the 8th in line of succession to the Presidency. Phew! That was a close one wasn’t it.
Originally Posted By barboy Well... which is worse a Moroni believer or a human trafficker in the white house? We already had 10-12 chief executives who owned people...... and 8 while serving as president: federalists, democratic-republicans, democrats and whigs. Next time any of you pull out a $1, $2 or $20 you can see the face of a human trafficker.
Originally Posted By dlkozy >>>"I guess I just think there's phony and then there's phony"<<< And it depends on what you think the definition of "is" is.
Originally Posted By BigJim89 As a registered Republican I must say it bothers me that some of my fellow Republicans cannot see that Romney is exploiting them. I can see changing your position on an issue or two over the course of many years but to make a 360 turn on almost every issue from abortion, gay marriage, gun control, and Ronald Reagan. Now he claims to be against illegal immigration, but what did he do to stop illeal immigration as governor? Hire them to trim the lawn of the governors mansion. If the Republican party is dumb enough to vote for phony a candidate with no true convictions then they deserve to lose the general election as they surely will if Mitt is the nominee. END RANT
Originally Posted By woody The problem with a newspaper editorial is what is their agenda. Are they truly weighing the facts or are they passing along their agenda? I simply distrust newspapers. They lost much of their relevance due the shoddy scholarship and inherent bias. The CNN article at least have this line in its content "The Concord Monitor editorial page is considered to be liberal." All Republican candidate have a "liberal" problem. There is no one perfect. That's why I think we should wipe the slate clean and figure it out again. Romney has the best positions so far. Whether we will commit to it is another problem.
Originally Posted By BigJim89 <<Romney has the best positions so far. Whether we will commit to it is another problem.>> Agreed, my biggest concern is that his positions will again shift as they have in the past.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Romney's positions on issues are like the weather in Denver. If you don't like what you see right now, check back in an hour, something will likely change.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>SPP, that could be said of every candidate. It's sad.<< Again though, Romney is far and away the worst of all the candidates; it's not even close. Romney fans and defenders love to point out that they all do it, and then act irritated by the system. They present a case that suggests the scales are equally balanced between the candidates, as if they all have an equal record of flip-flopping or changing their positions. It's just not true. For once I'd like to see a Romney defender actually post the evidence - the quotes, the positions, etc. - of other candidates flip-flopping on major issues within months like Romney has. Has Hillary Clinton really changed her mind that drastically on abortion? Has she gone from pro-choice to pro-life suddenly? How about Guiliani? Fred Thompson? John Edwards? Did Rudy Guiliani go join the NRA two months before his candidacy? Did Mike Huckabee once say he supported gay rights to try and get elected in one campaign, then change his mind after he started another campaign for different office? Of course candidates pander and massage their message into pointlessness. But this effort by Romney fans to paint him as somehow the same as everyone else really needs to stop. He is light years ahead of everyone else with his ability to completely do a 180 on major issues.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> The problem with a newspaper editorial is what is their agenda. Are they truly weighing the facts or are they passing along their agenda? I simply distrust newspapers. << Another word for 'newspapers' is the press. And believe it or not, their "agenda" is to accurately report news and current events. Editorials are a different matter, where they offer their interpretation of news and current events, and it's clearly labeled as such. The 'concord monitor' has been living virtually across the street from romney for the entirety of his political career. They chose to take the unusual step of publishing this "anti-endorsement" but their criticisms are the same as what everyone else is saying too - that he will cravenly "portray" himself (and his deeply held moral convictions) any way necessary to further his own political career - he'll say anything to anybody and he'll smile and look good doing it. He was every bit as emphatic about his pro-abortion, pro-gay stances then as he is adamant about his opposition now. So just how deep do those moral convictions about 'right and wrong' really lie with romney? It's a fair question to ask. The same people that admire bush on his steadfast resolve and his 'stay the course' bravado aren't going to find that in romney. He'll turn on a dime as soon as he perceives it to benefit him. He's a car salesman, and we're the customer. Go ahead and kick the tires. But my bigger point is that the problem is not with the newspapers - their motives are less compromised than most other sources we have. Don't shoot the messenger.
Originally Posted By woody Well, the Concord Monitor "press" did not exactly write with all the diligence of convincing conservatives or Republicans that they have a bad candidate. It is one of throwing mud to the red meat liberal audience with the word "phony". >>He'll turn on a dime as soon as he perceives it to benefit him.<< Again, the issue is 'will he turn while in office.' It isn't about turning after getting into office. That's Clinton's problem. Certainly, gay rights, abortion, and stem cell research are issues that concern the Concord Monitor, but let's be clear, a flip to the conservative position is a good step. Quote "In the 2008 campaign for president, there are numerous issues on which Romney has no record, and so voters must take him at his word. " With no record, we will judge his integrity based on his promises and previous performance. Essentially, Romney has made new promises as a Presidential candidate. That's the real issue.
Originally Posted By gadzuux And that he's using his "deeply held moral convictions" to guide him. He's wearing his religion on his sleeve. So is huckabee - but at least he's always been anti-gay and anti-abortion. Hence, the "hucka-boom" we've seen over the last couple of months. He's the one serving up red meat for the faithful.
