- Political opportunism. My problem is not that he’s a “flip-flopper”–I have absolutely no issue with politicians changing their minds. My problem is that his “flip-flops” are entirely coordinated to coincide with whatever office he happens to be running for at the time. He ran for Senator from Massachusetts and tried to position himself as “more liberal than Ted Kennedy,” particularly on the issue of gay marriage. Nearly ditto for abortion. As MA governor preparing to run for President, he tried to realign himself with the reactionist Christian Right. They defend his shift by saying that this time it “seems genuine,” but the truth of the matter is that he’s just appealing to their politics to get elected. But once Romney has the highest office this country offers, and he has no more offices to aspire to, what will his positions become then?
- Oh, yeah–he’s “flip-flopped” to the wrong side of the issues. In my opinion. That anti-gay-marriage speech he gave right after MA courts legalized it was pure reactionist politicizing and spoke of underlying intolerance.
- He’s trying to define himself purely as an “anti-” candidate. In interviews, such as that in the 8 October 2007 edition of Newsweek, he tries to dodge every issue that the reporter queries him on. How will he be different from Bush? He’ll analyze situations carefully. So does he think Bush doesn’t analyze? Oh, no no no, Bush analyzes. How is he different from the other GOP candidates? Well, all the candidates are different people with different approaches and slightly different opinions on all the issues. So how do they measure up to the Dems? Well, the collective GOP obviously has “the” answers, despite the fact that they apparently all have different answers.
- His background does not mesh with his current positions. Again, the 8 Oct 07 issue of Newsweek ran a cover story on Romney’s youth, religion, and career. They paint a picture of a principled, hardworking, family man, tolerant of other points of view and ways of life even as he devotes himself to his own religion and morals. I can absolutely respect that, we need more people in this country who fit that description. But I fail to see the parallels between his supposedly constant principles and tolerance and his current political positions. He now opposes gay marriage, a civil rights issue if there ever was one. His pandering to the Christian reactionaries essentially involves imposing a certain belief system on others, which is hardly tolerant and respectful of other ways of life. And if he keeps evading questions that pin him to particular positions (see above), how am I supposed to believe that he has maintained and will maintain a set of constant “core values” that will bring a positive influence to our national government?
- Iraq War waffling. He shimmies inexpertly between parroting Bushisms (“wait and see if the surge will work”) and saying that he might consider thinking about breaking with the failed Bush policies.
- France. Uhhh…if you are Mr. Data Analysis, where is your data and analysis on that? You’re just playing off on the outrageous “Freedom Fries” junk left over in the minds of simplistic Americans.
- He was venture capitalist. Yes, he was a very successful one in that he made gobs of money. But what do VCs do? They basically give a start-up company some funding, wait a few years, and then seize near-total ownership of the company and suck it dry of as much cash as they possibly can. Do I want a guy taking this approach to our federal government? Hecks no.