The Economist: Romney is "a fawning PR man"

[doktorb]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.economist.com/node/21560864?spc=scode&spv=xm&ah=9d7f7ab945510a56fa6d37c30b6f1709

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Pretty much sums up my feelings about the man.  He may well have the skills needed to be an excellent president, but he has shown himself to be a gutless panderer to whatever is wanted by the electorate he currently is courting.  He has done nothing that indicates he is prepared to make a decision if he were to get a call at three in the morning.

[doktorb]

Cheers for replying, TF, I was a bit worried about the thread bombing :blush:

[King]

I used to like Romney around 2007 or so, but he completely lost me and I don't understand why I should want him as President.   I'm too apathetic towards Obama to cast a vote against him and for Romney.

Mitt's a one termer if he somehow wins and I doubt he will.

Also, I like the comments in the article accusing the Economist of being far left propaganda.  Typical.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Speaking of PR, Romney is a perfect example of somebody trying just too hard.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

None of his policies are anti-immigrant. Romney has been nothing but Pro-Immigration and consistently so all along. Not surprising that The Economist would purposely distort "anti-illegal" policies as being anti-immigrant.

As for the taxes, Romney never said he want to leave taxes as they are. He may have said that about the tax burden, but it was fairly obvious that Romney would desire some kind of rate reduction in exchange for limiting deductions etc. The same template, though not the some metrics, as that of the Simpson-Bowles Commission.

The Economist must have misread the 59 point pdf:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There was a section titled "Preserving Current Rates" but that was about preserving the Bush tax cuts. And it was followed a right beside it by the section quoted above.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Economist's tax complaint just simply doesn't match up with the facts.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

They are clearly blurring the lines between Romney's short term tax plan (preserve the Bush Tax cuts) and his desire for a longer term one (Lowering rates, removing deductions), in order to create a false flip flop. Both of which are stated not only in the admittedly long PDF, but on the same page, in the same damn paragraph, making whats on page 40 and 41 entirely consistent and interconnected.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Also, when has Romney ever abandoned the MA healthcare Reform, as this Economist article implies?

I used to like Romney around 2007 or so, but he completely lost me and I don't understand why I should want him as President.   I'm too apathetic towards Obama to cast a vote against him and for Romney.

Mitt's a one termer if he somehow wins and I doubt he will.

Also, I like the comments in the article accusing the Economist of being far left propaganda.  Typical.

They know something is wrong with the article, and there definately is, but they don't understand what that is and just assume it is leftwing propaganda. It is in fact butthurt establishment people who are pissed off that they ended up with a choice between Romney, who they despise, and and a bunch of ignorant kooks.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Also, when has Romney ever abandoned the MA healthcare Reform, as this Economist article implies?

True, Romney tries to have it both ways on this issue by pretending adherence to Federalism.  However, the honest fact is that Republicans only abandoned health care mandates when the Democrats started to support them.

[後援会]

The Economist is trying really really hard to stretch everything they can get their hands on to even make a plausible case that destroying Obama is not a moral imperative due to their ideological stance, probably because they don't want to lose the cosmopolitan elites who love Obama the person but read the Economist.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Also, when has Romney ever abandoned the MA healthcare Reform, as this Economist article implies?

True, Romney tries to have it both ways on this issue by pretending adherence to Federalism.  However, the honest fact is that Republicans only abandoned health care mandates when the Democrats started to support them.

If they had cited the USAToday op-ed instead of "What he did in Massachusetts versus now" they would have been clear on the Healthcare criticism, but they let themselves get carried away with their own flawed narrative.

[Marokai Backbeat]

The Economist is trying really really hard to stretch everything they can get their hands on to even make a plausible case that destroying Obama is not a moral imperative due to their ideological stance, probably because they don't want to lose the cosmopolitan elites who love Obama the person but read the Economist.

The Economist is right-wing.
The Economist is right-wing.
The Economist is right-wing.
The Economist is right-wing.

