Romney = the Republican Kerry. Kerry = buffoon.

William,

The Nazis were self-identified as a party of the right. They made temporary alliances with other right-wing parties. They campaigned as the party best suited to battle the rise of Communists and other left-wing parties. Hitler's rise was financially supported by a number of right wing industrialists. They did not have a parliamentary majority when Hitler became Chancellor but they did have the support of some other parties of the right. There were some original Nazis who wanted to emphasize the Socialist part (most notably Ernst Roehm) of the National Socialist Party but Hitler had them all killed in 1934 about 16 months after he took power.

Stalin turned to "Mother Russia" symbolism only after the Nazi armies approached the gates of Moscow. It was a direct repudiation of Communist ideology which stressed the international brotherhood of the proletariat. The Socialist labor leaders of the European countries in the years leading up to World War I took it as an article of faith that the working classes would not support a war pitting worker against worker. They were astonished to see their constituents lining up to enlist and cheering on the troops in August 1914.

As for nationalism and racial identity politics, dictators of the left and the right have used them to keep their populations in line.

For CENSORED news please go to:
noothersides123.blogspot.com
www.wuss.org
www.exconslinejournal.com
www.takingritalin.net
http://www.democratsundersized.com/

Make your contributions directly to the Society for the Acutely Pompous (SAP). Thank you for your support.

Ok, so it was far from the the greatest of political moves by Romney over the weekend. As a conservative, do i trust him? Not really. But i have one fact for all the conservatives out there to consider - at one time, Reagan was a Roosevelt Democrat. Now granted, his "coversion" was not overnight or, more importantly, timed to a political run, which makes Romney substantially more than suspicious and very Kerryesque. People and their views on life evolve. Sometimes you need to run differently depending on the place you are running. The question primary voters have is this - is Romney evolving or not? I am currently in the "not" camp and it appears from this blog that i am not alone.

Ok, so it was far from the the greatest of political moves by Romney over the weekend. As a conservative, do i trust him? Not really. But i have one fact for all the conservatives out there to consider - at one time, Reagan was a Roosevelt Democrat. Now granted, his "coversion" was not overnight or, more importantly, timed to a political run, which makes Romney substantially more than suspicious and very Kerryesque. People and their views on life evolve. Sometimes you need to run differently depending on the place you are running. The question primary voters have is this - is Romney evolving or not? I am currently in the "not" camp and it appears from this blog that i am not alone.

Romney does not understand the landscape. Let's make the appropriate substitutions in the following statement to better understand the translations into the typical Faux News viewer:

"Romney said he was a registered Satanist at the time, which allowed him to vote in either the Satanist or God's Own Party Republican primaries. "When there was no real contest in the God's Own Party Republican primary, I'd vote in the Satanist primary, vote for the person who I thought would be the weakest opponent for God's Own Party Republicans," he said."

In their simplistic minds, Romney admits voting for Satan. They will never forgive him for that no matter how reasonable and intelligent it was. Any questions?

William,
Your attempt to paint the Nazis as a left-wing group is nothing short of pathetic. Even before Hitler came to power, the Nazis consciously identified with conservative views. Hitler was called to the chancellor post by a conservative president who was advised by other conservative party members who thought that they could control him. Those are the facts, whether you like them or not.

William,
Your attempt to paint the Nazis as a left-wing group is nothing short of pathetic. Even before Hitler came to power, the Nazis consciously identified with conservative views. Hitler was called to the chancellor post by a conservative president who was advised by other conservative party members who thought that they could control him. Those are the facts, whether you like them or not.

'When I think of a "rightwing" dictator, I think of someone like Agusto Pinochet, a free-marketer and social conservative, and not Hitler or other socialist dictators.'

It hardly matters, does it? Hitler's rhetoric was nearly identical to Ann Coulter. And Hitler was AUTHORITARIAN. That's what people are talking about when they compare Bush to Hitler. What happened in the 1930/s. The sabotaging of the German constitution, the continuous power grab, the marginalization of the other branches of government, the suspension of habeas corpus, the identity cards, the unlawful detention of innocent people, the torture, and eventually the murder.

