Mitt Romney seems to be taking an extraordinary amount of heat in Iowa for not favoring a "one-size-fits-all" solution to the issues - mostly social issues - that exist in this country. Many of the solutions he proposes are derided as flip-floppery if they do not fit the particular mold that Iowa Republicans feel should be the standard for the U.S.
Mitt Romney is running for President of the United States and many of those states do not have the same views as Iowans. On the issue of creationism, for instance, it is to be expected that Mississippians might well be the holders of different views than Californians. Mitt Romney has consistently been an advocate of states rights, which allows such diversity to exist. Yet Iowans have so far expressed a "one-size-fits-all" approach that would impose one policy upon the whole country, a concept that is vaguely Socialist in its application. Romney's views, conversely, allow for diversity to exist on a state-by-state basis. Iowans should be careful in choosing their President based upon their own peculiar model, which is free-market in regard to serial adultery and stealing from the government, yet Socialist on the matter of states' rights.
Neil Thex
Mesa
Dale Whiting posted at 1:06 pm on Fri, Dec 16, 2011.
Romney has justification for his apparent changing positions, but he won't use it. Shame.
When it comes to foreign policy, Ron Paul makes more sense than the lot. But on most anything else, Ron is as overboard as any of the rest. If these seven candidates aren't responsible for Obama's second term, then one of them will become responsible for a disasterous next four years. I'm waiting to see who gets the nomination and how quickly they can run toward the center. Newt can do it. But can Romney?
truth posted at 2:46 pm on Fri, Dec 16, 2011.
The Tea Party changes its mind as much as their candidates, from one extreme to the other.
Rich posted at 6:46 pm on Fri, Dec 16, 2011.
In the end Paul is the only one who won't do the same things Obama will. Namely overspend and pray the economy will recover and save them. Social issues change all by themselves. All the government does by enforcing one over the other is throw money in a sewer. Comme ce comme sa its this or that. People will smoke marijuana, get abortions and all sorts of things, whether it's legal or illegal, It isn't proper function of government for it to even concern itself with such nonsense, and the cost of them doing it is enormous no matter which side of the fence you are on.
Paul is the only candidate who actually advocates shrinking government, the rest are only arguing about how fast it grows. So, in Iowa, or anywhere else for that matter, it's Paul, or the field, and which one you choose from the field, is irrelevant at best.