Mitt Romney

[lundbaekcaptain of 1,000]

I prefer to judge Mitt Romney by what he did and said while campaigning and being governor of Massachusetts, not by what he says now.

[John Adamscaptain of 1,000]

I prefer to judge Mitt Romney by what he did and said while campaigning and being governor of Massachusetts, not by what he says now.

Agreed, but at the same time even what he's saying today has a lot of holes in it.

[lundbaekcaptain of 1,000]

Excerptsfrom: http://www.massnews.com/2002_editions/0 ... mney.shtml

"By David M. Bresnahan, an award-winning investigative journalist and author who lives in Utah, is LDS, and was formerly with WorldNetDaily. (This now reads: "David M. Bresnahan is an award-winning investigative journalist and author who lives in Utah and was formerly with WorldNetDaily.") "

"Will conservatives support his stands on abortion and homosexual Scout leaders?"

"Romney is a master politician and public relations expert. He was asked to speak to a luncheon gathering of LDS public relations people who were preparing more than a year in advance of the Olympic Games for handling the anticipated requests for information they expected would come from the media of the world. Romney spoke about his public relations manipulations during his 1994 U.S. Senate campaign against Sen. Ted Kennedy.
Romney was candid about the methods he and his staff used to shape the views and thinking of the people, but he was defeated by his own faux pas and by the master manipulator, Kennedy. When he finished his presentation he excused himself from lunch and departed. The next speaker was Elder Henry B. Eyring of the LDS Church Twelve Apostles. Eyring made it clear, in a very nice way, that the methods described by Romney were not the methods to be used by the LDS Church Olympic volunteers gathered in the room. He wanted to be sure those present were not thinking that Romney was delivering a message on how the Church should manipulate the media of the world. Indeed, those volunteers, and many hundreds more, ultimately served the needs of 1,333 members of the world media who came to the News Resource Center of the Church during the 2002 Winter Olympics. That was done without using the tricks described by Romney to manipulate the press and the public."

"Members of the media were simply given the information and materials they asked for so they could file their stories. There was no effort to manipulate those stories by the public affairs volunteers."

[Mike Griffithcaptain of 100]

Romney's health plan is turning out to be much more expensive than advertised. Romney was for gun control, gay rights, abortion on demand. He even attacked the Boy Scouts for not allowing gays to be troop leaders.

I don't understand how any Latter-day Saint could ever take the positions that Romney took on gay rights, abortion, and the Boy Scouts.

[John Adamscaptain of 1,000]

Romney's health plan is turning out to be much more expensive than advertised. Romney was for gun control, gay rights, abortion on demand. He even attacked the Boy Scouts for not allowing gays to be troop leaders.

I don't understand how any Latter-day Saint could ever take the positions that Romney took on gay rights, abortion, and the Boy Scouts.

Romney always says his health care approach is a "private" based approach (as opposed to HillaryCare), but as Dr. Paul points out that our current healthcare system is actually a quasi-private approach that actually came from government intervention (look into history of HMO's, etc.).

Therefore Romney's so-called "private" approach actually will also just compound the problem and continue the downward spiral (providers blame medicare/medicaid and non-paying individuals and then pass the buck to insurance companies, insurance companies blame providers and then pass the buck to individuals, individuals then blame insurance companies and pass the buck either back to the providers or else just give in and go to Medicaid as well). There's no true "private" system that encourages individual responsibility so the downward spiral continues--whether we're talking HillaryCare or RomneyCare.

The concerns about abortion and gay rights should be enough anyway, but then you add on his thoughts on healthcare and also just his general disregard for the Constitution (his approach to being the CEO that will fix things versus just letting the people govern themselves) make it more and more difficult for me to see why so many LDS people support him.

[lundbaekcaptain of 1,000]

Possible more LDS people would support him, but the think Mitt Romney, because he is LDS (and would do no wrong) is a better choice.

[lundbaekcaptain of 1,000]

From an LDS who read my discussion about Romney's distain for certain constitutional and moral principles. I think this is fairly typical of most LDSs.

