There really has never been a candidate like this. For anyone to say that they know what he truly believes is sheer lunacy. Chait is right:
"The different iterations of his career differ so wildly, yet comport so perfectly with his political ambitions of the moment, that it is simply impossible to separate his panders from his actual beliefs, the means from the ends."
The following video drives home the point in a fashion that would be hilarious were the stakes not so damn high.
In an election year which has seen one of our country's two major parties nominate the most remarkably dishonest public figure in living memory for the presidency, everyone had an opinion on why that liar picked Paul Ryan as his second.
Some said it was Ryan's "seriousness."
Others said it was his "grasp of budgets."
There were even those that said it was a calculated move to appeal to young, conservative women. After all, Ryan does P90X. He is buff.
We were all wrong. Every one of us failed to see what Romney saw. Paul Ryan, as it turns out, is actually capable of lying with a straight face nearly as well as Mitt Romney himself.
Regarding a campaign appearance by Mittens last week, Dana Milbank notes just how shocking the candidate's distaste for the truth really is:
"PolitiFact has awarded Romney its “Pants on Fire” or “False” ratings for 32 claims. Among them are these: that Obama “didn’t even mention the deficit or debt” in his State of the Union address, that “our Navy is smaller than it’s been since 1917,” that Obama “never worked in the private sector,” that Obama “gave” the automakers “to the UAW,” and that “we’re only inches away from no longer being a free economy.”
Wednesday’s speech alone had more than a dozen distortions, including allegations that: Obama “has failed to even pass a budget” (Congress passes budget resolutions, which the president doesn’t sign); Obama created a panel empowered to deny treatments under Medicare (the board can only make recommendations, and only if Congress fails to find Medicare cuts), Obama “has added regulations at a staggering rate” (the Business Roundtable just said it “lauded” the administration’s attempt at regulatory reform).
No fewer than three Romney claims in that one speech merited PolitiFact’s “Pants on Fire” rating: that Obama led “a government takeover of health care,” has been “apologizing for America abroad” and is ending “Medicare as we know it.” Romney’s assertions that Obama “is the only president to ever cut $500 billion from Medicare” and that eliminating Obamacare saves “about $100 billion” were rated false.
That Romney resorts to such gratuitous falsehoods discredits his leadership more than his opponent’s."
Up until a couple of days ago, it had become somewhat superfluous to discuss the fact that Mitt Romney has no real positions on any issues.
This is not to say he doesn't believe in certain things.
I will concede the possibility that he might.
All this said, it is now obvious that there is something in his programming which precludes the courage of whatever convictions he might actually hold.
So used to Romney's 180 degree shifts had we become that we were beginning to dismiss the deadly seriousness his lack of character presents.
Enter the Etch-A Sketch moment. In an interview with CNN, Romney's closest campaign adviser and confidante, Eric Fehrnstrom, had this exchange with John Fugelsang:
Fugelang: Is there a concern that the pressure from Santorum and Gingrich might force the Governer to tack so far to the rigft that it might hurt him with moderate voters in the general election?
Fehrnstrom: Well, I think you hit a reset button for the fall campaign. Everything changes. It's almost like an Etch-a-Sketch – you can kind of shake it up, and we start all over again. But I will say, if you look at the exit polling data in Illinois, you’ll see that Mitt Romney is broadly acceptable to most of the factions in the party. You have to do that to become the major party nominee. (EMPHASES OURS)
Yes. This is as bad as it seems.
Already, this inadvertent revelation of the truth is being compared to Dukakis in the tank in 1988, George H. W. Bush's apparent fascination and previous inexperience with product scanning technology in 1992, and John Kerry's notorious stunner regarding the Iraq war in 2004.
