I think Mitt is in the end a pragmatist. That is why he worked well with the left wing Massachusetts legislature. He can stand on principle, but has the ability to play nice with all sides-the left wing Democrats as well as the right wing Republicans. Contrast that with our current president, who cannot work with the opposition, and who then skips the whole legislative process, and rewrites laws himself. And this guy used to be a constitutional law lecturer! NEW PARAGRAPH: It is a common thread to use the abortion issue to illustrate Romney's lack of core values. But why is this test never put to the Democrats? Bill Clinton, Al Gore and Joe Biden all began life in politics as pro life. But their switch is never questioned. Why is that?

First of all Mitt doesn't believe in anything to be quite frank.  Second I don't have a big problem with that.  There is very little I believe in whole heartedly.  Mitt's problem is there is nothing he really opposses either.  He is a man who does not "want" to be President of these United States, he "needs" to be.  It is not about a desire to take the country somewhere it is about Mitt.  Mitt likes to say he worked with the Mass. Democratic legislature.  I lived in Mass. when Mitt was governor.  I can only recall one piece of legislation he got through, Romneycare.  Everything else was passed in the legislature over his veto.  His record in Mass. was so poor he didn't run for re-election.  His favorable when he left was 34 percent.  The man couldn't have won re-election.  How's he doing in the Presidential race in Mass?  He's not even competeing.

Mitt I honestly believe is a psychologically flawed candidate.  He finds himself constantly being accused of flip-flopping and has done it so often no one no longer takes offense.  I have consistently said I am biased.  I do not like Mitt Romney the man.  He publicly shows a deep seated lack of integrity, a personality not fully formed.  I won't vote for Mitt because I don't like him. It's not policy.  It's the man.  

And we go back  to our Congress.It's a problem when considering a vote for Romney and its a huge problem when considering a vote for  Scot Brown.

Our post-Obama, conservative backlash against the Other, and the "he's-not-one-of-us" mentality brings us right into this mess.

Romney believes he should be president and will say absolutely anything to get people to vote for him. Ultimately I don't believe I have much to fear from a Romney presidency as his tenure in MA showed, but I do have a lot to fear with the GOP in control of the decisions that affect my wife, mother, and daughter. The GOP of today is in the thrall of an American taliban, and unless they can re-center their once-great party they, or the American people, will suffer.

We know what Mitt believes in; it's in a video file; he thinks most of us are freeloaders and dead beats. That is the real Mitt. It will be a shameful day if he is elected Plutocrat of the United States.

A politician that signs Grover Norquist's pledge becomes beholden to Grover Norquist.  They are no longer able to think first about the state that elected them, only about the pledge.  Voters should reject any politician who is willing to be beholden first to Grover Norquist.

Guys, I'd be very interested to hear from Romney supporters about what they consider his core beliefs. It really is a mystery to me, even on economics, where he gives voice to the official freshwater doctrines, but then on unguarded moments, seems like a closet Keynesian. Scot

Waytoo: This is an adult conversation today. If you want to participate, please use your big boy voice.

I think one of the problems is that Romney actually has a record of 20 years that you can go back and parse and wonder about.  Obama had no such record, or at least it was ignored/buried. Obama is allowed to "evolve" and have his words put "in context" when he shows his true colors yet Romney is held to a much higher standard. In the end, I think he will stand up and he is more a centrist, especially compared to far left Obama and Pelosi, Reid, and Schumer crew. How come Obama does not get questioned on why he does not stand up to them?

The true character of Romney is the countless selfless stories about him. Is he tough - you do not get to the top of Bain w/out being VERY smart and VERY tough.

Scot - OT - the jay Greene article did have some good points. The one thing he does not point out is the power of the unions. Membership grows, dues grows, clout grows. No way they would like to substitute ATM technology (yes a dig at Obama) for dues paying members. Also, investment has increased greatly as well. Ther ewill be no change until we can figure out a way to get the unions out of the middle. Unions, not teachers.

Begolf: True, Mitt has a record, but as someone who has backed Mitt in the past and thought he was a very good candidate, my problem is that he has abandoned (or at very least, temporarily orphaned) much of what made him seem like a good candidate to me. Which only reinforced my question: What, down deep, does he really believe? Beyond the broadbrush stuff in today's column, I honestly don't know.

