Marco Rubio delivered a foreign policy speech at the Brookings Institution today that was heavy on deceptive attacks against President Obama. But the most notable thing about Rubio's speech was what he didn't say: The remarks were tellingly short on praise for Mitt Romney's foreign policy plans.

That's because there's nothing to praise. Rubio knows Romney has been on every side of the key foreign policy challenges facing our country today. He's failed to outline a coherent vision for America's place in the world or construct any concrete plans to enhance our security or strengthen our alliances.

Just look at Romney’s foreign policy positions and statements over the years:

Afghanistan: Romney has criticized the President’s proposal to responsibly withdraw our troops, implying that he would leave them there indefinitely. And he has refused to say what he would do as President in Afghanistan beyond “deferring to the generals.”

Iran: Romney said in 2007 that he would defer to his lawyers before considering military action. And now he is advocating for “crippling sanctions” and keeping a military option on the table—all things the President has already done. Although he has criticized the President’s approach in Iran, he has failed to say what he would do differently, or if he believes there is still time for diplomacy to work.

Osama bin Laden: Romney said it wasn’t worth “moving heaven and earth” to catch him and he even criticized President Obama for making it clear that he would take out al-Qaeda targets in Pakistan.

Muammar Qaddafi: Romney flip-flopped on removing Qaddafi, first attacking President Obama for intervening in Libya and then celebrating it as Libyan rebels took Tripoli with the help of US and allied forces.

With a record of statements like that, is it any surprise why Mitt Romney and Marco Rubio are focused on distorting the president’s record?

Who said the following about Mitt Romney?

"The governor of Massachusetts is totally consistent, because he's had two positions at least on every issue."

"I didn't manage for profit. I led for patriotism."

"For the upcoming 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, that bill to American taxpayers is estimated to be $1.3 billion. That's outrageous…and it's a disgrace."

That's fellow Republican and current Romney endorser John McCain. Romney and McCain haven't always had the sunniest of friendships, and McCain has not shied away from hitting Romney on his record as governor, his time in the private sector, and his values. And today, he introduced Mitt at an RNC gathering in Arizona.

Regardless of what McCain says these days, we know what he really thinks. Check out our latest video, "John McCain on Mitt Romney."

One of Mitt Romney's most highly touted endorsements has been Ted Nugent, better known these days for his extreme right-wing views than for his music. After Romney sought and received Nugent's endorsement, he went on the radio last month and said, "It's been fun getting to know Ted Nugent."

Really?

Does Romney think it's "fun" that Nugent told the NRA convention that President Obama and members of his administration are "criminals," "vile," "evil," and "America-hating"? Is it "fun" for Romney when Nugent claims he'll be "dead or in jail" should President Obama be re-elected?

Let's hope not—but we won't know until Romney steps up and denounces Nugent's latest despicable remarks. Romney's been remarkably silent on his surrogate's comments, especially when you consider how quickly he is to cause a fuss over anything he perceives as a slight.

We're waiting, Mitt.

In Saturday night's Republican presidential debate, Mitt Romney said that he agreed with Rick Perry: On the matter of U.S. foreign aid, "everything"—including Israel—starts at zero if he becomes president.

DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz responded:

“I’m aghast that the leading Republican contenders for President tonight, including Mitt Romney, pledged to zero out the foreign aid budget, including the traditional and vital support the U.S. has provided the Jewish state of Israel for its security. I cannot think of a more irresponsible, risky, or deplorable position toward our most important friend and ally. That Mitt Romney and these candidates would sacrifice the security of the state of Israel for an applause line at a debate and to appeal to the far right wing Tea Party faction of the Republican base shows that not a single one of them has what it takes to be commander-in-chief."

Read her full statement here.

This has got to be the ultimate flip-flop: Mitt Romney flip-flops on flip-flopping. Watch—and share—the latest edition of Which Mitt.

What's Mitt Romney's plan for the housing crisis? Just last week, he told the Las Vegas Review-Journal Editorial Board, "Don't try and stop the foreclosure process. Let it run its course and hit the bottom." In other words: You're on your own.

Watch and share the ad we're running in Arizona to hold Romney accountable for his plan to let the housing market "hit the bottom" and force struggling families to lose their homes.

In the past week, Mitt Romney flip-flopped on three different issues: the payroll tax cut, China, and the auto industry recovery. Wonder which Mitt we'll get at tonight's debate? So do we.

Watch and share our new web video.

The Mitt Romney who's running for the Republican presidential nomination has said he would sign legislation to end Medicare as we know it, slash Social Security, and repeal health care reform as one of his first acts in office.

But over the years, Mitt Romney has supported expanding access to health care, protecting a woman's right to choose, and investing in infrastructure—just like the kind in the Recovery Act that brought us back from the brink of a depression.

It’s one thing for a politician’s positions to evolve over time. It's another to flip back and forth over the course of a 20-year political career based on what office you're running for and where.

And that's exactly what Romney has shown: He has no core convictions or values. With him, it's all just politics.

