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.

Gee, Scott: and all the while, I thought you were describing the president.

ESF - OT from yesterday. Firefox and the exe is

Scot, the Globe is the serious paper in town.  Liberal tendencies and all.  Why havnt they looked at what happened to our Ambassador?  Not an article about it?  Instead stories about staples and flipping on issues that Obama has himself also done, hello gay marriage!  Curious if the Glove active ignores investigating a US ambassadors death for political reasons?,

Begolf:

I think he has tried. From my perspective, the problem has been that he's faced a Mitch McConnell-led GOP that has refused to cooperate unless and until the public attention grows intense. I think you see that in a number of instances. To cite just a few:

1) Obama bends over backwards to include GOP tax cuts for small business in the stimulus, but gets few if any GOP votes for his efforts.

2) Republican senators turns their back on the the individual-mandate even though it was once a favored GOP approach and has Heritage Foundation lineage. (That's why Mitt adopted it for Romneycare and thought it could be a national model.) All of a sudden, what was individual responsibility becomes socialism in the minds of the GOP. Why? Because Obama makes it the centerpiece of his plan.

3) After calling for a deficit commission, some of the same Republicans who back the idea switch and vote against it when Obama supports the idea.

4) Obama gives Finance panel chair Max Baucus extraordinary latitude to try to craft a health-care deal with Charles Grassley, and the two drag their negotiations on month after month after month while Republicans indulge "death penalty" nonsense and the like. The White House retreats on a public option, and then on health-care coops, in an attempt to get a deal. Then, when Democrats push ahead alone, Republicans start with the "jammed it down our throats with no consultation" nonsense.

5) McConnell insists on the extension of all the Bush tax cuts in the lame duck session as the price for any progress. Obama says okay. The next time CBO updates the deficit figures, the deficit is larger because of that tax-cut extension. The Republicans promptly blame the larger deficit on Obama and his spending.

It takes two willing sides to cooperate, in other words. Now, I do think John Boehner is an adult and would like to get things done, but I think he is too hemmed in by his Tea Party members and his ambitious lieutenants to do that.

Scot

Romney's plan for the auto industry was to let our system of bankruptcy work to give the filers time to sort out their problems; then move on to a solution. It does not "throw them to the wolves" as may be commonly believed. Obama's actions pre-empted this path; and by do so, immediately saddled U.S.taxpayers with the responsibility and expense of paying for the bailout. In doing so, not only did obama display his "government uber alles" mindset, but he "stiffed" the holders of the industry's bonds from being repaid what they were promised by contractual obligation. Not only has it made a mockery of our system of "legal obligation", it has also meant that the main holders of these obligations: pensions, as well as ordinary citizens, are bereft of the funds they were counting to fund retirement. Should the pension funds go "belly", we the taxpayers are obligated to shore up the Pension Benefit Guarantee Fund from its shortfall.

I'm starting to feel that at this point, positions have hardened into cement, and no fact or reasoning will change anyone's mind. Loss of the truth is sad and can be catastrophic for the future. Scott Peck wrote a book called "People of the Lie". The book was about the large numbers he saw as a psychoanalist who just lived in a totally fabricated reality, one that suited them, that they wanted to be true. My only consolation is that if Romney does get in, he won't be able to spin his way out of the awful responsibilities of the office, but God help the people he hurts because of a quest for fame.

I was too young for Carter, but how was Kennedy joining race against an incumbent taken? Was Carter so bad, people were relieved?

I would also add: never overestimate the voter. When Massachusetts, a state of intelligent people, can embrace Mitt, Brown and the Republican Party after the debacle of the Bush years and the obstruction of the GOP for the last four years, is a testimony to the voters' poor political memory and the GOP's unashamedly Twister-like positions. Brown is now mimicing John Volpe's "Vote the Man....Vote Volpe" with his own attempt to distance himself from Mitt and the GOP with "Vote the Person...Not the Party" or something to that effect. It's interesting to see/hear the Romney-Brown positions on almost every issue; those positions always agree with the voter's position! Why? Because Romney and Brown have switched back and forth so often, the voter is confused and remembers only ONE stance. Romney and Brown win either way. For a moment, let's remember what Romney said about FEMA: "But speaking to Republican voters, Romney’s suggestion that disaster relief funding was part of the “immoral” growth of the deficit and debt illustrates a larger problem: the disproportionate influence that ideological activists have on our primaries at a time when the parties are so polarized." Try telling that to Gov. Christie of NJ, a prominent Romney endorser and supporter. Christie was on TV last night thanking President Obama for EVERYTHING.