Do you have any idea how many people have been tortured to death in US custody? Quite a few. But like a good nazi, you don't care do you? Because after all, they're just Jews. Sorry, I mean Muslims.

"I'll vote for Mitt whatever he DID, I'm looking at what he is NOW. He is a good moral person who would make a good president"

That was a retarded comment.

So if your wife cheats on you multiple times, and then says "Oops, I'm sorry", than everything will be back to normal?

How do you know he is moral? Are you his personal friend?

If not, don't make stuff up.

Schm*ck.

I'll vote for Mitt whatever he DID, I'm looking at what he is NOW. He is a good moral person who would make a good president

Wow, meuphys and I actually agree on something for once...we both don't like Romney.

BTW: It's rude to call people you don't agree with "Culture Nazis."

To begin with, it's disgusting and disgraceful that you would compare social conservatives to the Nazi regime.

In case you never took a history class, the Nazis MURDERED 11 million people in death camps like Auschwitz during the Holocaust, and killed hundreds of thousands of Allied soldiers.

I know it's fun when liberals get together to poke fun at conservatives and call them Nazis, but I think you would agree that doing so is not only despicable in that it compares decent people who simply disagree with you to the most evil regime to ever exist, but it also TRIVIALIZES what actually happened in the Holocaust.

Personally, I think anyone who compares Bush to Hitler is not only scum of the lowest order, but delusional as well.

I think conservatives deserve an apology for your name-calling.

In fact, the Nazis were a Socialist (German NATIONAL SOCIALIST WORKERS Party!!!), left wing party.

Some in the academia consider them to be "right wing" since they used nationalism and racism to generate support, but there is nothing that makes racism or nationalism inherently right-wing phenomenons.

Stalin used nationalistic appeals of defending "Mother Russia" to generate support, and instituted a racist and deadly "Russification" program.

China and North Korea are nationalist, militaristic nations which use nationalism and racial unity as appeals to maintain support for the regime, and drum up animosity to foes of the regime.

And Hugo Chavez in Venezuela commonly uses racism to rally support. He demonizes "light skinned" members of the upper classes whom he claims are "oppressing" the dark Venezuelans of Indian descent.

And he uses nationalistic rhetoric to stir up anti-Western, anti-American sentiment among his people.

Also, if you consider Hitler's economic policies, they involved extensive government influence in the economy, in keeping with his socialist agenda.

Hitler also supported and instituted gun bans.

And does ANYONE think that Hitler would have opposed abortion or embryonic stem cell research?

I think Hitler's views were certainly more leftwing than right wing, not that I am comparing Democrats, even Democrats who support abortion, to Hitler.

Though arguably, abortion could be considered a Holocaust, as 40 million babies have been killed since 1973.

What say you, Meuphys?

When I think of a "rightwing" dictator, I think of someone like Agusto Pinochet, a free-marketer and social conservative, and not Hitler or other socialist dictators.

I never thought I would find myself saying this, but out of the 3 frontrunners, I actually prefer John McCain!

But I am still hoping that Tancredo or Hunter will get the nomination.

Hunter was in the Army Rangers, and fought in Vietnam. He has more experience than ANY other candidate, having been in the House since 1980, and having served as Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee for a number of years.

He has rock solid conservative credentials on all the issues, and is a conservative in the Reagan mold.

With his very extensive military experience as an officer in combat, and his many years on the Armed Services Committee, he will lead our country to success in the War on Terror, and he is equipped to deal with Iran, NK, China, India, and all other hostiles and malcontents (India) as well.

I really hope he gets the nomination.

Tom Tancredo would be a great president too, but he is not as experienced as Hunter. Tancredo has only been in the House since 1998, which means he is now in his fifth term. Prior to being a congressman, he was a school teacher and then Reagan's Education Advisor for part of CO.

Tancredo also has rock solid conservative credentials, though he has little foreign policy experience and is probably not serious about running. He knows he has a safe congressional seat. Interestingly enough, Tancredo is the reputation among some for being a hardliner on the immigration issue, but at least slightly more than half of House Republicans, and a like number of Senate Republicans, completely agree with him, and are just as hardline. They simply aren't as vocal about it.