"I think of all the candidates who have a chance to be president that Mitt Romney is the one most pleasiing to God. Sadly, I do not believe that Ron Paul would be as willing to listen to the spirit and put what God wants first. I do believe that about Mitt Romney and I pray that he will become president."

[John Adamscaptain of 1,000]

"I think of all the candidates who have a chance to be president that Mitt Romney is the one most pleasiing to God. Sadly, I do not believe that Ron Paul would be as willing to listen to the spirit and put what God wants first. I do believe that about Mitt Romney and I pray that he will become president."

Ugh!

[joelfarmcaptain of 10]

Hi Brethren and Sisters. I am a 'newbie' to this site, I have been searching the web, trying to find out what fellow Saints thought of the upcoming election, now that it is less than a year away, I am feeling more and moe anxious as to what the future has in store for our Nation.
I had been awash in fellow Saints, who seem to be in some kind of state of exctasy that a fellow Mormon was running for president. I cannot believe the excitement some of them have for Mitt Romney just because he is "one of us'!
It took me less than a week, after he announced, and the media started talking about "the Mormon canidate", that I knew he was not right for us and the Nation. All it takes is a very little research to find out that he is the quintesential politician, looking pretty and saying what the present audience wants to hear. Do we really need another one of those? I can actually find myself supporting four of the other Republicans running in '08, before I would cast a vote for Romney. Let me tell you, that is indeed embarrasing!!!
My faith is solidified, however, after reading all of the above posts. The spirit of disertation is alive and well among you all, and I thank you for the affirmation that you have given me.

[WYp8riotcaptain of 1,000]

WELCOME,

I would take Romney over Julie Annie, but thats not saying much.

[SwissMrs&Pitchfirecaptain of 1,000]

Yes indeed, welcome!

[joelfarmcaptain of 10]

I would take Romney over Julie Annie, but thats not saying much.

I agree, although again, we have been forced for far too long to hold our noses and vote for the 'lesser of two evils. All that has led to is slower degradation of our way of life. The Republicrats have given us king jorge, Dole and Bush1 and what have they accomplished for our Nation?
I see that you support Dr. Paul. I too, am throwing my support his way not because he has a chance, but he he the closest to my way of thinking of what our Nation needs. I also see some good ideals being spread by Huckabee, Tancrado and Duncan Hunter. Of course the power elite will do whatever they have to do to make sure NONE of these fine men see the light of day, much less give them a chance to compete with the "frontrunners"

[sallycaptain of 100]

Mitt Romney got a paper published in Foreign Affairs magazine. This publication is the CFR's. It is in the July-August 2007 issue on page 17.

In it Mitt wants to encourage trade agreements with the Middle East. It sounds like he is all for a Middle East Union.

He wants to increase the military by 100,000 troops.
He wants to increase our military spending by $30 to 40 Billion dollars over several years.

"I agree with former Spanish Prime Minister Jose MariaAznar that we should build on the NATO alliance to defeat radical Islam. We need to work with our allies to pursue Aznar's call for greater coordination in military, homeland security (uh-oh ), and nonproliferation efforts."

His comments echo the propoganda the media dishes out, that Iran and Venezuelan Pres. Hugo Chavez are huge threats.

Just getting this published does not look good for Mitt.

[sallycaptain of 100]

Mitt Romney got a paper published in Foreign Affairs magazine. This publication is the CFR's. It is in the July-August 2007 issue on page 17.

In it Mitt wants to encourage trade agreements with the Middle East. It sounds like he is all for a Middle East Union.

He wants to increase the military by 100,000 troops.
He wants to increase our military spending by $30 to 40 Billion dollars over several years.

"I agree with former Spanish Prime Minister Jose MariaAznar that we should build on the NATO alliance to defeat radical Islam. We need to work with our allies to pursue Aznar's call for greater coordination in military, homeland security (uh-oh ), and nonproliferation efforts."

His comments echo the propoganda the media dishes out, that Iran and Venezuelan Pres. Hugo Chavez are huge threats.

Just getting this published does not look good for Mitt.

[Mike Griffithcaptain of 100]

The Cato Institute points out that Romney's health insurance program is also costing much, much more than was advertised. Romney doesn't mention this fact when he talks about the program.

