Not what I said at all.
But just repeating the mantra "Change change change" means diddley -
Mitt's letter has no armature, let alone substance
The same can be said of any position statement, by any candidate, taken alone. For example: "Security, Unity, Prosperity " - means diddly by itself. The question is, given the stated general position, has the candidate proposed viable policy ideas to achieve it? The armature and structure must be sought in those intended policies.
In this case, it is more than "change, change, change", but some specific things that Romney thinks needs to change. Spending excess. Ethical behavior. Border enforcement. I agree that these things do need to change, and now I shall look to see how he proposes to change them. And, since they are "front of mind", I shall also see how the other candidates still on my list are addressing them.
So, let me ask you; if the signature at the bottom of this letter had been Fred Thompson or Duncan Hunter, would you have written your post, with its cute little urinating sheep? Would you have just agreed and moved on? Or would you have looked to see if they had proposed actions that synced with the changes they said they desired?
Are you criticizing the position, or are you just criticizing the candidate taking it?
James Carville: "It's a feel-good story, this Romney thing. Romney is an ascendant guy."