Romney 4.0: Etch a Sketch

[Anonymous]

Eric Fehrnstrom, Romney's senior campaign adviser, was asked in a CNN interview Wednesday morning whether the former Massachusetts governor had been forced to adopt conservative positions in the rugged race that could hurt his standing with moderates in November's general election. "I think you hit a reset button for the fall campaign. Everything changes," Fehrnstrom responded. "It's almost like an Etch A Sketch. You can kind of shake it up, and we start all over again."

Not only is Romney the most malleable politician out there. They actually consider it an asset. Do you?

[Anonymous]

Romney's platform is simple: "Do whatever helps my buddies get richer." Everything else is window dressing, and yes he will redecorate the minute he wins the nomination.

[Anonymous]

That's a good question. I think that one who presides over a nation with a variety of political viewpoints needs to be flexible, but also needs to have a set of principles that tell us something about the criteria that will guide decision-making.

Obama told us in his 2004 convention speech that he believed in a set of principles that flow through the red and blue states, thus preparing us for a centrist government grounded in liberal leaning policies. I (from my own liberal viewpoint) see him as overly flexible, but at least he gave warning that he would not be a liberal purist.

Romney, it seems to me, is so blatantly ready to change his opinions that we are on notice that he is ready to be even more of an accommodationist than Obama. I would certainly prefer that to a doctrinaire rightist, but I'd like a bit more clarity about what philosophy would guide his policies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That's a good question. I think that one who presides over a nation with a variety of political viewpoints needs to be flexible, but also needs to have a set of principles that tell us something about the criteria that will guide decision-making.

Obama told us in his 2004 convention speech that he believed in a set of principles that flow through the red and blue states, thus preparing us for a centrist government grounded in liberal leaning policies. I (from my own liberal viewpoint) see him as overly flexible, but at least he gave warning that he would not be a liberal purist.

Romney, it seems to me, is so blatantly ready to change his opinions that we are on notice that he is ready to be even more of an accommodationist than Obama. I would certainly prefer that to a doctrinaire rightist, but I'd like a bit more clarity about what philosophy would guide his policies.

I am a repub and I agree with you that steadfast/dogged principles that are not amenable to finding common ground is a negative especially for a POTUS. Obama is a very big accomodationist, but he made many large promises before office that he has since found are not possible with inside beltway politics and abandoned them. I dont think you would see very much less from Romney.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's a good question. I think that one who presides over a nation with a variety of political viewpoints needs to be flexible, but also needs to have a set of principles that tell us something about the criteria that will guide decision-making.

Obama told us in his 2004 convention speech that he believed in a set of principles that flow through the red and blue states, thus preparing us for a centrist government grounded in liberal leaning policies. I (from my own liberal viewpoint) see him as overly flexible, but at least he gave warning that he would not be a liberal purist.

Romney, it seems to me, is so blatantly ready to change his opinions that we are on notice that he is ready to be even more of an accommodationist than Obama. I would certainly prefer that to a doctrinaire rightist, but I'd like a bit more clarity about what philosophy would guide his policies.

I am a repub and I agree with you that steadfast/dogged principles that are not amenable to finding common ground is a negative especially for a POTUS. Obama is a very big accomodationist, but he made many large promises before office that he has since found are not possible with inside beltway politics and abandoned them. I dont think you would see very much less from Romney.

I don't think the issue is whether/how much a politician will attempt to compromise with opposing politicians, or to abandon goals based on the strength of the opposition.

Rather, I think it is whether the politician dramatically reverses his own professed beliefs, whenever it is politically expedient. How do you vote for a guy who has no core beliefs, or whose real beliefs are unfathomable?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's a good question. I think that one who presides over a nation with a variety of political viewpoints needs to be flexible, but also needs to have a set of principles that tell us something about the criteria that will guide decision-making.

Obama told us in his 2004 convention speech that he believed in a set of principles that flow through the red and blue states, thus preparing us for a centrist government grounded in liberal leaning policies. I (from my own liberal viewpoint) see him as overly flexible, but at least he gave warning that he would not be a liberal purist.

Romney, it seems to me, is so blatantly ready to change his opinions that we are on notice that he is ready to be even more of an accommodationist than Obama. I would certainly prefer that to a doctrinaire rightist, but I'd like a bit more clarity about what philosophy would guide his policies.

I am a repub and I agree with you that steadfast/dogged principles that are not amenable to finding common ground is a negative especially for a POTUS. Obama is a very big accomodationist, but he made many large promises before office that he has since found are not possible with inside beltway politics and abandoned them. I dont think you would see very much less from Romney.

I don't think the issue is whether/how much a politician will attempt to compromise with opposing politicians, or to abandon goals based on the strength of the opposition.

Rather, I think it is whether the politician dramatically reverses his own professed beliefs, whenever it is politically expedient. How do you vote for a guy who has no core beliefs, or whose real beliefs are unfathomable?

How does this differ from beliefs evolving over time? President Obama opposed gay marriage when he was running for office, supporting civil unions instead. At present he says his views are evolving. I imagine he will eventually support gay marriage publicly, and I imagine that privately he didn't really oppose it. I think there examples of this kind of thing in both major parties.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's a good question. I think that one who presides over a nation with a variety of political viewpoints needs to be flexible, but also needs to have a set of principles that tell us something about the criteria that will guide decision-making.

Obama told us in his 2004 convention speech that he believed in a set of principles that flow through the red and blue states, thus preparing us for a centrist government grounded in liberal leaning policies. I (from my own liberal viewpoint) see him as overly flexible, but at least he gave warning that he would not be a liberal purist.

Romney, it seems to me, is so blatantly ready to change his opinions that we are on notice that he is ready to be even more of an accommodationist than Obama. I would certainly prefer that to a doctrinaire rightist, but I'd like a bit more clarity about what philosophy would guide his policies.

I am a repub and I agree with you that steadfast/dogged principles that are not amenable to finding common ground is a negative especially for a POTUS. Obama is a very big accomodationist, but he made many large promises before office that he has since found are not possible with inside beltway politics and abandoned them. I dont think you would see very much less from Romney.

I don't think the issue is whether/how much a politician will attempt to compromise with opposing politicians, or to abandon goals based on the strength of the opposition.

Rather, I think it is whether the politician dramatically reverses his own professed beliefs, whenever it is politically expedient. How do you vote for a guy who has no core beliefs, or whose real beliefs are unfathomable?

How does this differ from beliefs evolving over time? President Obama opposed gay marriage when he was running for office, supporting civil unions instead. At present he says his views are evolving. I imagine he will eventually support gay marriage publicly, and I imagine that privately he didn't really oppose it. I think there examples of this kind of thing in both major parties.

Evolution is gradual change on one dimension on principle. Flip flopping is when you reverse course every time it suits your political future. We are talking about a guy who is planning his flip flops ahead of time.