Romney Finding the Center...
by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny
Mitt Romney had a very effective debate night in round #1 versus President Obama, although some of his statements were, to say the least stretches. But I guess that's normal for politicians because Obama had a few stretches as well.
That aside, does anyone really know which side of the fence Romney really stands on? I mean he has actually said he "is seriously conservative" while recently scrambling to the political center.
Now don't get me wrong, the middle ground is perhaps where an elected official ought to be. I mean after all is said and done, once elected aren't elected aren't officials supposed to represent ALL the people of their district, state, and nation, depending on their specific office?
Okay then... Isn't Romney's shift from "seriously conservative" to the center is indicative of precisely what Romney did as Governor of Massachusetts, a state that is 87% democratic and one of the most liberal states in the nation. If the issue is finding ways to "get the job done" then is can be argued that it is precisely what Romney did in Massachusetts. Something Obama has failed to do as President.
Yeah, Romney is a bit wishy washy for my taste, however, given the alternative he IS the preferable lesser of two evils, at least in my never humble opinion. Certainly at the very least Romney would slow done the growth of government and the headlong rush to the cliff's edge.
For a more left leaning take, just to be fair and balanced, I encourage you to read the following.
Thanks so much Bubba for reminding America that back in the day you did the "center shift" from the left to center as well to govern effectively. For this America is grateful.
For those like me who view issues in a more philosophical and ethical light there remains the more ethical alternative.
Via: Memeorandum
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny
 |
| Source: Getty Images |
Mitt Romney had a very effective debate night in round #1 versus President Obama, although some of his statements were, to say the least stretches. But I guess that's normal for politicians because Obama had a few stretches as well.
That aside, does anyone really know which side of the fence Romney really stands on? I mean he has actually said he "is seriously conservative" while recently scrambling to the political center.
Now don't get me wrong, the middle ground is perhaps where an elected official ought to be. I mean after all is said and done, once elected aren't elected aren't officials supposed to represent ALL the people of their district, state, and nation, depending on their specific office?
Okay then... Isn't Romney's shift from "seriously conservative" to the center is indicative of precisely what Romney did as Governor of Massachusetts, a state that is 87% democratic and one of the most liberal states in the nation. If the issue is finding ways to "get the job done" then is can be argued that it is precisely what Romney did in Massachusetts. Something Obama has failed to do as President.
Yeah, Romney is a bit wishy washy for my taste, however, given the alternative he IS the preferable lesser of two evils, at least in my never humble opinion. Certainly at the very least Romney would slow done the growth of government and the headlong rush to the cliff's edge.
For a more left leaning take, just to be fair and balanced, I encourage you to read the following.
The Washington Post - The final weeks of the presidential campaign are bringing Mitt Romney full circle, back to a question that has tugged at him for nearly two decades: What does he really believe?
Although he declared himself “severely conservative” during the Republican primaries, the former Massachusetts governor has been sounding more moderate in recent days.
There may be room for argument as to whether Romney’s positions are changing. But the emphasis and tone with which he describes them unquestionably are — on issues that include immigration, taxes, education and health care.
On Tuesday, the candidate, who has repeatedly vowed that he would be “a pro-life president,” told the Des Moines Register editorial board that “there’s no legislation with regards to abortion that I’m familiar with that would become part of my agenda.”
In an interview with ABC News on Wednesday, President Obama said the comment was “another example of Governor Romney hiding positions he’s been campaigning on for a year and a half.”
What remains to be seen is which Romney will be judged as the real one by voters. Will they consider his flexibility disturbing evidence that he lacks principles or a reassuring signal that he would not govern as an ideologue?
At a rally in Las Vegas, former president Bill Clinton mocked Romney’s shifts, saying they were evident in last week’s presidential debate, which was almost universally regarded as a win for the Republican.
