Reply With Quote
Maybe his positions have evolved - I've heard it happens to politicians.
Are you by any chance on the DNC payroll?
The Economists take:
Quick summary:
Will say anything to be elected, has taken some far rightish positions that will be hard to drop/change. Whatever positive factors he might have from his business experience are swamped by a sad lack of direction and specifics.
(full article follows)
Too much about the Republican candidate for the presidency is far too mysterious
WHEN Mitt Romney was governor of liberal Massachusetts, he supported abortion, gun control, tackling climate change and a requirement that everyone should buy health insurance, backed up with generous subsidies for those who could not afford it. Now, as he prepares to fly to Tampa to accept the Republican Party’s nomination for president on August 30th, he opposes all those things. A year ago he favoured keeping income taxes at their current levels; now he wants to slash them for everybody, with the rate falling from 35% to 28% for the richest Americans.
All politicians flip-flop from time to time; but Mr Romney could win an Olympic medal in it (see article). And that is a pity, because this newspaper finds much to like in the history of this uncharismatic but dogged man, from his obvious business a en to the way he worked across the political aisle as governor to get health reform passed and the state budget deficit down. We share many of his views about the excessive growth of regulation and of the state in general in America, and the effect that this has on investment, productivity and growth. After four years of soaring oratory and intermittent reforms, why not bring in a more businesslike figure who might start fixing the problems with America’s finances?
But competence is worthless without direction and, frankly, character. Would that Candidate Romney had indeed presented himself as a solid chief executive who got things done. Instead he has appeared as a fawning PR man, apparently willing to do or say just about anything to get elected. In some areas, notably social policy and foreign affairs, the result is that he is now committed to needlessly extreme or dangerous courses that he may not actually believe in but will find hard to drop; in others, especially to do with the economy, the lack of details means that some attractive-sounding headline policies prove meaningless (and possibly dangerous) on closer inspection. Behind all this sits the worrying idea of a man who does not really know his own mind. America won’t vote for that man; nor would this newspaper. The convention offers Mr Romney his best chance to say what he really believes.
There are some areas where Mr Romney has shuffled to the right unnecessarily. In America’s culture wars he has followed the Republican trend of adopting ever more socially conservative positions. He says he will appoint anti-abortion justices to the Supreme Court and back the existing federal Defence of Marriage Act (DOMA). This goes down well with southern evangelicals, less so with independent voters: witness the furore over one (rapidly disowned) Republican’s ludicrous remarks about abortion and “legitimate rape” (see article). But the powers of the federal government are limited in this area; DOMA has not stopped a few states introducing gay marriage and many more recognising gay civil partnerships.
The damage done to a Romney presidency by his courting of the isolationist right in the primaries could prove more substantial. He has threatened to label China as a currency manipulator on the first day of his presidency. Even if it is unclear what would follow from that, risking a trade war with one of America’s largest trading partners when the recovery is so sickly seems especially mindless. Some of his anti-immigration policies won’t help, either. And his attempts to lure American Jews with near-racist talk about Arabs and belligerence against Iran could ill serve the interests of his country (and, for that matter, Israel’s).
Once again, it may be argued that this will not matter: previous presidents pandered to interest groups and embraced realpolitik in office. Besides, this election will be fought on the economy. This is where Manager Romney should be at his strongest. But he has yet to convince: sometimes, again, being needlessly extremist, more often evasive and vague.
In theory, Mr Romney has a detailed 59-point economic plan. In practice, it ignores virtually all the difficult or interesting questions (indeed, “The Romney Programme for Economic Recovery, Growth and Jobs” is like “Fifty Shades of Grey” without the sex). Mr Romney began by saying that he wanted to bring down the deficit; now he stresses lower tax rates. Both are admirable aims, but they could well be contradictory: so which is his primary objective? His running-mate, Paul Ryan, thinks the Republicans can lower tax rates without losing tax revenues, by closing loopholes. Again, a simpler tax system is a good idea, but no politician has yet dared to tackle the main exemptions. Unless Mr Romney specifies which boondoggles to axe, this looks meaningless and risky.
