I think you’re right , Chris. Flip-flopper is far too gentle a word for Mitt Romney.

But the problem with saying Romney “changes his mind” is that he always changes it to match opinions wherever he happens to be. He flips from liberal in Massachusetts to conservative in Iowa. It’s an amazing coincidence. Romney always seems to agree with the folks he’s trying to get to vote for him, no matter what he’s said in the past.

I agree that we should try to use correct English. So perhaps we should call Romney a “panderer” or a “hypocrite” or how about just a “phoney”?

What? ebonics bother you that much? I didn't hear you complaining when it was used successfully against John Kerry in 2004, shouldn't the phrase bother you regardless of where they are applied? Furthermore, you said it doesn't affect you or other supporters of Romney, so what's the fretting all about??

You use remark, "We're fighting for America here, not Ebonics,"that phrase is sooo misused by just about everyone who is not actually in the military fighting but loves to bask in that phrase's glory. If you're serving, thank you and disregard the following remarks, if you're not, don't take advantage of such blanket phrases, some of us are ACTUALLY fighting for America here, we could care less about ebonics that bother you!

If he gets elected, and I concede that it will be a long uphill battle, many a big government program will be gored and the hate that is spewed at him now will seem small in comparison to what will happen when he starts leading our nation.

The comments posted here about the leader of the early church being a murderer are unexcusable and will be answered for at the judgement bar of God.

Good grief, Pat, you were a PIZZA DELIVERY PERSON. Did you think you were getting into a cushy job with major sick/vacation and executive benefits? Your "skillz" were driving from the pizza store to the customer. Collect the money. Go back to the store. And from your entitlement attitude – sounds like you were LUCKY to get THAT job!

Why not say "Changes their mind"? You don't affect myself or others by saying our candidate is a "flip flopper"!

Please use correct English. We're fighting for America here, not Ebonics.

Mitt's stance for personal responsibility is actually a fancy way of saying Mitt will do nothing for the poor. It is the poor people's responsibility to do for themselves. When daycare costs exceed the amount of income a person can make, because raising the minimum wage is a bad thing, there really is no alternative for some families other than drawing on social programs. This is one reality Mitt completely overlooks. Instead Mitt would make permanent the tax cuts Dubya gave to the wealthy, because as we all know the wealthy are victims of the greedy poor people.

Mitt can make all the comments he likes regarding any other candidate, republican or democrat. It won't make any difference to me. I won't vote for Mitt based on his own record simply because he is a waffler. Yesterday he was pro-choice today he is pro-life. He was committed to not change existing law on abortion as govenor of MA and did not. When Romney ran against Senator Kennedy he declared that abortion should be safe and legal in this country.

"I promised that if elected, I'd call a truce – a moratorium, if you will...I vowed to veto any legislation that sought to change the existing rules...I fully respect and will fully protect a woman's right to choose."

Now he says he has been pro-life all along and that it would absolutely be a good day for America when Roe v Wade is overturned. What will Flip-Flop say tomorrow?

I can't vote for someone who would double Guantanamo so the prisoners “don’t get access to lawyers they get when they’re on our soil.” What are you afraid of Mitt, that some of the prisoners at Gitmo might actually be innocent? Gitmo removes any social responsibility the administration has when they take prisoners to Gitmo. People have languished for years at Gitmo then released back to their countries of origin without any explanation or recourse. I'm all about stopping terrorism. The problem with Gitmo is when an innocent person is locked up for years they undoubtedly become terrorists. Gitmo is a self defeating project. It only exaserbates the problem of terrorism. Keep Gitmo but make darn sure the prisoners truly are terrorists, which hasn't been the case in the past. In that light there is no need to double the prison.

Too bad McCain nuked himself with the immigrant issue. He would have made an excellent president, unlike flip-flop Romney.

If you read Mark's (NJ) post on Mitt, he clearly implies that Romney was the club owner, I was merely replying to that particular post and had no reason to doubt or double check his facts. All the same John, if Romeny's help to search for a friend's daughter is one of your strong points for favoring him then I must say he doesn't have much riding on him. As for your people at work, sorry, I know my boss would shut down the office to help me out, does that make him presidential material???

John Edwards

Couldn't agree more.

As far as I've seen, he hasn't imposed his beliefs on the state of Massachusetts.

