I liked this Jonah Goldberg quote in response to last week's debate: "Romney still comes across like a well-cast actor in a movie of the week about a guy running for president."

His flip-flopping is egregously transparent even for a politician.

Wow, I think you hit every negative point against the man in one article. Oh, wait, you forgot the hunting incident. Pace, yourself Josh...

Romney's favorite book is Battlefield Earth by L. Ron Hubbard

*gag* Forget the prospect of mixing Mormonism with Scientology in a Presidential candidate (is there any large cult he *doesn't* like?), if that's his favorite novel, there's something seriously lacking about this man.

I usually do not agree with your conservative POVs Josh and Eric, although I read here because it is interesting and civil. However I am totally in agreement with your thoughts on Romney. I do not trust this man. It goes beyond his philosophy, his competence. He is just plain scary to me. I sincerely hope I am not alone in this, as many times I am in the minority politically (although not lately, lol).
Mary

I respectfully, but vigorously, dissent from your above post. Romney is much more complex thatn you seem to give him credit for. In fact, by labelling things as mere flip-flops, you miss most of the nuances. This is not surprising considering his views are not widely known. For example, he once called the Forbes flat tax plan a gimmick. Incidentally, he still doesn't support the flat tax. He has proposed some fairly specific tax reforms, but you also didn't hear him telling anyone in the first Republican debate who mentioned the flat tax it is a gimmick. Why? Because it is natural to play up your conservative viewpoints when running for President as opposed to Senator or Governor of MA.

Romney's "veto" add is a great add. There are many people, like me, who want someone in the White House who can finally say no! Romney is getting the message out there that if you want someone willing to guard the floodgates of taxes, he is the one to do it. In other arenas he has made clear he wants to do a top to bottom review of federal programs and to work on saving money before simply cutting off the faucet of $$$ running into the ocean of national debt.

The interesting thing about the one substantial change, and I would suggest that even this change is not that substantial, is that even on the issue of abortion, Romney has simply become more state's rights. Contrary to your statement above, it does seem to be based on intellectual reflection. In fact, I would suggest to you that he is the only candidate I am aware of ever, who has "flipped" on this issue who actually seems to have reflected on the issue and can articulate to you what spurred their thinking. In his responsibilities as Governor of MA, he had to make decisions related to fighting back cloning. That, when faced with the dilemma, he made a change for the better and he pursued a very reasonable path, is what makes for a great, indeed, outstanding President in my mind. It tells us a lot about what kind of President he will be. He hasn't made up his mind about everything he will do. He makes decisions by gathering information and making the best decision he can. He is not afraid of changing course when new direction is needed. That is the person I want in the White House.

His name is too much like "Knute Rockney"

Good analysis, Josh. If Romney had just remained the same person he was when he won the governor's race in Massachusetts, he would be the favorite, alternative candidate in the race. Instead, he forfeited that position to Guiliani by flip-flopping and moving to the right.

Romney's not the only guy in this race busily reinventing himself. Rudy is giving Mitt a run for his $$$ in that department. Behold my old mayor's flip-flops on civil unions, immigration, the flat tax, public funding for abortions, and abortion in general.

Is he adamantly against gun control yet?

Again you disappoint me, Josh. I didn't for a minute believe Hillary Clinton's transformation into an anti-war candidate was genuine. Yet it's very obvious that she's willing to do things that she thought were immoral before the switch, e.g. get out of Iraq ASAP. No defender of the war on terrorism who sees our current presence in Iraq could vote for her in the light of what she's doing, even if they might suspect that she agrees with them in her heart. But I think the retreat and surrender types will have a reliable ally in her. She seems insistent on acting based on that sort of policy preference, even if it's not what she previously said she believes. So whether her change of mind is genuine or not, it seems very clear that she's going to follow through on it.

Now I don't think the Romney case is parallel, because Romney has always been pro-life. He hasn't always been in favor of criminalizing the abortions that he believes to be morally wrong, and his change of mind on that issue was relatively recent. You may choose not to accept his explanation of what changed his mind on that. I do. But either way it seems very clear that he's committed to the policies he's now supporting. He did while governor, and he's made such a clear statement of his position while campaigning that there's very little chance that he could get away with abandoning them once he became president.

So I think it's completely foolish to think that any sense of his not being genuine counts as a reason not to support him. I never believed George H.W. Bush was genuine, but I supported him because I knew he was going to be faithful to the views he said he supported, even if they weren't as heartfelt as they seem to be with his sons. I suspect the same was true of Reagan also.