'Authenticity'

While we wait this day out in anticipation of actual voting tomorrow in New Hampshire, let's take a moment to consider the fact that I hear only a limited number of criticisms leveled at Romney by his opponents, but they just like to repeat them more frequently and with a higher pitches to their voices.

In fact, I can consolidate almost all the criticism into maybe five issues: (1) Is his past performance in the private sector and as governor really as good as he claims?  (2) Questions about authenticity - whether labelled as flip-flopping or changes in statements/positions over time.  Largely the underlying suggestion is that Romney is just taking positions based on poll-testing, a la Bill Clinton.  (3) Romneycare and its relation to Obamacare.  (4) He's not perceived as an "exciting candidate" by some.  (5) Questions on just how "conservative" or "moderate" Romney actually is.

Let me know if you think there have been criticisms outside these five, but I think that pretty well encapsulates most everything I hear argued against Mitt.

We can spend more time looking at these in depth in other posts, but here let's keep it brief.

[1] First, I hear criticisms that his work in the private sector, mostly with Bain Capital, got rid of more jobs than were created.  Second, I hear Romney's governorship in Massachusetts criticized, either because he was relatively moderate in his politics as governor, or because he only served one term and did not run for re-election, presumably because the polls were not very strong for him at the end of that term.

Reasonable people can differ in their assessments of his performance in these areas, but my take is simple.  Until recently, few people criticized his overall performance at Bain for good reason...he did a good job there.  His job was to take bad companies that were bloated and hemorrhaging money and headed for failure, and make them effective and efficient - in a word, SUCCESSFUL.  He did that with a greater degree of success than most, which is why he gained some degree of fame for this.  Firing poor or unnecessary employees is part of making a company better.  But the idea is those people and resources "cut" will be picked up by other companies.  In other words, Romney was responsible to make those companies successful if possible.  It was not his job there to be responsible for the entire economy and the entire job market!  Eventually, those companies he made successful grew and have produced far more jobs than were lost in the process of turning them around.  Want to see what leaders of the companies he helped think of him (hint: it's really positive).

I would highly recommend taking a moment to read this discussion about Romney as a successful capitalist/business man.  We should CELEBRATE that about him.  The Club for Growth issued a strong statement in support of Romney's business record, and critical of Gingrich.

In terms of his performance as governor, from what I've read he was considered by the residents of Massachusetts to have done a good job.  Would he have had a challenge if he had run for re-election?  I don't know.  Maybe.  But so what?  To me, Mitt was just doing what all of us do along the course of life - see where he's been, where he is, and where he wants to go.  You make a decision.  Heavens, if he was "scared" of a tough campaign, why would he be running for president now?

And one other thing on the topic of Mitt's past performance record.  Notice they haven't yet criticized him for his work on the Salt Lake Olympics.  You know that they would, if they could.  That was a huge, complex job, and he handled it very, very well.

[2] On the 'authenticity' question...first let me say that I think we sometimes we have higher expectations of other people, and particularly politicians, than we have of ourselves.  The point being...I expect reasonable people to have some shifts in their thinking over time.  Again, saving the specifics for another time, I think Romney has had a general trend over time to more conservative positions on some issues.  The concern people have, I think, is wondering if this is simply driven by political calculation rather than a considered intellectual process.  When I listen to and read Romney on the issues, I find a very smart, nuanced intellect. As with all politicians, I think at times his position on a very specific bill or question can be influenced by public opinion, but only within the bounds of his well considered principles.  Let me give an example on immigration policy.  He was recently quoted as saying that if he had the bill presented to him, he would veto the DREAM act of Congress that provides for access to schools and other things for immigrants even if they are here illegally.  So the media and others jumped on this, trying to claim he is anti-immigrant.  In his response it is clear that he is anything but anti-immigrant, but he does think that illegal immigration needs to be dealt with in order to make the process/system work, and that adding incentive to people to come illegally is not wise policy.  What he would want to do is work out a process that slows illegal immigration, opens up new pathways to legal immigration, and make a system that simply works better for all involved.  That, to me, is a smart, practical, perceptive approach.

The funny thing to me with the claim of Romney being less than authentic - he just strikes me as one of the most authentic, loyal, dedicated people I've seen in politics.  His whole life suggests an overall steadiness that I think should be recognized.

[3] On Romneycare vs. Obamacare...again with more detail being saved for another day, I think it's pretty easy to explain.  First, there is a huge difference between a "one size fits all" federal policy vs. a state by state policy.  Romney's position has been and is that states should design their own solutions to helping people have access to medical care.  He has said he would start overturning Obamacare from day one as president.  Second, reasonable people can and do differ on what is the best approach to helping people have access to medical care services.  I think we all know that without insurance or some other means of pooling resources, medical costs can in many cases "break the bank" of a person or family's finances.  So, the goal of finding a better system is worthy and I think most everyone would agree with it...it's an issue of what approach.  In Massachusetts (aka "Romneycare"), the idea was to use some tax breaks and other means to help people be able to get a private insurance plan that meets their needs.  It has ended up being within the projected cost to the state, despite Democrats in the state legislature adding more benefits to the plan than Romney wanted.  Most of the people in Massachusetts did and still do like the program.

[4] The "not exciting" argument is a little bit strange to me.  Of course, who wouldn't like someone they feel is "exciting" if it comes to that, but really we've had plenty of "exciting" presidents that we feel have done a poor job.  I bet most people, when it comes to it, want an EFFECTIVE president, and that's more important to them than excitement.  I think Romney is plenty comfortable to listen to, but if he's not naturally going to rile up the average person - well, to me that's just not a big deal one way or the other.

[5] Considering in 2008 Romney was considered one of the more conservative candidates in the Republican field, it's funny now to hear him described as more moderate, considering his positions haven't changed much if at all since 2008.  Conservative groups have picked him first many times in the past.  Point being, Romney isn't extreme, but he's plenty conservative and approaches things from that perspective.  So, there you go.

Just a few thoughts...more to come on future dates.