Wednesday, August 24, 2011

Some opinions about Romney

Sumner is "increasingly impressed" by him:
1.  Romney doesn’t consider global warming to be a hoax.
2.  He refuses to join the other Republicans in criticizing fiat money and/or calling for tighter money.
3.  He understands that jobs are the big problem.
4.  He has Greg Mankiw advising him.
5.  He recently came out for UI personal accounts, a very Singaporean solution that even Singapore doesn’t have. ...
Josh Hendrickson does a good job explaining why Romney was right in saying that corporations are composed of people.  Romney’s critics would argue that they are rich people, but that’s not at all clear.  What is clear is that corporations should not pay taxes (on capital income), rich people should pay taxes (on consumption.)
The best argument for Romney?  Look at the other GOP figures considered to be “major candidates.”
Yglesias was not discussing Romney per se, but his discussion comparing candidates who all appear to be the same answers some Republican fears that Romney is too centrist, too much like Obama:
I remember well the contention that there wasn’t a dime’s worth of difference between George W Bush and Al Gore. And, indeed, there wasn’t. Both wholeheartedly embraced American military hegemony as a foreign policy and the neoliberal “Washington Consensus” approach to international economic policy. Both emphasized improved education as the key to long-term prosperity, both valorized capitalism as an engine of growth, and neither in any meaningful way challenged the various prevailing economic and social dogmas of the era. And yet looking back in concrete terms, it seems to me that the 2000 election turns out to have been one of the most consequential in American history.
And this is what I thought of him four years ago during the primaries while I was still undecided
I loved Romney's religion speech. It was the best thing to come out of the campaign. I intend to do some more research on Monday to get at his foreign policy and econ views. Naturally, every article I've read has just focused on his religion. The funny thing to me is that his supporters who I've spoken to locally don't give the same answer he does as to what caused his switch of views on abortion et al. Fairly early in the election, he cited an experience he had that changed his mind. This was a remarkable admission for a candidate to me -- to actually admit a change and cite a reason for it rather than glossing it over is a welcome change. But then his supporters try to encourage me that, since he was called as a Stake President [who oversees several local congregations] about the same time as he was governor, he can't have held those views in Mass when he announced to voters he was running to the left of Kennedy. "He was just saying that to get elected. It's the politics game. These are his Real views," they tell me. But I know that when a stake pres is chosen, there is no litmus test where they ask views on abortion and gay marriage, and it is very worrisome to me that his supporters imagine a LIAR could serve as stake president and not a person who holds different political views. And if he is willing to outright lie for political gain, how different is he from [most other politicans]? 
My one complaint about Romney's news coverage has been how upset everyone is that he is "too" squeaky clean. What on earth is wrong with having someone as President who is actually morally clean and upstanding, who treats the only wife he ever had with respect, whose children love him, and has done good service in his community?? He's a nice guy, and that's a good thing.
I'll add that this last point is also one in favor of Obama in my book.

No comments:

Post a Comment