A point: Romney had little to do with the Universal Care in MA although he signed the bill and it passed on his watch. What is missed is important: THE DISCUSSION OF THE BILL DID NOT INVOLVE PAYING FOR IT!. Sort of like Bush's wars. Romney vetoed several aspects of the Democratic-driven bill. All were overriden, with one or two exceptions. Romney signed the bill as a feather in his cap from a Blue State and he was off to the Potomac. Money was not a part of the discussion in the sense that the numbers added up to pay for the bill. No one knew the cost, therefore, no one had any solid, hard numbers. That's why it passed so easily.

Mitt has taken credit for the wonderful improvement of MA students and schools. Actually, it was a Roosevelt-Birmingham approach that did the job, not Mitt. Romney wanted to change education in MA and brought in his Bain people. The plan was roundly rejected. Romney never submitted another one. The Democratic legislature picked up the pieces and put the entire education act together without Romney. http://www.masslive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2012/10/editorial_romney_takes_too_muc.html

"And if it takes mendacity to win? Well, Mitt knows he’ll have ample opportunity to reshape his image as needed. Indeed, a Romney victory would stand as a testament to his skill at doing just that."

Well Scot, iof you are into exposing mendacity in presidential politics, can we look forward to your article tomorrow about the Obama campaign?  you certainly have a lot more high qualtity material to work with...think how far you can run with his claims to have expanded US enenrgy output! Wow, what a howler! And I'm sure you'll wack the Obama campaign about he 5 million "new" jobs fraud...completely overlooks the millions of lost jobs and millions more of Americans who have given up looking for work.  Now that is GREAT material, and there is so much more.

I look forward with baited breath to see your slash-and-burn of the Obama campaign...or is there a chance that will never happen?  Opps, we gotta remmevber what camp you are firmly in!

There is an article about Romney and Staples that is incomplete. You should read the article by clicking this link. It is a long article but the Staples part is quite readable and concise and the Staples part of the discussion is quite different from the loosly-connected account in the Globe. If you have time, read the entire article or bookmark it for later. It is written by Pres. Reagans Budget Director, David Stockman: http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/10/14/david-stockman-mitt-romney-and-the-bain-drain.html

My last post on this will be a refutation that Mitt "rescued" the Olympic Games at Salt Lake. Who DID rescue these troubled games? YOU, the American Taxpayer! Romney was called it and tried to work some magic, packaging everthing from mascots to medals as investment vehicles. Then he hawked them to investors. He ended up with what the bull left in Brighton. He was in deep trouble. Like any good Republican who got bit by the capitalistic free market, he went to the US, same as he has always done. He came away with $1.5 Billion dollars! That amounted to about $600,000 per athlete. The previous games cost us about $11,000 per athlete. But for Romney, it is not process; the end always justifies the means. "Which brings us to another aspect of Romney's business career that has largely been hidden from voters: His personal fortune would not have been possible without the direct assistance of the U.S. government. The taxpayer-funded subsidies that Romney has received go well beyond the humdrum, backdoor, welfare-sucking that all supposedly self-made free marketeers inevitably indulge in. Not that Romney hasn't done just fine at milking the government when it suits his purposes, the most obvious instance being the incredible $1.5 billion in aid he siphoned out of the U.S. Treasury as head of the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake – a sum greater than all federal spending for the previous seven U.S. Olympic games combined. Romney, the supposed fiscal conservative, blew through an average of $625,000 in taxpayer money per athlete – an astounding increase of 5,582 percent over the $11,000 average at the 1984 games in Los Angeles. In 1993, right as he was preparing to run for the Senate, Romney also engineered a government deal worth at least $10 million for Bain's consulting firm, when it was teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. (See "The Federal Bailout That Saved Romney") Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/greed-and-debt-the-true-story-of-mitt-romney-and-bain-capital-20120829#ixzz2AtBHyZ93 "

