Mitt Bits

There have been some fun items in the news recently, calling out Mitt as the liar and the “say-anything-to-anyone-to-get-elected” guy he is. We all know that he lied in the presidential debate about the “women in binders”, that he had nothing whatsoever to do with promoting diversity. Naturally, that led to a lot of fun as the Internet mocked Mitt relentlessly (and justifiably). But just today I saw some more things about Mitt that caught my eye.

Mitt’s non-bipartisanship

The New York Times has documented how Mitt’s claim of bipartisanship while governor of Massachusetts as greatly exaggerated:

“On closer examination, the record as governor he alluded to looks considerably less burnished than Mr. Romney suggested. Bipartisanship was in short supply; Statehouse Democrats complained he variously ignored, insulted or opposed them, with intermittent charm offensives. He vetoed scores of legislative initiatives and excised budget line items a remarkable 844 times… Lawmakers reciprocated by quickly overriding the vast bulk of them.”

So, Mitt didn’t act the way he claimed? I’m shocked.

Utah says no

The Salt Lake City Tribune has endorsed the re-election of President Obama. “Nowhere has Mitt Romney’s pursuit of the presidency been more warmly welcomed or closely followed than here in Utah,” the editorial begins, then noting the very conservative, Mormon nature of the state. But it was his running of the Olympics in particular that led them to expect more of Mitt. What they saw was what the paper called the Republicans’ “shape-shifting nominee”:

“From his embrace of the party’s radical right wing, to subsequent portrayals of himself as a moderate champion of the middle class, Romney has raised the most frequently asked question of the campaign: ‘Who is this guy, really, and what in the world does he truly believe?’"

“The evidence suggests no clear answer, or at least one that would survive Romney’s next speech or sound bite. Politicians routinely tailor their words to suit an audience. Romney, though, is shameless, lavishing vastly diverse audiences with words, any words, they would trade their votes to hear.”

The editorial goes on to condemn Mitt’s lack of specifics about any of his supposed plans and the fact that the Mitt that people could respect is gone. They conclude:

“In considering which candidate to endorse, The Salt Lake Tribune editorial board had hoped that Romney would exhibit the same talents for organization, pragmatic problem solving and inspired leadership that he displayed here more than a decade ago. Instead, we have watched him morph into a friend of the far right, then tack toward the center with breathtaking aplomb. Through a pair of presidential debates, Romney’s domestic agenda remains bereft of detail and worthy of mistrust.

“Therefore, our endorsement must go to the incumbent, a competent leader who, against tough odds, has guided the country through catastrophe and set a course that, while rocky, is pointing toward a brighter day. The president has earned a second term. Romney, in whatever guise, does not deserve a first.”

I completely agree with the editorial, something that should be read in full.