[後援会]

The Economist is trying really really hard to stretch everything they can get their hands on to even make a plausible case that destroying Obama is not a moral imperative due to their ideological stance, probably because they don't want to lose the cosmopolitan elites who love Obama the person but read the Economist.

The Economist is right-wing.
The Economist is right-wing.
The Economist is right-wing.
The Economist is right-wing.

Their basic ideological stance is essentially right-liberal, but their readership is almost certainly broadly supportive of Obama. You know, the cross-atlantic cosmopolitan elite-type that might not agree with Obama on anything but still likes him a lot. Because of hope. And change. And soothing white elite guilt. This article is just proof of that.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The Economist is trying really really hard to stretch everything they can get their hands on to even make a plausible case that destroying Obama is not a moral imperative due to their ideological stance, probably because they don't want to lose the cosmopolitan elites who love Obama the person but read the Economist.

The Economist is right-wing.
The Economist is right-wing.
The Economist is right-wing.
The Economist is right-wing.

Their basic ideological stance is essentially right-liberal, but their readership is almost certainly broadly supportive of Obama. You know, the cross-atlantic cosmopolitan elite-type that might not agree with Obama on anything but still likes him a lot. Because of hope. And change. And soothing white elite guilt. This article is just proof of that.

No, it is more proof that they desperately wanted a "non-Romney" establishment candidate like Huntsman or someone else who would carry their water and bow to their elitist, politically correct worldview. Thus since that didn't happen they are reluctantly supporting Obama.

[後援会]

Well, that's also a pretty good interpretation. And probably more correct.

God, Huntsman was so terrible.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Also, when has Romney ever abandoned the MA healthcare Reform, as this Economist article implies?

True, Romney tries to have it both ways on this issue by pretending adherence to Federalism.  However, the honest fact is that Republicans only abandoned health care mandates when the Democrats started to support them.

If they had cited the USAToday op-ed instead of "What he did in Massachusetts versus now" they would have been clear on the Healthcare criticism, but they let themselves get carried away with their own flawed narrative.

Are you kidding me? This is the guy that a few years ago argued that his Massachusetts health care law should've been a model for the country and now denounces the (essentially identical) Obamacare as the Worst Attack on Freedom Ever. 

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Also, when has Romney ever abandoned the MA healthcare Reform, as this Economist article implies?

True, Romney tries to have it both ways on this issue by pretending adherence to Federalism.  However, the honest fact is that Republicans only abandoned health care mandates when the Democrats started to support them.

If they had cited the USAToday op-ed instead of "What he did in Massachusetts versus now" they would have been clear on the Healthcare criticism, but they let themselves get carried away with their own flawed narrative.

Are you kidding me? This is the guy that a few years ago argued that his Massachusetts health care law should've been a model for the country and now denounces the (essentially identical) Obamacare as the Worst Attack on Freedom Ever. 

In fairness, depending on the wording of the USA Today article, which I haven't seen in months (but I do remember it being something like a loose suggestion to "look at certain elements (unspecified) as a possible path forward in nationwide program"), there may still be a little wiggle room in that he may not have specifically stated how such would have been implemented. If there is enough flexibility in the wording, he can claim he was recommending passing a law at the federal level that encourages states to follow the MA example through the use of expanded Medicaid funding for those states or some other carrot.

I do remember the speeches from 2007 and 2008 where he stated that it was a model for the nation, but in almost every one (at least those that I saw), he immediately followed by saying something like "States can pick what the like, and ignore what they don't". Indicating a degree of voluntarism in his federal program that Obamacare doesn't even come close to and that he meant in to be a model for the nation as far as other states look at it when designing their plans independently.

[Phony Moderate]

Essentially this (or rather some of the reaction to it) reminds me of the libertarians who criticised George W. Bush during his presidency; they were labelled as being liberals, leftists and so on by the 'establishment' Right. It's a similar deal with the leftists who criticise Obama; they are dismissed by much of the 'establishment' Left as right-wingers. There are more than two sides to every argument; more Americans need to realise this.