I think today I am finally officially done with Romney
 

after seeing him toss out red meat soundbytes about Obama's middle east speech.

I just can't buy that he is a serious man.

Obama, I think, has increasingly shown that he is in fact a serious man. I certainly don't agree with much of what he has done. But I can respect that he is serious.

These are important times. Too important to lend our strength to men and women that are not sincere.

I feel the same way you do, except I got to that point years ago during the 2008 election cycle when Romney was hateful on the immigration issue. Whether I agreed with the substance of his comments was not important; it was the transparent pandering that made me practically vomit. The pandering is sickening.

Insincere is a perfect adjective for him.

I known four people who have associated or worked with the political Mitt Romney in person, and all four say there is no way they would ever vote for him.

I've also known two people who either had him as their stake president or as a family member's stake president, and they both think he's the greatest thing since the Commodore 64.

I guess if you hear someone give a powerful talk in church, and signs your temple recommends with a loving twinkle, it must mean that 17 years later he's as solid as a rock in every aspect of life, including the 90% of his life that transpires outside of the stake offices, and would be a beacon of gospel living in the White House. (Just kindly overlook the fact that this was NOT the case in the governor's mansion, for surely things would be different in Washington).

I didn't care for him very much, last time around, let me make that clear.

I was willing to give him a second chance, on the off-hand that maybe he had learned his lesson.

He has not. So I am done.

It may be that my views might best be described as "moderate Republican" anyway, so someone like Huntsman might be someone for me to take a look at.

There are likely many people that I would never vote for President (or another other office) that would be commendable in their church callings.

I don't vote for Presidents usually, I vote against the bigger evil.

Obama is wrong on all taxes that matter, he is wrong on health care reform and he is wrong on how he approaches military matters. He also appears to lack intellectual curiosity but merely regurgitates certain bloggers.

His approach to the mortgage mess made matters worse not better.

Those are the meaty matters. Yet it appears the Republicans don't want to win, so we will continue to suffer at the hands of Obama. I don't care how serious he is, if he's wrong on all substantial issues. That doesn't sound like a reason to vote for him.

I'd prefer a non-serious person who got it right on a few issues that are meaty and that affect us. Not impressed with Mitt, but at least he might get a few issues right.

Do you agree with Obama on how he sold out to the banking interests in order to make the collapse worse than it was previously?

Obama has actually done very little that a GOP president wouldn't have.

I think a GOP president would have sold out to banking interests faster and with more money.

Serious? Heh. I think this picture says all we need to know about Obama's seriousness vis-a-vis Israel.

http://d.yimg.com/a/p/rids/20110520/...4im6QZn8P82g--

In this you are mistaken. Bush for all his faults actuallty had a plan that would have succeeded in saving the homes for millions of homeowners. They had the plan and wanted to hand it over to Obama who was swayed by banking interestes to incentivize foreclosures whereas the Bush plan would have reduced principal. You are dead wrong on this issue. Obama is much worse.

Well, I am against using tax money to prop up the housing market by reducing principal.

That's BS. So I'm against Bush's liberal plan that rewards speculation and artificially inflates housing prices so that working families STILL can't afford homes.

It's not like I'm likely to vote for Obama. His anti-gun stance is probably a deal-breaker for me.