Replies

"To Mitt Romney, politics is just another product," says Jeffrey Berry, a professor of politics at Tufts University and longtime Romney watcher. "Products can be recast, reshaped and remarketed in endless ways. Now, that might sound cynical, but Mitt isn't a charlatan. He's simply had so much success in the business world that his approach in that realm seems like the natural way of doing things."

This is Mitt's real problem. He really does see it this way.

To win, Mitt needs to tell us what he really believes and make us believe he won't flipflop on those issues.

A pol can make over his image and even many positions he's held. But he has to convince the voters that he's sincere and has some real passion for subjects they care about.

Currently, Mitt is a little too scripted. He's almost a little punchy, he's been drilled so much by his campaign team.

He won't get the nomination unless a lot of us get a strong feeling that we really know who Mitt is and what he really believes. One of the things I wonder about is what Mitt will really do once in office. He's just so, well, flexible.

I thought earlier in the campaign, we saw more of the real Mitt at times. For instance, in that one debate, he was asked about the actions of Catholic bishops and he said, very off the cuff, that it was none of his business what Catholic bishops said or thought. Clearly, he also meant he didn't care what they thought about Mormon bishops. It was a very good answer. It was a very honest and unscripted kind of answer. I had the impression that I knew exactly what he thought about that subject. Mitt needs to do a lot more of that.

Being an undisciplined candidate will lose you an election. But being overscripted is a problem too. A candidate has to find the right balance before a huge variety of audiences.

A candidate has to find the right balance before a huge variety of audiences.

And Mitt has connected better than anyone else with a majority of people in the early primary states. I'd say, he's doing pretty well. I am sure the other candidates would jump at the chance to change places with him if they could be leading in those states.

While I don't often disagree with you, in this case, I do disagree with the bulk of what you said. Perhaps, if all we had to go on were his words or his debate performances, you'd be right. However, we have his actual record as governor by which to judge him. His record as governor is the best indicator of his future actions. Actions speak louder than mere words.

He governed dark blue Massachusetts in a very conservative fashion. That's a lot harder to do than in a red state.

As that great FReeper, Plutarch, once said:
"Being pro-life as a Republican Senator from Tennessee isn't heavy political lifting, it is more like rolling off a log. Romney in Massachusetts was fighting upstream against raging left-wing rapids, while Thompson (R-TN) was drifting lazily along barely paddling downstream along Tennessee's right wing current."

The chances of him going backwards or retreating from this conservative course are slim to none when he's already weathered the storm in such a hostile environment and proven his commitment. As Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe put it: "Romney’s very public migration rightward over the last few years is . . . intended not to hide his real views but to liberate them."

Basically, people lazily focus on words or a certain style rather than looking at the real record and his current platform. Mitt doesn't get enough credit for his actual record and the things he did on behalf of the pro-life and pro-family causes. READ THIS. It documents many of the conservative actions taken by Romney while governor and is a testimony to the support he has received from conservatives who ACTUALLY know him and worked with him.