What this post glosses over is the fact that while Romney has clearly defined positions on some issues (his "position" on a plan to fix the economy is as clear as mud, as are his positions on a number of other issues), he has held directly contradictory, or at least materially inconsistent, positions on any number of issues, to the point that it is literally not clear where he stands, despite his presently having a "clearly defined position."
Please identify the political candidate at the national level that you believe matches the standard you seek to apply to Romney/Ryan. And identify why you would support them.
To pick just two obvious examples, Romney has made the repeal of Obamacare or any nationalized universal health care plan a key plank in his platform, whereas just four years ago he supported exactly this thing. He was consistently pro-choice as governor of Massachusetts but is now purportedly passionately pro-life.
You do understand that a personal belief is not the same as upholding the law of the land?
You do understand that politicians should act both as representatives of the people as well as individually responsible managers of the public trust?
You do know that very few powers are constitutionally granted to the federal government, don't you? Most power actually is reserved to the states and they are the crucibles for governmental experimentation. What works for a state will most often not be a vested power of the federal government.
Mass is a very liberal state and as Governor Romney worked with the legislative branch with sufficient cooperation to get quite a few things done. He was able to effectively achieve compromise, which means he did not get everything he might have wanted and neither did the Democrat legislature. This, by the way, is something that Obama has failed at abysmally - ALL of his signature legislative programs were passed only with Democrat votes.
The upshot of all of this is that there is literally no way for voters to tell how he would govern on a number of issues of significant public importance. This is the opposite of reassuring.
Why should this bother you? Some issues are clearly on the agenda - economic vitality, defense, taxation, national debt - and Romney/Ryan have telegraphed their intent very clearly.
History, on the other hand, shows that the next President is going to encounter black swan events and muddled circumstance. Romney has demonstrated an extraordinary ability to deliver great results when faced with those. He has had an extraordinary background that has seasoned him. He can hit the ground running, unlike an amateur like Obama, that
of necessity has had to rely almost completely on the much more experienced Congressional Democrat leadership and the questionable advice of people like Valerie Jarrett.
My own feeling is that Romney is not a bad guy, and is essentially a centrist, but his rhetoric over the past four years has been that of a firebreathing conservative. Which is true? I don't know. Are we supposed to flip a coin to tell?
Now you are wearing your partisan hat again. Romney
is a great guy with some of the best preparation for the modern Presidency of any of his predecessors. He is also a practical guy and not an ideologue, so your accusations are moronic.
He is, I think, the most comprehensively politically whorish politician to receive a party's nomination in my lifetime.
That is really selective outrage. Care to describe the relationships that Goldman Sachs has with Obama?
I don't really dislike him, and I respect his intelligence, but he does not have the courage of his convictions, and he is the epitome of a pandering politician. It would appear that you, like the people you criticize, are not seeing clearly in your own "partisan fervor."
You will never see any different if you first look at the example video of this thread and then claim that he "panders."
I object to your portrayal of this gay Vietnam veteran as a "one-issue voter," when you have no way of knowing what his politics are or who he might vote for, much less any basis for claiming he doesn't care about other important issues. He is nothing but gracious to Governor Romney and doesn't deserve to implicitly be called a simpleton in your anti-Obama screed, merely for having the temerity to disagree with you and Governor Romney.
I watched the video in the entirety, did you? I did not define him, he did himself. He was questioned if this single opinion that Romney has, which is the same opinion that Obama had until he started pandering to win another election, would affect his vote. He said yes. He did not equivocate, so why are you doing so? :awe:
Facebook
Twitter