The New Mitt

[huisache]

On the sunday morning talk show this morning he explained what he meant by repealing Obamacare. Turns out some of it is ok and he would keep, while adding some of his own refinements.

Bottom line: we would still have national health care system.

This guy impresses me more all the time. I never thought he could win the Republican nomination given his history of New England liberalism as Governor ot Taxachussetts. But he did it by trimming his sails to fit the winds from the right and vanquishing all foes by telling the electorate what it wanted to hear. Sort of like FDR promising to balance the budget in his first run.

Now he is trimming said sails again to convince the swing vote that he is not really a nutcase or a devotee to The Portable Ayn Rand.

And telling people who think Medicare is a good idea and national health care acheivable and affordable that he is at the helm of the boat they want to sail in.

His boat is faster than Obama's and isn't taking on water.

Very smart politics.

 

[Giovanni Jones]

OK, whatever. But I'd like some more details on how that would work. As Kevin Drum has observed:

In reply to:

---

---

 

[pasotex]

Romney really is sort of a weird joke of a candidate.

 

[huisache]

The reason he gets away with it is because he is smarter than the people he is lying to. Assuming he is lying. I used to think I could tell. He may be like LBJ and have a long range plan and some specific ideas about how to implement it or he may be like FDR and, totally clueless about what may or may not work, just try anything that comes to mind that he might pass.

Whichever, he is really slick in terms of sliding off tackles and heading downfield.

He got the righties solidified by nominating Ayn Randette and now he is free to poach in other ponds.

I know I mixed a football metaphor with a fishing one but so does everybody else around here, so why not me?

 

[WashU-Horn]

You don't have to assume. Just look at what he said in 1994 and how he has "evolved" since then.

The man will say anything to get votes.

 

[dalhorn1]

WashU, is that like how Obama changed his stance, er, "evolved" on gay marriage, to try to grab more votes? Politicians always seem to evolve in election years. Funny timing I guess.

 

[Crockett]

We were told he'd shake up the etch-a-sketch for the general election. Lord know he can't win campaigning on the Republican Platorm, which was molded by party extremists. Now if Obama can keep us replaying the Clinton speech and ignoring the Democratic platform, drafted by a whole different genre of wacko extremists.

 

[WashU-Horn]

Obama did not change his stance on gay marriage. He maintained that he was thinking about the issue and that his stance was "evolving"

He then told the country what his position is. Let me know if I am wrong.

I am not a Dem. I think what we have is one incompetent Repuplocrat party. I just feel that the Dems are the prudent wing of that incompetent Republocrat party. The GOP, in my view, has gone full retard. They will lose this election and the next and will finally come to their senses.

 

[yelladawgdem]

^
^
^This

We do not have a two party system. We have one party with two factions. As an American and a political junkie I am finding it harder and harder to swallow. I amy write in Hillary again.

 

[huisache]

The only people who get near the top of the greasy pole that is national politics are the ones who are capable of trickery of a high order. In running political campaigns one thing that is stressed repeatedly is to say the least you can so that you can't be pinned down later. Hillary, for example, let Obama get to the left of her in the Iowa caucuses by having voted for war authorization, though everybody who paid attention knew she did not favor a war.

Obama was not around to vote so he could say truthfully that he had been against the war and impress the simple minded pacifist oriented dems in Iowa. Some of them are now bewildered that he was not the anti war guy they thought they were promoting.

Mitt's problem was that given his record as a liberal Taxachussetts governor, he had a record that was anathema to the tea partiers and the like among the republican party. I never thought he would be able to overcome that but he did by bad mouthing all his previous positions or claiming he no longer held them.

Now he is shedding his summercoat and further "explaining" what he really wants to do.

AS loathesome as this kind of thing is, I actually admire somebody who is really good at it. ANd he looks to be really good. That doesn't mean he would be any good at governing, of course, but a man that malleable is, like Obama, a marvel to observe.

Now those talents will do him no good at all when dealing with somebody like Putin or Assad.

Sort of like how Lincoln's stirring rhetoric did not help a lot when dealing with slaveowners who were convinced he was going to put them out of business and make them pick their own cotton.

 

[majorwhiteapples]

It is so funny how people justify their beliefs or why they are voting a certain way......

Conservatives are not for Romney, they are against Obama and his liberal agenda. It is a fundamental belief of the power of government and how it should govern society. One group believes in a centralized society based government and the other believes in a small localized individual based government.

 

[Giovanni Jones]

Clarifications and updates re Mitt's statement:

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Perham1]

I completely agree (as usual) with Paso and WashU.

The GOP is in sorry shape, imo, due to the gross influx of right-wing evangelicals. They have got to go if the GOP is to remain a viable political party.

 

[Mr. Deez]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Hornius Emeritus]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Bronco]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Mr. Deez]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[huisache]

Bronc: he was perceived as a liberal republican when he won the governorship of the most liberal state in the country, which state is referred to derisively in the right wing press as Taxachussetts. I don't have any idea what his tax policies were as governor and take your work for it that he did not raise them. From what I can tell they are already somewhat high compared to say Texas.

My only intended point is that he is ideologically flexible to an extent that I did not think he could be successful in that party on a national stage. Simply as a matter of political agility I am in awe of what he has done.

 

[Michtex]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[HornCyclist]

Every major party presidential candidiate for at least the last 50 years has made a move to the middle following nomination. They are nominated by those really committed to the party, to vote in primaries and attend nominating conventions, and these people tend to be more liberal or conservative and want a candidate who is like them.

Then the general election comes along and the candidates have to woo those in the middle who are not the liberals or conservatives they wooed a few months before. What do you do? You repackage your message in moderate terms and reframe issues in a moderate contest. Some are really good at this others not so much. I think Romney will fall in the latter category before this all over and the case in point shows this.

Shifting your policy of "repeal obamacare" to "repeal some of obama care but not the provisions that are popular with moderates whose votes I'm trying to get even though they are untenable if I repeal the other parts of Obama care" and then backtracking to a position that doesn't really change the law much and clearly wasn't what was intended, is not smooth, and the wishy-washyness is already hurting him. It's reminded everyone of the etch-a-sketch declaration and his monster shift to the right during the primaries. Romney is not doing well. The Daily Show was dead on with their subtitle for their RNC Coverage, "RNC 2012: On the Road to Jeb Bush 2016."

 

[huisache]

Michtex: the awe comes not from how long it took but that he could do it at all. Try to imagine a conservative, pro life, anti union evangelical from Texas winning the democratic nomination by saying he is pro choice (changed his mind), pro union and is a strong believer in separation of church and state. That would be equivalent to what Romney did.

For what it is worth, I don't plan to vote for him or the liberal dem who shuts down medical marijuana clinics, lets the military keep blowing up arab wedding parties and is letting the cops drone our way into Big Brother with a surveillance state mentality.

THey both suck and I don't have to vote for either of them. ANd wont