So, Mitt Romney, What Do You Really Believe?

[Political Junky]

The Economist, the Conservative magazine, puts the question to Willard.
>
Too much about the Republican candidate for the presidency is far too mysterious
When Mitt Romney was governor of liberal Massachusetts, he supported abortion, gun control, tackling climate change and a requirement that everyone should buy health insurance, backed up with generous subsidies for those who could not afford it. Now, as he prepares to fly to Tampa to accept the Republican Party’s nomination for president on August 30th, he opposes all those things. A year ago he favored keeping income taxes at their current levels; now he wants to slash them for everybody, with the rate falling from 35 percent to 28 percent for the richest Americans.
All politicians flip-flop from time to time; but Mr. Romney could win an Olympic medal in it (see "Mitt Romney’s chances: The changing man"). And that is a pity, because this newspaper finds much to like in the history of this uncharismatic but dogged man, from his obvious business acumen to the way he worked across the political aisle as governor to get health reform passed and the state budget deficit down. We share many of his views about the excessive growth of regulation and of the state in general in America, and the effect that this has on investment, productivity and growth. After four years of soaring oratory and intermittent reforms, why not bring in a more businesslike figure who might start fixing the problems with America’s finances?

Read more: So, Mitt Romney, What Do You Really Believe? - Business Insider

 

[courseofhistory]

The Economist, the Conservative magazine, puts the question to Willard.
>
Too much about the Republican candidate for the presidency is far too mysterious
When Mitt Romney was governor of liberal Massachusetts, he supported abortion, gun control, tackling climate change and a requirement that everyone should buy health insurance, backed up with generous subsidies for those who could not afford it. Now, as he prepares to fly to Tampa to accept the Republican Party’s nomination for president on August 30th, he opposes all those things. A year ago he favored keeping income taxes at their current levels; now he wants to slash them for everybody, with the rate falling from 35 percent to 28 percent for the richest Americans.
All politicians flip-flop from time to time; but Mr. Romney could win an Olympic medal in it (see "Mitt Romney’s chances: The changing man"). And that is a pity, because this newspaper finds much to like in the history of this uncharismatic but dogged man, from his obvious business acumen to the way he worked across the political aisle as governor to get health reform passed and the state budget deficit down. We share many of his views about the excessive growth of regulation and of the state in general in America, and the effect that this has on investment, productivity and growth. After four years of soaring oratory and intermittent reforms, why not bring in a more businesslike figure who might start fixing the problems with America’s finances?

Read more: So, Mitt Romney, What Do You Really Believe? - Business Insider

I've always said that Romney is an opportunist and will do what he needs to do to advance himself--noting really unethical or illegal but at the same time, he bends and shapes himself to suit his needs. He needed to have a governorship under his belt so he ran in MA and became a RINO. Precisely because I think he will cave to the interests of the far right of the republican party is why I won't vote for him. I voted for McCain because I felt he was more true to his moderate convictions and would stick with them. At least with him I knew what I was getting and that he'd likely be fair to women and minorities. Not so with Romney!

 

[The Rabbi]

The Economist, the Conservative magazine, puts the question to Willard.
>
Too much about the Republican candidate for the presidency is far too mysterious
]

Coming from a Dem that's way, way, too ironic.

 

[editec]

FWIW I do not think the Economist is a "conservative" magazine.

Neither is it a liberal magazine.

The Economist appears to support politicies that its staff believes makes sense.

Pragamatism isn't leftist or rightist.

It is not hobbled by such ideological nonsense as most of you partisans are.

The Economist is one of the only two magazine subscription I ever had.

For those of you seeking a better understanding of economics and the business and international issues of the day, there is no magazine I could more highly recommend.

 

[martybegan]

The Economist, the Conservative magazine, puts the question to Willard.
>
Too much about the Republican candidate for the presidency is far too mysterious
When Mitt Romney was governor of liberal Massachusetts, he supported abortion, gun control, tackling climate change and a requirement that everyone should buy health insurance, backed up with generous subsidies for those who could not afford it. Now, as he prepares to fly to Tampa to accept the Republican Party’s nomination for president on August 30th, he opposes all those things. A year ago he favored keeping income taxes at their current levels; now he wants to slash them for everybody, with the rate falling from 35 percent to 28 percent for the richest Americans.
All politicians flip-flop from time to time; but Mr. Romney could win an Olympic medal in it (see "Mitt Romney’s chances: The changing man"). And that is a pity, because this newspaper finds much to like in the history of this uncharismatic but dogged man, from his obvious business acumen to the way he worked across the political aisle as governor to get health reform passed and the state budget deficit down. We share many of his views about the excessive growth of regulation and of the state in general in America, and the effect that this has on investment, productivity and growth. After four years of soaring oratory and intermittent reforms, why not bring in a more businesslike figure who might start fixing the problems with America’s finances?

Read more: So, Mitt Romney, What Do You Really Believe? - Business Insider

Its because Massachusetts is a state that wants all those things. At the Federal level he knows the people in general do not want those things, especially down south and in the midwest. Like Chris Christie he knows the difference between a position you have at the state level, and the position you hold at the federal level.

Once again, the answer is federalism.