The last paragraph of George Will's column sums it up very well (my bold):
Republicans may have found their Michael Dukakis, a technocratic Massachusetts governor who takes his bearings from “data” (although there is precious little to support Romney’s idea that in-state college tuition for children of illegal immigrants is a powerful magnet for such immigrants) and who believes elections should be about (in Dukakis’s words) “competence,” not “ideology.” But what would President Romney competently do when not pondering ethanol subsidies that he forthrightly says should stop sometime before “forever”? Has conservatism come so far, surmounting so many obstacles, to settle, at a moment of economic crisis, for this?
Romney signed into law Romneycare in 2006 when he was Governor which gave illegals the right to free medical care in MA but yet that same person attacks Governor Perry on giving the children of illegals in-state tuition claiming it would be a 'powerful magnet' which has not been shown. The children getting in-state tuition have been in this Country for years and is the only country know. Rick Perry signed a bill in 2001 giving instate tuition for children of illegals that was approved by all but four members of the legislature. This bill was signed in the spring of his first year as Governor after taking over from then Governor George W. Bush who became President.
Romney wants Perry's whole career to be in the public venue which Perry has never hid the fact he was a Democrat in 1988 who supported Gore in the primary and became a Republican to run for Agriculture Commissioner in 1990. Yet Romney doesn't want anyone to focus on his background in politics going back to the early 90's when he attended a Planned Parenthood fundraiser or even more important in the early 80's when he became an
Independent because of Reagan/Bush and defended it when he ran for Senate against Ted Kennedy in 1994. In research for his comment on Reagan/Bush we discovered his pro-gun control stance as well:
Romney took positions favorable to gun control in previous races in Massachusetts, a state with strict gun control laws.
In 1994, Romney ran for U.S. Senate against incumbent Democrat Ted Kennedy. During that campaign, Romney supported two gun control measures: the Brady Bill, which required background checks for gun purchases, and a ban on certain types of assault weapons.
In 2002, Romney ran for governor, successfully beating Shannon P. O'Brien. During that campaign Romney said, "We have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them." The McCain ad accurately quotes Romney on this point.
Also during the 1994 race, Kennedy attacked Romney as a conservative similar to Ronald Reagan. (He didn't mean it as a compliment.) That's when Romney responded, "I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I'm not trying to return to Reagan-Bush."
This paragraph from George Will hits the nail on the head about Romney.
A straddle is not a political philosophy; it is what you do when you do not have one. It is what Romney did when he said that using Troubled Assets Relief Program funds for the General Motors and Chrysler bailouts “was the wrong source for that funding.” Oh, so the source was the bailouts’ defect.
The more you read about Romney, the more you realize he has no core values but wants everyone to believe he is the best candidate. When I hear he would be the best against Obama, I am reminded of the saying "don't throw me into the briar patch" which is exactly what Democrats want us to believe about Romney is the one most likely to beat Obama. Democrat strategists have to be salivating at getting Mitt Romney as Obama's opponent. Know I would be if I were in their shoes!
Romney, supposedly the Republican most electable next November, is a recidivist reviser of his principles who is not only becoming less electable; he might damage GOP chances of capturing the Senate. Republican successes down the ticket will depend on the energies of the Tea Party and other conservatives, who will be deflated by a nominee whose blurry profile in caution communicates only calculated trimming.
Why would conservatives vote for a liberal posing as a conservative when you have no idea where he stands. He tried to hide the fact his advisers helped write Obamacare so what else is he hiding? He could get elected and become the most liberal Republican President of all time. George Will is not the only person I have heard say that Romney running could cost Republicans the Senate as it has been coming out more and more when you talk to people from from around the Country.
George Will has summed up what so many of us have been feeling about Mitt Romney going back to 2008 when he first ran for President. Sick and tired of Romney being pushed by the establishment because it is his turn. It is never going to be his turn to be President if conservatives have any say. Establishment Republicans may control most of the media but they do not control who we vote for in the voting booth! If you are not a conservative Mormon then your chances of supporting Romney are almost nil because you will be supporting a moderate to liberal posing as a conservative if you vote for Romney.
George F. Will: Mitt Romney, the pretzel candidate
By George F. Will, Published: October 28
The Republican presidential dynamic — various candidates rise and recede; Mitt Romney remains at about 25 percent support — is peculiar because conservatives correctly believe that it is important to defeat Barack Obama but unimportant that Romney be president. This is not cognitive dissonance.
Obama, a floundering naif who thinks ATMs aggravate unemployment, is bewildered by a national tragedy of shattered dreams, decaying workforce skills and forgone wealth creation. Romney cannot enunciate a defensible, or even decipherable, ethanol policy.
