Explaining Romney

The (moderate) conservative New York Times columnist Ross Douthat explained Romney's campaign stance.    Rather than being a flip-flopper with no policy positions, or a secret plan that he refuses to reveal, Douthat's says:

"Rather, it's more likely that the Republican nominee is behaving like an executive being considered for a C.E.O. job at a high-profile but mismanaged company.  He's trying to tell his job interviewers (both conservative and independent) roughly what they want to hear, while leaving enough flexibility to be able to do things his way once he sees what's actually under the company's hood. . . .

"[I]f you're looking for a best-case scenario for a Romney presidency, you have to hope that his Mr. Fix-It impulses will work out for the best -- and that rather than being a model of moderation or a paragon of purity, he'll be a president who tries and tries, and ultimately gets things right."

Yes, but is that different from saying he's a flip-flopping panderer?    He's asking us to trust him to do a good job without telling us what that would actually be, while actually contradicting many of his positions in the past.   So if we can't trust him to be consistent with policy, can we trust him when he says "trust me?"

A president is not just a manager.  He is a policy maker, an agenda setter, and hopefully some ideal combination of a wise visionary and a practical manager.

Romney is not that man, no matter how you spin his history and his rhetoric.

Ralph