A few weeks ago, I said that if I had to guess, McCain would get the nomination.

Now, I am not so sure, though I think McCain is still slightly ahead of the others in his chances of getting the nom.

Most conservatives despise McCain for his numerous betrayals, but Guiliani has a ton of baggage and is extremely liberal, though he is trying to do a "Romney." And Romney is just Romney.

And it looks like Newt Gingrich is not going to run. He has a ton of baggage himself.

Of the two 2nd Tier candidates (Brownback and Huckabee) neither really satisfy conservatives.

And the third tier candidates (Hunter, Tancredo, Gilmore, Paul and Thompson) have little name recognition.

Ron Paul appeals to libertarians (and even ran for president as a Libertarian in the past) but he lost a lot of conservative support this week when he voted on the anti-war resolution with the Dems.

Thompson is another moderate governor (and later, cabinet secretary) who has almost no name recognition, and there is no reason for anyone to support him over Huckabee, since their views are quite similar.

I already addressed Hunter and Tancredo.

As for Gilmore, well, he does seem to be a solid conservative, but he has almost no name recognition or support. He is not even terribly popular among VA conservatives. I really can't see him taking off.

So basically, I think it is impossible to tell who will win the GOP primary at this point.

It would be an exciting year, except with no high profile conservatives in the race, there is nothing to be excited about.

What remains to be seen is:

Will conservatives reluctantly accept one of the frontrunners, or will they unite around a lower tier candidate? Or will the conservative vote splinter among several?

Will conservatives even turn out for the primaries en masse, or just stay home out of disillusionment and disgust?

Or will they deem the primary winner unacceptable and draft someone else at the convention?

romney's explanation is almost funny, like a kid who says, "well, well, yeah, but that doesn't count because i had my fingers crossed." now, i'm no republican, but i put it to y'all who are - is this REALLY the level of sophistication you want to see in your nominee? romney can't win. mccain might be able to, but he doesn't even look like he wants it any more. giuliani MAYBE could, but only if he could get crossover votes from democrats - the culture nazi wing of the g.o.p. won't be able to accept giuliani's liberalism on social issues for the most part, and if he does a romney and suddenly gets religion on abortion and gay marriage, he risks turning off the fiscally conservative - socially liberal republicans, not to mention (in states which allow crossover voting) the fiscally conservative - socially liberal democrats, whose support he will need to win. of course, if the democrats nominate hillary, that rolls the dice yet again. if she is the nominee, there may be a 3rd party challenge. but to get back to the point of this discussion - romney is a non-starter. it says sth that the state he governed until recently for the most part just can't stand him.

I wholeheartedly agree with the comment that Mitt Romney is the Republican John Kerry. A lot of Democrats "held their noses" and supported Kerry because they assumed he was electable. I see a similar dynamic with social conservative support for Romney. They don't trust McCain, Allen self-desructed and Giuliani's social issue postions are anathema to them. Imagine how they perceived Romney - a Republican from Massachusetts who claimed to be a social conservative. He also had a good reputation for rescuing the Salt Lake City Olympics from a morass of corruption and mismanagement. Politically savvy religious conservative leaders would not be so prone to prejudice against Mormons, especially since the Mormon Church is extremely conservative on social issues. After all, Utah is one of, if not the most, reliable Republican states in the union. The dearth of social conservative candidates who seemed able to win the general election helped Romney immeasurably. These folks did not do their homework. Imagine the variations on the Kerry windsurfing attack ad that we will see on Romney.

I agree that Romney is shady. He is not a conservative. All of his advisers and staff people are liberals who just use conservatives prior to the nomination, and then they disappear once that is sewn up.

For example, Romney is supported by lobbyist Ron Kaufman. Ron Kaufman is a very liberal pro-abortionist member of the Republican National Committee. His claim to fame in life is that he lucked out by working on the 1980 Bush campaign, and for 26 years he runs around dropping the Bush family name wherever he goes, milking it for lobbying contracts. Now he is supporting Romney and is one of his "closest advisers." What has he ever won? Who has he ever gotten elected? No one. He just boards the gravy train and rides it better than most shady lobbyists.

