Below is a fun little video of former Governor Mitt Romney endorsing most of the key provisions of President Obama's American Jobs Act: tax credits to businesses who hire those who’ve been out of work for six months, a cut in the payroll taxes for workers and small business, allowing businesses to write off the cost of capital investments, and increasing infrastructure spending. Romney, you won't be surprised, has explicitly endorsed all of this in the recent past, even though he now is strongly against the act. Improving the economy and helping people find jobs, after all, runs against his ambition to president. Economic chaos means more Republican success.
Notice that Romney also strongly endorsed the 2008 bank bailouts (see here) and both fiscal and monetary stimulus in 2008 (see here), before reversing his position when it became unpopular. Think of that next time Romney criticizes Obama on the economy. I really wonder if this guy has any core beliefs or character, beyond an all-consuming, life-long quest to be President Romney.
8 comments:
Mitt will say anything he has to to be President. I completely agree. His political beliefs depend on the time and audience. I really hope that neither of the two front runners (Romney and Perry) win the primary, can't stand either of them.
Kyle
The two most important issues most Americans agree are the most important he has never flip flopped on: Faith and Family. That is more than you can say for Jon Huntsman. And this election we would all be wise to vote for a candidate who has shown he/she can actually lead and accomplish something rather than someone who has “vision” but has demonstrated no ability to realize a vision. As for his changing positions on some issues, consider reading, “Who Moved my Cheese” (a famous book.) As times change, we have to change too. When it comes to leading, managing, and turning things around, no one can compare to Mitt Romney.
As a conservative, I hate to get into a discussion about how some of our Republican candidates suck, but here goes.
Saying that someone is qualified to be president based on the fact that he is religious and a family man seems far-reaching. There are millions that have never flip-flopped on faith and family, there are not millions of people that would make good presidential candidates.
As for Mitt's changing with the times, all of these changes have been in the same decade (some within the past year). The times haven't changed! No one has moved Mitt's cheese but himself! I doubt you gave John Kerry the slack you are giving Mitt on flip-flopping.
Look, I want Mitt to be a principled conservative as bad as I think you do. Because if he was I think he would win. But the fact is, is he is neither principled nor conservative. He is whatever he thinks people want him to be.
The Republican Party has to put through someone that is principled to win this next election, or Obama's got another 4 years in the bag. Dare I say I think Ron Paul has a better chance to beat Obama than Romney or Perry. The Republican Party needs someone different than what we have seen in the 2000s, and Mitt isn't different.
Bryan, I am sure you are loving this.
Kyle
I didn’t say that being a religious and a family man are the most important criteria in choosing the President of the United States, nor do I believe that to be true.
I am simply pointing out that not all issues and core beliefs are created equal when it comes to condemning someone from having departed from their original stance.
When it comes to the GOP candidates, pay more attention to what they are capable of DOING and less at what they are saying. In this time of economic trouble in America , what a person has shown they can DO is far more relevant to the conversation of what kind of president they would be than whether or not they have changed their views on some issues.
Cheryl,
Thanks for chiming in here. I like your idea that a president should "get things done." I think the hidden worry here is the Obama has not gotten things done. I'm not sure this is true since he has done some really historic things. To the extent that it is true, I believe it is because the Republican have refused to compromise on any point, even a little. What we need are people who will work together and give up a little of their ideology for the greater good. If we want to "get things done," the problem lies mostly with the Republican opposition, not President Obama. Obama has been more than willing to compromise.
Kyle,
It is amazing how different our perceptions of the electorate are. No one can win nationally as a "principled conservative," because principled conservatives have unpopular positions (protect low tax rates on the wealthy, while cutting safety net programs, privatizing social security, etc.). They can only win if they hide their true governing agenda, like has happened in some of the governorships (Kasich, Walker, and so forth). This means that I really fear Romney as a Republican candidate, while I don't fear Perry or Paul. Precisely because there is evidence that he is NOT a principled conservative, there is evidence that he might win. For example, Romney has played this social security thing against Perry brilliantly. He has cemented in people's minds the idea that he is somehow a defender of social security, although his actual position differs little from Perry. He has gone just far enough to the right rhetorically, as shown in his (in my mind) dishonest attacks against Obama, to gain legitimacy with the Repulican primary voters. But he has not gone far enough right to scare everyone else.
I am sadly preparing my mind for President Romney. Too bad. I have very little respect for him.
I guess we do have different perceptions of the electorate. I think a principled conservative does have a better chance right now than a moderate. Do you not see the conservative energy in the country right now? Maybe I see what I want to see, but it seems to me that conservative principles are very appealing to a wide range of voters. While the face of the Tea Party has not always been pretty, the energy behind this movement is conservative energy. You see Republicans winning special elections in Democratic strongholds (Weiner's seat). And how can you not see this from the 2010 elections? Not only did Republicans beat Democrats, but conservatives beat moderates. I know it is different in a national presidential race, but I think the potential is there.
These examples you give me of conservative stances that are "unpopular" are interesting to me.
"Protecting low tax rates on wealthy"- Low tax rates? The top 1% pays more in taxes than the bottom 90%. How far do we want to take this? I know they aren't as high as they've been, but I don't think Americans are itching to raise taxes on anybody right now. These evil, greedy, rich people use their money in the economy. They spend lots of money which is good for the economy. They invest their money (and pay more taxes if they make money on their investments) which is good for the economy. They re-invest their money into their business which is good for the economy. Not everyone buys the idea that the government knows how to spend money better than the wealthy.
"Cutting safety net programs"-Is this referring to welfare? Over half of all taxes go to social programs. Yeah, I think there are areas we can cut. And no, I don't think that is unpopular.
"Privatizing social security"-Social security is bankrupt. How can you defend this program? It is broke. It has no money. It took people's money under the pretense that the government would keep it safe, and it's gone. There are ways to offer people other options without scaring the elderly into thinking they won't get their checks.
I know you could not disagree more with all of this. But my point is only that these issues you think are so unpopular, are resonating more and more with people.
One other thing. It seems to me that Obama too had to scale back his liberal rhetoric when he ran for president. The times he got into the most trouble was when he was speaking off the cuff, his true liberal self showed through. So how do you justify this? You being so hard on Romney and all.
Kyle
An interesting link relating to the social programs I referred to:
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011/10/05/nearly-half-of-households-receive-some-government-benefit/
Not sustainable.
Well, I guess we'll see come next November. I suspect that GOP recent successes have more to do with economic worries rather than any endorsement of GOP policies. At least that is what my reading of the polls tell me.
"The top 1% pays more in taxes than the bottom 90%." That is because the top 1% make most of the money, and increasingly so.
By social safety net, I was referring to social security, medicare, and medicaid, the vast majority of government spending. And, yes, cutting this such things are very unpopular (less so Medicaid, but even that is unpopular). Check out the polls on this question. Case in point: the Rick Perry debacle.
I wasn't defending Social Security in that statement. I was claiming that cutting it is very unpopular. I will say, though, that your sense of crisis about social security is unfounded. It will be viable for decades, and only minor tweaks are needed. Medicare is a different story.
Ah yes, the secret, "true liberal" Obama everyone seems to think they know so well. Let me assure you, having followed Obama closely over the years, that he has remained largely the same in his views over the year. For better and worse.
Post a Comment