Is Mitt Romney Beliefs Sincere or Opportunistic?

Question

When Mitt Romney ran for election as the governor of Massachusetts, a typically Pro-Democrat state, he was pro-abortion and pro-gay right to marriage.

Now that Romney is running for the Republican Party ticket for president, in order to appease the general platform of his party, Romney is anti-abortion and anti-gay right to marriage.

Which set of beliefs does Romney actually adhere to; do you believe he changed his stance to merely to win the Republican Party ticket for president? Will Romney's actions if elected president contradict his new platform, as Arnold Schwartzenegger has changed since he has been in office?

Answer 1

I think some of his beliefs are sincere and some opportunistic.

If you listen to GOP candidate debates, you see that all the major candidates have all the same positions on all the same issues. They try to differentiate themselves from one another, but they all have all the standard party attitudes. None of them, for instance, can criticize Bush too harshly, and none are against the war (except Ron Paul, who's a maverick).

Very few people listening to Romney across the country realize that he was once pro-choice or pro gay rights. In fact abortion and gay rights are this year's big issues for the Republicans, and they are 'fake' issues--by which I don't mean that they aren't important, but that they aren't really presidential prerogatives. Abortion will continue to be legal and gay rights will continue to improve no matter who is president or what his opinions are on those matters.

But when the party platform decrees an issue to be played up, and the standard position on that issue, politicians will often suddenly assume that position and try to convince us that they've felt this way all along. They do this because we let them get away with it.

Answer 2

Romney is a politician. Politicians do what they can to get elected. We cannot trust what a politician says during a campaign. We can only hope that they follow what they have done in the past.

Just look at President Bush. He campaigned on uniting government and not being a nation builder. Partisanship is as bad as it ever has been. And, Iraq is certainly a case of nation building.

Answer 3

As human beings we are all subject to change of mind or flip-flop no matter what one’s core belief is.
No matter what I hear him or anyone else say and no matter what I see him or anyone else do, being only a human being, I don’t have what it takes to look into one’s mind, heart and or soul to know what one truly believes.
Being opportunistic is not necessarily a bad thing.
Everyone in politics is more than likely opportunistic in every decision of their career.
What matters is what is done when one seizes the opportunity.
Anyone can be hardhearted, hardheaded and arrogant and portray it to the ignorant as being strong-willed and decisive and stay the course…EVEN WHEN THEY CAN CLEARLY SEE THAT THEY ARE WRONG.

EDIT: If you wanna point out an opportunistic Republican...talk about Mussolini Giuliani.
He thinks it quite ok to use the DEATHS that occured on 911 to portray himself as some kind of saviour for the US and the world.
He couldn't even save his marriage. lol

Answer 4

Neither Romney nor Schwartsenegger have done quite the flip-flopping that they are often accused of. both are political realists and do the best they can with what they have. They are not pandering to special interests just for votes and are willing to compromise on political issues. It is the far right that accuses anyone that is not in lockstep with their beliefs of being a turncoat.