It's simple. Romney believes in a good job for Romney. He has money, now he needs adulation, to go down in history. He needs the top job in the land. So how he does it is obviously secondary. That's why all the retractions, shifts. His own party didn't even like him in the primaries for this reason. As it happened, the other candidates were worse, luckily for Mitt. You notice now system's here with the "shape shifter" stuff. The old GOP game, turn the tables.

I appreciate some of the more toned-down commentary today.  And in the spirit of offering an olive-branch to the red jerseys, I would fully agree that Obama is not perfect, in any number of ways.  And yes, he should be accountable for his decisions.  But any accounting of any politician is only going to happen in the context of the biases of the person doing the accounting.  The extremes on either side of the debate are going to have quite different tallies as to the deficits of the politician.  To the extent that Mr. Romney is clearly documented as being a moving target regarding his position on a lengthy list of topics, this should give his home team just as much concern as it does the opposing team.  I come away with this notion.  I can be sympathetic, philosophically, to the vague parameters of individual responsibility and small government which are invoked by the republicans.  I think more often than not those positions get stretched too far away from the equally important attention to community which is on the other side of the debate.  The Republican platform is Exhibit A of that problem.  Their candidate, Romney, fails to offer a strong, clear voice which intelligently formulates the issues.  As I said earlier, I believe that is because of fundamental failings in him as an individual.  But as I step back from all of the conversation about the two candidates, I also am reminded of the fact that neither one of them will be operating in a vacuum.  The system is such that the President is only one voice among many.

“He believes in fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets,” says a former adviser. “Beyond that, he doesn’t have many ideological beliefs."  The accumulation of wealth is the highest achievement man can attain on earth before ascending to the Planet Kolob to dwell with the Heavenly Father for eternity.

It would seem to me that in the AAA game last night Biden edged Ryan although his obnoxious antics made me sick. Romney is at his core a realist.  He is a numbers guy and thats why he hammered Obama in the main event, substance and style over a guy without a speech.  The suggestion that he could, even if he wanted to, go after the mortgage interest deduction is laughable.  All he needs to do is keep the focus on his plan, you know that thing the president does not have. 

The real difference here is that Romney and Ryan showed up to debate the issues and put forward their plans to fix the many problems that we have.  Obama stared at his shoes and couldnt remember why in 4 years he has been unable to accomplish anything on the economic front.  Biden put on an act to rally the troops.  He showed a very good command of the "stage" but he didnt debate.  He tried to scare people into continuing down his see nothing/do nothing approach and hope our problems go away. 

For the next debate the Democrats need to have the president play sick and put in Biden.  Romney would eat his lunch.  The other way to get the president interested would be to have him pretend he is on one of his talk shows like ellen or letterman.  Pop Tv seems to motivate this guy to at least be awake.  Granted he doesnt need to think, which is a weak point but the excitement level will be there for him.

Slick Mitt believes in whatever will make the sale.

Good article, Scot -- and I like the way you participate in the comments.

I would love to see a comparable article: What Does Obama really Believe?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/opinion/sunday/a-quantum-theory-of-mitt-romney.html?_r=0

on a fun note, anyone see Jason Werth's at bat last night?

Strikes me as curious that the Globe writers tag a Republican (Mitt R.) that alters his positions during the course of his career as a 'flip-flopper' and one who cannot be trusted with power. However, when a favored Democrat (Elizabeth W.) transformers herself from being a Corporate Lawyer representing large Insurance Companies and Mining companies (protecting their profits from claimants and injured employees) into the self- proclaimed protector of the middle-class.....she is then portrayed as having 'grown' and 'gained wisdom'.

The Globe has no rightful claim as an objective news outlet.

