The Economist slams Romney.

[rubato]

Says its a character issue; or his lack thereof:

"So, Mitt, what do you really believe?"

http://www.economist.com/node/21560864?frsc=dg|a

"...
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.
... "

"...
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.
...

"... 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). ... "

"...
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?
... "


See link for more hilarity on Flack-Man. If Romney is elected we will go further into the toilet than we did in 2001-2008 when Republican policies pushed us into the deepest financial hole in 80 years.

yrs,
rubato

[dales]

[Lord Jim]

Apparently it's news to "Scoop" rube that Romney has changed his position on a number of issues, and that he ran on more liberal policy positions when he ran for the Senate back in the 90's and when he ran for Governor than he has in his two runs for the Presidency....

Most people here have probably know this since at least 2007, but you have to forgive rube; he's a little behind the curve....

For example, he's in his fifties, but he only recently learned what the word affluence means; he has a considerable amount of catching up to do to get up to the speed of the average person knowledge-wise....

[Gob]

If I'm reading this right, between 1994-2002-2008 and 2012, a politician changed his stances on issues to fit with the political nuances of the day.

Why isn't this on all the front pages?

oh, wait......

[Lord Jim]

If I'm not mistaken, I believe this is the second thread Scoop has started to bring us these stunning revelations.

[rubato]

This is the opinion of The Economist, a famously conservative weekly economic publication.

And this is from the edition which just arrived in the mailbox today.

For the literate among us.

yrs,
rubato

[Econoline]

I can't help but wish that this thread had been started by someone other than rubato, because The Economist is certainly a credible conservative soiurce, and it raises serious issues about Romney. ("...competence is worthless without direction and, frankly, character..." "...he has appeared as a fawning PR man, apparently willing to do or say just about anything to get elected..." "..."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..." "A businessman without a credible plan to fix a problem stops being a credible businessman.")

Is anyone here willing to address this article as if it came from The Economist rather than from rubato?

So, Mitt, what do you really believe?
Too much about the Republican candidate for the presidency is far too mysterious

Aug 25th 2012 | from the print edition

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 acumen 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?

Details, details

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 entitlement 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 competitive 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.

[Guinevere]

Good lord, I've been saying the same things about Romney for years now -- and so have many residents of the great Commonwealth of Massachusetts. He has no plan, no interest, no goal except being President -- and should he get there, will have no idea what to do with the job. He merely wants the coronation he believes he is entitled to.

[Big RR]

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

True, but leaders are rarely elected president, those who permit others to form their opinions usually are.

[rubato]

I can't help but wish that this thread had been started by someone other than rubato, because The Economist is certainly a credible conservative soiurce, and it raises serious issues about Romney. ("...competence is worthless without direction and, frankly, character..." "...he has appeared as a fawning PR man, apparently willing to do or say just about anything to get elected..." "..."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..." "A businessman without a credible plan to fix a problem stops being a credible businessman.") ... "

Very few here are able to respond intelligently no matter what the source. I post data and opinions from serious sources all the time and the response is the usual mindless 'hate crap'. It is all they can do.




yrs,
rubato

[dgs49]

You don't have to get very deep into this essay to realize that the writer is either stupid, uninformed, or has an axe to grind. Probably #3.

There is NO CONTRADICTION when a GOVERNOR promotes a mandatory health insurance plan FOR HIS STATE, and the same person, when running for PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES opposes such a plan on the national level. We do have this messy little document called the UNITED STATES [FUCKING]CONSTITUTION, after all, which the Supreme Court has recently affirmed, prohibits the Federal Government from requiring that its citizens purchase health insurance.

Or did he miss that?

Romney never "supported abortion," as governor of Massachusetts. He has ALWAYS taken the position that abortion is immoral and unacceptable. When Governor, he did nothing to try to induce that state to enact laws that were consistent with his personal views because, (1) such a law would have unconstitutional (as the Constitution is currently interpreted), (2) such a law would never have gotten off the ground in the Peoples Republic.

Now, when running for President, he has reiterated his unchanged views on abortion, and indicated rather clearly that he will, if elected President, appoint federal judges who probably will not support the fictitious "right of privacy," and thus might do "something" with Roe v. Wade. There is no "flip-flop" except in the mind of those who are determined to see one.

One might expect that someone writing for The [fucking] Economist would understand these subtleties in United States law and politics. Doubtless the writer does understand, but chose instead to write a hit piece.

Anyone stating or implying that this writer is in any way "conservative," or that he prepresents any segment of the "conservative" community is delusional.

Which is why it is not surprising in the least that the rube-ster posted this here.

[Big RR]

Double post

[Big RR]

[quote]which the Supreme Court has recently affirmed, prohibits the Federal Government from requiring that its citizens purchase health insurance./quote]

I must have missed that; the Sureme Court did rue Obama Care was a valid exercise of the Congressional power to tax--anything else is dicta, not a ruling.

[dgs49]

Read the majority opinion.

[Grim Reaper]

Romney never "supported abortion," as governor of Massachusetts. He has ALWAYS taken the position that abortion is immoral and unacceptable. When Governor, he did nothing to try to induce that state to enact laws that were consistent with his personal views because, (1) such a law would have unconstitutional (as the Constitution is currently interpreted), (2) such a law would never have gotten off the ground in the Peoples Republic.

He didn't just leave the laws alone because changing them would be difficult, he actively campaigned under the promise that he would not touch the laws at all and that he supported a woman's right to choose.

[dgs49]

Please provide a quote where Mitt Romney stated that he "supported a woman's right to choose abortion."