What a pathetic campaign Romney is running. He has a bunch of liberals telling him to lie to conservatives in order to get the nomination, and then he can be a liberal again after he has the nomination.

Forget it. If I wanted a liberal, I would vote for the real thing. I will vote for the Democrat over Romney if the Republicans nominate Romney. Truthfulness is much more important than ideological agreement.

Romney is all over the map...

And despite his campaign's best intentions, the "flip flopper" label is sticking.

Every time he says anything, it can be juxtaposed with what he said in his '94 race against Kennedy, or his '02 race for MA governor...

I think Romney will be the next president and he'll be good for the country because he'll win by a good margin over Hillary Clinton, thus ending the polarization. (And Hillary's loss will be good for the Democratic Party, which needs to peel the Clinton leeches off it.)

I wish the Democrats had an attractive candidate because I'd like to see the Democratic House and Senate candidates supported. But if the Democratic Party walks off the cliff to vindicate Bill Clinton, so be it. Fortunately theres a pretty good margin in the House.

Any way you look at it, GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney showed a disturbing lack of moral clarity Sunday on ABC's "This Week" with George Stephanopoulos.

When asked about his vote for Paul Tsongas, a Democrat, in the 1992 primaries, he offered this explanation:

"In Massachusetts, if you register as an Independent, you can vote in either Republican or Democratic primary.

"When there was no real contest in the Republican primary, I'd vote in the Democrat primary, vote for the person who I thought would be the weakest opponent for Republican.....

"So, yes, as an Independent, I'll go in and play in their primary, but I'm a Republican and have been through my life."

This "playing in the primary" is called "raiding." The purpose is not to help to select the best candidates possible, but to frustrate and pervert the nominating process.....dirty political tricks.

But, in 1994 Romney gave another explanation for his vote for Democrat Tsongas.... "he did so both because Tsongas was from Massachusetts and because he favored his ideas over those of Bill Clinton."

Well, that wouldn't be raiding, that would be voting for the best opponent (in Romney's opinion) to run against George Bush, Sr. while not supporting Bush against Buchanan.

So which is it, is Mitt a dirty-tricks raider, or lying to cover his support of Dem Tsongas. Either way, it's a lose-lose for Romney.... and exposes his moral blind spots.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Oh my lord, Mitt Romney, don't make me puke just a little bit in my mouth here. Just be honest, man! The Republican field is so complex that nobody is going to be a surefire nomination, so you don't have to worry about constantly keeping a specific "base" satisfied. Instead, you just dig a bigger hole. Genius. *gag*

Another reason Romney will find it very hard to succeed in the primaries is that he doesn't have a geographic region where he can draw support from.

For example, if Allen was still in the race, as a conservative Southerner, he would draw his support in the primaries from the South, while McCain and Guiliani tried to win more liberal states like NH.

It remains to be seen if the grassroots of both parties will accept the media-appointed "front runners" or whether there will be a surprise upset.

Since all 3 GOP frontrunners are liberal Republicans, perhaps Hunter or even Tancredo or at least Brownback can stage a surprise upset.

In the Democratic party, if Hillary falters, look for Vilsack or Richardson to make it into the top tier.

Personally I think it is conceivable that one or both parties might wind up drafting a candidate not currently running at their convention.

For the Dems it might be Sweitzer, Warner, Bredesen, Easley, or Bayh.

For the Republicans, it may be Barbour, Sessions, Sanford or Pawlenty.

In any case, though, Romney has no geographic region of appeal. The South doesn't like him since he was recently a very liberal RINO, and he is a Mormon from MA.

The North won't like him since he has swung out so far to the right that it looks like he is pandering, and he can no longer claim to be a moderate.

There is nothing to suggest that he will play well in the Midwest, or Plains West (where Brownback is from), or the libertarian-leaning Mountain West and PAC NorthWest.

The only places he can really draw on for support are UT and ID, which have large Mormon populations, though little influence in the primaries.