A few other things that worry me about Romney:

* He's been a long-time advocate of gun control.

* He increased spending as soon as the state budget stabilized.

* He has said he would not abolish the Department of Education.

* In fact, he has not named a single federal agency that he would abolish. There are several useless, unconstitutional agencies that could and should be abolished. When he was asked during one of the debates to name a program or agency he would cut, he didn't name a single one.

* He once attacked the Boy Scouts over their policy of not allowing gays to be troop leaders.

* He claimed he would do a better job on gay rights than Ted Kennedy would do.

* Until just a few years ago, he was outspokenly in favor of keeping abortion legal.

* Until just a few years ago he was critical of conservative Republicans.

[WYp8riotcaptain of 1,000]

Is it distastefull to promote RON PAUL by pointing out ROMNEY and his anti-christian anti constitutional stance regarding Gay marriage and Torture?

What if I wrote on the back of my vehicle...

MORE GAY MARRIAGE, MORE TORTURE, MORE SOCIALISM ..
MORE FAKE CONSERVATISM -vote ROMNEY

MORE CONSTITUTION, FREEDOM AND FREE AGENCY vote RON PAUL

[sallycaptain of 100]

People who want to vote for someone just because he is Morman need to know the truth about this man. Romney is not going to tell them.

[lundbaekcaptain of 1,000]

I have a Ron Paul bumper sticker on the back of our car, and I park in places, including back side facing church front doors, where LDSs can see it. Very few have ever asked me about him.

[lundbaekcaptain of 1,000]

http://devvy.net/candidates/romney_final.html

http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marr ... ey/record/

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=57786

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=56674

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=56674

[lundbaekcaptain of 1,000]

I watched him speak this morning, and this one paragraph caught my attention as he was speaking.

"As governor, I tried to do the right as best I knew it, serving the law and answering to the Constitution. I did not confuse the particular teachings of my church with the obligations of the office and of the Constitution – and of course, I would not do so as President. I will put no doctrine of any church above the plain duties of the office and the sovereign authority of the law."

He said "As governor, I tried to do the right as best I knew it, serving the law and answering to the Constitution." The only issue I can think of that involved a constitutional principle that he addressed was the mandatory health care program he initiated, which amounts to enforced welfare, which violates a constitutional principle.

"I will put no doctrine of any church above the plain duties of the office and the sovereign authority of the law." I guess he was right about that. "There can be no doubt about former Governor Mitt Romney’s current stance on issues considered “family values” — chiefly abortion and homosexual rights. He’s against both. But he admits to having previously been a supporter of both. During a 1994 Senate race against Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), he promoted “safe” abortion while relating the plight of “a dear, close family relative” who died as a result of an illegal abortion. “You will not see me wavering on this issue,” he stated. Also in 1994, he wrote a letter seeking the endorsement of the pro-homosexual Log Cabin Republican group based on “the values and vision of government we share.” He also agreed that homosexuals should not be excluded as Boy Scout leaders." It looks like certain Gospel principles may take a back seat to expediency. http://www.thenewamerican.com/node/6425


He also said: "Americans tire of those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain the world." Yet, even the most superficial examination of Romney's record as a politician reveals he is exactly the kind of man whose views shift with the wind and with the constituency to whom he needs to appeal.

[John Adamscaptain of 1,000]

I felt his talk was excellent (a little hypocritical considering he hasn't personally lived up to all the principles he outlined in his talk, but still a great talk nonetheless). Hopefully as people research all the candidates they will test them against some of the principles that Mr. Romney brought up and find that Ron Paul is still the only one that even comes close.

The other ironic thing I thought about his talk was everything he said about America being so great and the Islamic Terrorists being so bad. Going back to President Hinckley's 2003 "War & Peace" talk--depending on who you feel the real bad guys are--the talk could have a completely different meaning.

