In the private sector, Mitt Romney’s resume is impressive: a JD/MBA from Harvard, successes with Bain consulting and Bain Capital, and his efforts to get the 2002 Olympics back on track. He has demonstrated the kind of flexibility and attention to the bottom line that gets remarkable results as a management consultant or private equity fund manager.
However, his record in the public sphere is considerably more checkered. Of course, it only became checkered once he decided to run for president. Before seeking the GOP nomination, Romney would have been considered a standard, northeastern liberal Republican: moderate to liberal on social issues, moderate to conservative on fiscal issues with little concern for reducing big government.
Suddenly needing to run and win in exotic places like Iowa and South Carolina and to appeal to a motivated conservative base who are the current backbone of the party, the pro gun control, pro-choice, tax-raising Bay Stater became a 2nd Amendment-loving, pro-life, tax-hating Red Stater.
Now, of course, people can change their minds. When I hear him talk about his switch from being “personally anti-abortion” to pro-life (advocating the end of abortion for all), I can believe it. I don’t necessarily, but I can. But, when he assures us that he has always supported gun rights and has been a hunter his whole life (despite supporing gun control and never having owned a firearm or having anyone remember the last time he hunted anything but a lost golf ball) it makes me very nervous. Why did he sign Grover Norquist’s innane no taxes pledge, when he did the responsible thing as governor of Massachusetts and raised some taxes (along with cutting some spending) to address a $3 billion budget shortfall.
Which Mitt Romney do we get as president? My fear is that they are one in the same. An efficient triangulator, Romney surveys the lay of the land (majority liberal voters in Massachusetts, majority conservative voters in the GOP primaries) and constucts popular positions that he may or may not believe in to pander to the electorate. Are they the right positions for the people? Which set of policies does Romney believe in?
The skills of flexibility and attention to the bottom line that may serve a CEO are a great disservice to a politician. A CEO has one master: return on shareholder equity. A political leader, most of all the president of the United States, has an infinitely more complicated bottom line.
I think The Economist, in their editorial “The case for John McCain” in the December 8, 2007 issue, nicely sums up my problems with Mitt Romney:
“[McCain's] willingness to stick to his guns on divisive subjects such as immigration stands in sharp contrast to Mr Romney’s oily pandering. Mr Romney likes to claim that his views on topics such as gay rights and abortion have “evolved”. But they have evolved in a direction that is strikingly convenient—perhaps through intelligent design. Can a party that mocked John Kerry really march into battle behind their very own Massachusetts flip-flopper?”
January 18, 2008 at 8:50 am
Maybe my dander is getting up, but I am sick and tired of reading conservative media love notes to Mitt Romney, the “real” conservative in the race.
Deliver us from “real” conservatives like Mitt Romney.
Less than three years ago Mitt Romney was a pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, tax raising (excuse me, he didn’t raise “taxes”…he merely “increased fees” and “closed loopholes” to the tune of $400 million annually from struggling businesses) Massachusetts moderate (liberal) RINO–that’s Republican In Name Only, a ridiculous charge frequently leveled at McCain and others viewed by the sanctimonious right as not being “really” Republican.
Before that he made millions as a successful businessman. Some of those millions came from creating jobs in America like financing the creation of Staples office stores. Some of those millions came from shipping thousands of jobs overseas and feasting on the corpses of American companies like AmPad, KB Toys and Babbages.
Then, Mr. Mitt “Consistent Conservative” Romney–when the chips are down in the Michigan primary–makes promises to the domestic auto industry that would make John Edwards blush. Billions to prop up a crippled industry that hasn’t learned to be competitive despite being in decline for 30 years.
There is no universe in which the fiscal conservative capitalist who made millions with Bain Capital would endorse such invasive government control and coddling of American industry if he wasn’t desperate for votes.
So, he’ll flop on abortion, gay marriage and taxes to get the votes of gullible conservatives (and brainless media shills like Scarborough and Limbaugh), and then flop on his fiscal conservative values and better business sense to bribe votes from the working class.
Yep, that Mitt Romney’s a sure-fire conservative straight-shooter.
And when he gets into office and is facing withering political fire from a hostile Democratic Congress and a public that demands real solutions to the problems we face, what else will Mitt flop and fold on?
And all this on domestic and financial affairs with which he has some experience. God help us when he has to tackle foreign affairs about which he knows nothing.
Give me a break!