Romney had a different opinion on FEMA few months ago. Now he is changing his words. Clearly he could not stand up for his own words. So, is he trust worthy enough to be elected as a president?(link)
It will be incredibly interesting to see if he gets elected, because his real opinions will finally become evident. He's changed his stances on so many issues, its simply astounding. On several matters, he claims, "the politicians of my state came to a consensus about (insert issue here), and I supported it." This meaning, he put apparent voter interest in front of his own beliefs, and changed his views in each consequent example, to match their choices. Rather than acting as a firm and convicted politician, he pandered to voters. This is exactly what we've see now with FEMA. This is exactly what we saw with gun control. In this primary case, Massachusetts citizens voted to enact stricter gun-control in their state, and he firmly supported it when the legislation crossed his office. However today, he stands mute about gun-control. Coincidence that one of his main supporters/financial backers is the NRA?
There have been some occasions when I was almost inclined to agree with some of Mitt Romney's talking points, some of them make at least a modicum of sense. In the abstract I could potentially back a movement in disaster relief and preparedness towards state control, but if this movement will only apply in times without disasters, that I cannot oblige. If Romney were content to pick a single side of issues (and maybe even get some facts behind them), I could be interested to hear what his ideas are, but as long as he is trying to be both for and against FEMA, the bailout, tax cuts, spending cuts and military expansion in the middle east, I simply do not feel like I can trust him.
I would also like to point out that the NYTimes articles from the last week or so are significantly more blatant about they're Romney bashing, and Obama support than in the previous two months. They are beginning to let their bias show, and even if they are correct about everything they are saying, it would still be better for them to at least pretend to maintain a facade of unbiased reporting.
It will be incredibly interesting to see if he gets elected, because his real opinions will finally become evident. He's changed his stances on so many issues, its simply astounding. On several matters, he claims, "the politicians of my state came to a consensus about (insert issue here), and I supported it." This meaning, he put apparent voter interest in front of his own beliefs, and changed his views in each consequent example, to match their choices. Rather than acting as a firm and convicted politician, he pandered to voters. This is exactly what we've see now with FEMA. This is exactly what we saw with gun control. In this primary case, Massachusetts citizens voted to enact stricter gun-control in their state, and he firmly supported it when the legislation crossed his office. However today, he stands mute about gun-control. Coincidence that one of his main supporters/financial backers is the NRA?
ReplyDeleteThere have been some occasions when I was almost inclined to agree with some of Mitt Romney's talking points, some of them make at least a modicum of sense. In the abstract I could potentially back a movement in disaster relief and preparedness towards state control, but if this movement will only apply in times without disasters, that I cannot oblige. If Romney were content to pick a single side of issues (and maybe even get some facts behind them), I could be interested to hear what his ideas are, but as long as he is trying to be both for and against FEMA, the bailout, tax cuts, spending cuts and military expansion in the middle east, I simply do not feel like I can trust him.
ReplyDeleteI would also like to point out that the NYTimes articles from the last week or so are significantly more blatant about they're Romney bashing, and Obama support than in the previous two months. They are beginning to let their bias show, and even if they are correct about everything they are saying, it would still be better for them to at least pretend to maintain a facade of unbiased reporting.