Sound Politics Public Blog: I used to be indecisive...

January 16, 2008

I used to be indecisive...

...But now I'm not so sure. Apparently Mitt Romney isn't, either. Here's a great YouTube video I found about Romney's indecisive pandering for votes:

Yeah...I'm sorry, but I can't trust him. Someone please tell me why anyone would vote for this man.

-Cydney

Cross-posted on The Celebrity.

Posted by Cydney at January 16, 2008 04:13 PM | Email This

Comments

1. Michael Medved commented on how "democrat" he was sounding last night. I had thought the same thing before I heard Michael say it. No thanks, Mitt.

Posted by: Michele on January 16, 2008 05:10 PM

2. He is a corporate hack.

Posted by: Publicbulldog on January 16, 2008 06:19 PM

3. There is a comeback on the promise not to change Massachusett's pro-choice law.

Romney realized abortion is a hot button issue and Taxachusetts government is something like 80% liberal. If he proposed pro-life legislation it wouldn't go anywhere, so he promised as he did.

I also heard that pro-choice people became very displeased with Romney since he wasn't implementing their agenda the way they wanted. You decide from here.

I want Romney v. Giuliani man on man without the side distractions of McCain and Huckabee. Let the Republicans then decide which of the two top candidates are best. This current flirting with disaster of McCain-Lieberman and Huckabee is really not good. Hopefully, the stake will be driven in soon.

As a disclaimer, Duncan Hunter is my number 1 choice but I have to move on.

Michele, Michael Medved was also over the top on amnesty bill. He has been quite animated and is now overly exuberant on McCain. So, take Medved with a grain of salt.

Another thing to consider, why is the MSM going after Romney so hard? Just think about it.

Posted by: swatter on January 17, 2008 06:24 AM

4. I was a true conservative in Massachusetts who voted for Romney, and would do so again, depending on who he was running against. Especially if it was Huckabee (for the reasons why, see Fred's smackdown in the last debate).

As swatter said: Romney had two choices. Push pro-life views and not be elected, or promise not to, and be elected. I am glad he chose the latter.

You may notice that Romney did not say in the governor's race, "I am pro-choice" or "I believe in a woman's right to choose." Why do you think that is? Again, I WAS THERE. EVERYBODY believed that Romney was personally pro-life and was making a contract with the voters to not try to push that.

On guns, it's more questionable, but he's never been hostile to gun rights either.

As to that nonsense about "progressive," it's just a word, and it did not mean in 2002 what it means today. Hell, I consider myself a down-the-line "conservative," but my views on liberty are also very "liberal" and "progressive." It is just a word, and it is all about context.

Although, swatter, I am not sure why you think Giuliani is ahead of Romney ...

Posted by: pudge on January 17, 2008 11:39 AM

5. Romney is a corporate hack in bed with #&#^&%^*pharmacuetical companies..Ron Kaufman........................................................................................................................................
Need I say more

Posted by: Publicbulldog on January 18, 2008 07:53 PM