Mitt Romney has been accused of a lot of things. During the GOP primary in 2008, one of the terms going around was “flip-flopper”. I’ll even admit to using it a time or two myself. At the time, some of us were not satisfied with his stance, or lack thereof, on social issues. The one thing I have never heard him called is extreme. That is, until yesterday, when an interview President Obama did with The Associated Press, where he accused Mitt Romney of holding extreme views.
(Fox News) Mainly, Obama was intent on countering Romney even before his challenger got to the Republican National Convention, which starts Monday in Tampa, Fla . In doing so, the president depicted his opponent as having accumulated ideas far outside the mainstream with no room to turn back.
“I can’t speak to Governor Romney’s motivations,” Obama said. “What I can say is that he has signed up for positions, extreme positions, that are very consistent with positions that a number of House Republicans have taken. And whether he actually believes in those or not, I have no doubt that he would carry forward some of the things that he’s talked about.”
I wonder what extreme views the President is talking about? No doubt, it has something to do with his position on abortion. Mitt Romney has plainly said he opposes abortion, except in cases of rape, incest, or the life of the mother. Yes, that’s pretty extreme, even though the majority of Americans hold the same view.
Could it be that Mitt Romney is wanting to stop the out-of-control spending from Washington? Maybe it’s the fact that Mitt Romney wants to reform the tax code and make it fairer, across the board. Since that wouldn’t include taking more money from the rich and distributing it to the less fortunate, I’m sure the President counts that as extreme, probably almost as much as he thinks real spending cuts would be extreme.
Something else the President mentioned in the interview struck me as disingenuous. One would almost believe he really wants to compromise. Almost, but not quite.
Obama’s view of a different second-term dynamic in Washington, even if both (he) and House Republicans retain power, seems a stretch given the gridlocked politics of a divided government. He said two changes — the facts that “the American people will have voted,” and that Republicans will no longer need to be focused on beating him — could lead to better conditions for deal-making.
If Republicans are willing, Obama said, “I’m prepared to make a whole range of compromises” that could even rankle his own party. But he did not get specific.
Really? He is open to “a whole range of compromises”? This, coming from a President who, when faced with tough negotiations with the Republicans, told them “I won the election”. I do not believe he would be willing, or even able, to handle real negotiations that produced real compromise. His idea of compromise consists of getting everything he wants, with only minor tokens given to the Republicans. That’s why we never see real and substantial spending cuts coming out of Washington. The Democrats refuse to budge on that issue, unless they are also give more revenue, and even then, the spending cuts do not materialize. Just ask President Reagan how that worked out for him. Taxes were raised, but the spending cuts were never enacted.
Here is a better description of what President Obama means when he says he is willing to compromise. If it wasn’t so serious, it would almost be funny.
(Questions and Observations) Among the various annoying sophistries of the left, their attempt to re-define the term “compromise” is high on my list.
If I’m sitting in Nashville on I-40 and I want to go to Memphis, and I’m trying to share transportation with someone who wants to go to Knoxville, there isn’t much room for compromise. Standing still is a better choice than any option that takes me further from my goal.
But the left don’t want us to look at it that way. They insist on setting a ground rule that some sort of movement in their direction is a sine qua non.
Oh, sure, they’ll alter non-essential details. “Well, if you insist, we can take Highway 70 instead of I-40. That’s a real sacrifice on our part, because it’s a scenic route and a lot slower. But, in the spirit of compromise, we’ll do that. Now, why won’t you go along with that? You’re just inflexible. Don’t you see we need to compromise and come to an agreement here? We have to do something!”
It does no good to point out that the exact highway doesn’t matter – it’s the goal I don’t agree with. And that doing nothing is preferred to taking even one more step in their preferred direction.
This is the spirit with which Obama claims he’s willing to compromise in an interview with the AP (which I saw via Ace of Spades). After spending most of his time bashing Romney for his “extreme” views, Obama came out with his faux-reasonable, “why can’t we all get along” schtick.
It all comes down to this. Who are we willing to trust with the leadership of our country? A sitting President who believes anyone who disagrees with him is extreme, or a Republican candidate who is not perfect, but at least has a vision of America that doesn’t include driving us off the fiscal cliff with our eyes closed tightly closed? I don’t know about you, but I am not willing to go along with President Obama, just because he won the election. I am not willing to give him another four years and watch him destroy what is left of our country. If Mitt Romney is guilty of holding extreme views, then count me in with him. At least his extreme views contain some sanity, fiscal and otherwise.