I think I've covered the Fallicies of Romney: Health care, education, job-creator and Olympic savior. I don't think I will change minds, but maybe the posts will give some thoughtful, undecided voters some pause and hopefully, some direction toward voting for a slower but steady climb out of the Republican years. Romney and Brown intentionally downplay or even eliminate the label "Republican" from thier media. Remember, they are trying to put you to sleep. They have already tucked you in with both sides of every issue. They hope you awake Election Day, Tuesday, 6 Nov 12, and have no memory of Republicans, Boehner, McConnell or the inconsistencies of Romney and Brown. Remember to take a good look at President Obama and Elizabeth Warren. Don't let them go to waste. Four years and six years respectively is a long time.

Scot, The Globe has gone into overdrive as well!It is clear, everyone at the Globe has emerged with MDS, Mitt Derangment Syndrome, similar to what you had with Bush. How many articles or columns have appearwed outlining BO's falures and lies? What about the most recent events in Syria, even the ombudsman at the NYT had to apologize for the lack of coverage! Everyone is panicking that Scott Brown and Mitt Romney will win, and the phoney Indian and the president will lose! Then American wins and the Globes loses! it doesn't get any better than that!!!!

Interesting timeline on Benghazi: http://factcheck.org/2012/10/benghazi-timeline/

Nashua Telegraph endorses Romney:

http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/opinion/editorials/981570-465/mitt-romney-for-president.html

Not sure how they are perceived - lib or right

Another week of this campaigning and he could end up as flaming liberal, especially after viewing damage in New Jersey.

Who knows what he'll do or say later, should he win the election.  Really, there's no telling.

My advice:   Wait until the last minute, as in a basketball game, and tune in to hear his last/final "position".

Outstanding column Scott!  It speaks the truth and shows off your excellent vocabulary at the same time.  Mendacity - great word.  As a teenager I learned what it meant  from the movie version of "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof" with Burl Ives.  Mendacity!  Us simple folk would state it another way. Romney is a liar!

Ah, yes, Romney is certainly a mendacious "flip flopper". And when Obama claims a "video did it" in the Benghazi tragedy, for weeks, and then claims in debate he called it "terrorism" from the begining, its not mendacious at all! When Obama promised to shut down Guantanamo and never came close to making the effort, that was a political posturing lie that he had no intent on fulfilling, nah! When Obama promised a "transparent" administration and then has claimed "executive priveldge" in hiding the details of the 'Fast and Furious" gun walking scanda, that wasn't a repudiation of a major promise! When Obama said in 2008  he couldn't support gay marriage because of his "Christian beliefs" and then "evolved" that wasn't a case where he lied for political expediency in the last election! When Obama, in debate with Hillary Clinton, insisted he wasn't for a "mandate" in healthcare policy but, somehow, that became the heart of Obamacare, didn't it? All Lehigh is doing here is running with the last, media wide, "narrative" to drag down Romney. Certainly Romney's positions on some subjects have "evolved" but, in comparison with the outright WHOPPERS Obama has told on things PRECIOUS to liberals (mandates, against gay marriage, a "transparent" administration) Romney looks positively stubborn. And isn't it funny how Lehigh and the rest of the media ignore the corrupt operations of Obama's web site for donations, where they "conveniently" have such lax security processes that people around the world can, easily, contribute under fake identities (unlike the McCain and Romney campaign sites). How about a little scrutiny there Scott since "integrity" is so big with you these days?  

HHKitchener2 wrote:

Since you are in a Tudor frame of mind, perhaps you could consider Sir Thomas More given the political season: What you cannot turn to good, you must at least make as little bad as you can. — Utopia, Bk. 1. (1516)

Excellent quote!!!!!