Quote #1

Americans acknowledge that liberty is a gift of God, not an indulgence of government. No people in the history of the world have sacrificed as much for liberty. The lives of hundreds of thousands of America's sons and daughters were laid down during the last century to preserve freedom, for us and for freedom loving people throughout the world. America took nothing from that Century's terrible wars - no land from Germany or Japan or Korea; no treasure; no oath of fealty. America's resolve in the defense of liberty has been tested time and again. It has not been found wanting, nor must it ever be. America must never falter in holding high the banner of freedom.

In many ways I agree that this holds true for the majority of Americans, however based on a different point of view where the American $ is the worldwide currency then America has actually taken quite a bit from those that we have conquered.

Quote #2

Infinitely worse is the other extreme, the creed of conversion by conquest: violent Jihad, murder as martyrdom... killing Christians, Jews, and Muslims with equal indifference. These radical Islamists do their preaching not by reason or example, but in the coercion of minds and the shedding of blood. We face no greater danger today than theocratic tyranny, and the boundless suffering these states and groups could inflict if given the chance.

Again, consider replacing a few words with violent "globalists" or violent "Military Industrial Complex American Leaders" and it's interesting how the whole speech can take on a different meaning.

So again I say the principles that Mr. Romney outlined were excellent, but his thoughts on who is living up to these principles and who is not living up to them is still up for debate in my mind.

I still think (hope) the majority of Americans are living up to these good principles, but just as all Islamics are not terrorists so is true the fact that all Americans are not living up to these noble principles that Mr. Romney brings out in his speech.

I still come back to the fact that in the end it's only through humility and repentance that we receive the full grace of God.

[buffalo_girlcaptain of 1,000]

Well, and by 'their works'.

For, I remember the word of God which saith by their works ye shall know them; for if their works be good, then they are good also. Moroni 7:5

I'm concerned that the vast majority of people - LDS & not - are motivated more by the catch phrases & 'talking points' than by what these leaders are actually doing.

We aren't committing ourselves to keep tabs on our representatives. I know it has become just about impossible, but I think we are where we are right now because we have been lazy in our civic responsibilities. I'm guilty!

[lundbaekcaptain of 1,000]

In frustration which many of us share, and inspired by and to some extent plagerized from a recent article by Pastor Chuck Baldwin and the "Open Letter to Mormons..." by Chip Higgins, I took that frustration out on this keyboard. I would appreciate any objections to what I have written.

Most Mormons Just Don’t Get It


I'm talking about the fine men and women who can be called Latter day Saints. On the whole, we share the same values and principles. We are pro-life; we stand for marriage as God defined it; we believe children should have the right to pray in school; and in theory we may even believe in limited government.

Unfortunately, it has been the blind support of Mormons for LDS-R candidates that has contributed to a glaring and perhaps fatal defect in our government: the Mormons cannot, or will not, honestly face the real danger confronting these United States. Nor did they do so when warned of them from the pulpit of their Salt Lake City Tabernacle years ago. They seem currently devoid of genuine sagacity. In spite of their church being a world-wide church now, they fail to understand the issues that are critical to our survival.

Mormons seem anxious to be accepted at the king's table, perhaps largely a result of the church-growth movement and mega-church mentality. Their infatuation with growth and success has made them weak and vulnerable. They have shown that once you win the support of Mormons with rhetoric, you can get by with just about anything.

Mormons are horrible at holding their elected legislators and other government officials accountable. Mitt Romney is currently receiving support from most Mormons. Most seem to have forgotten or ignored his earlier and recent disdain for certain constitutional and moral principles, as reported in the media. They seem oblivious to the continued shredding of the US Constitution by Utah and other LDS congressmen, who seem to have little real loyalty to the U.S. Constitution or the principles of liberty.

And Mormons seem to be influenced by globalists and internationalists. For all their pro-life, pro-family, traditional-values, conservative talk, they continue to support, mostly in ignorance, the overall agenda of the globalists. And they just doesn't get it. They don't see it.

Let's have a reality check here. The globalist-handlers running things in Washington, D.C., for the most part, could not care less about abortion or gay marriage, one way or the other. They will gladly give their support to "pro-life" and "pro-family" candidates as quickly as they will to "pro-choice" or "pro-gay marriage" candidates. As long as the candidate will offer no resistance to their plans for global government, they could not care less about his or her position on social issues. And, once again, most Mormons just doesn't get it.

