[ImJustAnotherOkie]

Say what you want about Romney. He was a Governor of a Liberal State. Being an elected official does not mean that you impose your will upon the electorate. It means you represent the electorate and protect the vulnerable. It was MA’s will he was enacting to a very large degree. He was solving their problems not the Nation’s.

[MeganC]

Say what YOU want about Romney. He either lacked principle as governor of Massachussetts or he betrayed his principles in order to obtain political expediency. Either way, I won’t be voting for the useless SOB.

[SoConPubbie]

Say what you want about Romney. He was a Governor of a Liberal State. Being an elected official does not mean that you impose your will upon the electorate. It means you represent the electorate and protect the vulnerable. It was MA’s will he was enacting to a very large degree. He was solving their problems not the Nation’s.

So is this the standard excuse for the following as well?

[Tublecane]

“Being an elected official does not mean that you impose your will upon the electorate. It means you represent the electorate and protect the vulnerable. It was MA’s will he was enacting to a very large degree. He was solving their problems not the Nation’s.”

Okay, but there are plenty of politicians who manage to do so without positively asserting that they agree with it, or even managing to look as if they’re not sick to their stomachs. Nor do they have to parrot the supposed opposition’s talking points, i.e. lies. Romney didn’t just go along with the will of Mass. voters (if it was, in fact, their will). He acted like it was his idea.

[uptoolate]

Say what you want about Romney. He was a Governor of a Liberal State. Being an elected official does not mean that you impose your will upon the electorate.

I would argue that a "Liberal electorate" would only elect one who is consistent with their will....as SoConPubbie has shown in his post #20.