Thank you, biz.

Begolf: I await your reply to my answer to your query.

On the education reform stuff: It is amazing that Mitt takes credit for that. Credit belongs to Bill Weld, Mark Roosevelt, and Tom Birmingham. They were responsible for ed reform.

3) After calling for a deficit commission, some of the same Republicans who back the idea switch and vote against it when Obama supports the idea. - 11 out of 18 voted against it including Stern from SEIU, and Becerra (vice chairman of the House Democratic Caucus and a member of the Budget and Ways and Means Committees ). So you can't blame it solely on Republicans. Besides, Obama ignored all of the suggestions any way. 

Baucus and Grassley worked ona jobs bill too. WHo defeated that? Regarding their HC work, both parties did not want anything to do w/ a bipartisan agreement. Death panels, or rationing, was brought up by Obama's people too. "WE need death panels." Rattner in NYT

Why did Obama refuse to meet with Paul Ryan over the budget?

The deficit was larger becuase the tax rate stayed the same and not Obama's spending?

The whole HC process was a debacle (both sides equal). There is a reason it does not have support with the US population. Reconciliation to pass it was compromise?

Harry Reid and Pelosi compromised?

Obama had 2 years of full control and did nothing to compromise - "President Obama listened to Republican gripes about his stimulus package during a meeting with congressional leaders Friday morning - but he also left no doubt about who's in charge of these negotiations. "I won," Obama noted matter-of-factly, according to sources familiar with the conversation."

The stimulus. He had a majority. See "I won" And the stimulus did not work so who was corrrect?

Rahm "never let a crisis go to waste" Emanual was a uniter?

The debt negotiations were a debacle for Obama

As if on queue, Mitt has now reversed himself on FEMA

http://bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2012/10/31/mitt-romney-voices-stronger-support-for-fema/g3i9B2m4HirxaeZDt6oa4J/story.html

“I believe that FEMA plays a key role in working with states and localities to prepare for and respond to natural disasters,” Romney said in a statement. “As president, I will ensure FEMA has the funding it needs to fulfill its mission, while directing maximum resources to the first responders who work tirelessly to help those in need, because states and localities are in the best position to get aid to the individuals and communities affected by natural disasters.”

Romney’s comments last year during a GOP debate in New Hampshire were interpreted by some as a call to eliminate FEMA altogether.

“Every time you have an occasion to take something from the federal government and send it back to the states, that’s the right direction,” Romney said. “And if you can go even further, and send it back to the private sector, that’s even better.”

Hummm.... Didn't the republicans call John Kerry a flip flopper?  What the hell do they call Romney?  He's tried to be eveything in this campaign except a democrat but we still have time  for him  to flip there too.

"begolfing"  Honestly I don't see failure.  I do see where things could be better.  However, I have to look at things through my portfolio and what I see around me.  At the end of Bush's term and through the first six months of Obama's which I charge to Bush my portfolio got creamed.  Activity in stores and construction in my area were down.  Since then my portfolio has doubled, construction is up, the stores are packed, Disney, Universal are packed.  I recognize the undereducated and uneducated are doing poorly, but I don't lay that on the Pres.  Bin Laden is deceased, Al-Qaeda while not eliminated it has taken a beating.  My Medicare is better than it was with prescriptions and wellness visits. 

If one asks me to vote for Romney then I simply say I won't vote for Bush again.  I did it once it cost me.  Why should I do it again.

PMI data: http://confoundedinterest.wordpress.com/2012/10/31/a-tale-of-two-purchasing-manager-reports-chicago-and-milwaukee-indicate-lackluster-recovery/

"Begolfing".  Well you have legitimate reasons to vote for Romney.  I on the other hand like SS and Medicare.  I also don't like the idea of the tax cuts.  I think Obama is wrong in only raising the taxes on the rich I think it is appropriate to bring the taxes back to where they were before Bush messed it all up.  As I have said before I take a "conservative" view towards the fiscal end of things.  People want SS and Medicare and the functions government carries out.  They need to pay for it.  I'll pay for the things I like.  I did not like my experience with Romney as governor and I don't think I'll like it with him as President.  I really don't find him to be much of a "liberal'.  A liberal would have gone with single payer instead he went with the insurance companies much to the joy of my portfolio.

