Aweek ago today, a reinvigorated President Barack Obama came into the second presidential debate swinging. Polls reveal that a slight majority of Americans who watched the debate last week thought the president won. Last night, the president and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney had their final debate, sparring over foreign policy.
While campaigning in Virginia last Friday, President Obama had some valuable election season insight: “I mean, [Gov. Mitt Romney is] changing up so much and backtracking and sidestepping, we’ve got to name this condition that he’s going through. I think it’s called ‘Romnesia.’” It’s true, throughout his political career Gov. Romney has switched his position on nearly every issue. Since the start of his presidential run six years ago, Gov. Romney has undergone on a wild transformation on myriad issues. And while individuals are bound to change their position on issues throughout their lifetime, the gov.’s changes are very diverse and just too convenient.
At this point, I have trouble understanding what Gov. Romney’s plan for America is. He pivoted to the right for the Republican Primary. He has pivoted towards the center for the general election. These changes are expected; every candidate changes their position before and after the primaries. But Gov. Romney has pivoted extensively throughout the general election, too. During debates, the American people have witnessed a pragmatic, moderate Mitt. During campaign events, however, he has pivoted back to the right. His campaign has failed to release in-depth policy proposals on, well, pretty much any issue, enabling the gov. to pander to a wide range of voters.
Ultimately, though, the plan for America that Mitt Romney has provided at the Republican National Convention and at campaign events is staunchly conservative, if not specific. For instance, he has signed a pledge to not raise taxes a single cent, no matter what.
The gov. does, however, have a sterling record running the state of Massachusetts. As Candidate Romney extolled in last week’s debate, under his leadership, Massachusetts’s schools were first in the nation, the state went from one of the worst job creators in the nation to one of the best and he balanced the budget with a state legislature that was 87 percent Democratic. But with Mitt’s laudable record as the executive of Massachusetts, why is that Massachusetts voters overwhelmingly support President Barack Obama? According to a Public Policy Polling poll conducted on Oct. 16, the president is leading Gov. Romney by 18 percent in the gov.’s home state. Why? Gov. Romney appears to be a different man today than he was when he was the gov. of Massachusetts from 2003 to 2007. He’s less open to compromise and has become an ideologue.
As former President Bill Clinton said earlier this year at the Democratic National Convention, “Nobody’s right all the time, and a broken clock is right twice a day. And every one of us … we’re compelled to spend our fleeting lives between those two extremes, knowing we’re never going to be right all the time and hoping we’re right more than twice a day.”
He continued: “What works in the real world is cooperation.” I couldn’t agree more. Democrats and Republicans must work together moving forward. Our nation’s future depends on it.
And while Massachusetts is almost a sure victory for President Obama on Nov. 6, the electoral map nationwide remains largely uncertain. According to the preeminent political modeler, Nate Silver, of the New York Times’s “FiveThirtyEight” blog, President Obama has 66.7 percent chance of winning the Electoral College in the upcoming election. In other words, this election is still far from decided.
Please send all feedback to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