“I had a different reaction to that first debate than a lot of people did,” he said, laying it on with his buttery Arkansas drawl. “I thought: ‘Wow, here’s old moderate Mitt. Where ya been, boy? I miss you all these last two years.’ ” {Read More}... Click here for the video.
Thanks so much Bubba for reminding America that back in the day you did the "center shift" from the left to center as well to govern effectively. For this America is grateful.
For those like me who view issues in a more philosophical and ethical light there remains the more ethical alternative.
Via: Memeorandum
Well, thank you, really, Les, for being a true conservative, or as you say "classical liberal," who had the smarts and honesty to write this post.
ReplyDeleteI've been reminding every conservative I know of Romney's shift to the center, and how that's what wins big elections as opposed to the losing strategy "running as a true conservative," as most conservatives see it.
The fact of the matter here is that most Americans are not far right, nor libertarian, nor Republican, for that matter - nor liberal or progressive or socialist either. My conservative friends, for the most part, snort and walk away from the subject.
There is no particular political philosophy to which a majority of Americans adhere. And that is a fact.
Lucky for us today, we are, per our Constitution, a representative democracy.
And, like you Les, I think that's a good thing.
If you want to change the country, then fine: Simply participate with our freedoms and rights to that end. Right? It seems as simple as that to me.
JMJ
jmj, this is perhaps the most compelling case I have heard you make in defense of our democratic republic, thank you for it.
DeleteAnd to think a bunch of really smart, really passionate, and really gifted individuals came up with the blueprint for the first government based on the recognition of the rights of the individual and the value of individual property rights. Something to be guarded and protected, wouldn't you agree?
Except RN's candidate is so fringe, he might get 2-1/2 percent of the vote, maybe.
DeleteRN thinks Johnson is the true political messiah. That's how out of touch RN is with the American people. Yet, as RN likes to tell everyone, he is correct and everyone else is wrong. Go figure.
Anon: The real problem with Johnson is that libertarians overwhelmingly reject him. They are sticking with Paul.
DeleteThe old Romney would have been a perfect Ross Perot (a saner version, obviously) type candidate; fiscally conservative and socially accepting. It's really is too bad that he had to scrounge so pathetically in the direction of the religious right to get the nomination.
ReplyDeleteThat and he seems at time to be the chameleon of early 21st century American politics. Not unlike what Obama will likely look like if he is reelected and his "true leftist" colors come out like the peacock fanning its tail.
DeleteLying his way to the center
ReplyDeleteThank you for that most intelligent and in depth comment. Something we have all come to expect from the shadows of one with no courage.
Delete.
ReplyDelete"Yeah, Romney is a bit wishy washy for my taste, however, given the alternative he IS the preferable lesser of two evils, at least in my never humble opinion. Certainly at the very least Romney would slow done the growth of government and the headlong rush to the cliff's edge."
Really? You 'any one but Obama' jabroni know no more today than you did yesterday about how OMitt intends to accomplish all he has repeatedly promised (both sides of each issue). No specifics, no numbers, no details – just the same old/same old “elect me first, and then we’ll discuss it” obfuscation that a well-practiced flim-flam man extols before the satisfaction guaranteed or your money happily refunded label falls off the bottle of cat piss he’s passed off as a cure-all for all that ails a troubled populace.
_________~
"If the issue is finding ways to "get the job done" then is can be argued that it is precisely what Romney did in Massachusetts. Something Obama has failed to do as President."
How's the passing of ACA not getting the job done? (Maybe we can ask Mitch "Make Obama a one term president" McConnell about sabotage and obstructing government policy.)
Ema Nymton
~@:o?
.
Well Ema, in your total complete democrat party partisanship (I have an aunt just like you) you have failed to see the larger point. At least jmj did.
DeleteI don't blame you because you, just like the rest of the 'Obama to the end fan club' are happy with more and bigger federal government. That's fine, it is your choice and your right to support anyone you chose AND VOTE FOR THEM.