I can understand voting for Romney but this nonsense that some spew regarding Obama to me is just that nonsense.  I mean right, any normal person thinks Al-Qaeda is doing better.  I don't think so.  A hater might, but who knows what their problem could possibly be. 

If you voted for Romney, that's cool.  I just think one can do that with out a bunch of nonsenical statements, never mind nonsensical just untrue.  But while I don't agree with you sometimes you usually don't go off the deep end like some.

Did I, in scanning down across the comments page, just read out of the corner of my eye that System (aka Waytoo) wants to have an intelligent dialogue with people?

Mark this day on your calendars, ladies and gentleman.

Waytoo:

I have no idea why. Usually I think they get deleted when someone complains, but as to the individual decisions, we have some third party that does that, I think.

"HHK"  Liberal values: Freedom, responsibility, tolerance, social justice and equality of opportunity: these are the central values of Liberalism, and they remain the principles on which an open society must be built. These principles require a careful balance of strong civil societies, democratic government, free markets, and international cooperation.  From the Liberal Oxford Manifesto of 1997.

Conservatism: Conservatism is a preference for the historically inherited rather than the abstract and ideal. This preference has traditionally rested on an organic conception of  society, that is, on the belief that society is not merely a loose collection of individuals but a living organism comprising closely connected, interdependent members. Conservatives thus favour institutions and practices that have evolved gradually and are manifestations of continuity and stability. 

I would also point out as I have before the position of Barry Goldwater on conservatism.  Granted there on few on this board who act as conservatives or liberals.  They merely rant.

Attaturk:

Let me say that I admire your attempts to bring high-mindedness and rationality to what is too often a food fight.

Careful Scot, you mentioned foreign policy.  You came dangerously close to breaking the Boston Globe / MSNBC  ban on mentioning Libya or Benghazi.  Won't even talk about it to defend Obama's actions - that's very telling.

Scot says "The hawkish Romney that once castigated Barack Obama as weak on foreign policy now endorses the president’s approach on Iraq and Iran". But Scot, you FORGOT to mention that what Romney ACTUALLY said about Iran is that sanctions should have been imposed 4 YEARS AGO. Until recently Obama OPPOSED stiff sanctions, as Mitt noted. And, as other bloggers have noted, Scot FORGOT to mention Barack Obama's "Arab Spring" in Egypt and Libya, and the embassy attack in Benghazi, Libya. Do you think that Mitt agrees with Obama's excellent COVERUP policy there? Also, Scot FORGOT that the Boston Globe's editors, columnists, and even the Globe cartoonist enthusiastically endorsed Obama's "Arab Spring". The Muslim Brotherhood is a harmless "Secular" organization, right, Scot?...And now Mr. Obama announced to people affected by the storm, "We don't leave Americans behind". Now did that statement apply to Mr. Obama's decision to leave 4 Americans behind to die in Libya? Now we have photos of the president in the Situation Room during the bin Laden raid, and today with Hurricane Sandy. But where's the photos of the Situation Room during the Benghazi attack?

In its endorsement of President Obama for a second term, the Providence Journal provides the most succinct and accurate description of Mitt Romney we will see: "The Mitt Romney as Massachusetts governor seemed a sensible pragmatist, but what is he today? He is the greatest shape-shifter in contemporary U.S. politics, and thus difficult to trust."

Read more: http://blogs.providencejournal.com/ri-talks/this-new-england/2012/10/why-obama-should-be-re-elected.html

Ironically, "The Salt Lake Tribune"endorsed Obama in an editorial titled, "Too Many Mitts." It's a wonderfully balanced, worthwhile read of how they struggled, but could not in good conscience endorse their "favorite adopted son."

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/55019844-82/romney-obama-state-president.html.csp