Mitt vs. Mitt
November 29, 2011
Here’s the Democrats’ first salvo against Romney, Mitt vs. Mitt.
It’s pretty effective, except for this: how can Romney possibly be painted as an extremist now?
He’s obviously a non-ideological technocrat.
We all know about Romney’s ideological somersaults.
So, you know, if we’re looking for a replacement for the current president, and we are worried about those scary Tea Party folks, well… doesn’t this burnish his centrist credentials?
Update: Mind you, Gingrich is no paragon of conservatism.
Categories: Political philosophy, Political prognostication, USA! USA! USA!
That’s a good summary of why I don’t support Romney. The last thing the global economy needs is a politician as president. We need someone who is willing to set a course that gets us out of the mess, executes on that plan successfully despite the inevitable opposition, and is capable of communicating that strategy both domestically and internationally in order to maintain political viability.
Pandering to your audience is not a sign of leadership. Instead, it speaks to a weakness of character that does not befit the office. I’m certainly still in the “anybody but Mitt” camp. In fact, I’m honestly not sure that Romney would be better than Obama, and believe me when I say I’m absolutely no fan of Obama.
Mitt’s better than Obama in this way: we’re going to have a Republican House and Senate that will be passing very good legislation in the next congress — we’ll just need someone willing to sign it.