Thursday, October 11, 2012
It's starting to feel like watching an insane match of a game with no rules. Romney says something that whips your head around, then his campaign walks it back. I have no idea if this is planned (he says something to pander to his audience of the moment, knowing it'll get more coverage than the walking back, so he gets it both ways?) or if Mitt's really such a loose canon. (Yes, I know.)
If they were paying actual attention -- that is, if his voters had anything on their minds other than getting rid of the black guy at any cost -- you'd think Rs and teabaggers, the thoughtful among them, would be starting to worry. Who the hell is their Rominee? We know he's not going to tell us. Is he for legislation further to limit abortions, or not? Is he for reducing government -- especially the part that helps those that don't have private schools and security -- or not? Does he have a tax plan, or not? Cover pre-existing conditions, or not? Will he roll over onto his back whenever his billionaires demand it, or will he, finally, stand up for something. And if he would, what the heck would it be? In his career -- heck, in the last week! -- he's stood for everything. In a rational world, there'd be a limit to his empty willingness to say any damn thing, a point beyond which people wouldn't follow him.
It's hardly news that Mitt Romney is such a liar, willing to say anything to anyone at any time, and deny it -- or have his handlers do it -- later. What absolutely astounds me, and depresses me enough that I lie awake thinking about it, is that when he does it, people don't care. Flock to him, in fact. How is it that a single debate, in which he tossed every previous position overboard like dolphins caught in a tuna net, in which he straight-up lied about his (mostly absent from the debate) opponent's accomplishments, can have changed so many minds in his favor?
You'd think, as he left his previous supporters behind like road kill, and as "undecideds" saw what he was doing (assuming "undecideds" are capable of "seeing"), he would have dropped off the public stage like someone who lies and flip-flops and drops off the public stage.
But this is America, land of the freed-from-facts, home of the bravado. Watchers of Fox "news" and listeners to Rush Limbaugh.
Some things are controversial, subject to interpretation. Others are as obvious as sunrise on a clear fall morning: like the fact that Mitt Romney has made a career of changing every single position he's ever held, and is doing so even as we byte. There's no way for the hardest of his hard-core supporters (okay, I doubt he has much in the way of hard-core supporters; just people who want to avoid taxes or people who don't care as long as ... you know...) to be able to predict, based on anything he says, what he'd actually do as president. About that, there can be no argument. Really. There's never been anyone remotely like him, in terms of central vacuity, unrepentant lying, and enthusiastic changing of positions like Ron Jeremy used to.
Of course, Bill Clinton says it much better than me: