Yesterday the WSJ had an editorial about how “decoding Romney’s words” promised to be a long-running series, with the editorialist assuring us that Romney was really much better than what he said. Then the editorialist announced that Romney’s “mispeaks” are because he was a hard-headed businessman and didn’t know how to express himself like a politician. Just like Biden, I guess.
I didn’t know what to laugh at more. The idea that the WSJ was prepared to spend the next few months reinterpreting everything Romney says to make it fit their pattern, or the idea that Romney was not a politician. They seem to have forgotten - and he himself seems to neglect to mention - that he was Governor of Massachusetts, which the last time I looked, was a political position. During this time, he had a solidly liberal, big-spending record, and no amount of talking can alter that.
I guess that’s why they’re planning to spend the next few months (a) not talking about his record at all and (b) morphing everything he says into what they want to hear.
The only thing I don’t understand is his magic. Why are they so devoted to him?
Recent history teaches that the people and the process can be manipulated to place a "pre-selected" candidate. Scare quotes, because the candidates pick themselves, but one of them is more attractive by dint of being an insider who is willing to tailor policy for interests that he favors.
WSJ is a big/crony business interest, and if WSJ thinks Romney is in the running, it will shill for him on the front end, to gain favor in case he wins.
They being the WSJ.
IMO, the WSJ editorial board has few, if any, core conservative principles. They are pro-business and free enterprise. Therefore, for example, they have minimal concern about illegal immigration, because it is good for business and clamping down is onerous on employers both because of higher wage costs and administrative problems. The welfare of the populace and adherence to the rule of law and the Constitution is secondary to business interests. I also think back to their support for Mike Milken in the late '80s: he broke a thousand "little" securities laws, but they were willing to overlook that in the name of free enterprise. So, the WSJ editorial board and Romney are two peas in a pod.
The problem is that, come elections, when everyone gets to decide, they and Romney must twist themselves into verbal contortions trying to put a principled face on what is essentially libertarianism for business only.
Think also of all that Bain fodder for the Fall. Romney's lack of core principles opens him to scurrilous attacks, since he cannot articulate conservative principles. The Dem ads will say: "Romney says it's OK to close factories and good to fire people because because we have a minimum wage and a safety net for those people." This is unfair and inaccurate, but the Dems will get away with it because Mitt is philosophically bereft.
Romney would be torn apart. It is essential that we do that job now, rather than leave it to the Dems for their nefarious purposes.