Lucille
03-08-2011, 01:18 PM
Heh.
Mitt Romney, the most transparent candidate (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/50786.html)
There was a piece about Romney on Page 1 of The New York Times on Sunday, and what amazes me is the deadpan frankness with which the article and the Romney aides and allies quoted in it accept the premise that, of course, he is a phony, that this reputation as a phony could be a bit of a problem if he runs in 2012. And then they go on to discuss what Romney might do to solve this problem. He was criticized last time for being a stiff, so this time he is not wearing a tie. Ever. Problem solved, as Romney sees it.
[...]
The Times reports that Romney’s flip-flops in 2008 on abortion and gay rights “prompted questions about whether his positions were driven by politics or conviction.” In fact, Romney’s reversals didn’t raise questions about his sincerity as much as answer them. It wouldn’t be unreasonable for someone who admired Romney’s record as a businessman, or who couldn’t stand Obama, to overlook Romney’s current right-wing stands on abortion and gay rights. But his sudden and implausibly explained reversals on these issues say something about his character that you can’t flip away so easily.
It's the neoconservative (http://www.cato-unbound.org/2011/03/07/c-bradley-thompson/neoconservatism-unmasked/) way:
Ironically, though, the neocons’ conception of a “governing philosophy” is not one defined by fixed moral principles. Instead, it’s an intellectual technique defined by pragmatism. The neocons’ “philosophy of governance” is a philosophy for how to rule or govern. It’s all about “thinking politically,” which means developing strategies for getting, keeping, and using power in certain ways. The neocons therefore urge the GOP to become chameleon-like and to adapt themselves to changing circumstances.
Mitt Romney, the most transparent candidate (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/50786.html)
There was a piece about Romney on Page 1 of The New York Times on Sunday, and what amazes me is the deadpan frankness with which the article and the Romney aides and allies quoted in it accept the premise that, of course, he is a phony, that this reputation as a phony could be a bit of a problem if he runs in 2012. And then they go on to discuss what Romney might do to solve this problem. He was criticized last time for being a stiff, so this time he is not wearing a tie. Ever. Problem solved, as Romney sees it.
[...]
The Times reports that Romney’s flip-flops in 2008 on abortion and gay rights “prompted questions about whether his positions were driven by politics or conviction.” In fact, Romney’s reversals didn’t raise questions about his sincerity as much as answer them. It wouldn’t be unreasonable for someone who admired Romney’s record as a businessman, or who couldn’t stand Obama, to overlook Romney’s current right-wing stands on abortion and gay rights. But his sudden and implausibly explained reversals on these issues say something about his character that you can’t flip away so easily.
It's the neoconservative (http://www.cato-unbound.org/2011/03/07/c-bradley-thompson/neoconservatism-unmasked/) way:
Ironically, though, the neocons’ conception of a “governing philosophy” is not one defined by fixed moral principles. Instead, it’s an intellectual technique defined by pragmatism. The neocons’ “philosophy of governance” is a philosophy for how to rule or govern. It’s all about “thinking politically,” which means developing strategies for getting, keeping, and using power in certain ways. The neocons therefore urge the GOP to become chameleon-like and to adapt themselves to changing circumstances.