![>](style_images/Executiv-909/nav_m.gif)
When planning on selecting a candidate my first need is to find out what their stance on pressing issues are and if they have been true to that in the past. People pick on Romney for that but he stands by what he says at a given time. I do not see anything wrong with that.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean do you think you can elaborate more on why you think there is nothing wrong with that?
FunMom:
Why would a person who has changed his mind on important issues be ineligible for POTUS or any other office? I mean other than the fact that you might disagree? There does not seem to be anything intrinsically disqualifying for having merely changed one's mind. It still comes down to whether or not you agree with the position taken.
One's party affiliation or even religion (or lack thereof) seem more important and those give real clues as to how the person will decide various questions.
I see it as a sign that the person is willing to change his views for whatever agenda he has. It is truly concerning. I'm not saying 100% that it is the case with these two candidates but Romney doesn't seem like a good presidential fit.
Romney or Hunstman are probably the most presidential of all candidates. Even Palin is more presidential than Obama who's just a clown and a Marxist to boot. I would prefer someone who can change their minds in light of new information while still adhering to principles I believe in and so Romney is still a good fit for me. Contrast with Obama who's changes merely result in lies and broken campaign promises rather than a well-thought out reaction to changing situations.
Deadly serious. I judge by stance on the issues, not what some idiot leftwing Hollywood talking head says.
Romney doesn't own the Marriot does he? This is a specious argument anyway since the kind of folk Democrats hang out with and the positions they take on the issues tend to support p-rn in addition to the s-xual predation of children.