Too Many Mitts

During the 1960 campaign, JFK said he felt sorry for Nixon: “It must be hard getting up every morning and having to decide who you’re going to be that day.”

Now, Mitt Romney’s authenticity problem is front and center. Wobbling into a belated release of some tax returns for whenever, he is, like Nixon back then, still trying to create a real person Republican voters can believe in.

The obvious answer to Romney resistance is that he appears willing (flip-flops, anyone?) to be or do anything to get elected, and GOP voters are uneasy, not because he is too moderate, but because there are too many Mitts.

For better or worse, they have been gravitating to deeply flawed alternatives (Gingrich, anyone?) for almost a year (Bachmann, Cain, Perry) to channel the passion Romney can’t inspire. In this weird year, “electable” has become a synonym for “blah.”

At Bain, Romney was the “presenter” to sell vampire investments in vulnerable companies. That role required an affable pitchman who would not call attention to himself and distract buyers from the product.

Over two election cycles, he has been doing just that on the hustings, selling a product named Romney, when voters are looking for evidence of an actual person. Now that they are choosing a serial adulterer who has taken millions from agencies he now denounces, time is running out for a real Romney, however flawed, to come into focus.

His advisors can be seen tinkering with the robotic version, programming it to get aggressive

MORE.

         

Author: ROBERT STEIN

Share This Post On

4 Comments

  1. It may not be to the Republican Party’s advantage to have the crew we’ve seen exposed over the past months, but for anyone even thinking about voting for Mitt Romney because of his moderate persona in Mass., the blinders are off.

    That can only be a good thing. Thanks to Newt, and the MSM (yes they are good for SOMETHING), we have been exposed to Mitt’s efforts to “reinvent” himself. Unlike Madonna, it hasn’t been a success.

  2. Ask yourself, did he do such a bad job as Gov., as head of Olympic committee, or even as CEO of Bain (even if it was a vulture; it was not).
    The point is, he has managerial skills and seems to have gotten along with coworkers and party members of both parties.

    Contrast that with Newt, drummed out of office by his own party who still say nasty things about him. He was successful as a “historian”, and did make good bucks, but he denies he was an influence peddler.

    So, Mitt flip flops, just like the Dems hero, Obama (Gitmo, terrorist trials, national security privacy; in other words Bush-Lite), they all do it.

    Could he do better than Obama, perhaps, but Obama has not been too successful against the Reps and Harry and Nancy may not be too crazy about him. Maybe Mitt could do better.

  3. Duck, I liked Mitt for awhile. He does seem to have some good traits, but his floppiness has gotten out of hand. I like to think if he got elected and didn’t have to pander to a crazy GOP base he would tack back to the center and if he did would probably do a decent job of it. But it is impossible to tell what he is really about at this point. I’m pretty sure he is just doing what he thinks he has to to get the job, and underneath it all he’s got some chops.

  4. One man’s “floppiness” is another man’s adaptability.
    See, Obama’s “adaptability”, as cited above, and add this one, the non-war in Libya.

Submit a Comment