Several regions already have a candidate in the race, though not all do.

The South: No major candidate in the GOP primary, at least so far. Jim Gilmore, the former governor of VA, has very little name recognition. Rep. Ron Paul is from TX.

SouthWest: Duncan Hunter and John McCain.

PAC NW: No one, at least so far. But the GOP has a very small bench in this region, comprised of MT, OR, WA, and ID.

MidWest/Plains West: Sam Brownback is from KS. Tommy Thompson is from WI.

Northeast: Mitt Romney, but he doesn't represent the region he hails from.

Mounatin/Interior West: Arguably, McCain can appeal to this area. Tancredo is from CO.

Dems:

Northeast:

Hillary Clinton, though she is originally from IL and possibly still can claim to represent it in the primaries.

Chris Dodd: from CT.

Joseph Biden: From DE.

South: John Edwards is from NC but can't really claim to represent the South. There really is no 1992 Clinton-style Southern Dem in the race.

If Al Gore were to run, he was from TN, but again, can't claim to represent the South.

MidWest: Tom Vilsack is from IA.

Barack Obama is from IL.

Interior/Mountain West: Bill Richardson is from NM, which is in the SW, but close enough.

PAC NW: No one in this race, though many Dem's speak favorably of Brian Sweitzer.

West Coast: No one.

So, in both parties, there are candidates from many regions of the nation, though some are not represented in one or both parties, especially the South and the PAC NW.

The most well-represented areas are the Mid/Plains West, the NE, and the SW.

OK Deg, please enlighten us with a list of your hero Mitt's (or should I say Willard's) wonderful accomplishments.

Let's see:

1. The first governor to sign an Assault Weapons Ban into law since the 1994 Clinton AWB sunsetted (and Romney's AWB was one of the nation's strictest.)

2. Being a "better advocate for gays than Ted Kennedy," and appointing gay rights activists to judicial positions.

3. Hiring illegals to mow the lawn of his NH home (I guess he was too good to actually live in the state he governed). And no, Mitt, no one was fooled by that stunt you pulled in December, the agreement with ICE that never went into effect.

4. Raising taxes and "fees" even though he promised not to.

5. Supporting abortion until a few months before he left office.

6. Supporting embryonic stem cell research until a few months ago.

7. Espousing liberal, big government, and liberal economic policies.

8. Disparaging Reagan.

9. Not even being a member of the GOP until what, 1996?

Which of those Romney achievements do you most admire?

Which of those achievements are even conservative?

Romney is nothing more than a greedy, ambitious deceiver, who changes his views depending upon whom he is talking to.

Another John Kerry, with a MA elitist, snobbish attitude.

hey chris, what does Romney think about hillary clinton's chances? why didn't you write about whether Hillary voted for tsongas in '92?
Thanks for giving us a break from your hillary lovefest.

Chris and hillary sittin' in a tree (he wishes)

I agree with the person who said Romney is just another John Kerry.

He has absolutely no values or beliefs. If he wins the Republican nomination, he'll start pandering to the center again, to try to win the general.

Quite simply, a guy who makes a 180 degree radical conversion on EVERY issue all within three months is completely untrustworthy, especially considering that he only changed his views when he realized he could not be reelected gov, so he decided to run for president.

The only reason he is getting some support from people like Sen Jim DeMint (SC) is that he joined the race so early that he positioned himself as the anti-McCain at a time when only he and McCain (and Hunter) were in the race. (Everyone knew Romney was running.)

Even though Huckabee is quite liberal on some issues, if he had jumped in earlier he would probably be in Romney's spot on the top tier.

I just really don't see Brownback taking off. He is very conservative on abortion and gay marriage, but has a mixed record on the economy and guns, and is liberal on The Surge and immigration. Also, he is just not charismatic, and his Catholicism will not help him with evangelicals.

I really can't see myself (and I've talked to a lot of other Republicans who agree) voting for Romney, Guiliani or Huckabee under any circumstances.

I am not a fan of McCain either, but at least he is a war hero.

Personally, I am supporting Hunter at this point. He is a solid conservative who served as a Ranger in Vietnam in one of the most combat-torn regiments.

