The smartest thing I've heard yet about this election
ing my own thread for more thoughts in the same vein.
So weeks have gone by and Romney's lying streak, if anything, is getting worse. Where to begin? There was his denial of his own plan for more military spending, conflating it with the post-Supercommittee cuts. There was his denial that he'll cut tax rates on the wealthy, after having the impossibility of his "revenue neutral" fantasy exposed, even though it
still shows on his website. There was the whole third Presidential debate! Somehow Obama's horrible foreign policy, for one night only, became something Mitt wholeheartedly agreed with except somehow it projected weakness, oh and by the way he'd have done it faster. There is the latest flap over Jeep actually
not exporting jobs to China.
The man is a liar.
Again, politicians lie, I got the message years ago. I understand that when someone shows up on TV and promises to give everyone a pony, people get interested. Everybody wants a pony, and that mean awful Obama has failed to give everyone a pony. Doesn't matter who he talks to. You'll get your pony. Even if somebody else doesn't want you to have it, you'll get it. Vote for me.
Now, the more astute among us are aware that this is impossible. There aren't enough ponies to go around. But that's OK, at least he means to give us all ponies. Maybe we'll get ours? There's a chance, right?
Well, no. Some of us built barns in the past, and we're still waiting for our ponies. And some, call us cynics if you must, understand that since ponies are in short supply, unless you're one of his close friends, the chances of your getting a pony are slim indeed. Someone will get a pony, no doubt about it. But it won't be you.
And yet, amazingly, some people are buying into the free ponies. Not just the young, stupid, or extreme pony enthusiasts, either. Otherwise intelligent people -- people who have been around this con for decades -- are deciding to give it a try.
David Weigel today
filed a fascinating piece where he notes, to his astonishment, many newspaper editorials that have come out for Mitt after backing Obama in 2008. But it's not the number -- instead, it's the number,
eleven, or more than half of the total, who make this pronouncement
despite highlighting Romney's amazing flip-flops.
Let me say that again: That's eleven editorial staffs, professional newsies, who endorse Romney even though they know he's blowing smoke with every breath.
From the article:
David Weigel said:
“Like his primary rivals,” editorialized Florida Today, “we never bought Romney’s newfound conservative purity. During the presidential debates, Romney wisely resumed his identity as a pro-growth pragmatist.”
They've endorsed him because he promised them a pony, in this case enhanced funding for NASA, even though earlier he swore our debt was "immoral" and he'd gut anything that required us to borrow money from China to pay for. Florida is not going to get its pony. I know heaps about this subject and I'll be glad to take it up with you offline. But this newspaper doesn't care. They're more than willing to buy into the fantasy.
More amazing still, there are people -- smart people, not Rushbots or party hardliners or anything -- who now see Romney's slipperiness as a virtue. Yep, I'm going there. Here's David Brooks:
David Brooks said:
Romney would probably be faced with a Democratic Senate. He would also observe the core lesson of this campaign: Conservatism loses; moderation wins. [...]
Republicans in Congress would probably go along. They wouldn't want to destroy a Republican president.
The bottom line: If Obama wins, we'll probably get small-bore stasis; if Romney wins, we're more likely to get bipartisan reform. Romney has more influence over the most intransigent element in the Washington equation -- House Republicans. He's more likely to get big stuff done.
Source (emphasis added)
Look, I've read and watched his column for years. He's no dummy. But he's making an absolutely
enormous leap of faith here -- Romney's learned that conservatism loses? Really?? Anyone want to talk to John Huntsman about that? If Romney indeed "learned" this, he'll be the only Republican in the country who's done so.
And yet, this streetwise, seasoned reporter not only believes this, he also believes that Romney will go along with it. He'll choose to remain in his guise of Moderate Mitt, and he'll do so with so much conviction that he'll be able to badger a Republican Congress with a stated allergy to bipartisanship.
This is nuts. This is rationalization on an epic scale. The article is even entitled
"The Upside of Opportunism." But Mr. Brooks wants his pony so badly that he'll forgive Romney's disguises, he'll forgive Republican intransigence that by his own admission will automatically scuttle Obama's agenda before he's even re-elected, and he'll go on record with this incredible prophecy of how Romney will act in office. Nobody can tell me what Romney's policies actually are, and yet everyone seems to think they know exactly what "the real Romney" will do.
Which brings me to the subject of this message. The single smartest thing I've heard about this election came today from Susan Eisenhower (yes, that Eisenhower). She has a rather different take.
Susan Eisenhower said:
Just because Romney now says he wants to cooperate in a bipartisan way doesn’t mean other members of the Republican Party will agree. If Romney is indeed the centrist he once was in Massachusetts, there are structural reasons why as president he would have difficulty governing from the middle. A Romney election may well bring, on his coattails, many more conservatives to Congress. His base there will determine a great deal of what he can accomplish. In the foreign policy realm, where Romney has little personal experience, he will be heavily reliant on his advisors, most of whom are neocons as well as former Bush administration officials. On the domestic front, Romney will also be indebted to the party faithful. He will need to give many of them top spots in his administration. Since he will undoubtedly wish to seek a second term he will also be constrained by how close to the center he is allowed to get.
Source (emphasis added)
I can't argue with her point about Romney's advisors. His VP, for instance -- is Romney going to somehow de-radicalize Paul Ryan? Does anyone believe he picked Ryan with plans to lock him in a closet for the next four years?
He's already made down payments to the neocon and religious right, and in this respect Romney is
not changing flags again. All those talking about Romney being a "shapeshifter" are only paying attention to the words coming out of his mouth. His deeds go unnoticed because they are few, but while few, they are consistent.
Anyone out there who wants to bet, once in office, we'll see Moderate Mitt instead of Extremely Rightwing Romney, I'll be glad to take your money. You won't need it. You won't have a pony to feed.
