I'm a proud knee-jerk Liberal. I have never been an "undecided" voter (nor do I understand them, frankly). But I'm a realist. And when it became clear (last year) that Mitt Romney would be the chosen Republican to run against President Obama, my first reaction was, "OK, well, we could do a lot worse than Romney as President." He had governed my state for four years, and though I hated his politics, he was somewhat moderate; the Commonwealth pulled through relatively unscathed; and, well, his last name wasn't Bush.
That was my thinking a year ago. Now I am far more vehement in my distaste for Romney's politics. Here's why: I no longer have a clear idea — or, really, any idea — who this guy is, and where he lies (pun intended) on the political map.
Even The Salt Lake Tribune, for the same reason, could not see fit to endorse him.
Either Romney is leading on the conservative "base" to get elected, and then he'll swing back to the more moderate positions he held as governor of Massachusetts. Or . . . he was playing 'possum back in his Massachusetts days, and the "real" Mitt Romney is indeed much further right of center.
Who can even say anymore? Candidate Romney has taken so many positions on so many issues — during the past year alone — that he seems to forget which one he's meant to take, what his past positions have been, and even forgets that video doesn't just go away.
So if you're undecided, or thinking of voting for Romney, I have two things to say to you:
One: If you voted for George W. Bush because you believed John Kerry to be a stiff, rich, out-of-touch flip-flopper, then you can clearly see that Mitt Romney is a guy who makes Kerry look laid-back, poor, hip, and trustworthy.
And two: If you're an issues voter, who believes Mitt Romney represents your position on major issues, well, you might be right.
Or you might not.