So.... I saw the thread headline and wanted to post a reoccurring thought I keep having in here. First, I should say that I did not back read any of these posts (too long and not enough time).... maybe later. Sorry if this has all been asked before.....
Ok so, I have this strange feeling that if Romney actually wins this election, that he will revert back to that liberal Massachusetts Gov. I think he will be at the mercy of Congress, just like Obama is now, so if the Repubs keep their choke hold on Congress after Nov., I think they are going to be disappointed with their elected representative. If the D's take control, we may see more actions leaning towards the liberal side of the scale than any R thought he/she was voting for.
Romney has flipped so many times it could only be to appease the R's so he could secure the nod but now that he has it, he's dropping a whole lot of hints that he is not going to follow through with the R's requests. I think what confused Obama at last night's debate was Romney's denial that he's going to do some of the things his camp and his conservative backers say he is. I think Obama was expecting an argument but instead got "I'm not going to do that" from Romney.
So which is the TRUE Mitt? One spewing exactly what the conservatives want to hear or the man who fought for, spoke out for (or against if that implies) and implimented as many of these following issues as he could when he was leading Massachusetts?
My quickly generated list (google if there are doubts... if that doesn't work, let me know and I'll find my sources)......
He IS pro choice, even his sister swears that Mitt's administration would never make abortion illegal and that Mitt would never take away any women's rights, unlike his buddies in Congress. He even refused pro life endorsements in Mass.
He is all for Stem Cell Research
He wants minimum wage to reflect inflation
Is personally financially invested in Fannie May and Freddie Mac
Is proud that his Dad marched with MLK
Was once for gays serving openly in military
He supports gay rights and same sex marriage (he forced an executive order for gay marriage in Mass)
He refused to support Bush's 10 year tax cut plan
He opposed the Flat Tax
He believes in Climate Change and blames humans for it and has been quoted as saying we must urgently stop contributing towards it including supporting a plan to limit carbon emissions
He works well with Dems like Ted Kennedy
Is for universal healthcare (Romneycare)
He's been called a socialist by members of his own party
His view on energy is liberal too, for ethanol, carbon taxes, cap and trade
He is for Religious freedom
He's against privatizing Social Security and against cutting SS benefits
Against restructuring SS or medicare for current retirees and those close to retiring.
Against raising taxes and raising retirement age
Stated needing more jails, more police, less guns
He basically dodged going to Vietnam...
“I was not planning on signing up for the military. It was not my desire to go off and serve in Vietnam" May '94Has been quoted as supporting amnesty for illegal aliens (who pay taxes) should become permanent citizens
He has spoken against the NRA, including supporting an assault weapon ban
Is for DEPT of Education and for No child left behind"
Is FOR campaign spending limits and wants to limit lobbying in DC
Likes Mandates... lol
Was all for econ stimulus packages
Claims he was an Independent during Reagan/Bush and was quoted as not wanting to return to that era
Quoted as being against "tax cuts for fat cats"
I could go on all night....
So, what do you think..... do actions speak louder than words? Do actions speak louder than words when that persons words have been documented to take both or all sides of these issues? Will Mitts actual record outweigh the "promises" he's preaching now? Is Mitt's camp promising one thing while Mitt is saying another? Seems every time Mitt speaks with his heart, his camp quickly "clarifies" Mitt's intended meaning.