Life poses difficult choices, but not about ethanol. Government subsidizes ethanol production, imposes tariffs to protect manufacturers of it and mandates the use of it — and it injures the nation’s and the world’s economic, environmental, and social (it raises food prices) well-being.
In May, in corn-growing Iowa, Romney said, “I support” — present tense — “the subsidy of ethanol.” And: “I believe ethanol is an important part of our energy solution for this country.” But in October he told Iowans he is “a business guy,” so as president he would review this bipartisan — the last Republican president was an ethanol enthusiast — folly. Romney said that he once favored (past tense) subsidies to get the ethanol industry “on its feet.” (In the 19th century,
Republican “business guys” justified high tariffs for protecting “infant industries”). But Romney added, “I’ve indicated I didn’t think the subsidy had to go on forever.” Ethanol subsidies expire in December, but “I might have looked at more of a decline over time” because of “the importance of ethanol as a domestic fuel.” Besides, “ethanol is part of national security.” However, “I don’t want to say” I will propose new subsidies. Still, ethanol has “become an important source of amplifying our energy capacity.” Anyway, ethanol should “continue to have prospects of growing its share of” transportation fuels. Got it?
Every day, 10,000 baby boomers become eligible for Social Security and Medicare, from which they will receive, on average, $1 million of benefits ($550,000 from the former, $450,000 from the latter). Who expects difficult reforms from Romney, whose twists on ethanol make a policy pretzel?
(snip)
Last week in Ohio, Romney straddled the issue of the ballot initiative by which liberals and unions hope to repeal the law that Republican Gov. John Kasich got enacted to limit public employees’ collective bargaining rights. Kasich, like Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, is under siege. Romney was asked, at a Republican phone bank rallying support for Kasich’s measure, to oppose repeal of it and to endorse another measure exempting Ohioans from Obamacare’s insurance mandate (a cousin of Romneycare’s Massachusetts mandate). He refused.
His campaign called his refusal principled: “Citizens of states should be able to make decisions . . . on their own.” Got it? People cannot make “their own” decisions if Romney expresses an opinion. His flinch from leadership looks ludicrous after his endorsement three months ago of a right-to-work bill that the New Hampshire legislature was considering. So, the rule in New England expires across the Appalachian Mountains?
A day after refusing to oppose repeal of Kasich’s measure, Romney waffled about his straddle, saying he opposed repeal “110 percent.” He did not, however, endorse the anti-mandate measure, remaining semi-faithful to the trans-Appalachian codicil pertaining to principles, thereby seeming to lack the courage of his absence of convictions.
(snip)
Source: News OK
If you read this site, you know I support Rick Perry 100% and have since 1990 when I first voted for him. Does he make mistakes? Sure he does just like any other person but he is a different politician because he owns up to his mistakes and flaws like not being the best debater which is rare with so many of today's politicians who blame all their gaffes on the media for the gotcha questions. You know where Rick Perry stands as he doesn't put a finger in the wind as he is a conservative.
As I was doing this post and the one before it on the flip flopper Romney, I was thinking where would I list Romney on my choice for the Republican nominee for President. Have to admit he is at the bottom.closely followed by Bachmann and Cain. Cannot see myself going out of my way to support those three for President. So where does that leave the others? Here are my choices for the Republican nominee who appeared on stage at the last debate:
1. Rick Perry (conservative)
2. Rick Santorum (conservative)
3. Newt Gingrich (conservative sometimes but not on global warming and healthcare)
4. Ron Paul (libertarian)
5. Hermain Cain (Koch Brothers, empowerment zones are liberal, cannot define prolife)
6. Michelle Bachmann (too far right and too laser beamed)
7. Mitt Romney (liberal, moderate, conservative -- toss a dart depending on the day)
Shocked at my putting Ron Paul at #4? At least with Ron Paul you know where he stands because he has his core beliefs. Don't agree with most of what he advocates but I consider him more honest than I do Cain, Bachmann, or Romney who have trouble with the facts. I shudder to think what could happen to Republicans if they follow the establishment, Fox News, the Koch Brothers, and other self serving pundits and pollsters pushing Romney or Cain who knows little about how Government works.
Time will tell how much influence the outside forces has on conservatives when they go vote. Right now most polls are garbage but that doesn't stop Fox News from pushing the liberal slanted polls who also want to choose our nominee. Conservatives need to stand tall this election cycle and not be influenced by the media or the flip flopping polls!
Raw Story 
Posts
