anyways, read this article which I found completely biased (obviously ripping Romney) though I couldn't help feeling a bit frightened of Romney. is it all true? Does the fact that Romney's quick rise to Mass. Governor in light of his predecessors failings in any way shine sympathy on his "progressive" opinions during his governorship? versus his conservative opinions now? I don't know.
(http://www.economist.com/node/21560864)
excerpt:
WHEN Mitt Romney was governor of liberal Massachusetts, he supported abortion, gun control, tackling climate change and a requirement that everyone should buy health insurance, backed up with generous subsidies for those who could not afford it. Now, as he prepares to fly to Tampa to accept the Republican Party’s nomination for president on August 30th, he opposes all those things. A year ago he favoured keeping income taxes at their current levels; now he wants to slash them for everybody, with the rate falling from 35% to 28% for the richest Americans.
All politicians flip-flop from time to time; but Mr Romney could win an Olympic medal in it (see article). And that is a pity, because this newspaper finds much to like in the history of this uncharismatic but dogged man, from his obvious business acumen to the way he worked across the political aisle as governor to get health reform passed and the state budget deficit down. We share many of his views about the excessive growth of regulation and of the state in general in America, and the effect that this has on investment, productivity and growth. After four years of soaring oratory and intermittent reforms, why not bring in a more businesslike figure who might start fixing the problems with America’s finances?
I love the Economist, but this article irked me a little when I came across it. To start, what politician doesn’t teeter-totter on political views while running for office? I know Obama failed to deliver a lot of the promises he guaranteed while running in ’08 and he is certainly claiming things now which he doesn’t intend on delivering if he wins. Also, I think Romney is doing exactly what a good executive does-surround himself with a good VP who will do all the dirty work. Why would he blabber about a detailed economic stratagem when his VP was the guy who created it? It seems smart to be vague and then let those who serve under him fill in the specifics. There actually is a reason behind selecting a VP, but the article makes the position seem arbitrary. I guess we’ll see soon enough whether it was a good idea for Romney to coach from the bench.
ReplyDelete