How did we get to the point that some conservatives are using the former Massachusetts Governor’s name as an epithet? Mark Ambinder coined the word in The Atlantic to mean “a willingness to abandon one’s core convictions in order to pander.”
Daniel Larison writes in the American Conservative that the fact that Mitt Romney’s name is used in such a way is a reminder that Romney has “no real, permanent core convictions at all.”
What separates Romney from most pandering pols is the man’s gall. Specifically, it was the sheer gall of Romney’s sudden and complete transformation from being more pro-choice than Ted Kennedy to claiming that he was a devoted pro-lifer. In a matter of a few years, Romney went from telling us how deeply, personally affected he was by the death of a close relative who died in a botched abortion, which was why he would always and forever support legal abortion, to adopting as close to the opposite position as he possibly could. The only thing that really changed was that he wanted to be elected to the Senate and then as governor in Massachusetts when he told the first story, and then he started setting his sights higher and had to abandon that story.
Romney supporters say anyone can change their minds on issues, but Larison counters that Romney comes off as opportunistic rather than sincere.
There is something that makes Romney less trustworthy than most, and this is the earnestness with which he embraces his new positions, as if he thinks he has outsmarted his audience and made us forget that he believed the opposite just five seconds before. Romney is probably the only politician who could make me have respect for Rudy Giuliani by comparison. Giuliani at least believes what he believes and isn’t interested in changing that for a few votes.
Mark Ambinder coined the “Romneyesque” term when discussing Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty and the danger he’s becoming like Romney. Larison says Pawlenty isn’t “slick or charismatic” enough to pull of Romney’s flip flop.
Post a Comment
That being said, my biggest concern has always been Romney-care. I am somewhat glad Massachusetts did it as it clearly shows socialized medicine doesn't work. I have always been disturbed that Mitt Romney will look you in the eye and say it isn't socialized medicine, and that in any case it works.
It doesn't work!
It is now being reported that it takes over 2 months to get an appointment with a primary care physician. 63 days to be exact.These are waiting lists like they have in Canada and England. The rest of America is around 7 days.
Also, a few months back one of the former speech writers for John Edwards blogged that she now lives in Massachusetts and cannot afford this system. She writes as one confronted by the reality of the failed policy she supported for years and years. She wrote speeches extolling the virtues, only to live the nightmare.
If John Edward's speech writer can confess, Mitt?