The Case Against Mitt Romney

Last week Mitt Romney won the first Presidential Debate. There was a clear consensus among Democrats and Republicans alike. To my recollection going back to the first Kennedy Nixon debate, I don't believe there has been a debate where there was a winner so clearly defined. Romney was aggressive, confident, and gave fairly clear and concise answers. Almost every one would agree that President Obama was not on his game. The latest polls showing Romney now even with Obama reflect that fact.

What happened? Romney was well prepared over a long period of time. He knew exactly what he wanted to say and said it well. No one challenged what he had to say. Whatever strategy Obama may have been employing was the wrong strategy. There was little or no energy. It sounded like we had heard it all before.

The problem with Mitt Romney's performance was that in fact we hadn't heard any of it before. He did a complete about face on almost every issue. The 20% tax cut was obfuscated by words of it being revenue neutral. Repeal Obama care on day one was confused with talk of how wonderful Romney care was in Massachusetts, not to mention his intention to retain all of the well liked provisions of Obama care. Yet there appeared to be no need to pay for, or institute a mandate that would make these provisions possible.  Romney was suddenly a fan of Wall Street regulations, and complained that the Dodd Frank bill was simply not tough enough. So, he once again dramatically changed his positions, and hid the implications of other positions which might not be popular.

So what do we really know about Mitt Romney? Many commentators feel they know who he is, and most who do say that he was just being conservative to get the nomination and will now revert to the moderate he actually is. After all, the notion goes, his record in Massachusetts was that of a moderate governor. Yet we have seen his disdain for ordinary Americans when he was talking freely with wealthy doners. He has continued with his extreme positions in the campaign until now. Perhaps, the fact that he was falling further behind contributed to his change of heart.

One thing we know about him is that he wants to be president. He seems to be willing to go to extremes to achieve that goal. He said in the primary debates that he would refuse to raise revenue even if the ratio of cuts to revenue increases was 10 to 1. When threatened by challengers like Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum he unceremoniously crushed them with his seemingly unlimited financial resources and targeted adds. Apparently, he believes he can do the same to President Obama, and there is no doubt that the President will have to significantly elevate his game to prevent that. Rightly, or wrongly, style matters, and debate performances impact voter choices.

The main issue, however, has not changed. This campaign continues to be about two very different visions for our country. Whatever raging moderate may lie within him, the man who selected Paul Ryan as his running mate believes that the federal government is the problem. States need to solve their own problems as they choose with greatly reduced resources from the federal government. Too many of us are dependent on government and need to fend for ourselves, unless of course, we are wealthy and then the govenrmment should support us because we are the job creators.

The Obama and Democratic vision is that we are all in this together. Policies need to be fair and balanced so that everyone has a fair chance to get ahead. Business left on its own will not automatically do the right thing for all Americans. If government, therefore, doesn't step up to ensure a reasonably fair playing field for all Americans, who will?