Somewhere down the line, church members have forgotten or never learned the importance of constitutional government. They have forgotten or never learned the principles of liberty. Right along with most other Americans, they have allowed The Bill of Rights to become an antiquated and incidental document with no importance whatsoever to them.

Mitt Romney both wrote for the CFR and has numerous advisors who are CFR members, as the other candidates, excepting Ron Paul. Independent-minded candidates such as Ron Paul are cast in terms such as "fringe," or "extremist," or "nutty." The same CFR elite that controls the Washington political establishment also controls the New York media and financial establishments. And they hate outsiders! Of course, outsiders are those who do not share the globalist, utopian, New World Order machinations of the CFR.

Until the American people begin to awaken to what is really going on, their "awful situation", nothing will change. Absolutely nothing. As someone once said, "The height of absurdity is to continue to vote for the same thing and expect a different result."

Of the Presidential candidates in serious contention, Ron Paul, and Ron Paul alone, stands for change. Ron Paul, alone, would truly obey his oath to the Constitution and would work to restore freedom and liberty to the American people. Ron Paul, alone, would strive to kick the globalist elite out of power in Washington, D.C., and restore this country to constitutional governance. Dream on! Right along with other Americans, Mormons will continue to support establishment, CFR-backed, globalist candidates who will, in turn, continue to do the bidding of the international elite.

One would think that Mormons--more than anyone else--would understand the devilish nature of globalism. One would think that their study of the Scriptures would lead them to resist any attempts at building modern-day Towers of Babel. One would think that Mormons especially would love liberty enough to recognize its enemies. One would think that they would recognize that Washington, D.C. is a far greater threat to their freedom than either Baghdad or Tehran. But, alas, most Mormons, like most Americans, just don't get it.

When Mormons finally are awakened to their "awful situation", we can only hope and pray that they will be adequately prepared to participate in the restoration

[Proud 2b Peculiarcaptain of 1,000]

Live in Utah? Want to deliver that to a house for me? LOL

My father told me today on the phone that he is not going to be able to support Ron Paul. He says that it is due to Ron's position on abolishing Medicare.

I explained and sent references about this to my father, and how it would be a gradual process, and he still believes MSNBC over Ron Paul's site.

So, after hearing Romney's speech and sitting next to a high council member that grew up with the Romney's he is jumping to that candidate.

So, I sent him an email about socialism and communism and Babylon and how I have been guilty of partaking of the spoils, and that I am repenting and no matter what words come out of Mitt's mouth I have to vote on Constitutional principle, and even if Paul is not Nominated, I am still writing him in. I do not care if what I do is the popular thing, I do it simply because it is right.

[joelfarmcaptain of 10]

Again, I have to admire you lundbaek, your abiliity to compose and disiminate information into a form readable to those such as me with an obviously less educated background, keeps me coming back to this forum for insight. The only thing I could add to your prose is that it does show us to be just as ignorant as American at large, as to political discusion. I find it very frustrating to try and bring up political issues with some of my fellow brethren.
The dialog will usually go something like this; What do you think about candidate XX/ issue XX?"
"Well I really don't know much about him/it."
I will reply "Don't you think you should find out?"
"No, I barely have time to keep up with the job, kids, etc. and if I do have time, I read my scriptures."
I really do not understand the apathy of fellow Saints and Americans when it comes to our Nation. This idea that political discusion is verboten is part of the reason that evil is rampant in D.C. and our state capitols. As in discusion of religous differences, we as thinking humans should be able to talk to each other about our differences AND similarities without feeling uncomfortable and getting mad. What has happened to us?

[buffalo_girlcaptain of 1,000]

most Mormons just doesn't get it. (I'm sure you caught this in the sixth paragraph, Lundbaek. Sorry, it's the school marm in me.)

Send it! Is it going to the newspaper? Print it on handbills and scatter them all over the place.

There's nothing wrong with your intelligence, joelfarm. Education has nothing to do with intelligence.

I hesitate to share the following, but will anyway.