It makes you wonder—which Mitt would we get in the White House?

And which Mitt would we be relying on to make decisions on behalf of millions of Americans, during a crisis, or as commander in chief?

So we took a hard look at his record, everywhere he’s stood on the issues, and put it all together in the form of a new site.

We can't predict exactly how Mitt would govern as president, but you can take the quiz to test how well you know his track record to get an idea—and perhaps learn a little more about the man some are calling the Republican front-runner.

Which Mitt do you know?

The answer may surprise you.

MEMO

From: Brad Woodhouse, DNC Communications Director

To: Interested Parties

Date: October 3, 2011

Re: As Media Continues to Vet Romney, Stories on His Failed Record as Governor Pile Up

Over the past few days there has been a steady stream of stories on Mitt Romney that shed light on his governing record, which he has attempted to gloss over as a candidate for president. These stories range from a front page New York Times story on the taxes he raised as governor to an AP piece on his consistently below-average jobs record in Massachusetts to a Time magazine look into how Romney personally profits from his opposition to the President’s tax reform proposals.

Mitt Romney’s not campaigning on his failed record as governor; he’s literally saying anything that he thinks the Tea Party wants to hear and that current GOP primary politics demand—most recently his support for policies that would end Medicare as we know it and dismantle Social Security while providing more handouts and tax cuts to corporations, special interests, and the very wealthiest few at the expense of seniors and middle-class Americans. And since he started running for president, Romney’s had a change of heart on the issue of asking large corporations to pay their fair share.

Mitt Romney’s not one to let the facts of his failed record get in the way of his goal of being elected president. Despite his rhetoric on the campaign trail, Mitt Romney was a governor who raised taxes, failed to adequately create jobs, and had a troubled relationship with the state’s business community.

Below please find key excerpts from three stories that ran over the past few days that raise more questions about Mitt Romney’s rationale for running for president and what he would bring to the job.

ROMNEY’S FAILED JOBS RECORD AS GOVERNOR

This weekend’s Associated Press headline was a bit generous, "Mixed job picture when Romney was Mass. governor." By key indicators show Romney’s record was a failure.

From the AP’s Story:

Under Romney, Manufacturing Jobs Fell By A Steep 11.4 Percent. “The steepest drop during Romney's tenure came in manufacturing. The number of manufacturing jobs fell by 11.4 percent, extending a historic slide in a state whose mill towns once provided the fuel for the economic engine. Other areas that saw declines during Romney's term were jobs in publishing, movies, broadcasting and data processing, which fell by 7.1 percent, and in warehousing and utilities, which fell by 2.7 percent.” [Associated Press, 10/2/11]

Recovery Under Governor Romney Was “Slower Than The Nation As A Whole”—By The End Of Romney’s Term, National Unemployment Was Lower Than Unemployment In Massachusetts. “The recovery in Massachusetts during Romney's tenure was slower than the nation as a whole. When Romney was sworn in, the national unemployment rate was 5.7 percent, just slightly higher than Massachusetts' jobless number that month. Four years later the national unemployment rate had fallen to 4.5 percent, slightly lower than Massachusetts.” [Associated Press, 10/2/11]

Romney Added Just 40,000 Jobs By The End Of His Term, A “Modest Achievement.” “At the time, the state's unemployment rate was at 5.6 percent, compared with a low of 2.8 percent just two years earlier. The jobless rate would keep rising through Romney's first year in office, topping out at 6 percent in August of his first year. By December 2006, Romney's last full month in office, it had fallen to 4.7 percent. A drop of less than 1 percent, meaning the addition of about 40,000 jobs, may seem like a modest achievement.” [Associated Press, 10/2/11]

ROMNEY’S CONTROVERSIAL TAX RECORD

Yesterday’s New York Times front-page, above-the-fold piece on the taxes and fees he raised as governor is sure to cause problems for Romney with the Republican electorate—which is why he’s trying to backtrack on the issue.

From the New York Times’ story:

Romney Required Companies to Pay Nearly 20 Percent More Taxes From When He Took Office. “By the end of Mr. Romney's term, the loophole measures required companies to pay about $370 million a year in additional taxes, a nearly 20 percent increase from the period before he took office, according to an analysis of government data by the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, a nonprofit research group that receives financing from corporations. [New York Times, 10/2/11]

"During Mr. Romney's tenure, Massachusetts Ranked Near The Bottom—47th Out Of 50 States—In New Job Creation." [New York Times, 10/2/11]

Romney Not Only Raised State Taxes, He Encouraged Towns Raise Taxes On Commercial Properties. “When residential property tax assessments shot up in 2003, the governor signed a bill encouraging towns to offset the higher costs by lowering tax rates for homeowners but raising them for commercial properties.” [New York Times, 10/2/11]

