|
|
May 19, 2013
|
|
Front and (Too) CenterPosted on Jun 13, 2011Poor Mitt Romney. With every poll showing him in the lead for the Republican presidential nomination, his heart must sink. Like Hillary Clinton, Rudy Giuliani and quite a few others who never got to be president, Romney has the misfortune of being an early front-runner. Normally, we’d expect the rest of the field to make an issue of every crazy, intemperate thing the leading candidate has ever said or done. This year, however, the pack is assailing Romney with documented examples of chronic, blatant, incorrigible moderation. Even—shudder—pragmatism. Oh, the humanity. The truth is that Romney is basically an ideological conservative who believes in tax cuts as a panacea and is content to watch the American middle class continue its long, sad decline. But in today’s Republican Party, merely positioning oneself to the right of Ronald Reagan isn’t enough. Apparently, it’s also necessary to eschew all reason. Hence the young campaign’s most unfortunate new coinage, courtesy of Tim Pawlenty: “Obamneycare.” That’s the word he used Sunday to describe President Obama’s health care law, which borrowed ideas from the reform package Romney devised and implemented when he was governor of Massachusetts. Obamacare plus Romneycare equals ... OK, we get it, we get it. Advertisement Not to be outflanked on the GOP’s biggest issue, Pawlenty proposed tax cuts so deep that the deficit would soar by $5.8 trillion over the next decade. To mitigate this disastrous projection—which comes from the Pawlenty campaign itself—T-Paw assumes that his chainsaw tax-cutting will somehow induce the economy to grow at a sustained rate of 5 percent a year. That’s more than double the expected rate, and will not happen—but even if it did, and pigs learned how to fly, the deficit would still grow by $2 trillion over 10 years. Pawlenty acknowledged Sunday that his plan is “a stretch” and perhaps should be described as “aspirational.” You know, like planning to fund one’s retirement by buying a lottery ticket. Since Romney could never endorse a proposal so contemptuous of basic arithmetic, I suppose Pawlenty did succeed in defining himself as a kind of anti-Romney. T-Paw’s problem is that he’s stuck down toward the bottom of the pack along with all the other also-ran anti-Romneys, such as former Sen. Rick Santorum, who charges that Romney isn’t a true conservative at all. For good measure, Santorum includes Jon Huntsman, who was Obama’s ambassador to China before he quit to ponder a presidential run. “I think they have held positions in the past that have not been conservative, and I think they have to account for those,” he said of Romney and Huntsman. “I think what people are concerned about and what they saw in ... presidents in the past who are Republicans is that they say one thing ... and then when they govern, they don’t govern as conservatively as they talk.” That’s not quite fair. Romney is a conservative by any reasonable definition of the word. It’s just that he has a habit of taking objective reality and the views of his constituents into account. When he was running one of the nation’s most liberal states, he governed as if he were pro-choice. When he looked for Republican-endorsed ideas to expand health-insurance coverage, he settled on the universal mandate that lies at the heart of, groan, Obamneycare. When the nation was on the precipice of a new Great Depression in 2009, he supported an economic stimulus package but differed with the one that Obama and the Democrats enacted. Romney believes in science and therefore accepts that human activity is contributing to climate change. He said in 2007 that he supported cap-and-trade energy policy “on a global basis,” but not for the United States alone. He was for comprehensive immigration reform until his campaign four years ago, when he became a hard-liner, but now he seems to be trying to edge back toward reality on the issue. I’ve always believed that Romney’s chief asset as a potential GOP nominee is his ideological flexibility. But his chief impediment to winning the nomination is a recidivist pragmatism that causes him to commit deeds that today’s GOP will not let go unpunished. Eugene Robinson’s e-mail address is eugenerobinson(at)washpost.com. Previous item: No Justice in Kafka’s America Next item: Turkey in Position to Lead Region Out of Tumultuous Century New and Improved CommentsIf you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy. |
By bodhidharma, June 17, 2011 at 8:24 pm Link to this comment
We have no real choice in this election. At least in the last one, I could vote for Nader.
Report thisBy katsteevns, June 16, 2011 at 11:53 am Link to this comment
Excellent link, FRTothus!
Report thisBy katsteevns, June 16, 2011 at 11:45 am Link to this comment
Here is the root of your problem right here. Solve it and you are well on the way to recovery.
