A "Penumbra Of Angst" On Parade

I happened to read this recent interview with Mitt Romney in U.S. News and World Report (a corporate media publication on behalf of primarily the investor class, to be sure), and I’d like to share some of my observations in the usual manner.

You have released a plan to fight "violent jihad" worldwide. Where does Iraq fit in?

Clearly the war in Iraq is an enormous front in the war against radical jihad, less than well managed over the past several years. We did a fine job in knocking down Saddam Hussein. We were underprepared and underplanned for what occurred afterward. I support the troop surge at this stage. I would just recommend that the administration publish the metrics they will use to determine if it is working, because if we wait until September, there will be a lot of skepticism as to whether we chose metrics that just happened to be the ones that were working.

You want “metrics,”Mitt? Here, check this out. This should give you all the metrics you need.

Why do so many Americans believe the nation is on the wrong track?

It has gotten worse in part because of the immigration issue. I think Iraq is an enormous cloud over the American people. When every day, Americans are being shot and Iraqis are being blown up, it is just, using the Supreme Court term, a penumbra of angst.

Whoa…a “what” of angst?

According to The Free Online Dictionary, I think the best definition here of “penumbra” is “an area in which something exists to a lesser or uncertain degree.” However, I don’t think there’s anything uncertain at all about the desire of the majority of this country to get out of Iraq (as noted here – and as mcjoan points out, how ridiculous is it for Repugs to believe that the immigration issue trumps Iraq?)

What do voters want from their next president?

I think what Americans long for is the return of the principles that Ronald Reagan spoke about. The fundamental pillars of conservatism—a strong military, a strong economy, and strong families and values. I look at '08 as kind of a watershed where I think Hillary Clinton would take us toward big government and big taxes and Big Brother, and I think that would take us toward where Europe has gone: anemic job growth and relative economic stagnation.

Putting aside the typical Repug cheap shots (“Big Brother,” huh? Warrantless spying and disregard of habeas corpus for detainees at Guantanamo (see update) happened under Dubya, not her husband, the biggest manifestations of “Big Brother” I can imagine, and I also realize it’s pointless to engage Romney in an intelligent discussion here since there’s no way to have one), let’s look at the non Ronnie-fluffing stuff Romney says here.

How can you have a “strong military” when it has been broken in Iraq (to say nothing of declining enlistment)? And as far as “a strong economy” is concerned, take a look at this.

How will you deal with criticisms of your Mormon faith?

I have said that time will give us the answer on whether we do a big speech; and then I read Hugh Hewitt's book, A Mormon in the White House? and his conclusion was, don't give a speech, you know it can never be as good as Jack Kennedy's [addressing critics of his Roman Catholicism]. And that's true, and it won't answer the critics. But more recently I am more inclined to [because] there have been comments about my faith that have been inaccurate, and it has become more of a visible issue.

Well, then, Willard Mitt, why don’t you give this a look?

George Bush portrays himself as the CEO president. Has that model failed?

Not every business leader has exactly the same experience and orientation. I came from a very analytically driven industry. I love conflict and debate. I can't make a decision without hearing both sides. [I] recognize that every problem is soluble.

Such as both sides in the question of same-sex marriage and civil unions, which he supported in 1994 but has recently opposed (as noted here under “Political Positions”)?

What would you do differently in managing the government?

I think we would benefit more by a more deliberative debate field, argumentative, data-driven analytical approach, setting benchmarks. What are our benchmarks in healthcare, education, environment, energy, global jihad?

It continually makes me laugh to read people from the “for profit” sector who believe that you can just drop a bunch of milestones, methodologies and a well-honed mission statement into government and make it work all by itself, not realizing that there are vital differences when it comes to providing services and managing revenue on behalf of all kinds of disparate constituencies in this country.

What happens when Romney plugs in his magical numbers and then the facts on the ground force him to realize all of his assumptions are bogus? Do the Repugs ever seem to have a Plan B?

How would you overcome the current rancor in Washington?

One, not worrying about who gets the credit. Two, not making personal attacks. States are working. Statehouses with Republican and Democrat division work well. States are balancing their budgets. Look at Arnold Schwarzenegger in California. We did it in Massachusetts. Tim Pawlenty in Minnesota.

“Democrat” division, huh? Good one, you scumbag.

I will give Ahh-nold some credit here for showing vision as a Repug governor, particularly on global warming; he’s proven people wrong who’ve underestimated him his whole life (there are times when I think he’d make an interesting Democratic candidate, but that will never happen, and short of the U.S. Congress, he’s gone as far as he can). As for Pawlenty, though, “The Mittster” should take a look at this.

What did you learn from studying the presidential campaign of your dad [George Romney, who ran in 1968]?

I got a master's thesis by a fellow who worked in my dad's campaign. His thesis was "Why George Romney Lost," and it was the best analysis I had seen—20 reasons. By the way, one of them was not his Mormon faith. There were a number of things. Dad had two offices, the headquarters in Michigan and the headquarters in Washington. A disaster. Even if it is a tough place, you bring everybody together. But there are a number of things he went through. In some respects, [he was] a reluctant candidate—my dad wasn't sure he was in, back and forth. He got thrust in before he was ready.

Mitt is “gilding the lily” a bit here. Sorry to be unkind, but there was a bit more to it than that (as noted here, and you have to keep in mind that the term George Romney used was highly charged for his time given movies like “The Manchurian Candidate” and the treatment some of our P.O.W.s were getting from places like the “Hanoi Hilton.”)

Who will be the Democratic nominee?

I think it is going to be Hillary Clinton. On our side, it is just too uncertain. I think there will be an advantage to somebody who has actually run something. Mayor Giuliani and I have both run something. He ran a city. I ran a state. Now, I also ran the Olympics and businesses for 25 years. I think it is going to be very hard to get the nomination or win the presidency if you have never managed something.

Oh sure, Mitt, you’ve “managed” a thing or two. You managed to completely discount Osama bin Forgotten here.

You managed to concoct some unfortunate language during the “Big Dig” tragedy last year (and here’s an update on that story, by the way – not a good development for one of Bushco’s favorite contractors).

You managed to allow one of the Swift Boat Lying Liars for Lies into your campaign (here).

You managed to show what many feel is inappropriate “regret” over the defeat of a measure to let the voters decide on same-sex marriage in Massachusetts instead of the legislature.

Oh, and you managed to torture your dog too.

If it seems like I’m paying too much attention to “the Mittster” here, it’s only because I have kind of a sick feeling that this guy could yet emerge as the Repug presidential nominee (though I have a similar digestive reaction to everyone else in that field). No matter which way the Fundies look, they’re going to have to pick someone (Romney, Rudy!, Fred “Flaw And Ardor” Thompson) who has pro-choice “skeletons” that they want to hide. Barring the entry of Newt Gingrich into the race (which would set off a blogging frenzy for all lefties out there including yours truly), these are the characters from which “the faithful” must choose.

And though that will give Repug voters a lot more than “a penumbra of angst,” it gives the Dems the best opportunity to turn this whole mess around in the White House that I’ve ever seen. All they have to do is not screw it up.

Update 7/12: Spank my butt and call me Charlie; how could I have forgotten about this one (and I'm still awaiting confirmation on those "seven-year French marriages" also).

Update 7/23: I guess I should call him Mitt "Lighten Up" Romney now.

Update 8/1: And he's a fan of Hezbollah's universal health care in Lebanon also (here) - I'm totally serious.