Posted by AzBlueMeanie:
The editorial board of the Washington Post has already endorsed President Obama for a second term. Today in an editorial opinion they criticize Willard "Mittens" Romney for his "Big Lie" GOPropanda campaign — it demonstrates contempt for the electorate. Why would anyone vote for someone who treats them with contempt? Romney’s campaign insults voters:
THROUGH ALL THE flip-flops, there has been one consistency in the
campaign of Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney: a contempt for
How else to explain his refusal to disclose essential information? Defying recent bipartisan tradition, he failed to release the names of his bundlers — the high rollers who collected hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations. He never provided sufficient tax returns to show voters how he became rich.
How, other than an assumption that voters are too dim to remember
what Mr. Romney has said across the years and months, to account for his
breathtaking ideological shifts? He was a friend of immigrants, then a
scourge of immigrants, then again a friend. He was a Kissingerian
foreign policy realist, then a McCain-like hawk, then a purveyor of
peace. He pioneered Obamacare, he detested Obamacare, then he found
elements in it to cherish. Assault weapons were bad, then good. Abortion
was okay, then bad. Climate change was an urgent problem; then, not so
much. Hurricane cleanup was a job for the states, until it was once again a job for the feds.
The same presumption of gullibility has infused his misleading commercials (see: Jeep jobs to China)
and his refusal to lay out an agenda. Mr. Romney promised to replace
the Affordable Care Act but never said with what. He promised an
alternative to President Obama’s lifeline to young undocumented
immigrants but never deigned to describe it.
And then there has been his chronic, baldly dishonest defense of mathematically impossible budget proposals.
He promised to cut income tax rates without exploding the deficit or
tilting the tax code toward the rich — but he refused to say how he
could bring that off. When challenged, he cited “studies” that he
maintained proved him right. But the studies were a mix of rhetoric,
unrealistic growth projections and more serious economics that actually
proved him wrong.
Now Mr. Romney promises to reduce income tax rates by one-fifth — for
the rich, that means from 35 percent to 28 percent — and to raise
defense spending while balancing the budget. To do so, he would reduce
other spending — unspecified — and take away deductions — unspecified.
One of the studies he cited, by Harvard economist Martin Feldstein, said
Mr. Romney could make the tax math work by depriving every household
earning $100,000 or more of all of its charitable deductions,
mortgage-interest deductions and deductions for state and local income
Does Mr. Romney favor ending those popular tax breaks? He
won’t say. But he did take issue with Mr. Feldstein’s definition of the
middle class: Mr. Romney said he would protect households earning $250,000 or less.
In which case the Feldstein study did not vindicate the Romney
arithmetic — it refuted it. Yet the candidate has continued to cite the
Within limits, all candidates say and do what they have to say and do to win. . .
But Mr. Obama has a record; voters know his priorities. His budget plan is inadequate, but it wouldn’t make things worse.
Romney, by contrast, seems to be betting that voters have no memories,
poor arithmetic skills and a general inability to look behind the
curtain. We hope the results Tuesday prove him wrong.