Romney “Suddenly Reversed Course” On Empowering His Tax Commissioner And Soon Began Running For President. “Mr. Romney, who had previously seemed so immune to the pressure from the business lobby, suddenly reversed course. He yanked the proposal to empower his tax commissioner further, despite support from leading Democrats in the legislature, and scaled back by half his 2005 plan to raise $170 million in new loophole closings. ‘There was a lot of pressure on the administration not to do it,’ Mr. LeBovidge said with a hint of regret. Mr. Romney, he said, ‘felt it was not a battle worth fighting.’ By 2006, Mr. Romney was traveling the country, all but openly campaigning for the White House as a fiscal conservative. Much to Mr. Norquist's delight, Mr. Romney became the first Republican presidential candidate to sign his no-new-taxes pledge, in 2007—something he had declined to do five years earlier when he ran for governor.” [New York Times, 10/2/11]

Conservative Activist Grover Norquist Assailed Romney, Stands By Claims that Romney Raised Taxes. “Grover Norquist […] assailed the plan as a threat to free society. He likened it to ‘crossing state lines to mug someone.' […] Mr. Norquist acknowledged that he had been deeply disappointed by Mr. Romney's corporate tax overhaul. Unlike the governor, Mr. Norquist regards the changes as tax hikes. ‘They changed the laws and the rules to significantly raise taxes,’ he said. ‘That is a tax increase.’ [New York Times, 10/2/11]

ROMNEY & THE BUFFETT RULE

This morning, Time magazine’s Michael Scherer looked at Romney’s opposition to President Obama’s “Buffett Rule” that ensures that middle-class families wouldn’t pay higher taxes than millionaires and billionaires, and how Romney benefits from our broken tax code as it currently exists.

From Time magazine’s story:

CTJ: Romney Likely Paid 14 Percent Of His Gross Income In Federal Taxes In 2010. “Assuming that Romney declared roughly the same number of deductions as others in his income level and that his dividend and capital gains income qualified for the 15% bracket, Romney would have paid roughly 14% of his gross income in taxes to the federal government in 2010 according to Bob McIntyre, who crafts tax policy at the left-leaning Citizens for Tax Justice. … And this is exactly the dynamic that Obama and Buffett have been talking about in recent weeks: For a select group of wealthy investors, the regular income tax structure simply does not apply. (Buffett claims to pay just 17% of his net income in taxes.) It pays to be an investor in a way that it does not pay to be a high paid actor or professional sports star. If Romney made the same amount of income in 2010 as he declared, but it all came as a direct salary, McIntyre calculates that he would have paid something closer to 30% of his net income in taxes. [Time, 10/3/11]

Romney’s Tax Records Are A Political Vulnerability. “Should Romney win the Republican nomination, he will face substantial pressure to release his own tax returns. Usually such disclosures are little more than formality, but in Romney’s case, it would land him in the middle of one of the biggest policy debates of this election season.” [Time, 10/3/11]

Wealthy Americans like Romney ‘Never Pay The 35% Rate That Their Income Would Be Subject To If They Just Got A Paycheck Like Most Americans.’ People who earn as much money as Romney typically make most of it in capital gains and often deduct more than they earn in royalties, salary and interest. In other words, they never pay the 35% rate that their income would be subject to if they just got a paycheck like most Americans. [Time, 10/3/11]

Halloween is fast approaching. While you hunt around the Internet for the perfect flip-flop costume, you can also enter for the chance to spend a day with Mitt Romney (who doesn't need a costume). And don't forget to wear your new duds when you meet the candidate for the photo-op of a lifetime.

You just can't make this stuff up.

Click the image below for a full-sized version.

Last night the Republican presidential candidates gathered in Orlando for their second Florida debate this month. And once again, instead of offering a single new idea or proposal that would create jobs, the members of the Republican field spent nearly two hours discussing what, as president, they would dismantle: Social Security, Medicare, the Department of Education, Wall Street reform, and health reform—in short, all the things that better the lives of middle-class families.

It was GOP frontrunner Mitt Romney who best summarized the night: "There are a lot of reasons not to elect me. There are a lot of reasons not to elect other people on the stage."

Last night the Republican presidential candidates gathered in Orlando for their second Florida debate this month. And once again, instead of offering a single new idea or proposal that would create jobs, the members of the Republican field spent nearly two hours discussing what, as president, they would dismantle: Social Security, Medicare, the Department of Education, Wall Street reform, and health reform—in short, all the things that better the lives of middle-class families.

It was GOP frontrunner Mitt Romney who best summarized the night: "There are a lot of reasons not to elect me. There are a lot of reasons not to elect other people on the stage."

Last night the Republican presidential candidates gathered in Orlando for their second Florida debate this month. And once again, instead of offering a single new idea or proposal that would create jobs, the members of the Republican field spent nearly two hours discussing what, as president, they would dismantle: Social Security, Medicare, the Department of Education, Wall Street reform, and health reform—in short, all the things that better the lives of middle-class families.

It was GOP frontrunner Mitt Romney who best summarized the night: "There are a lot of reasons not to elect me. There are a lot of reasons not to elect other people on the stage."