In Part 2, Tim Russert asks Romney about religion, about race, and about his changed position on abortion rights.

In Part 3, Romney answers questions on Stem Cell research, gun control, and immigration.

In Part 4 the immigration questions continue. Questions on budget and taxes...

In Part 5 Romney is asked about his apparently moderate positions as Governor, his position about State mandates vs. Federal mandates, and Mike Huckabee's name calling.

Romney is going to be the GOP nominee precisely because he stands for nothing. Extremely smart and good on his feet as this interview demonstrates.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Upvote for the discussion - but not a fan.

^Did you watch them?

blankfist is excused because he lives in LA. Southern California isn't even America anymore (I can say that because I lived in Compton).

^ Right!

Though, what's with this nonsense: Freedom requires religion. No. Freedom requires secularism.

He was just paraphrasing, blankfist. So, it didn't need to make sense.

Paraphrasing.

Hitchens disembowels that moronic Romney speech in the most delightful way here - http://www.slate.com/id/2179404/

Once you get beyond the inherent strangeness of the Book of Mormon, though, Romney has very few political negatives, a very good organization, and the ability to mold his public image like Play-Doh. Scary.

I am still pinning my hopes on Bloomberg running as an Independent. Sorry, Church of Ron Paul @ VS.

Freedom ultimately requires a perverse sort of faith in the social compact that is more secular humanist than Southern Baptist, or Mormon, or Roman Catholic, or Scientological . . .

What does him "paraphrasing" have to do with anything. He said it, and you know, like I know, he meant it. By him saying he was paraphrasing shows he's politically backpedaling at this point. I stand by it: freedom needs secularism.

Is Romney running for president of Iran? No thanks Mullah Romney. McCain has, by far, the most integrity of the officially sanctioned Republican candidates, but that's not saying much.

^Umm. McCain has the most integrity? How do you figure?

In his carefully crafted "Faith in America" speech -- the one the campaign portrayed him as working on so diligently -- Romney declared: "I saw my father march with Martin Luther King Jr." But as the Boston Phoenix reported Thursday, there's "no evidence" that the elder Romney actually marched with King; the Romney campaign has relied on a 1967 book in which David Broder says that Romney's father "marched with Martin Luther King through the exclusive Grosse Pointe suburb of Detroit," but the Grosse Pointe Historical Society says King never marched in Grosse Pointe. And even if he did -- and even if Romney's father marched with him there -- it's now clear that the younger Romney did not, in fact, see it happen.

Romney acknowledged as much Thursday even as he insisted that he was right to say that he "saw" it himself. "I 'saw' him in the figurative sense," Romney said at a press conference. "The reference of seeing my father lead in civil rights and seeing my father march with Martin Luther King is in the sense of this figurative awareness of and recognition of his leadership."

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/

Discarding this video. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 4 days.

A different thumbnail image for this video could not be found for findthumb request by lucky760.