In an unprecedented critique The Economist blasts Romney as "Flip-flopper," "Undetailed," and "Fawning PR Man." (Congress, Republican)

[Mr. Mon]

So, Mitt Romney, what do you really believe? - The Economist


"We share many of his views about the excessive growth of regulation and of the state in general...But competence is worthless without direction and, frankly, character."


This is scathing coming from the archly classically conservative Economist. Is this another signal that the coalition of business and far-right social conservatives is straining the Republican Party as it heads towards the convention?

[trlhiker]

Too bad that consevatives are willing to let their beliefs fly into the wind to support such a man. Their outright hatred of Obama has blinded them to who Romney truely is.

[mb1547]

Originally Posted by Mr. Mon

So, Mitt Romney, what do you really believe? - The Economist


"We share many of his views about the excessive growth of regulation and of the state in general...But competence is worthless without direction and, frankly, character."


This is scathing coming from the archly classically conservative Economist. Is this another signal that the coalition of business and far-right social conservatives is straining the Republican Party as it heads towards the convention?

That's just it, and I've said this since he entered the primary--he's willing to say anything to win, he's held a variety of positions at odds with each other on lots of key issues, and the end result is that you have no idea what he really believes. On top of that he's unwilling to share the most basic information about himself, but we're supposed to trust what he says. I knew he was going to have big trouble in a general--he's a really flawed candidate--and here we are. Character does count.

In fairness to Mitt, I don't know how any R except someone like Jeb Bush, who can hold the far right in line, could keep this race together successfully. A big chunk of it isn't his fault--it was dumped on him when the Koch brothers heavily funded the extremist end of the base in 2010 and gave them a strong voice in the party. It's impossible for them not to over reach, because they don't see politics as compromise--they see it as "true believers" and ideology. Mitt's trying to cater to the extremists, the moderate/independents and the business community all at once. No one can do that successfully. It's a darned if you do, darned if you don't situation.

[Fiddlehead]

Originally Posted by mb1547

That's just it, and I've said this since he entered the primary--he's willing to say anything to win, he's held a variety of positions at odds with each other on lots of key issues, and the end result is that you have no idea what he really believes. On top of that he's unwilling to share the most basic information about himself, but we're supposed to trust what he says. I knew he was going to have big trouble in a general--he's a really flawed candidate--and here we are. Character does count.

In fairness to Mitt, I don't know how any R except someone like Jeb Bush, who can hold the far right in line, could keep this race together successfully. A big chunk of it isn't his fault--it was dumped on him when the Koch brothers heavily funded the extremist end of the base in 2010 and gave them a strong voice in the party. It's impossible for them not to over reach, because they don't see politics as compromise--they see it as "true believers" and ideology. Mitt's trying to cater to the extremists, the moderate/independents and the business community all at once. No one can do that successfully. It's a darned if you do, darned if you don't situation.

I think the Economist nailed it. That is precisely my impression of thy guy. However, you bring up a good point, being a GOP presidential candidate is hard these days. If you are not a nut case true believer (Bachmann), and dolt who does not do nuance (W), you will have to cater to a very broad audience. And if you please the far right, you are likely toast in the general election. He is walking a tight rope. Even so, the guy's character just does not ring through. I think we will see this in the debates.

[Mr. Mon]

Originally Posted by Fiddlehead

I think the Economist nailed it. That is precisely my impression of thy guy. However, you bring up a good point, being a GOP presidential candidate is hard these days. If you are not a nut case true believer (Bachmann), and dolt who does not do nuance (W), you will have to cater to a very broad audience. And if you please the far right, you are likely toast in the general election. He is walking a tight rope. Even so, the guy's character just does not ring through. I think we will see this in the debates.

I don't envy anyone who runs for office, least of all someone who has to be a standard bearer for a deeply fractured political party.

I've stated this numerous times on this board that in more normal times a Mitt Romney presidency would be fine. He'd likely be the center-right administrator that he was in Massachusetts and a good steward of the office. However, with the rise of the far right in the Republican Party I fear that Romney will need to prove his conservative credentials by rubber stamping whatever anti-choice, anti-science, sabre rattling and religious based legislation that comes out of Congress. His major reversal on most of his previous positions combined with decision to not address a lot issues and to not detail any of his major policies just further indicates that his policies will be whatever he his handed by those who put him in office.

This is a major flaw and for the Economist of all publications to be pointing it out is a big deal.