As you know, Brigham Young established the Saints in Utah Territory on a 'closed' economic system. He sought to retain all resources within the community. He did not want the wealth generated by the Saints' industry to be 'exported' out of Zion into the world.

When I was a student at BYU, one of the first campus jobs I had was in Archives at the Harold B. Lee Library. I worked cataloging old photographs, but all historical records were within that section of the library. Other students were responsible for transcribing written documents & journals. We sometimes shared particularly interesting bits of insight with one another.

One afternoon, a fellow student brought a rather amusing record of an address given by President Young at a Stake Conference. I don't recall which Stake. Maybe Sugarhouse. (I really should have made a photo copy of this paper.)

The Saints had attained a level of comfort and security in their lives. The long physical struggle to 'survive' was over.

Apparently, with commerce & communication made possible by the railroad, fashions of the world became of particular interest to the sisters in Zion. They were most anxious to avail themselves of the latest in dress design, silks, & other fashionable niceties.

Brigham Young made this bit of vanity the subject of his address.

I will not quote him faithfully as this site must retain its proper LDS decorum.

The quote that remains forever in my mind is, "If Paris or New York were to tell the sisters to wear sh-t pots upon their heads, they would."

It was in response to the sister's demands for silk that he began the silkworm industry. He felt that if they really, truly wanted silk they would need to produce it themselves.

I don't think the silk industry lasted terribly long. I understand the sisters hated handling the worms.

It is the same 'human' weakness we are witnessing in the LDS people of our time. They feel important by being part of the 'world'. What they have done is sell their 'birthright' for a mess of pottage or perhaps something even more akin to Brigham Young's simile.

[HeirofNumenorthe Heir Of Numenor]

GREAT adaption!!!!

So, Lundbaek, as the original author/adapter, to which newspapers will you be submitting this as a guest editorial? Your name will have the honor...

May I suggest the following?

Deseret Morning News

Salt Lake Tribune

Provo Daily Herald

Ogden Standard-Examiner

The Spectrum (Cedar City)

(St George local paper)

Hmmm I wonder what the paper is that serves Logan?

[buffalo_girlcaptain of 1,000]

OK, this one should cause a stir:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/a ... 17694.html

What would it cost to buy the support of just about every nationally syndicated neocon talk show host in America? About $19.5 billion, which is what Mitt Romney's private equity firm, Bain Capital, and Thomas H. Lee Partners have agreed to pay in a leveraged buyout agreement with Clear Channel Communications, the largest radio station owner in the country. This is part of a negotiation that has been pending for over a year.

Anyone, have additional information about this?

[lundbaekcaptain of 1,000]

What would Horatio Bunce say to Mitt Romney?
from: http://www.juntosociety.com/patriotism/inytg.html

Mr. Romney, you have demonstrated that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. Perhaps your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine. I believe you to be honest. But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is.


You indicated recently that you would violate the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when the President once begins to stretch his power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubtBecause you are a Mormon, I'd like to think you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you.

[John Adamscaptain of 1,000]

What would Horatio Bunce say to Mitt Romney?
from: http://www.juntosociety.com/patriotism/inytg.html

Mr. Romney, you have demonstrated that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. Perhaps your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine. I believe you to be honest. But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is.


You indicated recently that you would violate the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when the President once begins to stretch his power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubtBecause you are a Mormon, I'd like to think you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you.

Well said. Even if I could get over all the other issues floating around in regards to Mr. Romney, the point you bring up is the main reason I can't support him.

There is a group of us from the local RP Meetup Group that have an ongoing discussion going on with a local talk show host about how maybe Mitt isn't perfect, but if elected he might be the one to turn things around and at least get us pointed back in the right direction (back towards the Constitution even if we couldn't go back to it completely). Initially I thought this might actually be a legitimate argument, but the more I study Mr. Romney's record I still see even his good intentions taking us the opposite direction (even further away from the Constitution) as I believe his good intentions will allow him to "reason" his way beyond the "chains of the Constitution" (even the few remaining chains that haven't been completely broken--i.e., healthcare, education, foreign policy, etc.)