Tuesday, February 07, 2012

Is There More To Mitt Than Meets The Eye...Or Less?

I've found little on which I can agree with Newt.  However,  I must agree that the candidates do have ways to sway their super pacs no matter what the rules say.  Hasn't Newt shown that by his own new found, ahem, negativity?

With that as my premise, it's time for Mitt to tone his down.  I don't care how it's done but it's about to become a bigger liability to him than Romneycare.

I hadn't thought much about it, politics being what it is, until Rick Santorum started making headway in the Minnesota polls.  What does Romney do?  Turns his attacks on Santorum.  It leads me to wonder if that is the only egg in his basket other than the 'I know how to create jobs' mantra.

It's getting old on all sides.  It's one of the problems with these year long primaries. The negativity is pointing to things long past.  Yes, Santorum took earmarks while a Senator.  It was and is common practice and he explained it by saying as long as it was allowed it was his duty to see his constituency got their fair share.  That is defensible only if the earmarks were for something worthwhile, but defensible never-the-less.  But it's past.  Just like Romney claims he's changed his past stance on abortion.  He credits becoming more educated, but at the time he was pro choice.  Period.  Frankly, on the legitimacy scale I'm with Santorum on this one. I fear Romney's 'education' might better be described as 'expedience', but that's only my eerie opinion.

When Santorum takes Romneycare apart he does it with the precision of a surgeon when comparing it to Obamacare.  I'd like to see Romney take Santorum to task, Gingrich and Paul too, on the substance of his policy versus theirs in the same way.  What exactly is his other than 57 pages of something on his web site no one is going to read except the most serious of wonks? And why is his superior to the others?

Santorum may be on the verge of getting the latex glove treatment; he's the only one left and we'll know more after tonight's caucuses.   I do not agree with his positions on any of the social and religious issues.  I don't think they should be part of a presidential campaign, especially those that already have regulating law in place.  I cannot support Santorum because of it, I find it too much in the forefront of his thinking when far more serious issues are facing the nation.

That being said, he is probably the candidate most prepared to defend his policies against the others.  Whether he can gain the traction and the money needed to wage battle at this point remains to be seen.  What he has done is bring to the fore the weakness of the other campaigns.

If Romney is anything more than a former CEO now is the time to spell it out.  If he can do no better than to continue the negativity my thinking will follow suit ~ where Romney is concerned, it will go negative.


Margie's Musings said...

That's all true, mari. But I'm not impressed with any of the Republican candidates. And they are splintering the field which is pleasing the Democrats.

I'll stay with Obama so far. You know, "the devil we know" thing.

Anonymous said...

Yet another indepth gem!

In respect to Santorum being on the verge of the latex glove treatment, your intuition is spot on, and, whatwith him winning decisively in the heartland yesterday makes it even more so.

Which brings me to your next valid point: Is Romney's campaign so deep in the pockets that they'd just assume blitz thier competitors with negative adds than actually address the core issues in a meaningful, relevant sense? Thanks for yet another insightful piece--Cheers!