“The United States is not a nation to which peace is a necessity.” - Grover Cleveland
All of you “O’BRIEN”‘s(1984) can take a flyin’ leap.
Report thisBy FRTothus, June 14, 2011 at 5:00 pm Link to this comment
Something worth a read:
(quote)
In an article published on June 7, 2011, in Foreign
Policy, “Don’t Fear the Reaper, four misconceptions
about how we think about drones,” Charli Carpenter
and Lina Shaikhouni warn that “the debate over drones
is misleading the public about the nature of the
weaponry and the law.” To remedy this confusion they
“offer some sensible ways for the anti-drone lobby to
reframe the debate.”
Since participating in a ten day vigil in the Nevada
desert outside the gates of the headquarters of the
Air Force’s drone program at Creech Air Force Base
ending with my arrest along with 13 other activists
there in April 2009, I have written and spoken about
the drones quite extensively. Since then I have also
visited with victims of US airstrikes in Afghanistan
and have been arrested again last April at a Reaper
drone facility operated by the New York National
Guard outside Syracuse.
I am evidently among those of the “anti-drone lobby”
Report thisthat Carpenter and Shaikhouni consider are misleading
the public by promoting misconceptions about the
nature of drones. I do appreciate the effort made to
bring clarity to this debate that has hardly begun.
The four “misconceptions” that the authors list,
however, No. 1: Drones Are “Killer Robots,” No. 2:
Drones Make War Easy and Game-Like, and Therefore
Likelier, No. 3: Drone Strikes Kill Too Many
Civilians and No. 4: Drones Violate the International
Law of Armed Conflict, are actually true statements.
Far from being misconceptions, these positions that
Carpenter and Shaikhouni refute are talking points
essential to any intelligent discussion of this
issue. (...see
http://counterpunch.org/terrell06142011.html )
By mc.murphy, June 14, 2011 at 1:15 pm Link to this comment
madisolation, June 14
bravo! Robinson is a total shill for the status quo sociopaths.
But a bunch of online polls suggest that Ron Paul came out on top. I didn’t watch
the event, yet a Ron Paul v. Obama debate would be quite revelatory. The oh’so
Randian Paul Rand would come off as a wildly Left ‘nut job’ in comparison with
Zero, which in turn would leave Democrat(ic) voters writhing with seizures on the
floor, and their heads exploding from cognitive dissonance.
http://mosquitocloud.net/ron-paul-wins-the-lights-fantastic-tele-magic-
Report this¿wuzzdat/
By felicity, June 14, 2011 at 10:21 am Link to this comment
Unless we unplug the Tube, we will be subjected to
the endless spewing of propaganda from the mouths of
politicians from now until election day 2012. And as
Goebbels, the master propagandist, said of propaganda
“To be perceived, propaganda must evoke the interest
of the audience and must be transmitted through an
attention getting communications medium (think
debates?) Credibility alone must determine whether
propaganda output should be true or false.”
Credibility alone? False or true beside the point?
Report thisFasten your seat belts.
By California Ray, June 14, 2011 at 9:10 am Link to this comment
I guess if you believe that Jesus visited the Americas, you can also believe that Hans Blix never set foot in Iraq.
Report thisBy madisolation, June 14, 2011 at 6:17 am Link to this comment
“The truth is that Romney is basically an ideological conservative…”
Oh, bull! As Glenn Greenwald notes:
“Romney—who amassed a fortune by saddling companies with debt and then firing huge numbers of their employees—is the very essence of what Wall Street loves. “
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/
What, are you shilling for Romney now, Eugene? Want him to win the Republican nomination, do ya’, so voters will have the choice between the Corporatist Tweedle-Dee Romney and the Corporatist Tweedle-Dum Obama?
Report thisEugene Robinson uses his column to pitch for the status quo and screw over America once again. He is the essence an unpatriotic, “access,” ass-kissing columnist. Did your pro-Wall Street boss tell you to paint Romney in a good light, so the people will have no choice at all in 2012? Eugene, you wouldn’t know what courageous journalism looked like if it bit you in the ass.
Here’s what history will write about Mr. Robinson: “He always followed orders.”
By JJW, June 14, 2011 at 2:50 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Obama, the war is peace President, is to the far right of Romney and all the GOP candidates. He also likely goes to sleep in his Goldmen Sachs silk PJs made in China.
Even if this were not so, with a Republican candidate, at least the Democrats will pretend to oppose the criminal behavior and fascism.
Report this