First, let me say I will not vote for Willard "Mitt" Romney in the Primary. I absolutely refuse. However, over at the Ace of Spades HQ (link in my side bar), a brawl has been going on over Mitt vs. Newt, and I thought I would illustrate my point here. My point is that Mitt Romney has run, from the beginning of this race, as if he was entitled to be our nominee. He was aloof and stand-off-ish, he was a "cold fish," and he ran only on his "electability," a quality which does not, apparently, mean the ability to win multiple elections. Somehow.
Now that he's no longer the clear front-runner, he and his supporters are getting nasty. If you don't support Mitt, it can't be because of anything Mitt has done, or because of Mitt's ever-changing standpoints, or anything else- no, it must be because you are flawed and/or you want Obama to win another term.
Well, ladies and gentlemen, that's not a winning tactic. You don't insult those whose support you need, you woo them. You explain why your guy is so much better than the other guy- and I've never once heard any argument that Mitt is better than anyone else- simply that they are also flawed and he polls better.
So, since they obviously don't understand my point, I thought I would illustrate by posting what I think Mitt and his supporters should have been saying from the beginning.
1) Mitt is a highly successful Capitalist. He made millions of dollars providing real value- in the form of greater efficiency- to real companies that then saw real profits. Those profits were then turned into new investment- often in personnel (that is: jobs). The net jobs created is very, very difficult to calculate, because such results are often only distally related to Mitt's actions- but the causal relationship still exists.
2) Mitt, as a successful Capitalist, understands that the government cannot create jobs- and to speak as if it can is delusional. He knows, instead, that the Government can simply create an environment which is either conducive, or harmful, to job creation. To do this, he proposes to lower taxes generally, especially corporate income taxes. **I would do more here, but I frankly haven't heard very many details of Mitt's economic plan: which is yet another problem with his campaign**
3) Mitt's experience with Health Care in Massachusetts has shown him that Government Mandates don't work. They may be marginally better than pure socialization or requiring all employers to provide coverage, but they're still not effective. Real world, private sector based solutions are the answer. Reducing regulation and coverage mandates would allow for an "a la carte" approach to insurance coverage- which would be the first step in reducing the general cost of health insurance. Removing the ability for people to avoid paying for health care (no longer require any hospital or doctor to treat "regardless of ability to pay") would also reduce the instances of people using the Emergency Room as their Primary Care Provider. ***I don't think Mitt even believes this, but he's the one who has the example he could use 'We tried it this way- it doesn't work!'***
4) Mitt, as a successful Capitalist, understands that government, generally, is too big and it's reach too great. Meaningless, redundant bureaucracy and "red tape" not only make it harder for businesses to operate, they ensnare our people in a web of laws such that one can't avoid breaking a law at least sometimes. Cutting through that redundancy will not only allow businesses and the People to operate more freely, it will reduce the costs of compliance and enforcement.
I could go on, but that should be enough to get them started.
I'll also point out- I believe that if Mitt Romney actually believed this stuff, he would already have been saying it. So, as for wooing me, he's lost his chance. But, hey, it may work with others, and I'm certainly under no illusions about the reach of my blog here. So they could at least give it a try.