David Brooks wuvs the Mittster

Yesterday David Brooks wrote a NYT column saying, basically that we shouldn't not vote for Mitt Romney because he's rich, because he's very, very hard-working, and because his ancestors were also very, very determined people. 


Actually, 80% of the column was about Romney's virtuous forbears. Brooks didn't address the question of the means Romney's hard work employed, or their ends--whether/to what extent he helped build the economy vs. parasitizing it, and what all that money's doing in the Caymans if not to avoid taxes (investing in the Caymans is a bit problematic. I've been there. It's three tiny islands with scuba diving, virtually no agriculture, and a huge number of companies located there (it's a tax haven)--or, more accurately, these companies' headquarters are little post office boxes that receive mail addressed to the company. Well-paid Caymanian gofers check these post office boxes daily, then forward any mail to wherever the company actually is (somewhere that actually tries to tax companies, like America). 


So his whole column was a straw man argument. I've never heard anyone for or against Romney claim that he wasn't hard working, or that his ancestors weren't. Here's my response:


David Brooks makes a convincing argument. I'll vote for Romney this fall.

Hannah Romney, that is. Or one of the Mileses. Or George.They all sound like good presidential material.

Unlike the descendant Mr. Brooks is thumping the tub for.

Wholly aside from questions about his business dealings, his conduct & statements during his current presidential campaign disqualify him.

All politicians lie, unfortunately. Including President Obama. So Romney being an opportunistic liar isn't enough. And at least he isn't a complete dolt, or a religious zealot who puts his faith at the center of his campaign, or an ideological wack job, or an adversarial firebrand who's an idiot's notion of a smart guy.

Nor is it his conservatism. If Eisenhower were running I'd certainly consider voting for him. And though Mitt Romney has changed many positions, they're all been within the Republican spectrum. So he isn't completely inconsistent.

No, it's the nature and promiscuity of his lies that lie at the core of his disqualification for the presidency. It's both his scripted, telepromptered and unscripted remarks. They reveal a towering sense of entitlement, crude misrepresentation of how our economy works & what the president is and isn't responsible for--& Romney's no fool, so he knows he isn't stating conservative principles that disagree with Obama's--he's just lying about the issues, the opponents...everything. Obama shades the truth. Romney steamrolls it.