Note, I said Romney would SLOW the growth of government, not stop the growth of government entirely. I suspect if elected he will reign in the growth of regulation and the suffocating effect regs can have on America's competitiveness. Simplifying the tax code and eliminating deductions is something that needs to be done. I wish Romney would be more specific in this area. I'm not however going to hold my breath.
"How's the passing of [Obamacare] not getting the job done?"
DeletePassing Obamacare sure has successfully done the job of making healthcare a lot less affordable (prices have gone up a lot) and making a lot less people insured (also well documented). As well as accomplishing such goals as taking a lot of health-care choice away from the people and turning it over to the ruling elites.
.
Delete"... you have failed to see the larger point."
That you want to be lied to?
"I said Romney would SLOW the growth of government, not stop the growth of government entirely."
Is this because OMitt said he is for/against it?
"I suspect if elected he will reign in the growth of regulation and the suffocating effect regs can have on America's competitiveness.
Is this because OMitt said he is for/against it?
"Simplifying the tax code and eliminating deductions is something that needs to be done."
Is this because OMitt said he is for/against it?
Let me guess. You think the financial collapse of the international banking system occurred _because_ of too much government regulation/over-sight? The out-break of tainted foods/medicine occurred _because_ of too much government regulation/over-sight?
Ema Nymton
~@:o?
.
Ema, simply put you guess way to much. Something progressives are prone to do.
Delete1) No, I don't want to lied to, by either party.
2) Romney, being a business executive understands the negative effect of TO MUCH regulation. Eliminating UNNECESSARY and OVER COSTLY regulations that hurt competitiveness is not a bad thing Ema. Note the operative words in bold.
3) Simplifying the tax code and eliminating tax loopholes is something I and many others believe needs to be done. Whether Romney would do this I don't know. I'm pretty sure the O-Man won't.
4) The financial breakdown of the banking system occurred for many reasons, and the responsibility is shared by both parties. In general I am not a fan of the government regulating industry, however I realize there must be ethics in business, corporations should not be able to scam the consumer to enrich themselves short term only to cause long term damage to the system and the people dependent on the system. Ethical oversight is not something I am against. Picking winners and losers by the government, or too big to fail I am.
Thanks for your patronage Ema. It's been a pleasure.
Ema said:
Delete"That you want to be lied to?"
If I want to be lied to for four more years, I will vote for Obama.
"Let me guess. You think the financial collapse of the international banking system occurred _because_ of too much government regulation/over-sight? "
It is a historic fact that it was. The collapse was caused by government intrusion into the free market with such policies as the Fannie Mae/CRA policies which forced banks to make bad loans. None of this would have happened if the government had kept its hands off. Why? Left to the free market, dubious practices like this have no payoff or profit.
"The out-break of tainted foods/medicine occurred _because_ of too much government regulation/over-sight?"
This is one place where government regulation, IMHO, is needed. However, such "outbreaks" have been very minor, and there is no crisis at all.
RN said this: "corporations should not be able to scam the consumer to enrich themselves short term only to cause long term damage to the system and the people dependent on the system. "
DeleteI agree. The free market tends to discourage such behavior. While government intervention (the Fannie Mae/etc intervention in housing which caused the banking collapse) directly encourage and rewards this. So do bailouts and such silly nonsense as "too big to fail".
Without the government forcing them to behave badly, it is harder for corporations to last using such self-destructive behavior as you describe.
All politicians do it. Very few have the luxury of representing a hard left or hard right district.
ReplyDeleteI tend to discount stated policies and look at a candidate's history. Romney has a track record of accomplishments, Obama does not.
In business he has had accomplishments and success. A good thing and certainly worth considering. However, as the one term Governor of Massachusetts, he choose not to run again because he was planning on preparing himself for his run at the presidency, his record is not stellar. However he did govern from a centrist position and like the effective executive compromised when necessary as he realized things had to get done. A trait Obama, Reid, and Pitlosi ought to work on developing a bit more.
