The Great One!

In a post that give further evidence for the reason Mitt Romney can’t seem to break 25% in the primary fight, on Wednesday evening, Mark Levin “tweeted” a mouthful on the social networking site. New Yorker Magazine’s Jonathan Chait wrote something about Romney that caused Levin some heartburn, not because it is false, but because it is undeniably true.  Levin, annoyed by the underlying facts quickly posted on Facebook, and via Twitter:

@marklevinshow  Romney is really starting to piss me off. The lib site is, dare I say, right. http://fb.me/QB3Qryjy

The link is to an article that appears in the New Yorker’ Daily Intel section, detailing Romney’s flip-flop on the Iraq war, but more importantly, the author of the piece, Jonathan Chait, explains Romney’s reversal on the issue of Iraq in terms of political expedience aimed at gaining support from the conservative base of the Republican party.  Chait seems to approve, at least in terms of his disdain for conservatives, and he cheerfully reports that Romney takes some positions as a way to make peace with the base. Chait writes:

The thing I’ve always found endearing and (to some degree) comforting about Mitt Romney is that his flip-flops betray pure contempt for the Republican base. He treats them like angry children, and their pet issues as emotionally driven symbols of cultural division rather than as serious positions. Four years ago, conservatives were enraged that liberals would question Bush’s handling of foreign policy, so Romney was defending the decision to go to war and promising to “double Guantanamo.”

Yes, that’s right, this liberal writer likes Romney for his willingness to double-cross conservatives.  None in the base of the party should be the least bit upset by this, because it’s true, and because what Chait sees as evidence of a betrayal of the base is accurate, but unlike you, Chait’s gleeful about it.  He characterizes conservatives in the Republican party as angry, emotional children to be herded like so many cats.  Undoubtedly, this is a great reflection of how Romney does feel about conservatives, and it’s one more reason to discount him as a potential president.

Another interesting part of the article arrives parenthetically:

(It made zero sense as a policy position and could be understood only as an expression of culture-war solidarity.) Likewise, conservatives are now outraged over Obamacare, so Romney promises to repeal Obamacare.

It will surely warm Jonathan Chait’s heart to know that Romney has no intention of keeping the repeal promise either, as we’ve recently learned. Chait wasn’t attempting to expose Romney to the conservative base, but instead to caution his own readers because he intended them to understand why Romney is unpredictable and untrustworthy:

Nothing about Romney’s attempts to ingratiate himself with the right hint even slightly of genuine conversion. It is patronizing appeasement. Of course, none of this tells us the really crucial thing, which is what promises Romney would actually keep if elected. But at least it offers the modest comfort that Romney knows better.

This is the way conservatives and Tea Party folk are viewed by the establishment and Northeast liberal crowd in both parties, and Chait’s assessment is simply his view of Romney’s willingness to lie in order to fool conservatives.  Of course, in Chait’s view, that’s a virtue, but what this provides you is real insight into what they think about us, out here in “flyover country.”  Levin is right to be angry, not at Chait, but at Romney, because it’s becoming increasingly clear that Romney shares many views with the likes of Mr. Chait.

Note: In other developments, Romney continues to avoid and decline a debate with Gingrich, and he is still using surrogates to do his dirty work against the former Speaker of the House.  Romney excuses the attack ads launched by his Super PAC by saying effectively,  “it’s politics,” and shrugging it off as the nature of the beast, while pretending his official detachment from that organization prevents him from expressing any sentiments about the negative nature of the ads.  At the same time, he is sending out Chris Christie as his attack dog, and this too presents real questions about the sincerity of Romney: He’s willing to see the mud fly, but he likes to keep his own hands clean.  It’s small wonder Levin and others are growing tired of Romney’s tactics: He’s a coward, and nothing is worse where conservatives are concerned in this election cycle.  There’s something disgustingly ironic about a politician sending out others to do his dirty work who then suggests his opponents should get out of the kitchen if they can’t take the heat of dirty politics, while relaxing in the shade provided by Chris Christie.

Ahem.

Advertisements