As a previous poster mentioned, he did erase a large budget deficit in MA, turned the financial situation for the 2002 Olympic around and helped create jobs in the private sector.

On a key hot-button issue, health care, Massachusetts has recently enacted a system to provide health care for all of its citizens through the private sector. Those that can't afford health insurance will have it paid for by the state through use of funds that were previously used for "free care" (care that is given to uninsured perons where the hospital or provider bites the bullet on cost anyway). As the state conducted analysis turned out, it is cheaper to buy insurance for uninsured persons than it was to provide the so-called free-care.

The jury is still out on how effective the system will be because it just started, but it is a step in the right direction wouldn't you agree? (why/why not)

I don't know if this guy has earned my vote for president, I'm still evaluating candidates and probably won't decide until some point next year (my state primary, and then November come to mind), but give credit where credit is due.

Several of the candidates on both sides make some good points, they also have some flaws (which of us don't?).

I remember someone running a few years back saying..."It's the economy, stupid!" and doing quite well. Maybe Mitt could serve us well in the economic sector of the government instead of being president. Who knows?

I think people have over-reacted to his remark about his sons "serving the country" by campaigning for him. I think it was just a poorly delivered, bad attempt at some levity on his part. And, since when is it his fault and somehow unpatriotic that his sons didn't join the military. Do they not have the "right to choose"?

I was in the military, in theatre for Desert Shield and Desert Storm, I've got the 'SW Asia campaign' medal in my closet, but I don't think any of my friends that have never served have any less a right to do anything than I do.

So, lighten up and give him a chance, find out what he's about. If at the end of the analysis you don't like him because he's a flip-flopper, Mormon, rich guy, whatever, cast your vote for someone else.

Have a good day,

Chip

With Mitt having an MBA, he should appreciate a good case study, so let's consider the case of the Iraq vote. Barack sure nailed that one, didn't he? He had the foresight to see that it was a bad move. He had the same general information we all did and he chose wisely, despite the prevailing political winds at the time.

From what I know about the Republican candidates, I'd have to say Ron Paul is probably the only one from that group that I'd vote for. Perhaps McCain or even Huckabee, but definitely not Romney, Giuliani or the others.

During Romney's tenure he raised property taxes and corporate taxes (hurt middle-class and workers) while attempting to cut the top state income tax rate (looking out for himself and his rich friends). The voter backlash against this self-serving flip-flopper was stunning in 2006 - for the first time in 17 years, there is now a democrat governor in Mass, and he won by a landslide.

Eddie, OH... Romney's Mormon faith is just old news. We all know that he is a proud member of his church.

Rock oN!

“In response to David from Salinas, CA…
Joe Biden has more foreign policy experience in his index finger than Senator Clinton, or any of the Democratic Nominees. So if foreign policy is important to you (and I hope it is) then why defend Clinton?”

Brad,

I defended Senator Clinton because I admire her and she was unfairly attacked. However, if you look at the postings under the Biden story on this page you’ll see I praised his foreign policy positions as well, and even posted a link to his web site. I think he’d make a great President.

I am still undecided but I am delighted with the quality of the Democratic field. I see no point in attacking fellow Democrats.

Let’s save the criticism for those that deserve it: the failed incumbent administration and the highly unqualified Republican candidates who support Bush’s irresponsible Iraq policy.

Thanks for your comment.

But in the world of politics, Romney has just hit a solid single, if not a double or triple.

For far too long, Romney has been tagged "the Mormon candidate." It's a label he can't win with. His initial response was to pull a JFK and say he doesn't take questions about religion, but standing mute has only created a mystery.

And why? Because nice-guy Mitt, the affable Republican-next-door, is so easily forgettable that the only way he'd stand out is as "the Mormon candidate."

So now Mitt is learning to stand out, to be a flavor, to kick up a storm if he must, so that people will have something to grab onto other than "Mitt the Mormon."

Of course, starting a brawl with all of the Democratic candidates may not be the answer. The world already has one Bill O'Reilly. It doensn't need more. But if Romney can find these openings in which to stand out, he might have a chance of doing more than financing barbecues in Iowa.

Joe Biden has more foreign policy experience in his index finger than Senator Clinton, or any of the Democratic Nominees. So if foreign policy is important to you (and I hope it is) then why defend Clinton? You've got the wrong person for the job.

I'm glad Mitt Romney has come out to call the Democratic Debates what they really are: a load of nonsense.

