Great column.

Obama's positions evolves - Romney Flip Flops.

So where is the follow up story to the Benghazi attack (that we had forces able to respond)  - I assume the Globe is safely holding this story until after the election.

Hopefully the people of Ohio will not be fooled as the people of Massachusetts were fooled by Mitt in 2002 and then ultimately used for Mitt's political aspirations.    

All true and scary. I saw something recently that these last minute deciders (who seem to smuggly take pride in the fact that they are just more "thoughtful" than the rest of us "idealogues") actually base their decision on which candidate has the look and presentation that he is winning. They simply want to be able to say they voted for the winner.

The master shape-shifter -- by the way, this a bad thing -- would morph into a socialist if it would win him the election.

It is sad to see Scot pick up the tired narrative that Mitt has "morphed".  Please Scot, you insult the intelligence of your readers.  Particularly because you view these "morphs" as more newsworthy than the scandalous incompetence that has been Obama's handling of the Benghazi attacks.  The Globe writes stories about Staples and the Romney testimony in a divorce case, but nary a word about the timeline of the cables and emails to Washington as the consulate was being attacked.  This is truly the Twilight Zone.

Scot can make a case about this comment or that, but Mitt's overriding plans for office are still fully true, and that is what America is voting for:  Repeal of Obamacare, increased production of oil and natural gas, more business friendly policies, and lower tax rates with fewer deductions, exemptions and loopholes.

Scot also suggests that Romney would not lower the amount of taxes paid by the wealthy, and calls this a "morphing".  No Scot, it is a very simple and proven tenet of tax policy.  Every time rates have been lowered, the amount of taxes paid by the wealthy goes higher.  Are the tax rates of today not the most progressive ever?  Nearly half the population pays no income taxes, and about 60% of the taxes are paid by the top 5%.  Clearly, Mitt said that to refute the notion that lower rates equals less revenue.  That is a politcal construct that is disproven by history.

You know, I've been thinking about this Todd "Achtun" guy in Missouri, and I think he may have stumpled on a way to free up some time and manpower in our overloaded court systems. You see, if he believes that the femaile body (with the help of god, no doubt)has a way of rejecting pregnancy in the event of "legitimate" rape, then the corrolary would be that if the pregnancy takes hold, then the woman claiming rape must have been lying and the alleged rapist must be set free without further ado. Further SHE must now be prosecuted for falsly claiming that she was raped. "Achtung!!"

I'm not sure which is worse, the Obama campaigns inability to make hay of Romney's blatant lies, or the media's unwillingness to call Romney out on it. I appreciate your efforts here, Scott. It's hard to fathom how a guy can completely change things he said -- on nearly every conceivable issue -- from just a few months ago, and people shrug and think "politicians evolve". This isn't evolution. This is Fehrstrom knowing flat out that he can etch-a-sketch his candidate and "fact checkers" are irrelevant. This will be the model for the future, if he pulls it off.

The close race in Ohio belies what Obama did for an industry that supplies one in eight working people in that state with their livelihood. Although everything you say is correct, it's not Mitt's level of veracity or integrity -- or should I say his obvious lack thereof --but rather the integral issue of the color of the President's skin, which Ohio voters seemingly have to reckon with. How else to explain the closeness of the Presidential race amongst what appears to be some very ungrateful voters.

Instead of using states as islands of different countries maybe we should have a little more confidence in the American voter.  It is true there is a consistant minority that do not get out much to see that others need legitamate help from time to time from their fellow citizens and can visualize that perhaps circumstance might deal them the same fate.  And by the way a healthy, productive fellow worker may have some benefits for me.  There may be even some legislated rights that need to be preserved and we should not impose one person's individual values on another.  The Mitt Romneys of the world want to change this equation and use a "father knows best" dictates whose electorate are children instead of adults.  His ads reflect this mentality by promoting fairy tales over his own hidden dangerous agenda.

You do know that Romney had to go through party primaries this time around and Obama didn't, right? You do know that Obama flipped as much to the middle from the other side after the 2008 primaries and throughout his first term, right? Not that you'd mention that so that your article would be fair or balanced. What's broken is our two party system, not necessarily either of these candidates.

I cannot for the life of me understand where Willard's moral compass is hiding. Surely his faith does not condone such an affront to honesty and lack of personal conviction and courage. He has clearly sold his sole for the temporal goal of power that in the end will not be worth what he has done to himself. I cannot imagine how his father, for whom I have great respect, would think if he were alive to see how his son has behaved. It's as embarassing as it's wrong.

Scot, consider that "a Romney victory would stand as a testament to..." voters' realization that Obama is unqualified for the job. I don't know the answer to how a candidate deals with the need to win a primary before running in the general election -- I'd just say exactly what I think all the time and maybe win New Hampshire, then say goodbye -- but I agree with others here -- the Obama Administration's lies about Benghazi are much worse than Mitt morphing on irrelevant (to most of us) social issues.

Hi Guys,

Here's a question for our conservatives trolls: Are you worried at all that Mitt, having morphed back into a moderate and abandoned his primary season stands, would govern that way in elected? Or are you sure that, down deep (way, way, way down deep), he really is a conservative?

Richmond: You call to mind what Cardinal Wosley said of Henry VIII: Be careful what you put in his head, because once it's there, you'll never get it out again. I've explained that tax cuts do not pay for themselves and that no intelligent economist thinks so time and again, and yet you revert to that misconception at every turn.

I wonder what would have happened if Hillary had jumped into the race and how much Obama would have had to flip flop (which is all on record).

Scot, do you think Obama has goverened as he stated he would as a candidate?

Where's bcarman when we need him?

Despite Scot's column today, I still favor Mitt over the failed fraud-community organizer...THAT'S how bad the incumbent is!

if Mitt has a shred of morality left in him, I'm sure his campaign wiseguy advisers are saying to him: look, you've been running for president for 10 years; you've spent 500 million dollars campaigning; you can't go all warm and fuzzy and sensitive now...just win the presidency, no one will remember the false, negative ads once you're president. Thus we have the swift-boating of President Obama on the auto bailout.