Every once in a while I’ll read something that’s so profoundly silly I wonder if I’m living in an alternate universe. Either that or the person who wrote the piece spent way too much time in Professor Jennings’ living room. This piece by Myra Adams at Pajamas Media clearly fits into the latter category, and I suspect she’s was in the alternate universe which occupies the tiny atom in Pinto’s fingernail when she wrote it. The basic premise of her piece is that Mitt Romney is the second coming of Ronald Reagan. I’m not making this up. First, let’s hear what the Mittster thinks about Ronald Reagan:
Er, definitely “Reaganesque, right? Leaving that aside, let’s delve into Adams’ piece, shall we.
Small and large business owners alike would be breathing a sigh of relief once a businessman occupied the White House — someone who knows the stress of meeting a payroll and what it’s like to risk precious capital to expand, or invest in a new product or service for a greater reward, often years away (or maybe never).
As president, Romney would make business fashionable and profitable by injecting confidence into the marketplace, while stripping away all the unnecessary regulations and roadblocks that keep businesses large and small from starting, growing, and thriving.
Really? Does Adams honestly believe Romney’s absurd 59-point plan, which is a gift to central planners everywhere, is an example of “stripping away all the unnecessary regulations and roadblocks that keep businesses large and small from starting, growing, and thriving”? How is making tax breaks available only to those who jump through one of the hoops constructed by Romney’s technocrats helpful to business or, for that matter, freedom? Wouldn’t a one-point plan be preferable; namely a reduction in marginal tax rates for all tax payers?
I would also note that Romney’s capital gains tax cut only applies to those who make below a certain income level — the same $200,000 that, coincidentally I’m sure, Obama uses to promote his class warfare nonsense. That isn’t Reaganesque — it’s Obamaesque — and since it doesn’t lower taxes at the margin, it will have little or no stimulative economic impact. The Wall Street Journal attempts to make sense of Romney’s timidity:
The answer may lie in his proposal to eliminate the capital gains tax—but only for those who earn less than $200,000 a year. This eviscerates most of the tax cut’s economic impact and also suggests that he’s afraid of Mr. Obama’s class warfare rhetoric. He even picked Mr. Obama’s trademark income threshold for the capital gains cut-off.
If Mr. Romney thinks this will let him dodge a class warfare debate, he’s fooling himself. Democrats will hit him anyway for opposing Mr. Obama’s proposal to raise taxes on higher incomes, dividends and capital gains in 2013. Perhaps Mr. Romney feels that his wealth and background make him especially vulnerable to the class charge, but if he won’t openly make the economic case for lower tax rates he’ll never get Congress to go along.
I don’t know if Romney is going along with Obama’s class warfare calumny because he believes in it or because, as the Journal suspects, to avoid being called “rich”. But does it really matter? First, Romney isn’t going to win the class warfare argument against Obama. Second, and more importantly, it’s terrible economics and not something Reagan would engage in. Reagan cut tax rates for everybody.
I laughed out loud when I read Adams’ next line:
Reagan made people feel good about business, about themselves, about American exceptionalism and maintaining our place at the center stage of the world.
Recently when I heard Romney speak at a gathering he reminded me of Reagan as he commanded the stage. He was likable, eloquent. and heartfelt in his explanation about the present state of America which he frames as the opportunity society vs. the entitlement society. Do Americans really have a choice but to go full throttle towards building a new opportunity society? Continuation of our present entitlement society will only hasten our decline as a top-tier nation with the ability to react to and/or shape world events.
Let’s see a show of hands. Does anyone feel good about America or American exceptionalism after hearing Multiple Choice Mitt speak? Does he inspire a sense of optimism, as Reagan did? Maybe it’s just me, but I never get that sense when I have the misfortune of listening to Romney speak. Rather, I get a sense of being sold something I don’t want or need by a guy who should be wearing a bright plaid polyester leisure suit. Indeed I often feel the need to shower after listening to the guy for more than about 30 seconds. I’m not the only one unimpressed by the Mittster as his 5-17 electoral record demonstrates. By the way, how is RomneyCare consistent with an opportunity society? To my way of thinking, it’s a textbook example of the entitlement society that the latest incarnation of Mitt claims to abhor.
