Mitt Romney is not a flip-flopper
[...] Is Romney truly a man "without a core"? The simple answer: No. Romney has a distinct core -- not that of a politician, but of a CEO.
What do I mean? We have become accustomed in these highly partisan times to politicians who adhere rigidly to their ideological positions. They don't change their views to attract supporters. Rather, they want voters to agree with the positions they advocate.
In contrast, a CEO is not shackled by ideology. A CEO's success is measured by the bottom line, not by how many principles he or she sticks to.
To the CEO, if a product is not selling, you don't stick with it until the product destroys your business. Instead, you tweak it. You rebrand it. You try a new slogan or new packaging. And if people are still not buying it, like New Coke, you drop it. You regroup, come up with a new product and then start selling again.
Romney is first and foremost a businessman. In fact, Romney has repeatedly made this very point to us with statements like: "I spent my life in the private sector, not in government. I only spent four years as a governor. I didn't inhale. I'm a business guy."
I'm not defending Romney's acrobatic flips on issues. In fact, if Romney loses this election, he would make a great circus performer. I can see the ads: "The Amazing Romney -- he can change positions in midair." At times, I truly wonder if Mitt realizes we have Google and can look up his record on issues.
But Romney's "evolution" on certain key issues does not technically constitute a "flip-flop," which is defined by Dictionary.com as, "A sudden or unexpected reversal as of direction, belief, attitude or policy."
Romney's changing views are neither sudden nor unexpected. Rather, they are astutely calculated by Romney the businessman to appeal to the customers he's targeting at that very moment. This is a man clearly driven by the adage: "The customer is always right." [...]
If that is true, then with Romney, we could end up with a non-ideological president who will simply work to give us what the majority of Americans want.
The majority of Americans are registered as "independant", and are not rigidly ideological. They are the swing voters that decide elections. A CEO president might suit THEM fine.
But Romney would have to overcome massive media bias against him, and the mistrust by the more ideological conservatives in his own party, who fear he is just like this article describes him.
As for me, well. The president we have now, said he was going to halve the deficit in his first term. Instead, he's tripled it.
He promised more transparency. Instead we got "We have to pass the bill before you can see what's in it."
He said my health care would not change as a consequence. I got a letter from my insurer, explaining that the sharp increase in rates was due to Obama care. It did indeed change.
I could go on and on, but the fact is, I stopped being a Democrat years ago, because I stopped believing what they were saying; they say ANYTHING to get elected, then they do whatever they want when they get power. I don't believe that the Democrat leadership says what they mean, or mean what they say.
Would a CEO president like Mitt Romney be better? I can't say for sure. But I can say that I'd rather take my chances with the CEO, than four more years of what we've had.
No comments:
Post a Comment