If the final election were today

[NorCal Cat]

Originally Posted by woot

Romney I don't know as much about, other than the fact that his attitudes and policies as governor were 180 degrees from where they are now. It seems obvious to me that if a former governor performed poorly during his time in office that should place him below a candidate that has had less experience.

Did anyone else see Romney's Russert interview? Would anyone like to argue that it was not a complete disaster? How can you like that guy, experience notwithstanding, when his positions are so blatantly dishonest and only held in order to win votes? His dissembling when faced with his former self was a sight to behold. I also loved how quickly he backpedaled from his "freedom requires religion" bullshit when faced with a couple very obvious implications of such a ridiculous statement that he hadn't even considered. Even so, he refused to back away from it completely, preferring instead to hold two completely contradictory positions on the issue. I guess if it works for everything else...

What the hell are you talking about? Please grow a brain before you post again. What policies and attitudes as governor have changed 180 degrees? Are you even paying attention to ANYTHING about Romney? LMAO. Obviously not because one of his talking points is that people can look at his record as MA governor to see what his positions are regarding immigration, abortion, taxes, etc.

His interview was Russert was absolutely not a complete disaster. Give me a freaking break. He didn't backpedal from anything, he put it into context. Holy crap you are an ass.

[woot]

Originally Posted by NorCal Cat

What the hell are you talking about? Please grow a brain before you post again. What policies and attitudes as governor have changed 180 degrees? Are you even paying attention to ANYTHING about Romney? LMAO. Obviously not because one of his talking points is that people can look at his record as MA governor to see what his positions are regarding immigration, abortion, taxes, etc.

His interview was Russert was absolutely not a complete disaster. Give me a freaking break. He didn't backpedal from anything, he put it into context. Holy crap you are an ass.

Yea that's what I thought. Brainless drivel from a brainless dittohead. Romney can do no wrong, his thoughts on religion are completely intelligent and consistent, as are his policies. Nothing to see here.

[NorCal Cat]

Originally Posted by woot

Yea that's what I thought. Brainless drivel from a brainless dittohead. Romney can do no wrong, his thoughts on religion are completely intelligent and consistent, as are his policies. Nothing to see here.

Why don't you answer the question bonehead? What policies has Romney shifted 180 degrees on after being governor?

[NorCal Cat]

Wow, Obama is currently at 20%. Why in the world would anyone vote for him?

[woot]

Originally Posted by NorCal Cat

Why don't you answer the question bonehead? What policies has Romney shifted 180 degrees on after being governor?

Sorry if you're late to the conversation. We were talking about Romney's appearance on Meet the Press with Tim Russert. If you are seriously arguing that he has not changed his position on the various issues that Russert called him on, you've moved beyond fanboydom and should probably make sure you've got condoms with you at all times in case you happen to run into him.

As others in this thread have demonstrated, one can support a candidate without pretending their obvious weaknesses don't exist.

[NorCal Cat]

Originally Posted by woot

Sorry if you're late to the conversation. We were talking about Romney's appearance on Meet the Press with Tim Russert. If you are seriously arguing that he has not changed his position on the various issues that Russert called him on, you've moved beyond fanboydom and should probably make sure you've got condoms with you at all times in case you happen to run into him.

As others in this thread have demonstrated, one can support a candidate without pretending their obvious weaknesses don't exist.

Of course he has weaknesses, every candidate does.

Apparently you can't name a position he has done a 180 on compared to what he did as governor. All bark and no bite. Thank you very much, please drive through.

[woot]

Originally Posted by NorCal Cat

Of course he has weaknesses, every candidate does.

Apparently you can't name a position he has done a 180 on compared to what he did as governor. All bark and no bite. Thank you very much, please drive through.

Abortion. Yes, I know that he's always been morally against it, just as most people are. His legislative position, which he promised to never change, has changed. Did you not watch the interview or are you just trying to annoy me?

[NorCal Cat]

Originally Posted by woot

Abortion. Yes, I know that he's always been morally against it, just as most people are. His legislative position, which he promised to never change, has changed. Did you not watch the interview or are you just trying to annoy me?

Wrong. You said "his attitudes and policies as governor were 180 degrees from where they are now." His legislative position on abortion as governor is the same as it is now. Why do you think he tells people to look at his record on abortion as governor, if they want to know what he would do as Pres?

He did change his legislative position on abortion from what he campaigned on as governor though.

[woot]

Originally Posted by NorCal Cat

Wrong. You said "his attitudes and policies as governor were 180 degrees from where they are now." His legislative position on abortion as governor is the same as it is now. Why do you think he tells people to look at his record on abortion as governor, if they want to know what he would do as Pres?

He did change his legislative position on abortion from what he campaigned on as governor though.

Oh so he actually flipped immediately after promising not to? That's worse. How far into his administration did he do the 180? Before or after he decided to run for president? How does his record show us when this change took place? What relevant bills crossed his desk? A quick search turns up a stem cell bill that he vetoed because he doesn't understand what cloning means (not abortion-related), and two contraceptive pill bills, one of which he signed, the other of which he vetoed. That's not exactly a great record to point to.

Either way, he absolutely is running on a platform that is the complete opposite of the platform that got him elected in MA. If, as you claim, he did it even while governor there, that seems even worse. Pander to get elected, decide not to run for a second term, then do whatever the hell you want, regardless of your constituency.

[NorCal Cat]

Originally Posted by woot

Oh so he actually flipped immediately after promising not to? That's worse. How far into his administration did he do the 180? Before or after he decided to run for president? How does his record show us when this change took place? What relevant bills crossed his desk? A quick search turns up a stem cell bill that he vetoed because he doesn't understand what cloning means (not abortion-related), and two contraceptive pill bills, one of which he signed, the other of which he vetoed. That's not exactly a great record to point to.

Either way, he absolutely is running on a platform that is the complete opposite of the platform that got him elected in MA. If, as you claim, he did it even while governor there, that seems even worse. Pander to get elected, decide not to run for a second term, then do whatever the hell you want, regardless of your constituency.

Why don't you learn something about his change on the abortion issue before you rip him for it? He's already explained time and time again that his position about the role government should play regarding abortion changed when the stem cell bill crossed his desk because it made him realize the ways the sanctity of life has been cheapened.