Several of the people on a conference call in a State where my sister lives heard the ground rules and when asked questions about them were told that's the way it is.

At one event his campaign claimed 4500 when it was 350 people there and some real Republican activists walked out at the Ask Mitt event when all the questions were softball.

Mitt has experience to be President? Guess if we want a flip flopper that compares his sons supporting his run for President with serving in the military, he would qualify.

As for the war in Iraq, I hope the country stabilizes as soon as possible and that we can gradually start bringing our troop home.

Whatever you think of the rationale for the war, the decision we have to make today is what to do next. A failure to stabilize Iraq would lead to genocide and could spill over into a much wider regional war. We cannot afford that.

Often, many people who argue in favor of a rapid US withdrawal say fail to consider what the costs and consequences of such an action would be. They are, unfortunately, disastrous.

As for the volunteer army vs the draft, each has its benefits and disadvantages. I agree with your point that politicians could be more likely to drag us into wars if they knew their families would not be affected. On the other hand, a volunteer army allows us to have a smaller, better-trained force composed of people who want to serve their country. It is probably easier to fight wars with a well-prepared military than to deal with all the draft issues. It also gives us more flexibility to intervene when we see a problem – just think about all the political hand-wringing we'd have to go through if we had to act against an argent threat but also needed to use the draft. Little would get done. And in a time of unconventional and asymmetric warfare (as opposed to the earlier clashes of large, conventional armies), that is pretty dangerous.

The net benefits of a volunteer army, in my opinion, outweigh the net benefits of the draft. But if draft was reinstated (which is quite unlikely) and I was called upon to serve, I would.

This, btw, will be my last post in this thread – not because I don't think we're having an interesting conversation (we are!) but because I need to get other things done today and I've spent enough time on the web.

In any case, it's been a pleasure and I wish you all the best.

Just an FYI Mitt was not the owner of the night club. The daughter that was missing was the daughter of one of his employees in Boston. She had been in New York and went to some night club and went missing. When Mitt found out he shut down his office and flew to New York and brought several of his employees with him to help search for this girl. Because of his efforts they were able to find the girl. I am pretty sure that if I told my work my daughter was missing all they would do is give me a card. It takes real integrity and character do do what he did. Next time make sure you know the facts before you speak about somthing.

John

I consider myself asked, he is an exceptional human being, good family man, outstanding businessman, smart and the best part is that he has no problem hammering this President when he disagrees with him.

Easily the best Republican candidate and along with Joe Biden for the Democrats, would make an excellent next President.

I agree with him on many things, but not all, frankly the only person I agree with on everything is me...

Rock oN!

Funny that you should use the "lighten up" phrase, I mean I probably should but Romney the other day said that to a critic not remembering that the "Snowman" at the You-Tube had said the same thing to him for critisizing the entire event, particularly politicians having to answer questions from a snowman.

Anyway, more seriously, you say that you're sure that I support an all volunteer military, well I just happen to support the draft and here's why. I don't know your opinion of this war but I can decipher form your comments that you support it. Which fits well with your support for Romney because he happens to want to expand the military to sustain troops in Iraq. If these are his plans, and he has said as much, why should he continue to wage a war whose only casualties are the troops and their families? Which is where my support for the draft comes in, if this war is truly a war for the future of ALL our kids, like we're often told, then the burden and sacrifice should be by ALL of us, if you disagree with this rationale, please give me a reason. It's easy for people like Romney to want to keep troops fighting, his kids and loved ones will never be in harms way, so to that I say, let's bring back the draft and see how eager Romney and the like are to wage unnecessary wars. Why should only some people's sons and daughters continue to pay the price while others sit back and cheer as loud as they can, "We support our troops!!?" And by other people I mean the poor and middle class citizens.

Look Mark, you seem to be a reasonable, guy, but having boardroom experience doesn't make a good president, it might make one, but they won't be any good, we've all seen that over the last 8 years. As far as the experience you quote goes, it doesn't supercede good judgement, and Romney fails in that aspect. All the experience in the world couldn't win John McCain a presidential election if hell froze over. In addition, Romney does not resonate with the man on the street, his corporate background will not let him and to top all that up is his lack of freshness, he's not bringing anything new to the table, he's pledging to do all the things that we're doing wrong now. I think you're backing a losing candidate mark.

OBAMA 08!