latest Romney whopper: “I’m the consistent conservative”—folks, you can’t make this stuff up
“Despite his Mormon faith and the evolution in his position on abortion rights, Mitt Romney insists that he is a consistent conservative and the best choice for Republican voters,” writes someone, we know not who, for cbsnews in a release titled Romney: I’m The Consistent Conservative; Former Massachusetts Governor Says He Has Steady Republican Credentials.
No, Romney has been wildly inconsistent—here is but a small, small sample:
- debate performance: Romney flip-flops on Iran—again!—how many positions can one man have on the issue of Iran?
- Kornacki: Not the first time Romney has changed public position on abortion
By Romney’s own admission he has been wildly inconsistent. Regard: an excerpt from Dan Baiz and Michael D. Shaer’s take on the debate (titled Personal attacks pepper debate):
Romney was forced to defend positions he had taken in his 1994 Senate race against Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass. In that race he supported abortion rights and said he would be a better choice for gay Americans than Kennedy.
“I was fighting against the liberal lion in perhaps the toughest state in America. And I’m pretty proud of what I was able to accomplish in that race, but nothing compares to the pride I have with the work that I was able to do as a governor,” Romney said … etc., etc.
Let us try to follow Romney’s, um, “reasoning”: I was fighting against the liberal lion—the liberal lion!?—in the toughest state in America, so
I had to adopt liberal positions?
I had to pretend to adopt liberal positions?
I had to persuade people that I held to their positions even though I didn’t?
What does this mean, precisely!?—what can this mean?—what it seems to mean is that Romney is a creature of convenience and expedience—and, moreover, he’s proud of it! OK, fine, but how is this in any way consistent? (Was he a mole for social conservatives?—a secret agent for the right?)
Back to cbsnews.com:
The former Massachusetts governor, who on Saturday won a straw poll of evangelicals at the Values Voter Summit, gave an exclusive interview to Face The Nation Friday night.
Correction: Romney did not win, at least not in any conventional sense—like everything else in Romney’s life Romney’s win was equivocal. See:
Back to cbsnews.com:
“I believe in the principles of my party,” Romney told Bob Schieffer. “And I believe that the only way that we’re going to take the White House is not by acting like Hillary Clinton, but by holding true to the principles of our party, which is a coalition of social, economic and foreign policy conservatives” … etc., etc.
And we believe that Romney’s flat denials of grim reality are precisely why he is the least effective of the Republican candidates. Regard: AmSpec’s Jennifer Rubin concluded her remarks on the last debate with these two lines: McCain is back in the fight and no one really laid a glove on Rudy. Someone eventually will have to or the race won’t change.
But gloves were laid on Rudy at the debate. And: the Romney Slime machine emits anti-Rudy noise almost continuously. See:
- an angry Romney continues to lash out against Giuliani
- Romney plans to attack Giuliani’s “anger”—not the first time Romney has riffed on Democrat talking points to attack another GOPer
The result of Romney’s constant attacks? Negligible. Think of words as units of exchange, as a form of currency, which, in a sense, they are. Now consider: Romney’s negatives are as high as his credibility is low. Hence: Romney has nothing to trade, and nothing reliable with which to guarantee the veracity of his claims—no personal prestige (gravitas), no commitment to the the truth, nothing. Romney simply isn’t credit worthy. Because Romney is a credit risk, he pays higher interest rates than the rest of us. This accounts—in part, at least—for Romney’s disastrously low ROI for his every campaign dollar. Mismanagement and incompetence probably account for a lot of it too. See: