My column yesterday laid out the ways in which Republicans do not love Mitt Romney, but they’ll settle for him anyway. In one part I wrote:
Romney is widely understood as a flip-flopper with no core principles, who will say anything to get elected. Jon Hunstman aptly called Romney “a perfectly lubricated weathervane.”
Reader Phil Larsen, who runs an indepedent pro-Romney website called “Why Romney?” wrote that I was incomplete and unfair in my catalogue of Romney’s heresies:
You mentioned his support for gun control as governor, but you failed to mention that his record on guns while governor has been to loosen restrictions overall. Even the NRA came out positively about the gun bill he signed. While you mentioned his implementing greenhouse gas restraints, you failed to mention that he pulled out of the RGGI because he said it imposed too strict of penalties on busiensses. You said he was “steadfastly pro-choice” in the past, but failed to mention that when he actually governed, he vetoed every pro-choice bill that came across his desk. He has a far more balanced record than you gave him credit for.
Louis Bouchard of L.A. critiques my piece, but not in defense of Romney:
You wrote “He [Romney] wrote the prototype of Obamacare”. This is incorrect. The health bill was drafted (largely) by Democratic lawmakers and doctors prior to Romney even knowing about it. All that Romney did was to sign the bill into law, as he had no choice politically at the time (being the lubricated weathervane that he is…) Both Democrats and Republicans and most of the media are wrong on this one. I’m not trying to defend Romney in any way here (because as you said, his flip flops could fill volumes…). My guess as to why there is so much confusion about this issue – because as you know, Romney himself could easily clear up this confusion in 30 seconds if he really wanted – is that Romney WANTS it to be that way. He wants to please both sides of the debate at the same time, i.e. on one hand he criticizes Obamacare (in an attempt to win conservatives), on the other hand, he praises his own health care system (in an attempt to win moderates, liberals and independents).
And responding to my analogy of Romney to Jane Austen’s Lizzie Bennett, one Republican wrote me:
Thinking further down the road, however, I wonder if Romney isn’t more of the daughter to Lady Catherine de Bourgh (RNC) who is out to browbeat and warn Elizabeth (Cain) that her daughter (Romney) has already been promised the prize/nomination (Darcy). A stretch maybe, but somehow it seems to fit.
Thanks all for the thoughtful responses.