On the spending side, Mr Romney is promising both to slim Leviathan and to boost defence spending dramatically. So what is he going to cut? How is he going to trim the huge en lement programmes? Which bits of Mr Ryan’s scheme does he agree with? It is a little odd that the number two has a plan and his boss doesn’t. And it is all very well promising to repeal Barack Obama’s health-care plan and the equally gargantuan Dodd-Frank act on financial regulation, but what exactly will Mr Romney replace them with—unless, of course, he thinks Wall Street was well-regulated before Lehman went bust?
Playing dumb is not an option
Mr Romney may calculate that it is best to keep quiet: the faltering economy will drive voters towards him. It is more likely, however, that his evasiveness will erode his main compe ive advantage. A businessman without a credible plan to fix a problem stops being a credible businessman. So does a businessman who tells you one thing at breakfast and the opposite at supper. Indeed, all this underlines the main doubt: nobody knows who this strange man really is. It is half a decade since he ran something. Why won’t he talk about his business career openly? Why has he been so reluctant to disclose his tax returns? How can a leader change tack so often? Where does he really want to take the world’s most powerful country?
It is not too late for Mr Romney to show America’s voters that he is a man who can lead his party rather than be led by it. But he has a lot of questions to answer in Tampa.
(end)
http://www.economist.com/node/21560864
FWIW
Maybe his positions have evolved - I've heard it happens to politicians.
Are you by any chance on the DNC payroll?
It's not that Gecko is a felony tax evader (until he proves otherwise) and proven tax liar, nor that he panders "evolves" to whomever is contributing the most, it's that Gecko/Ryan budget strategy are pure bull , except if your a 1%er or mega corporation.
guilty until proven innocent?
classic
The Economist used to be a great magazine...I always looked to it for a fair and balanced view of US politics but in the last 5 years or so it has really taken an editorial veer to the left.
I hear single women don't want to vote for Romney... That must be why they're single: they don't know a good man when they see one."
Sure, "some say" he's definitely got something VERY BIG to hide, from the IRS, from the Mormon church, from the American people. I can assume it's felony tax evasion until he proves otherwise. The burden to prove his innocence is no Gecko.
If you have nothing to hide, why are you against the Patriot Act?
This is why we have a legal system. To keep assumptions in check.
Only for Republicans.
lol TaxBirtherism
Absolutely.
According to the left, conservatives and republicans are always guilty until proven innocent.
^^^ in other words, the left is guilty until proven innocent?
classic
I have received my minimum daily recommended allowance of Vitamin I. Thanks WC. You should charge for that service.
now that you occasionally hear something besides an echo of your own political prejudice, you don't like it so much? how unsurprising.
You're welcome.
Have you read the economist for long? I actually subscribed to the paper version for many years. Your attack on my observation is totally unwarranted.
long time. they no longer suck up to Republicans, even occasionally criticize them. I know you find that hard to forgive.
Or, maybe his positions have genuinley changed or evolved over the years. Liberal media wants me to believe their spin on him, but it is not working.
Is it The Economist veering left or conservatives veering more to the right? Mitt being a fairly weak candidate shouldn't be news at this stage.
You've answered the question with the caveat GOP in place of conservatives.
Well, I certainly don't consider myself a hardline conservative and am not shy to criticize the Republicans when I think they deserve it, but yeah, I think the Economist has taken a dramatic veer to the left.
I don't like Obama or Romney, and I can't stand neo-cons, but I think Romney is the lesser of two evils and deep down is really a moderate and most likely will govern like one once elected. I could be wrong. He could actually believe the neo-con bull he's trying to run on.
Fair enough
That's my issue with him... When the primaries started, I though he would be an appealing candidate if you're closer to the center... but once he started the pandering to the base, you start wondering if he's such a weak guy that's going to get run over by the neocons and warhawks around him.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
