BullMitt: A state of being that refers to a politician’s (typically a republican) complete and total reversal of policy position(s) to such a degree that their own governing philosophy/belief system is rendered indecipherable.
Watching Mitt Romney pretzelize his own logic in a vain effort to explain how his version of universal healthcare that he implemented as the Governor of Massachusetts was a “success,” but that the incredibly similar “Obamacare,” must be repealed and replaced is painfully fascinating. Never has a man with such a stiff bearing went to such contortionist extremes.
I don’t know that I have ever seen a candidate run so fast from the signature accomplishment of his political career. And make no mistake, it was one hell of a success. Since passing “Romneycare” in 2006, over 98% of all state residents have coverage (including 99.8% of all children) while increasing the expense to the state by only 1%. More than that, a Reuters poll found that 84% of state residents were satisfied with the plan. Not only did the plan improve coverage for his former constituents, but they liked it. Who’d a thunk?
But, now that “Obamacare,” “Death Panels,” and “Government takeover” have become a part of the reflexive conservative lexicon since the passage of the Affordable Care Act of 2010, Mr. Romney finds himself caught in a riddle wrapped inside of an enigma with a question mark tied around it. How does he become president in this climate after providing the Obama administration with the very template for their own healthcare reform? How does he combat the Tea Party and Rick Perry on this issue?
The answer is, he can’t.
Remember that painfully awkward powerpoint presentation he revealed?
Romney could take another route. What he could do is take the courageous route and tell the American people why he did it, that it worked, that he is proud of it, and let the chips fall where they may. At least that would be honest.
However, that is not the way of Romney. As the recent past has shown, the Mitt has provided several examples of political and moral flexibility when it comes to his own views.
Here is a brief list:
On Immigration: ‘Those… paying taxes and not taking government benefits should begin a process toward application for citizenship.’ Then later, ‘Amnesty only led to more people coming into the country.’
On the Financial Crisis: ‘The TARP program… was nevertheless necessary to keep banks from collapsing in a cascade of failures.’ ‘ Then later, When government is… bailing out banks… we have every good reason to be alarmed.’
On Carbon Caps: ‘These carbon emission limits will provide real and immediate progress.’ Then later, ‘Republicans should never abandon pro-growth conservative principles in an effort to embrace the ideas of Al Gore.’
On DADT: ‘When I first heard of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy, I though it sounded awfully silly.’ Then later, ”Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell has worked well.’
On Stem Cells: ‘I will work and fight for stem cell research.’ Then later ‘In the end, I became persuaded that the stem-cell debate was grounded in a false premise.’
On Gun Control: ‘I supported the assault weapon ban.’ Then later, ‘I don’t support any gun control legislation.’
And lastly, his ever malleable view on abortion:
Much was recently made of the ridiculous faux candidacy of Donald Trump. Not just for all of his ‘birther’ nonsense, but because of his history of switching positions on a variety of issues to suit his political viability.
The ‘Donald’ was once pro-Gay. Now, not so much. He was once in favor of TARP. Not anymore. He was once pro-choice. Now he’s pro-life. He was once on the side of universal health coverage. Now he thinks it’s a disaster.
So I ask you, what does Donald Trump equal if you take away his birtherism, caustic demeanor, and mythological head of hair?
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Mitt Romney.