He would make a good leader.

It's sad to see how over inflated the attacks are on Romney. I believe him over the flat out biased media.

It's amazing how many people get carried away by the media instead of forming their own opinions.

Mitt Romney was an excellent governor in Massachutsets, but it seems people there just couldn't appreciate all he did.

I would gladly vote for him and all that he wants to represent, rather than any other choice.

If it not Mitt then who? Hillary? No, thank you.

When you look at who he'll be running against, none of this hurt's him. Its bizarre that Romney is being quizzed on who he voted for in a primary almost 20 years ago. Giuliani supported Mario Cuomo for Governor over the Republican candidate in '94 in the general election. Did appearances and commercials.

The fact is that there was a Republican Primary the same day as Mitt voted for Tsongas. And Bush's winning margin over Pat Buchanan was less than Tsongas' margin was. So Mitt is lying.

Dear JD,

PS Che, enough with the stupid monologues?

Are our boys and girls not getting killed every day in Iraq?

Yours,
Che

For uncensored news please go to:

otherside123.blogspot.com
www.wsws.org
www.onlinejournal.com
www.takingaimradio.net

"Mitt Romney is basically just a Republican John Kerry. "

MBW, LOL, greatest comment I've seen today. I agree with everyone here, this guy needs to hang it up and quit fooling himself.

PS Che, enough with the stupid monologues that have nothing to do with the subject at hand being discussed on the Fix (and on The Checkout, and On Balance, and every other WaPo blog...). Che, your mom is calling, time to come up from the basement now...

mitt "the twitt" is for sale to the person he thinks will provide him with the most pull politically. he's good at raising money, as he proved at bain capital, and he's devious and dishonest. that's it, and thankfully it will not prove to be enough, especially for a country that can't wait to wash away the cloying aftertaste of compassionate conservatism. notice, however, that chris doesn't mind veering away from hillary to focus on mitt...

For uncensored news please go to:

otherside123.blogspot.com
www.wsws.org
www.onlinejournal.com
www.takingaimradio.net

Join the International Students for Social Equality! Build an ISSE chapter at your college or high school!

19 February 2007

The following is a statement issued by the International Students for Social Equality in the US outlining its political perspective and calling on students to join the ISSE and build clubs at schools throughout the country and internationally. The statement is available in pdf format to download and distribute. An Australian version is also available.

The ISSE calls on students and workers to attend the Emergency Conference Against War called by the ISSE and the Socialist Equality Party, to be held in Ann Arbor, Michigan on March 31 and April 1. Click here to find out more about the conference. Click here to register for the conference.

The International Students for Social Equality calls on student youth around the world to initiate a campaign against militarist violence, social inequality and the growing attack on democratic rights.

The United States' military escalation in Iraq, in the face of overwhelming opposition in the US and internationally, is only the most barbaric expression of the catastrophe created by world capitalism. Hundreds of thousands have been killed in the course of an illegal invasion and occupation, justified on the basis of lies, to advance the geo-strategic aims of the American ruling elite. Now, preparations are being made for an even more deadly war against Iran, which poses the danger of a global conflagration on a scale not seen since the Second World War.

This madness must stop! Great advances in science and technology, accompanied by an unprecedented global integration of economic life, have created the potential for a new era of human prosperity. Yet young people confront a world full of war and want, massive poverty and disease, pending environmental catastrophe, cultural backwardness and superstition, and assaults on the most basic democratic freedoms.

Human progress is being blocked by the social relations of capitalism, which subordinate everything to the drive for corporate profit and the accumulation of personal wealth by a tiny layer of the population. The ISSE is an organization of students around the world dedicated to building a socialist movement that will finally realize the potential of the modern era, put an end to poverty and war, and lay the foundations for genuine freedom and equality.

Join the fight for a renewed international socialist movement! Join the ISSE!

No to war and colonialism!

