"President Obama has betrayed his oath to the nation"
So trumpeted Willard Mitt Romney in a bizarre op-ed at National Review Online.
This is a strange and dangerous claim. If Obama has betrayed his oath, the only constitutional remedy is impeachment. Is Romney calling for impeachment? Every interview he conducts from now on should start with this question. If Romney believes that Obama betrayed his oath but impeachment is not called for, then he is unsuitable for office -- it would be impossible to trust a chief executive who believes it is acceptable to violate the oath of office. Let's dismiss the inevitable weasel right away: any claim that Romney was merely referring to some general oath of fidelity to the American people should be taken as seriously as Willard's attempt to bond with some Martin Luther King celebrants. Not a dog whistle, exactly. Woof Woof!
If Romney does not believe what he wrote, or if he goes through another shape-shifting episode, he has once again exposed himself as a charlatan willing to do and say anything to advance his political career.
His latest chameleon act is designed to camouflage the former moderate Republican governor of Massachusetts and alumnus of Harvard's Law and Business schools, not to mention the son of a former Senator in the colors of the angry, ignorant populists of the Tea Party movement.
Romney's calculation is clear: to be a Charlie Crist like moderate Republican is a loser in an environment bubbling over with young firebrands like Marco Rubio. But choosing this angry mob to lead is a bad decision. Most swing voters already view the Tea Party crowd as dangerous, intolerant lunatics. Worse, by late 2011, when the Republican primary fight gears up, I suspect the tea party movement will have largely fizzled, leaving a vacuum for adult leadership in the Republican party. They'll never trust Romney with his Obama like health care plan in Massachusetts or his legendary flip-flops on abortion, no matter how much he genuflects to them.
The moment of truth in Romney's NRO op-ed is in the title: "A Campaign Begins." Not "The Battle For America's Soul is Joined." Not "A Call to Arms." No, it's still all about him.
Poor Willard Mitt Romney. He may have been derided as a robot, but within the android shell that left "4.7 million cracks in the plastic ceiling," as Slate's Bruce Reed put it, beats a real human heart. A heart that beats with the desire to be President.
Unrequited love is sad indeed. But Romney's heartache over his vanishing Presidential ambitions is no excuse for poisoning our national rhetoric with outrageous claims. He needs to be held accountable for them.
Programming note: This isn't the first time Romney has waded into extremist waters.
Follow Bart Motes on Twitter: www.twitter.com/bmotes
Cartoon land, here we come!
The Republicans don't have to campaign against the whole bill. They can just campaign against the unpopular parts. If they stick to three things, they have a winner:
1) The Democrats are forcing you to buy an expensive product from companies that are ripping you off
2) If you don't buy it, they'll send the IRS in after you
3) They might even tax you on the thing they're forcing you to buy.
This will make people angry and fearful. It works. It doesn't matter that it's baloney and Republicans supported mandates before, and they'd never repeal them. Campaigning against mandates works. It got Obama elected.
Democrats have to deal with the fact that mandates are unpopular. Without the public option or an extremely robust regulator, they will be the Dems Achilles heel in November.
And I expect Palin to stick to being a Fox personality. There's more money in it. She might run and drop out to raise some extra cash though.
Of course you're right that if Democrats get smug, they are in for a shock. But the Republican tsunami appears a more distant prospect these days. I still expect Democrats to lose 15-20 seats, though.
And college students were far more in favor of the more progressive cost controls and ideas. They fought for the meaningful ideas that were dropped from the bill like drug re-importation, Medicare direct drug price negotiation, a public insurance option, Medicare buy-in, a central provider reimbursement negotiator and a national rate regulator. They're not as selfish as you think. They aren't going to be satisfied with just having their parents pay for their insurance.
There was a huge enthusiasm gap in Massachusetts. The young people and new voters who brought Obama into office did not turn out. Why would they? Everything they fought for was dropped. What they fought against and were promised that the President would fight against was what he fought for (mandates and taxes on employee benefits)? They have RomneyCare. They don't love it. They won't volunteer and work for Democrats just because they are proud of making it national.
All this self-congratulation is a bad idea. The reconciliation bill can save the Dems if they add a PO, and they won't have a better shot before November. They need 50 votes now. They'll need 60 later. And the House is going to have to vote on the bill again if a single word is changed - which is probable.
Romney would be twice the President that Obama has been... He's actually had a job in the private sector before.... Gosh what a concept.
Now, in response to your substantive comment: Romney has been a capable executive in the past. He's certainly an intelligent man and he has a demonstrated track record with Bain. However, the main problem that he has is that he appears willing to do or say anything to get elected. Given that the President has extremely broad powers once in office, I am unwilling to elect someone who is willing to circumvent the electoral vetting process by lying about his intentions once in office.
- Emancipation Proclamation by Lincoln
- Women's suffrage by Wilson
- Lend/Lease by FDR
- Desegregation of the military by Truman
- Civil Rights Act by Johnson
Who would stand against those today?
Sincerely,
RainyDayInterns
He said Obama's passage of health care would go down as the biggest "mistake" since Johnson signed the civil rights acts of 64/65 and lost the south.
So much for the Republican big tent.
Civil rights a "mistake"?
As the whole tea party/Palin/Beck/Limbaugh crowd becomes more and more extreme ....
even relatively mainstream moderate Republicans like Rommney and Gingrich will be pushed to stake out more extreme positions just to be heard.
OMG! It's happening to me!! I just referred to NEWT GINGRICH as "mainstream" & "moderate"!
"Lunatic fringe............................................I know you're out there.."
Regards
TM
Thanks for the comment.
All the meaningful cost control mechanisms were cut - drug re-importation, Medicare direct drug price negotiation, a public insurance option, Medicare buy-in, a central provider reimbursement negotiator, even a national rate regulator.
Nothing in the bill creates real competition either - insurers still have their anti-trust exemption to allow price fixing and there is no government completion. State exchanges won't do the job - ever been stuck in an airport? Stuck consumers in a small market with few providers get charged crazy prices. That's what we're in for.
This is a very, very bad deal for consumers.
Just like an actor, whatever script or lines he's given at any moment, is what he's going to say.
He's an empty vessel who should hang up his presidential aspirations, get a Hollywood agent, and find some roles.