In case you’ve missed it, Garry Trudeau has lately been using his Doonesbury comic strip to hammer away at Mitt Romney’s embarrassing record of saying whatever seems likely to please the audience he happens to be in front of at any given moment.
All the strips are available at Slate. Here’s the first one (scroll down); keep clicking “next” to see the whole series.
Funny stuff.
Please share widely!
…then that speaks volumes for the GOP’s respect for integrity (hint – today’s GOP is as connected with integrity as Al Qaeda was connected to Saddam Hussein)
Mitt’s gaining credibility? Oh dear — how will Democrats ever come up with a campaign to run against him?
<
p>
Maybe it’s a double-double-reverse psychology. With an ollie.
Trying to use reverse psychology to get liberals to support Mitt. Clever Porcupine!
<
p>
But really, are you entirely unconcerned about any of this? When it comes to the social issues, Mitt now presents himself as a completely different person than the one that ran for Senate and Governor. Do you really think you know what he believes, or that he believes in anything other than himself?
I do not agree with him on choice, on stem cell, on a host of ‘hot button’ issues which I suspect both sides of the divide are more than tired of.
<
p>
But – I DO think he can work on national debt, on defense, on personal and corporate credit and bankruptcy problems, etc.
<
p>
To me, a sound roads bill is more important than parental notification. Because that is what government is about. Not interfering or redirecting private lives and choices, but providing collectively for the infrastructure and defense for the society within which those choices will be made.
<
p>
Let me ask you this – EVERY candidate is hounded on abortion, gay rights, etc. Where do any of them stand on the balance of trade with China, and its impact and relationship on our ability to control worldwide pollution?
<
p>
And in the long run – which is actually the proper concern of government?
of course most of us agree that gov’t should stay out of the bedroom and stick to the roads. but Peter, Willard has shown zero capacity to govern. in fact, the only interest he has shown in governing is the winning of the office. be real, is there something factual about Mitt that really turns you on as a voter, or is he just the least worst of the GOP pickins? sorry you’re “tired” of defending a woman’s right to choose. i will never hand over the destiny of any woman’s womb to a liar like Willard or any of those serial cheaters on the GOP ticket. those who would do so are sell-outs of the highest order. well, then maybe he’s the right candidate for them afterall…
PP, I sort of share Laurel’s question.
<
p>
Big Picture: I really enjoy reading your posts as I think you have a very real interest in the actual business of governing.
<
p>
To be honest, that’s why I’m really surprised — and just curious — at your support of Mitt for President. I’d have thought you’d be with Giuliani as the guy who — at least in my opinion — showed a very zealous interest in governing.
<
p>
Setting aside Giuliani (I don’t mean for this to be about which is a stronger R candidate), I’m just surprised that your exposure to Mitt had led you to the conclusion that he is honestly interested in the business of governing….
<
p>
…So far as I could tell, Mitt seemed exclusively interested in the symbolism of governing.
<
p>
I don’t mean this as a challenge, just purely as a question: why does my view of Mitt diverge so much from yours?
…and I saw how adept he was, despite the grotesque interference of the Lege. I saw the abolition of the MDC, the consolidation and paring of staff at state agencies, the creation of the Adams scholarships, etc.
<
p>
I also saw that he was able to respectfully work with people of utterly different ideas, to find common ground and work from there. For instance, I was active on the BRAC team to keep the base from closing. I watched how he worked with Ted Kennedy – his former opponent – to get a special spending bill passed which ensured the future of the base and the creation of the New England homeland security center. I watched him bring the Sagamore Flyover in on-time and under budget – the one public works project he didn’t inherit. I watched how he responded to the Katrina victims, setting up a facility for them in record time, enabling them to relocate to Mass. if they wished, and helped others home. And then shut it down after the emergency, instead of creating a perpetual bureaucracy.
<
p>
Our views probably diverge because I did not see his actions through the prism of media coverage, omitting the good and highlighting the failed.
<
p>
You are right that Guiliani would be my second choice – but he remains second because of many petty choices he made as Mayor about staff, about priorities, about budgeting. He was big on feuds as Mayor (before his emergency canonization) and rug-pulling. I remember years ago, the New Yorker ran a piece calling him the New Savronola, and it fit. He is not a naturally affable and courteous person, and Romeny is. I think Romney can reintroduce the nation to bipartisanship, intelligent compromise on difficult issues, and responsible governing.
