I’ve been critical of the AP in the past because of their lack of objectivity. Here’s another perfect example of that, except that the author got this one exactly right:
“Mitt Romney’s victory in Michigan was a defeat for authenticity in politics.
“The former Massachusetts governor pandered to voters, distorted his opponents’ record and continued to show why he’s the most malleable - and least credible - major presidential candidate.”
I couldn’t have said it better myself (though I’ve certainly tried)… and “malleable?” What a perfect adjective for Mitt!
4 Comments
Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI
Leave a comment
I couldn’t agree more. He’s so transparent that I have a hard time understanding why intelligent conservatives actually have bought into him and why they think he can win a general election. I am not the only one who has made comparisons between him and Joe Isuzu, the lying car salesman.
Nobody’s all good or all bad. I think Mitt Romney is very smart. I think he was a kick-butt CEO. He seems to have a very nice family. He looks like a President. If I wanted to have somebody take over the run down Kmart down the street and turn it into a profitable, nice looking Macy’s, Mitt would be the guy. But running a country is not like running a corporation. The masses don’t work for the President, but the President works for the masses, who can actually fire him. Congress is not a passive board of directors but is quite frequently hostile. In order to be effective, the President of the United States needs perhaps the only type of currency that Mitt Romney doesn’t have and can’t buy. Credibility.
I think that if he becomes the nominee, there will be at best a split among social conservatives. Some, like me, will not support him no matter what. And it’s not because of his religion. It’s because I don’t believe him when he talks. He was pro-abortion and liberal enough to win in Massachusets and then ‘poof’ – he’s Mitt Reagan. I don’t think so. He is one of the candidates who, if elected, might as well personally escort Hillary or Obama to the White House door. The Republicans will lose with him.
Who is better though? It’s slim pickings.
Hmmm. Let me think.
Huckabee – a solid social conservative who, despite what many people say, has the best tax plan. He wants to lower the Corporate Income Tax and the Personal Income Tax to zero and get our revenue through a sales tax (anyone think that might help the economy, which, last time I heard, was driven by spending?) He has the most experience of any candidate of either party in running a government as a Chief Executive. He has some crossover appeal (he got 48% of the black vote in Arkansas, for example) and, in the age of Obama and the youth vote, is, I believe, the only candidate under age 60.
McCain – a solid defense conservative. Was for the surge before anyone else. Has demonstrated in his life a higher level of patriotism than anyone else running. Has more experience in government as a legislator than anyone still in the race, having been in office since 1983. Has crossover appeal. Comes off to many as authentic even as many conservatives don’t trust him.
Thompson – Old Fred actually has had a very accomplished life. He is less likely to totally alienate social conservatives as, for example, Rudy would, and others would probably go along with him. My main problem with him is that he has totally lacked energy in this campaign (if somebody seemed to be nodding off during a job interview, would you think they’d have the energy to show up for work if you hired them?). But, I’d take him over Rudy and Romney in a New York minute.
As I said before, Romney had a keen eye for turning businesses around in an environment in which he was the Chief Executive and he didn’t have to motivate and inspire people he couldn’t fire. As for his governmental experience, he has less of it than any of the past nine Presidents (you have to go all the way back to Eisenhower to find someone entering the Oval Office with only four years of experience as an elected official – and Mitt didn’t just come back form taking down Hitler). He also is unacceptable to many social conservatives, just like the other northeastern executive running for the GOP nomination. These are people who are less motivated by what Rush says than what their convictions tell them. They’ll just sit it out or vote third party.
There is no perfect choice here. But, I caution people not to just blindly call some people liberal because some conservative pundits have declared it to be so and it’s the catch phrase of the day.
Whenever people who call themselves Reagan conservatives agree with secular liberals about who they hate, you know something requires a closer look. Something is wrong.
One more thing.
Voting for someone because of the mindsidet that “I don’t like him, but I’ve got to pick somebody and he seems Presidential” is not the best way to go. I say this because this is how the Democrats wound up with Kerry in 2004. They were in the same predicament then that we are in now. They picked Kerry not because they liked him, but because he was the least offensive to the different parts of the party. Like Romney, Kerry did not strike many people as authentic. Like Romney, Kerry was labeled as someone who changed positions easily (but to his credit, even Kerry didn’t seem to change almost every position). They were both tall, attractive northeasterners from ultra-liberal Massachusets. Both had access to a lot of money that they used to keep their up-and-down campaigns going (at least to Mitt’s credit, he worked for some of his money).
There was a candidate among the Democrats in 2004 who had conviction and principles and decency – Joe Lieberman. But the establishment – the liberal Elites – hated him with a passion and they beat him down before he got a chance to make his case to the general election. The result? The Democrats put up the best candidate who didn’t offend their establishment and their elites. In the general election, he lost ground – some blue states turned red on him. Their party got swept out of power because everyone listened to their irrational establishment.
Learn from the Democrats.