Crossposted with permission from ThePeoplesView.net.

After revisiting Mitt Romney’s interview with Bob Schieffer on Face the Nation on Sunday, I am still quite intrigued as to why Mitt Romney cannot muster up a position for anything. First, he dodged four times in answering whether he would repeal President Obama’s directive to de-prioritize deporting undocumented youths (I don’t want to call it an executive order anymore, since it’s not). Then, he managed to sidestep Schieffer’s question, which asked him where he would find the revenue to balance out his proposed tax cuts:

After reading that exchange, one word truly stands out in my mind: vague. Now, I believe there could be two reasons for this. The simple explanation, obviously, is that Mitt Romney doesn’t really have a specific plan. One could certainly make the case for this on his immigration reform, as it was truly something that he didn’t expect to have to deal with. In a way, he was expecting help from Marco Rubio, that–even though it might probably still have negligible effect in courting hispanics in the end–at least the freshman senator had a plan to seemingly help deal with immigration and possibly shore up some latino votes. But that’s as far as it goes. He has no specific plan on what to actually reform in immigration. All he was intending to do is just to pivot from that and focus on the message of how the economy is floundering under President Obama’s watch, stressing that the latinos have been hit hardest in recent years, without getting into the specifics of what he intends to do about it. When you have no plan, just point to the other guy so the focus is on him and all his failures.

The second explanation is that Mitt Romney does have specifics, but chooses not to reveal them because if he reveals them, then it is probably game over for his campaign. I think a little bit of that was also revealed in that interview with Bob Schieffer. Continuing on from the previous conversation:

In case you missed it, his son, Willard, had one of those moments yesterday, when Matt Lauer was chatting with him about the way Willard had made an additional fortune at the corporate chop-shop known as Bain Capital. Willard’s initial response to criticism on this score was to paint everyone criticizing him as being jealous of Willard’s fabulous life. Lauer asked him:

“Are there no fair questions about the distribution of wealth without it being seen as envy, though?”

Willard thereupon dropped a bomb on himself.

“You know I think it’s fine to talk about those things in quiet rooms…. But the president has made this part of his campaign rally. Everywhere he goes we hear him talking about millionaires and billionaires and executives and Wall Street. It’s a very envy-oriented, attack-oriented approach.”

Those words, and the entitled attitude with which they are so luxuriously chandeliered, should kill any campaign being conducted in 2012. The country is still staggering, blinking, out of the rubble of an economy that was shattered by an industry full to its gunwales with Willard Romneys. He is campaigning in South Carolina, where unemployment is pushing up at 10 percent. Do those people want to leave their fates up to a bunch of fancy haircuts in “quiet rooms” where they discuss how much more flesh they can pick off the carcass of what is laughingly called the “middle class” of this country?