And the official Romney page has a listing of Romney's position on various issues:
http://www.mittromney.com/issues
Romney's official page is rather a hoot.
I click in to the first issue, "Afghanistan and Pakistan." As far as I know, he's said next to nothing about foreign policy and seems generally uncomfortable with it -- but this is a significant national interest. Anyway, the first thing I see is the banner reading
Afghanistan & Pakistan
AN AMERICAN CENTURY.
What the flack?
Eh, I guess that's his whole branding strategy, and he stamps it on everything, no matter how inappropriate. ("Drug Abuse & Teen Pregnancy
AN AMERICAN CENTURY."
)
Anyway, the page contains such gems as the following:
Mittens "The Dog Terrorist" Romney said:
Mitt Romney will work with both the Afghan government and Pakistan to ensure that those nations are fully contributing to success in Afghanistan. But we will only persuade Afghanistan and Pakistan to be resolute if they are convinced that the United States will itself be resolute. Only an America that appears fully committed to success will eliminate the incentives for them to hedge their bets by aligning with opposing forces.
[...]
The United States enjoys significant leverage over both of these nations. We should not be shy about using it.
This sounds to me rather like George W's approach towards North Korea -- the "leverage" we "enjoy" presumably starts and ends with withholding our sigificant financial aid. So being "resolute," since neither country will be particularly moved by Mitt's "working with them" translates into suspending our foreign aid.
And then what? Watch as the Free Market and other Republican tooth fairies magically dispel the Taliban, clean up the tribal areas, and purge Karzai's hodge-podge government of cronyism?
I'd give him partial credit if he just came out and said "I've had it with Pakistan and I'm cutting their aid if they don't shape up pronto" -- at least that would be honest, if uninspiring. But no...
Let's do another one. We've had a lot of gunner discussions here, so let's take in his firearms regulation issue page -- or should I say
Gun Rights
PROTECT THE SECOND AMENDMENT.
... waitaminute -- he
really did specially put "AN AMERICAN CENTURY." next to Afghanistan and Pakistan?? WTF, Mitt??
Anyway, I note with amusement that here he avoids mention of Obama and his alleged "failures" completely. I guess it's implied for his core audience.
As for Mitt's position:
Mitt "I've never hunted said:
Mitt strongly supports the right of all law-abiding Americans to exercise their constitutionally protected right to own firearms and to use them for lawful purposes, including hunting, recreational shooting, self-defense, and the protection of family and property.
[...]
As president, Mitt will work to expand and enhance access and opportunities for Americans to hunt, shoot, and protect their families, homes and property, and he will fight the battle on all fronts to protect and promote the Second Amendment.
... amazingly, Mitt doesn't seem to understand the actual basis for the Second Amendment, making me wonder why he should be the one to promote it. Or if he does, he left it off the list of "lawful purposes" entirely.
Oh, wait, it says in the inset, quoting himself:
Mitt "Goin' huntin' with Dick Cheney and Ted Nugent" Romney said:
No constitutional protection is more often ignored, distorted, or disdained than the individual right to keep and bear arms.
I'd argue the Third Amendment is probably more often ignored... however, I guess that's accurate from his perspective, since he himself appears to misunderstand it.
Oh well. He did take a position, even if it's a complete no-brainer for the GOP, and even if it plausibly conflicts with his record. So bravo Mitt. You do indeed have policy positions other than "I'm not Obama." I apologize.
---
Yeah, I'm just ripping on the guy, but he sure makes it easy.