DeleteSo, in your mind, Romney is going to the center, where politicans who want to be president should be, as did Bill Clinton, you say, but not, in your mind, President Obama.
ReplyDeleteThe far left is and has been angry with Mr. Obama's presidency because he's too much like the previous Republican President George Bush.
Your claim that Mr. Obama has failed to go to the center is tainted by your partisanship.
For just one example: Obamacare. It was a GOP idea and legislative initiative that came out of the Heritage Foundation. There is no single payer as the far left, the moderate left, and all liberals wanted. They got a version of universal health care, but it is a Republican version.
You don't like either candidate for president, you say, but you do like the new "severely conservative" tacking to the center moderate, possibly liberal Romney. Be careful. By the week before the election, Willard may be wearing Che Guevera tee-shirts to show how "moderate" he's become. LOL!
He's a walking, talking contradiction on every single issue he's ever stood for. I don't know how he manages to put one foot in front of the other when he walks, because he's changing directions at every step.
Rather than argue Shaw, in part because some of what you say is true, I'll just say you are tainted by your partisanship as well.
DeleteSuch is the nature of politics and political activism, something all political bloggers are prone to. It is just the way it is huh Shaw?
jmj from the top makes some really good observations, in my never humble opinion. And he is a liberal I believe. When your right you're Right.
Shaw said: "Willard may be wearing Che Guevera tee-shirts to show how "moderate" he's become. LOL!"
DeleteI doubt it. Che is one of the most horrific figures of the 20th century, a man who made brutal fascism a deadly reality in Latin America. He helped make the USSR a major imperial power in the region, even as he went on record for opposing the USSR because it was not brutal enough. Hundreds of thousands died as a result, slaughtered for the various reasons of noncomformity socialists typically used to justify killing a lot of people. For example, Che was also on record as advocating that gays and lesbians be herded into death camps.
I doubt Che would wear such a shirt.
But they were seen a the recent Chicago "teachers strike", being worn by some extremely overpaid incompetant thugs who claimed be teachers, but they were too lazy to bother to teach.
Yes, some of what Shaw says is true, but overall Obama is a strongly leftist president. The fact that some on the fringe left think he is not far left enough says nothing.
ReplyDeleteFrom the parent post: "Certainly at the very least Romney would slow done the growth of government and the headlong rush to the cliff's edge."
ReplyDeleteDefinitely. Obama promises more of the same, and stay the course. This means a total of $11 trillion added to the debt by him at the end of his second term, and hundreds of thousands more kicked off their jobs by his policies. Romney at least doesn't think that this is a good idea.
Shaw said: "There is no single payer as the far left, the moderate left, and all liberals wanted."
ReplyDeleteSingle payer is fascism, pure and simple. The ruling elites taking over healthcare decisions and concentrating it in the hands of a monopoly that can and will shoot you dead for not obeying. And even if you obey, they will kill you with death panels (a feature of single payer in Europe).
Thankfully, enough Americans question authority that single payer is not really popular here. IT is not surprising, though, that this terrible idea is a lot more popular in Western Europe. After all, this is the that has a traditional problem with the people too easily readily submitting to authority and top-down control.
Europe has always too readily submitted to top down governmental control and intrusion into the lives of the individual. Essentially most Europeans have been conditioned over a long history to accept and welcome government controlling a large portion of their lives.
DeleteNow, let us wait for the Fascist Anon to register in with one of his ludicrous and ridiculous statements.
RN: Exactly: The mindset of Europeans to give into and support socialism in its various forms (Nazism, communism, etc) is part and parcel with their mindset to give in to "single payer" with its dehumanization, death panels, and denial of basic rights.
ReplyDeleteIt took the intellectual giants, grown out of the Age of Reason and the Age Enlightenment, to actualize the concepts of individual right, property rights, and limited representative government to reality.
DeleteThe Atlantic Ocean was their biggest ally and they certainly made use of it's value.