Colonialism, imperialism, fascism, world war--the barbaric scourges of the 20th century--are being reborn in the 21st in an even more brutal form. The invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan are the first stages in what Bush has called the "wars of the 21st century." These wars serve one basic purpose: to bolster the global interests of the American ruling elite by offsetting its declining position in the world economy through the use of military force. Every other rationale spewed out by the American government and media is a lie.

According to a study conducted by researchers at Johns Hopkins University and published in the British medical journal Lancet, more than 655,000 Iraqis have died as a result of the invasion and occupation of their country. Over 3,100 US soldiers and more than 250 from other countries have been killed. The invasion and occupation have devastated an entire society and sparked a brutal sectarian conflict.

For the rest please go to:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/feb2007/isse-f19.shtml

People can tolerate a flip-flop or two, but Romney has flip-flopped on virtually everything - abortion, gun control, gay marriage, President Reagan, voting for Tsongas, etc. And it all occurred virtually within just the past two years. This is just shameless political expediency and says that he is kind of a hollow politician who does not have any core beliefs. And then his supporters use this excuse that somehow he had to run as a liberal in order to get elected in Massachusetts - who cares? Why didn't he just run for Governor of Massachusetts as a Democrat then? Romney seems like a very nice, charismatic person with a nice family, but how can anyone believe what he says? I would rather vote for H. Clinton over Romney, because at least I know where she stands on things. Romney doesn't appear to have any core convictions - just conversions on a lot of issues that appear to coincide with whatever political ambitions he has at any given time. The whole thing is just shady. It's contrived by his consultants and advisers who are desperate to get themselves into power.

To me, the sad thing is that Romney could have been a decent candidate. He previously ran and was elected as a centrist. He could have pointed to some accomplishments that would appeal to a wide variety of voters, such as the healthcare bill. And he could have played up his ability to compromise with the opposition party, which he had to do when governing Massachusetts.

But Mitt made all the wrong decisions. He regularly trashes the state that elected him and the state government that he led. He's completely changed his mind about all of his previous positions on the issues. He's focused his campaign on the religious right, the one sector of voters least likely to elect a Mormon. The result is that he looks like an opportunist and a flip-flopper. He's got no chance in this election.

The Boston Globe today reports that in 1994 Mitt was FOR Gun Control, but this past August he joined the NRA and is now AGAINST gun control.

Summary From Globe with Link
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/02/19/romney_joined_nra_in_august/

Mitt Romney, who has touted his support of gun owners since launching his presidential campaign, yesterday acknowledged he did not become a member of the National Rifle Association until last August, campaign officials said.

A former advocate of gun control, Romney during his 1994 run for the US Senate backed measures the gun-rights group opposed, such as a five-day waiting period on gun sales and a ban on certain assault weapons.

Romney's about to find himself a man without a country. There are lots of people who have "fluid beliefs" over the course of their careers, but this guy doesn't even know how to sell it to himself. He's also too stupid to realize that you don't have to buy a whole cow to repudiate vegetarianism. Moving in the direction of conservativism is one thing, but trying to become the new Phyllis Schlafly is ridiculous. A lifetime of peeing into the wind is about to blowback in his direction.

Romney's about to find himself a man without a country. There are lots of people who have "fluid beliefs" over the course of their careers, but this guy doesn't even know how to sell it to himself. He's also too stupid to realize that you don't have to buy a whole cow to repudiate vegetarianism. Moving in the direction of conservativism is one thing, but trying to become the new Phyllis Schlafly is ridiculous. A lifetime of peeing into the wind is about to blowback in his direction.

Romney's about to find himself a man without a country. There are lots of people who have "fluid beliefs" over the course of their careers, but this guy doesn't even know how to sell it to himself. He's also too stupid to realize that you don't have to buy a whole cow to repudiate vegetarianism. Moving in the direction of conservativism is one thing, but trying to become the new Phyllis Schlafly is ridicilous. A lifetime of peeing into the wind is about to blowback in his direction.

Mitt Romney is basically just a Republican John Kerry.

Apparently Romney was FOR the Democrats before he was against them?

His pandering to the far right is shameless political opportunism...hopefully voters will not be foolish enough to fall for it.

If the Republicans nominate him...Democrats will mop the floor with him.