Why? The first and foremost problem is the lack of critical assessment of Romney's stance on almost any issue. As the Daily Show has pointed out consistently, he has taken several stands on almost every issue over the course of the last several years, so where he really stands is at best unknown. But he will certainly be beholden to Republican ideaology and is unlikely to be able to molt out of that skin. The Register's lack of critical analysis of Romney's record as a liar is inexcusable. It reflects poorly on Iowa as a state, making us look like uncritical dupes who will believe the next super-PAC ad that comes our way.
The list of Romney’s out-and-out lies is too long to recount here. So let’s just take this week's lie, aimed at Ohio: the utterly false claim that General Motors and Chrysler shipped, or planned to ship, American auto jobs to China. Pandering to what everyone agrees is a critical vote in Ohio, he lied. Pure and simple. That is the man the Register thinks should lead the country? The man who will need to shape up what was the least productive Congress in modern history?
Well, let's look at what he did in Massachusetts in his four years as Governor. He did pass health care reform--that was a good accomplishment. But apart from health care, Romney defined success not with big-picture legislative accomplishments but with confrontation. In a 2008 campaign ad, Romney actually bragged about taking on his Legislature: "I like vetoes; I vetoed hundreds of spending appropriations as governor," he said. Romney issued some 800 vetoes, and the Legislature overrode nearly all of them, sometimes unanimously. If you figure there are 250 working days a year, that is about a 1000 days on the job. So he vetoed on average 8 things every two weeks, or 80% of days on the job yielded a veto, on average. Obama has vetoed 2 things in four years. So what evidence do we have that Romney is a consensus builder? He is a business man who is used to ruling from on high. His way or the highway. Additionally, Romney was out of state more than 400 days, so kind of like W. on the diligent public servant thing.
The GOP was willing to keep 23 million people out of work to put one man out of a job--they have not demonstrated a commitment to fixing the economy that they have focused on defeating the current President. Should we reward that with a Republican Presidency. I think not--it is just wrong. To advocate reward for such petulance is wrong. The wrong reward for bad behavior. Obama had a super-majority in the Senate for a matter of weeks--two 6 week periods, to be exact--during which they passed health care reform. Otherwise, the Republicans have shut down the show.
When the Register printed their endorsed Romney, they also printed their past endorsements and that should have given them pause. Their last endorsement of a Republican was for Richard Nixon in 1972. At that point Nixon was so incapacitated by alcoholism that he was passed out every evening in the White House, unable to make a critical decision should the need arise. He was paranoid and possibly delusional. He was recorded talking to Kissinger in 1971 admitting that the war in Vietnam was not winnable, but that we had to remain there for his re-election to be successful. Men died there so he could be re-elected--and look how that turned out.
No comments:
Post a Comment