Makes sense. Then again, I remember Molly Ivins used to say the only way to judge a candidate was on his record. She predicted correctly that Bush's record as a Texas politician was more telling than what he was saying about being a compassionate conservative. Romney is speaking like an uncompassionate conservative, but he governed more benevolently. I wonder if Molly Ivins would tell me to trust his record more than what he's saying. That said, the way he acts now is so repugnant to me, I would never support him. Call me confused I guess.

Sam Boyd reiterating someone else's argument?

Does the man ever have a thought of his own?

Nice, GFR.

I beg to differ: romney didn't "govern more benevolently" because he barely governed at all. He was a) hardly here, b) took instrumentalist stances when he could to do whatever was left to him in a staunchly democratic state, c) appointed cronies galore where he could, c) failed to apply the slightest b school principles to managing the big dig...and went around the country slanging the state and basically calling us whores and perverts and welfare cheats.

romney is another guy with good hair, great suit and white teeth who reporters and the public loves, loves, loves to think secretly thinks just like them. If he can't tell us that right now its fine, we are told over and over again later...when he gets in he'll "govern" just like you--yes, you the lady in the second row--imagine a responsible middle aged white guy will govern. Nothing could be further from the truth. He's a spoiled upper class guy with an amway mentality and more money than he knows what to do with. he's personally nice but not particularly intelligent or politically well meaning. He and his wife have literally *no* idea what problems poor people face and they never will. he's been satisfied all his life with easy answers and he's not going to start growing in office. A lot of people--a *lot* of people thought that about bush and look how surprised they are to discover that you can tell a lot about a person by the way they've spent their life. romney's energetic where bush is lazy, but he's no more well disposed towards other people than bush is.

aimai

Trying to figure out Romney's 'real' positions is like trying to diagnose scoliosis in a horseshoe crab. Romney the Politician is pure exoskeleton, surrounded not by a hard shell but career expediency.

Romney is speaking like an uncompassionate conservative, but he governed more benevolently.

I agree with aimai. You're confusing the fact that Massachusetts was dominated by an overwhelmingly Democratic legislature with the policies Romney would have pursued if he had had any actual authority.

Romney's biggest claim to fame is the number of vetoes he issued during his Governorship - not policy objectives accomplished.

He vetoed increasing the minimum wage, funding for stem cell research, access to emergency contraception, funding for public housing, even flood prevention aid.

Most of his vetoes were overturned, so he looks more moderate in retrospect.

Romney never made much effort to deal with the opposition party and that record bodes very ill if he wins the presidency.

When Romney had a "gaffe", it was because he said he'd first "summon the lawyers" before he deployed the military without Congress.

That shows me that Romney's first instinct is toward prudent, competent governance rather than being another George Bush "going with his gut".

I'd sure like someone to explain that discrepancy...

He's "Least bad" in the academic "would you rather die from typhoid or the plague?" sort of a way.

This is a snotty post. The first sentence identifies it as a GRF "I told you so" while the final rejoinder emphasizes the fact.

It is sad to me that I knew from the opening line who wrote this and what the point was: I was right, sort of, on a perhaps related point, and I, like I often do, will take up TAPPED's space to inform its readers, who I think are dumb, how right I am.

Garance is a serious and good thinker, I only post this comment to alert her to the fact that anyone who reads this blog regularly can spot her posts in this vein from a mile away. No one else here does it so consistently, and I for one am happy for that fact.

That's GFR, not GRF, and I want to emphasize that I think Garance is a gifted writer and thinker.

This post got my goat because it follows a pattern of "I was so right so long before you were" posts that are, at best, somewhat related to the issue at hand.

MY can defend himself, as he has. And I know nothing of the protocols and funny things that bloggers who know each other are allowed to post. That said, I am well-known for getting things wrong, and if I did, sorry.

Finally, I have been denied posting access due to the letter code listed 3 times, and I am not vision impaired. The letters are simply hard to read, and if you screw it up, you are back to zero....no post at all. It kinda sucks.

Yes, af, it is a 'snotty' post. And yes, GFR has some form in this regard.

You're not the only one who has noticed this.

Garance, since you've been reading Sam's tea leaves, can you explain how the same guy who wrote this ("[W]hy should we assume that Romney's moderate record is in any way more representative of his true beliefs (if he has any) than his current support for Conservative orthodoxy?... I have no idea how we are supposed to figure out what [some moral belief about the true best government deep in Romney's heart] is based on the available information about him.") also wrote this about the prospects for Romney's weathervane policy instincts ("[W]e might get a sudden re-embrace of, say, health care reform or a newly moderate position on Iraq if he wins the Republican nomination."), since you quote him approvingly?

(really, go read this one, Is Romney Liberated By His Own Absurdity? , and tell me Sam's completely on the same page that you are)

(and yes, I realize Sam's the more natural person to ask about this, but Sam kind of posted and ran, though granted, it was kind of a snark-fest limited to me and Anonymous in the comment section. Good times...)

Oh, and abject funk is right, the text-capture thing doesn't just display hard-to-read letters too often, but it often displays easier-to-read letters and then refuses to acknowledge that they've been typed (tip: use the browser's Back button; don't choose the onscreen "Return to original post" invitation, and you may see your would-be entry again).

I realize this'll sound slightly delusional (predictable retort: "Are you sure you can read letters, and type them? Because, um, that's what it's testing for."), but it might help to do a poll of commenters to see what percentage of us, how often, get error messages when we're pretty sure we've typed in the right letters (I get an error message about 20% of the time).