The weak vs. strong argument.

Suddenly Obama emerges as a strong, consistent and hard-hitting confrontational leader going after Romney’s self-proclaimed calling card for doing a good job as President, and staying relentlessly on target.

Strong and Confident vs. Evasive and Contradictory.

Which probably makes both left and center happy – and earns some respect and admiration from the right, who quickly abandons their own guy and slams him as “weak”.

David Axis-of-Evil Frum on Romney:

It’s not just his arguments that are weak. For the past year, we have watched him be pushed around by the radical GOP fringe. He’s been forced to abjure his most important achievement as governor, his healthcare plan. In December, he was compelled to sign onto the Ryan budget plan after months of squirming to avoid it. Last fall he released an elaborate economic plan. On the eve of the Michigan primary, he ripped it up and instead accepted a huge new tax cut – to a top rate of 28% – that has never been costed (and that he now tries to avoid mentioning whenever he can). Romney has acknowledged in interviews that he understands that big rapid cuts in government spending could push the US economy back into recession. Yet he campaigns anyway on the Tea Party’s false promise that it’s the deficit that causes the depression, rather than (as he well knows) the other way around.

But at every point, Romney has surrendered to the fringe of his party. Weak. And now in his first tough encounter with Barack Obama, Romney is being shoved around again. This is not what a president looks like – anyway, not a successful president.

More from Frum here.


10 thoughts on “The weak vs. strong argument.

  1. A true leader has a core set of beliefs and inspires others with their vision. Romney doesn’t have a core set of beliefs – other than love for his family and religion. He is a human weathervane. he goes which way the wind is blowing. He will change his positions in a heartbeat if it were advantageous politically. this is not the quality of a leader – or a successful president.

    • Very true. It might be profitable qualities in certain kinds of businesses though.

      He might also unconsciously subscribe to this Ayn Rand strain of thinking – that complete self-serving is good for everybody in the long run.

  2. There’s nothing wrong with changing provided you can explain what new information you’ve gotten that has caused you to change. but yeah, he ain’t got that.

    • Or if the change is based upon the information that “donors will cut your funding”.

      For some reason I’m still thinking about his facial expression (or lack of) when slamming ObamaCare in front of NAACP. It was eerie.

        • It’s really hard to tell at times.. he’s made some very weird strategic choices in the campaing so far, that baffles.

          But I’m in the “read meat for the base” camp on the NAACP speech. Scary thing is how he doesn’t understand how inhuman and offensive it was. Just standing there with some tics.

          • seems his current strategy is to tell us how everything obama is doing is wrong. when he’s asked, “what would you do instead that’s better?” he says, “well, when i’m elected, i’ll examine that.”

    • I think this debate over separating good from bad capitalism – and the growing importance of HOW success is achieved – is very fundamental, and very positive. And encouraging.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s