Speaking of RomneyCare, I find it curious that it wasn’t mentioned anywhere in Adams’ piece. It was, after all, his only notable accomlpishment as Governor. Could it be that she knows it’s anathema to everything Reagan stood for? I’m guessing so. I fact, let’s listen to a clip where Reagan describes how statist’s preferred method for imposing socialism on its citizens is via government health care plans:
Er, can anyone explain to me how Mitt’s health care mandates are Reaganesque? I’m all ears. I can certainly see why Adams didn’t bring up Romney’s abysmal health care record. RomneyCare pretty much makes Obama bullet-proof on what should be his greatest vulnerability. Adams continues:
With his background at the highest levels of business investment and then as a governor, Romney has the experience to direct and manage an enterprise that is currently a broken, unmanageable mess, and growing more broke by the day. That enterprise, known as the U.S. government, but more akin to a train wreck, is over $15 trillion in debt with $61.6 trillion of unfunded benefits for its aging population.
I get it now. Romney did such a fantastic job in Masssachusetts that we desperately need him to apply his technocratic expertise to the country as a whole, or something. So impressive was Mitt’s record in Massachusetts that Bay State voters gave him an approval rating of…34%. Clearly he’s exactly the kind of juggernaught we need to take on Obama in 2012, heh. Adams next puts the blame for Romney’s unpopularity where it belongs: on the Republican base, of course:
Now if only the Republican base could realize this, they would come together, offer their support, and help deliver Romney to the White House with coattails strong enough to win the Senate and keep the House.
This is hilarious. If only us hayseeds in the hinterlands could grasp Mitt’s Reaganesque brilliance, we’d recognize him for the transformational messiah that he is, and our enthusisam would help us sweep the House and Senate. So, you see, if the GOP doesn’t retake the Senate, it will be our fault, not the fault of the GOP establishment for foisting an upalatable and unelectable nominee on the grass roots. Adams, of course, has it exactly backwards, but why let that get in the way of a good narrative.
And now, for a New years Eve gift, I’ve saved the best part of Adams’ article for last.
Maybe that future history would read something like this: A new conservative movement starting in 2013 won control of the White House and Congress. The movement brought optimism, stimulated business growth, promoted opportunity and spearheaded what was called the Great Expansion. President Romney led this movement by rallying the private sector and lowering taxes, which resulted in more tax revenue filling the coffers of the U.S. Treasury and resuscitating a government that at the time was borrowing 41 cents out of every dollar it spent.
So there you go. The Romney Revolution. I remember when I had my first beer…
So Republicans need to stop whining, “If we only had another Reagan who could easily beat Obama like Reagan did Carter.” But some forget that the Reagan of 1980 morphed into the Reagan we revere today, just as Romney has the potential to morph into the Reagan conservative today’s conservatives are so desperately seeking. And I believe he will, if elected.
Reagan, you understand, wasn’t really a conservative until he became president. All those great speeches and commentaries he delivered in the ’60s and ’70s didn’t really happen. He was never a popular two-term Governor of California. Reagan was actually a flip-flopping, ideology-free opportunist (like the Mittster) until he became president, and then suddenly developed conservative convictions. So, obviously, we need to jump on board the Say-Anything Mitt bandwagon because he’ll be just like Reagan, even having a revolution named after him. Natch.
Then a Romney Revolution will be our last chance to turn our ship of state around, securing our place as the greatest nation for good and the world’s leading economic engine.
“Let Reagan be Reagan” was a favorite line I recall from that era. So now let Romney be Romney. Let him manage and lead the way. Let him attract moderates and not repel them. Let him rise above what in 2011 has been sometimes an embarrassing Republican reality show. Then, with the nomination secured, Mitt Romney will defeat President Obama and develop into that Reagansque leader Republicans are longing for and America needs.
Let Romney be Romney? What the hell does that mean? Who Romney is changes as often as the wind changes direction. Sometimes more often than that. Exit question: Does anyone know who Romney is? Exit question II: Does Romney know who Romney is?