While we are on "flip-flops".......regarding E. Warrens compensation and claims of transparency: "The campaign for Democratic Senate hopeful Elizabeth Warren said Friday (9/23/2011) she had been paid $192,722 for serving as chairman of a congressional committee that monitored the 2008 federal bank bailout, three times as much as had originally been acknowledged. The Warren campaign revised the figure following a POLITICO report on Thursday, highlighting the fact that the Congressional Oversight Panel, which oversaw the TARP program, has not publicly disclosed exactly how it spent $10.5 million on salaries, travel, consultants and other expenses. Warren said she now supports public access to the oversight panel’s records, though her campaign wouldn’t say if she plans to actively push to open up the records." Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/64306.html#ixzz2978ebIPx

"system"  I can't ignore this as much as I'd like to. You said,    "Attaturk, No one has posted more explicit comments at Boston.com or BostonGlobe.com in support of Obama than I have. No one. I'm prisoner to my core principles..."

That is the most blatantly outrageous statement I've seen you write.  Yes indeed on foreign policy you have supported Obama's support of Bush's actions.  Beyond that the names you've called the man would get you shot somewhere else in the world.

As to core principles, the only core principles you have are the ones that lead you to support a single party, a single idea.  I'm not even sure if they are principles. I'm not even sure they are yours.  Where'd you get them from a gift from heaven or are they principles you've learned from others, so are they yours?

Where are your principles when Romney flip-flops?  You have none.  You say, "he never flipped on policy, name one piece of legislation."  Knowing full well the man doesn't have any legislation.  He flips on what he says he believes.  You might have a chance of writing something decent if you could just get off your ideological stool and view the world objectively.

You are the disappointing student, the one who might have talent, but is so busy playing the class clown he gets nothing of value out. 

That's my rant.  Knock yourself out with your silly as usual response.  Do you really think folks ask you to write like an adult because they don't like you.  Probably and I'm probably just wasting time.  Forget it right the nonsense.

scot - pulling my reply out as this thread has gotten long:

I read a good description of Romney's approach, fwiw. Forget who said it, but they said given his business background (consulting, PE), he has encountered different problems and has to approach each one differently. WHile that works in biz, especially consulting and PE, maybe that style is what causes the confusion.

Romney's like New England weather. Don't like one of his positions?  Just wait a few minutes.

Mitt is no different than he has ever been.  There is not a position he has seen that he doesn't like.  The man is the living embodiement of the political Kama Sutra.  His supporters will say no, he's never changed a policy decision.  Well, no he hasn't made any policy decisions to change, but he has made statements.  What Mitt does is worse than changing policy.  He literally changes what he believes.  It is why I dislike Mitt.  It is my memories of him from living in Mass.  His support for gay rights, he was the gayest of the gay supporters, at least according to Mitt.  He support pro-choice.  He was gonna cut my taxes.  By george he did, he also raised the cost of doc. stamps, licenses, and every other fee he could imagine, costing me far more money in the long run.  And now he supports nothing he supported here in Mass.  I don't like Mitt, not because of Mitt's policies, but because there is no Mitt.

As President there will be no President Romney, there will be just this guy who answers to the loudest craziest person in the room.  My portfolio has recovered from the disaster of Bush.  I don't want to revisit that situation again.  I'm not voting some special interest.  I'm voting my pocketbook, the results of the last four years.  And I'm voting against Mitt because I don't like him for the very fact that there is no "belief" in the man.

What does Mitt Romney really believe?

Behavior is a more accurate indication of belief than self-report.

The only thing that we know he believes is that most people are guillible and have very short memories, 

because it's very clear that Mitt has always acted on this assumption.

Let's hope, for the country and the world, that we don't let a pathological liar and panderer into the White House.

These comments are full of some bizarre stuff. It keeps being thrown around (perhaps this was explained earlier, but I couldn't find it) that Obama "threatened to bring a gun to a debate". The only reference to this in pages and pages of Google results on the search "obama "bring a gun" debate" was to the statement he made that " "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun" referring to Republican attacks and quoted, of course, on foxnews.com. That's metaphor, folks. Don't you people understand metaphor??? No one is talking about bringing and actual gun to an actual debate. To believe that is called "concrete thinking" something that is usually a sign of low intelligence. In this case, though, to take this quote literally is simply an attempt at character assassination and out-of-context quotations. Same as the "you didn't build that" comment which referred to the roads and bridges that entrepreneurs need for their business but didn't build themselves. It's intended for simpletons - don't be misled.

no msm bias here

http://www.redstate.com/2012/10/09/chucktodd-and-the-incest-conspiracy/