Thursday, January 12, 2012

Senate Bill 5: When Romney chose to pivot

THE HERD OF Republican elephants hasn't even taken out visas for the South Carolina and Florida campaigns when the experts are already casting Ohio as a "swing state".
It is the eternal role of experts to be ahead of the curve and if they are fascinated by the swing in Ohio, who can argue? We will be reminded more than once that the Buckeyes have produced more presidents than anyone can remember mostly because a majority of them are not memorable.

So get ready for it. Your state is crucial, pivotal, a battleground state, a point of no return for the loser.

Now that we have designated Mitt Romney as the Republican nominee, we hope that he is listening to all of the talk about how suddenly important Ohio is to America's future. But pivotally speaking, he may face some troublesome moments when he starts making the rounds here. It's called Senate Bill 5, Gov. Kasich's ill-advised attempt to sweep public union workers off their feet because he was the governor and they were nothing more than public union workers.

The last time that Romney addressed the issue, he treated it as a multiple choice question. Back on Oct. 25, he visited a phone bank near Cincinnati where a Republican phone crew was
urging voters to vote against repealing the restrictive union law. Bad choice. So when he was asked about it, he said he really wasn't speaking against any ballot issue, with which he said he wasn't "terribly familiar." When he drew fire from both parties for waffling, he corrected himself the next day and declared in full body armor, "I am 110 percent behind Gov. Kasich and in support of that question." (The repeal was upheld by the voters by monstrous numbers.)

Wanna bet a lot of this will show up in the months ahead? On this and so many other issues, shouldn't Romney's managers insist that he stop being so pivotal?


Anonymous said...

Willard Romney will be the gift that keeps on giving once he seals up the nomination.

David Hess said...

As if we needed it, this is simply another example of Romney's "flexibility" on issues. He can't resist pandering to the already-convinced, even if it means coming across as a flip-flopping hypocrite from one audience to the next. Moreover, this aristocratic condescension betrays a haughty disregard for the intelligence of voters, whom he apparently perceives as blank minds ready to absorb anything he declaims. The recent dust-up over the predatory role of industrial raiders, some of whom indeed bleed troubled companies and then reward the raider-executives with an inexcusable tax break called "carried interest," has drawn a bright line between "compassionate capitalists" and "vulture capitalists." The verdict is still out on which of those two groups Romney belongs to.