Giuliani and “rug-pulling?” Are you suggesting he consider that or lose the best hair primary in a landslide….?
<
p>
I appreciate your thoughtful comment.
<
p>
<
p>
Just a note — my view is less through media and more through chats over the years with 4 or 5 R’s or independents who worked in some capacity in his Administration, a couple fairly well placed.
<
p>
The way you describe him is what I was ready to believe when he became Gov.
<
p>
The way I perceive him now is that he changed — when his 2004 effort to remake the Lege went nowhere, he seemed to then slip entirely into only caring about his chats with Mike Murphy. (Who btw suggested the Katrina thing as a way to get some CNN coverage).
I always thought the person who foiled that effort was Tom Finneran. The 133 candidates had been convinced to run as a team, and use Tommy as boogeyman. Repeatedly, polls showed that while people disapporved of the LEGISLATURE, they like their own LEGISLATOR, and excused his/her contibution to being part of the problem because of Finneran’s iron hand. A few weeks before the election, and Poof! Finneran resigns, leaving behind the then-kinder, gentler liberal Sal DiMasi (remember?). So – with the bad guy gone, they felt comfortable choosing the incumbent once again.
Mitt the Manager has a very different persona than Mitt, Man of Faith. Mitt Version 2.0 is running on a hard right moralist platform. If elected, he will have to push those issues, or he will lose his base.
<
p>
He has some good qualities. He would probably make a terrific cabinet appointment, such as Secretary of the Treasury or Secretary of Commerce. President? No, thank you.
I lived in CT for much of Giuliani’s reign, and commuted to NYC during some of it. It was always high entertainment to listen to NYC radio to hear what King Giuliani, as his minions referred to him, was up to now. But it was only entertaining because I didn’t have to live there. He did make some positive changes for NYC, but he is a player of the highest order. Although I greatly appreciated his capacity to take charge and lead after 9/11 (putting cowering George and invisible Dick to shame), I lost all shred of respect for him when he tried to get the election laws set aside just for him. He apparently wants to do what Geo. Bush does with every signing statement – place himself above the law.
Mitt Romney’s only claim to fame is that he rushed in and rescued the 2002 Winter Olympics–in Utah–largely at the expense of Utah and federal taxpayers. Big frigging deal. I could have done the same if I had virtually unlimited pockets from which I could draw cash from.
<
p>
Listen up and listen well. The reason that social issues are the major divide between the major parties is because the major parties are both in league with the major corporations (i.e., balance of trade with any foreign country, including China, is irrelevant) and they don’t have the slightest idea what to do about pollution–your two issues. One doesn’t have to be an Einstein or a Heisenberg (uncertainty principle, you know) to understand that. So the Republikaner in den USofA run on social issues. And the Democraten pretend that they are ignoring them.
<
p>
It really is as simple as that. And, to harken to a book title, that’s what’s wrong with Kansas.
Ohhhh…..WATCH OUT! The OTHER is upon you!
<
p>
And if I thought for a moment your analysis was correct, there’d be a lot more wrong with America than Kansas, who thanks you once again for your smarmy condescension.
<
p>
Please – stay in Germany. You can tell them how the Americans are beter than they are.
…your silly jabbing will get you no where.
<
p>
“stay in Germany”? I’ll stay wherever I’m allowed, dear Frau Porc.
<
p>
Rudy Giuliani isn’t the only failed executive in this race who was saved by 9/11. Romney’s stewardship of SLC02 was headed for similar disaster until the federal government picked up the tab for olympic security in the wake of 9/11. Security is one of the biggest expenses at the Olympics, and that is the reason why the books suddenly balanced. Too bad the Mass Dems couldn’t bother to point that out during the campaign.
<
p>
Strange how many prominent Republicans can date the turning of their fortunes to 9/11. I may end up rooting for Huckabee because he’s the only GOP candidate who doesn’t stand to benefit from 9/11.
…It was reported that the federal and state taxpayers payed a rather significant amount for the infrastructure that supported the SLC02 Olympics.
<
p>
Any idiot could have managed the same.
<
p>
I’d almost be willing to suggest that Mitty’s Staples are welfare queens, much like Wal-Mart is. (Discussed here before)