It should be easy enough if he ever actually said that. More likely, you will find a mountain of LIBERAL pundits claiming that he supported "abortion rights." Not exactly the same thing.

[dgs49]

"I was always personally opposed to abortion, as I think almost everyone in this nation is. And the question for me was, what is the role of government? And it was quite theoretical and philosophical to consider what the role of government should be in this regard, and I felt that the Supreme Court had spoken and that government shouldn’t be involved and let people make their own decision. That all made a lot of sense to me. Then I became governor and the theoretical became reality. A bill came to my desk which related to the preservation of life. I recognized that I simply could not be part of an effort that would cause the destruction of human lift. And I didn’t hide from that change of heart. I recognize it’s a change. Every piece of legislation which came to my desk in the coming years as the governor, I came down on the side of preserving the sanctity of life."

Pretty much covers it.

[Guinevere]

Got an actual source for that quote, Dave? A news source, not a Romney controlled web site??

Wiki has a slightly different take on in, and somewhat different statements, all of which are supported by citations:

In March 2002 during his run for governor, Romney told the Lowell Sun that, "On a personal basis, I don't favor abortion. However, as governor of the commonwealth, I will protect a woman's right to choose under the laws of the country and the commonwealth. That's the same position I've had for many years."[109] Also, during the 2002 governor's race, Romney's platform stated, "As Governor, Mitt Romney would protect the current pro-choice status quo in Massachusetts. No law would change. The choice to have an abortion is a deeply personal one. Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not the government's."[110] Romney promised to "preserve and protect a woman's right to choose" and declared "I will not change any provisions in Massachusetts' pro-choice laws".[111]
By July 2005, Romney criticized Roe v. Wade in a veto message in rejecting a bill mandating access to emergency contraception.[112] Romney, in February 2006 replied to close questioning by Chris Wallace in a Fox News interview that his views on abortion had "evolved" and "changed" since 2002 such that he then considered himself a "pro-life governor" who wishes "the laws of our nation could reflect that view".[113]
Romney says that his views on abortion were drastically altered on November 9, 2004, after discussing stem cell research with Douglas Melton, a stem cell researcher at Harvard University. The Harvard Stem Cell Institute was planning research that would have involved therapeutic cloning.[114] The Governor says that Melton declared that the research "is not a moral issue because we kill the embryos at 14 days." "I looked over at Beth Myers, my chief of staff, and we both had exactly the same reaction, which is it just hit us hard," recalled Romney. "And as they walked out, I said, 'Beth, we have cheapened the sanctity of life by virtue of the Roe v. Wade mentality.' And from that point forward, I said to the people of Massachusetts, 'I will continue to honor what I pledged to you, but I prefer to call myself pro-life.'"[115] Melton disputes Romney's account of the meeting, declaring "Governor Romney has mischaracterized my position; we didn't discuss killing or anything related to it ... I explained my work to him, told him about my deeply held respect for life, and explained that my work focuses on improving the lives of those suffering from debilitating diseases."[116]
In a May 2005 press conference, Romney when asked about Massachusetts abortion laws stated, "I have indicated that as governor, I am absolutely committed to my promise to maintain the status quo with regards to laws relating to abortion and choice, and so far I've been able to successfully do that."[117]
Romney has said he has kept his campaign promises. Romney vetoed an emergency contraception bill in July 2005, claiming that allowing it to pass into law would violate his "moratorium" on changes to the abortion laws.[118] He vetoed a bill on pro-life grounds that the bill would expand access to emergency contraception in hospitals and pharmacies. He returned from his vacation house in New Hampshire to veto the bill, because the Lt. Govorner, Kerry Healey would have signed the bill into law.[119] The legislature voted overwhelmingly to overturn the veto and pass the bill into law on September 15, 2005.[120] At the time of the veto, Romney said he does not support abortion except in cases of rape, incest, and when the life of the mother is threatened.[121] He opposed the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, criticizing "'one size fits all' judicial pronouncements".[121] The following year, Romney's spokesperson has also indicated that were he the governor of that state, he would sign into law the controversial South Dakota abortion law, but include exceptions for cases of incest or rape, which the South Dakota law excludes.[122]
In 2005, Romney's top political strategist, Michael Murphy, told National Review that the Governor had "been a pro-life Mormon faking it as a pro-choice friendly."[123] Murphy later clarified explained that he "was discussing a characterization the governor's critics use."[124]

Linky, if you want to check the citations, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorsh ... y#Abortion

[rubato]

"I was always personally opposed to abortion, as I think almost everyone in this nation is. And the question for me was, what is the role of government? And it was quite theoretical and philosophical to consider what the role of government should be in this regard, and I felt that the Supreme Court had spoken and that government shouldn’t be involved and let people make their own decision. That all made a lot of sense to me. Then I became governor and the theoretical became reality. A bill came to my desk which related to the preservation of life. I recognized that I simply could not be part of an effort that would cause the destruction of human lift. And I didn’t hide from that change of heart. I recognize it’s a change. Every piece of legislation which came to my desk in the coming years as the governor, I came down on the side of preserving the sanctity of life."

Pretty much covers it.

"I believe that a blob of protoplasm smaller than a lima bean has more rights than an adult woman."

Fixed


yrs,
rubato

[Grim Reaper]

Please provide a quote where Mitt Romney stated that he "supported a woman's right to choose abortion."

It should be easy enough if he ever actually said that. More likely, you will find a mountain of LIBERAL pundits claiming that he supported "abortion rights." Not exactly the same thing.