Roger Ebert: “Mitt Romney Seeks Luxury of Running on Both His Principles and Obama’s”

Roger Ebert is freaking out, to the same degree as Andrew Sullivan. The problem is that Obama has no-one to blame but himself for his horrible debate performance. But it still begs the question, can one debate torpedo one’s chances for reelection? It shouldn’t but people are still iffy on both candidates given the fragile, but slowly improving state of the economy.

It is a sad commentary that the bar has been set so low and any fool with the right amount of money and financial backers can be on the verge of winning a presidential election in this country, no matter how many Etch-A-Sketch moments he has had or the fact that he is bullish on stashing his money overseas to skirt tax laws. Believe me, Mitt Romney isn’t my first choice for president, no matter which version we are seeing — Moderate Mitt or Severely Conservative Mitt.

Obama wasn’t my first choice either and still isn’t.  Mitt Romney is one of the worst presidential candidates we have seen in a long time in my opinion. How do you make the case of one who flip-flops as the wind blows, from as far back as one can remember. Like Ted Kennedy said in 1994, Mitt Romney isn’t pro-choice, he’s multiple choice.  He’s all over the place and he can beat Obama.

A depression has descended upon me. I look at the blank screen, and those are the words that come into my mind. I do not believe for a second that Mitt Romney will win the election. I do believe that at this moment he is tied, 50-50, in various national polls. Many of my fellow Americans have at least temporarily disappointed me. It is clear to anyone in either party that in last week’s debate Romney cast aside all of his principles and reversed himself on everything he has said he believes. As Hendrik Hertzberg worded it in the New Yorker:

“By the end of ninety minutes, Romney had retrofitted himself as the defender of Medicare, the advocate of Wall Street regulation, the scourge of the big banks, the enemy of tax cuts for the rich, and the champion of tax relief for the middle class. All these claims are spectacularly false.”

[…]

The rich men in that room presumably pledged a fortune to the Romney campaign chest. Were any of them offended that Romney no longer agreed with what he told them? We haven’t heard from them.

Obama continues in the Presidential campaign in possession of his own lifelong principles. Romney now seeks the luxury of running on both his principles–and Obama’s. What depresses me is that the polls suggest the electorate isn’t alert enough to realize that. What allows me hope is that, given a little time, I trust the American people will figure this one out. Source

I don’t quite know what to make of Roger Ebert’s meltdown, but all I can say is it’s time to take a step back and let Obama fight for his job if he wants to keep it. No amount of moping and bellyaching can fix this at this juncture. It would be an awful shame if Obama helped torpedo his own reelection by having an empty podium night. Kinda makes Clint Eastwood’s empty chair ramble not so ridiculous now, does it?

Etch-A-Sketch: Mitt Romney Changes Position on Abortion Again, Says He Has No Plans to Push for Legislation Limiting Abortions

6858312032 76546e1c61 m Etch A Sketch:  Mitt Romney Changes Position on Abortion Again, Says He Has No Plans to Push for Legislation Limiting Abortions

Etch-A-Sketch:  Mitt Romney Changes Position on Abortion Again, Says He Has No Plans to Push for Legislation Limiting Abortions (Photo credit: DonkeyHotey)

Mr. Etch-a-Sketch strikes again:  Mitt Romney told the Des Moines Register that he has no plans to push legislation limiting abortion, which is an abrupt change from a previous statement he made saying he would appoint Supreme Court justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade.

Romney said, “There’s no legislation with regards to abortion that I’m familiar with that would become part of my agenda.”

His campaign spokeswoman Andrea Saul walked it back real fast, telling the National Review that Mitt Romney “would of course support legislation aimed at providing greater protections for life.”

Interesting take from Mark Halperin: “If the Obama campaign has cracked the code on how to make Mitt Romney pay a political price for his late rush to the center on tone and emphasis, we haven’t seen them execute their full plan yet. That might be the central tactical question in the presidential contest right now.”

Separately:

AP: The presidential battleground map “is as compact as it’s been in decades, with just nine states seeing the bulk of candidate visits, campaign ads and get-out-the-vote efforts in the hunt for the 270 Electoral College votes needed for victory. That means just a fraction of Americans will determine the outcome of the race for the White House.”

 Etch A Sketch:  Mitt Romney Changes Position on Abortion Again, Says He Has No Plans to Push for Legislation Limiting Abortions

Etch-a-Sketch Alert: Mitt Romney On Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan, “Even Jimmy Carter Would Have Given that Order”

QUOTE OF THE DAY:  Mitt Romney, quoted by Politico on whether he would have given the order to go after Osama bin Laden in Pakistan:  “Of course, even Jimmy Carter would have given that order.”

Um, really Mitt? Another Etch-a-Sketch moment. Didn’t he say back in 2008, the he would get permission from Pakistan first and it wasn’t worth the money to kill just one man? This speaks to his poor grasp on foreign policy and his lack of political integrity — flip flops depending on how the breeze blows. Don’t hate on Obama for doing what George W. Bush didn’t bother doing.

 

Etch-A-Sketch Moment: Mitt Romney Quoted in 2006 Saying “High Gas Prices are Probably Here to Stay”

Mitt Romney quoted by the New Republic in 2006:   “I’m very much in favor of people recognizing that these high gasoline prices are probably here to stay” in another Etch-a-Sketch moment.

Here’s an excerpt from the New Republic:

Curiously overlooked, though, is just what a shift this rhetoric is from the approach that Romney took on the issue of gas prices while governor of Massachusetts. Befitting his profile as a moderate Republican who cared about the environment, Governor Romney responded to price spikes by describing them as the natural result of global market pressures and by calling for increases in fuel efficiency—the same approach that he now derides Obama for taking as president.

At moments, Romney went so far as to make high gas prices out to be a welcome reality for the foreseeable future, one that people needed to learn to live with. When lieutenant governor Kerry Healey, a fellow Republican, called for suspending the state’s 23.5 cent gas tax during a price spike in May 2006, Romney rejected the idea, saying it would only further drive up gasoline consumption. “I don’t think that now is the time, and I’m not sure there will be the right time, for us to encourage the use of more gasoline,” Romney said, according to the Quincy Patriot Ledger’s report at the time. “I’m very much in favor of people recognizing that these high gasoline prices are probably here to stay.”