Sia☺giah
Well, I disagree here... I believe that two others qualify
Sat May 19, 2012 1:26pm
64.222.145.200

as twin contestants (one on each "side", so to speak, in the top slots in a race for "the most unethical candidates I've ever seen running for POTUS"...

John Edwards and Newt Gingrich immediately come to mind...

Mitt Romney is just what he appears to be--- An astute, ultra wealthy, rather aloof BUSINESSMAN... Although he can readily be accused of flip-flopping, that is part and parcel of WHO HE IS... He is a person who morphs with the times & circumstances... He is NOT a radical idealist who cannot compromise nor "evolve" on most issues**

The "proof is in the puddin'"... He had a very successful tenure as governor MA, even in the midst of so many loud, powerful, liberal DEMons in the state senate there and a mishmosh of positions in the state house of reps... He managed to pass controversial legislation with almost FULL SUPPORT of politicians who normally opposed him on principle... THAT is because he is VERY CAPABLE of compromise... and that is where and WHY he did quite a bit of what appears to be "flip-flopping" on abortion, same sex marriage, etc... He COMPROMISED with issues he was going to lose on ANYWAY to get concessions from others on issues he could WIN on by compromising...

THAT, is what is needed in our government right now... If OBAMA was not the same sort of individual capable of reasonable compromise and exhibiting strong personal ethics re: family, etc... then it wouldn't be a problem for me in choosing who to vote for... But, he is, plus Obama beats him on most OTHER issues and personal style hands down as well as with his strong suit of playing the LONG GAME instead of the short one... So, I'm going with Obama this time... even though I once supported MITTENS over Obama (in 2008) as a known quality vs an unknown maybe...

However, in the years since, I've grown to like Obama's rational, careful style and his willingness to give a little to get a lot... He is the ULTIMATE politician, that's for sure... He is so understated and deeply intellectual that it is easy to underestimate him by thinking him weak or too slow to make a decision... and, IN A POLITICIAN, I like those traits because it means he is capable of leading without being "bossy" about WHO gets the credit and he seriously considers ALL angles of a question--- quite unlike his immediate predecessor...

So, my vote is going for the one I think is best poised to SUCCEED and who clearly is the long range thinker who actually cares about 'the little guy' too...

**Most issues including political, personal, and social issues... BUT TOTALLY ASIDE from his deep convictions about marriage, religion, and family obligations that are never-wavering nor up for discussion...