Presumptive nominee Mitt Romney is seemingly fixated on apologies. He’s obsessed with apologies like Bristol Palin is obsessed with teen abstinence—like BP is obsessed with clean energy—Marcus Bachmann with curing homosexual men ...
Mitt’s book is titled “No Apology.” He’s convinced the problem with Obama is that he apologizes for America. Because Mitt is so engrossed by apologies—he sees apologies that aren’t there.
Mitt, he’ll tell you, doesn’t apologize for America. But he’s had to apologize for himself plenty. Aside from all the recent gaffes and gauche statements that managed to incense America’s closest allies in Europe, earning him the nickname “Mitt the Twit,” Mitt’s ever-changing policy positions are, for all intents and purposes, apologies. It’s saying his previous stance on, say, women’s health, was wrong. For example: when Mitt said abortion should be legal because a close family friend had died from an illegal abortion. He’s now saying he’s righting (ahem) his stance on the issue and declaring his vigil for his family friend to be over. He’s saying his crowning achievement as governor of a state, Obamacare, nee Romneycare, is now a plague on humanity and must be repealed.
A man who “retroactively retired” as CEO of Bain Capital can effortlessly adjust his positions. For a candidate who’s disgusted by apologies in his opponents—who hurls the accusation of apology as if it were a disqualifying offense to all that is wholesome—he sure walks back from, amends and revises the stuff he says a lot.
So since apologies are so important to Mr. Romney, I’d like to offer mine. I’ve said on numerous occasions (some of them broadcasted) that Mitt has been running for president for 20 years. I figured somewhere around 1992, Mitt, having witnessed his father’s failed run for president and his mother’s failed run for Senate, was watching the first Baby Boomer president (Bill Clinton) being sent to the White House. It was then he resolved that he, too, was going to run for president.
Now if that were true and his planning began the year Pope John Paul issued an apology for the Inquisition’s banning Galileo, Mitt would have made some different choices. His business practices would have been, candidly, more patriotic.
He wouldn’t have laid-off American workers, outsourcing jobs overseas, and then expect those same American workers to vote for him. He would have built something, instead of destroying corporations and getting rich off the charcoal. If Mitt Romney had been planning to run for president for 20 years, he would have anticipated releasing his tax returns (his father pioneered the practice) and made sure everything on there was something he could be proud of; returns he would happily release to the public.
So I was wrong. Mitt hasn’t been running for president for 20 years. He made money in a way that’s legal but now is embarrassed (think apologetic) about how little he’s paid in taxes, or what he’s made off his investments to show his tax returns to voters. He’s taken advantage of tons of loopholes, parking his money in foreign bank accounts. With his business record, he’d be a controversial presidential appointee, let alone a presidential candidate himself. Sure it’s legal. But it’s not ethical. Not for public service. Especially not for the most powerful position in the country.
So, Mitt, I’m sorry. I had been saying something about you that just wasn’t true. You haven’t been running for president for two decades. You haven’t been paying attention to what would play best to get yourself sworn into office.
You’ve been paying attention to your money.
• Copyright 2012 TinaDupuy.com, distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate. Tina Dupuy is an award-winning writer and the editor-in-chief of SoapBlox. Tina can be reached at tinadupuy@yahoo.com.
Dale Whiting posted at 7:38 am on Sat, Aug 4, 2012.
Tina,
I suspect that many politicians are or were paying attention to their money. But the real question is not appologizing or attention. Rather it's "What drives Mitt to run?" You surmise that his parents played a large role. In the end, as with most politicians, it's ego. Noone without a huge ego would be running for office, almost noone anyway. But ultimately it's ego that drives them forward. The chance to stand up and be heard and even worshipped by the electorate, or at least their constituency. Mitt's real problem is that being from Massacusets, his constituency has had to be changed.
So why appologize for being a politician? Just run and let things fall where they may. It worked for President Obama!
Cerulean posted at 10:42 am on Sat, Aug 4, 2012.
I agree Tina.
It is very curious to me why Mitt will not disclose his tax records. In a he said/ he said debate with Harry Reid, Mitt claims he paid “a lot” of tax over the past ten years. Harry claims he has it on ‘good authority’ that Mitt paid little to O on much of his earnings, that he just recently became a patriot and ante upped a meager 13% (within the law). On the political stage Mitt replies, ‘you people don’t need to know’.
Leading to Dale’s point, where I concur but would add, “Just run ‘with integrity’ and let things fall where they may. It worked for President Obama!”
chatmandu002 posted at 11:07 am on Sat, Aug 4, 2012.
Tina,
At least Romney isn't apologizing for what America did in the past like Obama. Your position would be fine if you held the democrats to the same ethical standards you are requiring from Romney. Enjoy your hypocrisy.
sdjtaz posted at 4:34 pm on Sat, Aug 4, 2012.
Chatmandu,
Instead of regurgitating far-right wing bull-hockey pucks, please provide one example of Obama apologizing for America. I only ask for one caveat, please include the entire quote, instead of cherry-picking two or three words out of the full quote.
Also, Romney talked about American greatness. The only problem is that he wrote this book after he helped ship thousands of middle-class American jobs to places like China and India. Our greatness has come from these middle class and Romney worked very hard to enrich himself and his friends by taking away these jobs (and then later saying that he was proud of doing so).
John68 posted at 6:03 pm on Sat, Aug 4, 2012.
Does this hit piece surprise anyone, coming from a tremendously popular new paper with subscriptions probably running into millions! What a piece of GARBAGE,
America Wake Up
geekette posted at 10:22 pm on Sat, Aug 4, 2012.
Chatman: i agree with sdjtaz. Please give an example of when Obama apologized for America.
pd posted at 10:31 pm on Sat, Aug 4, 2012.
In Tina's next partisan hit piece, she might consider apologizing for the incredible double standard she uses in evaluating the candidates for president . . . or she could consider why President Obama never accepts any responsibility for anything, blaming everyone else for the country's failings, hiding behind executive privilege, refusing to enforce democratically passed laws, etc. etc. etc.
Dale Whiting posted at 6:36 am on Sun, Aug 5, 2012.
pd,
I'll call you to task. Please list:
1) things President Obama is responsible for which don't please your fancy
2) the country's failings for which you believe President Obama is responsible
3) instances of taking executive privilege which you believe are inappropriate
4) laws you would have the Federal Government enforce but are not now being enforced
Know this. His "faults" are similiar to those of previous conservative presidents. So just what's your beef?
I'll blame him for taking too long to change foreign policy on making war in Afghanistan and Iraq, for not initiating meaningful talks with Iran, for not giving Israel the "guidance" they need, in short for not leading as he was expected to lead when he "won" the Nobel Peace Price. But in assessing this blame, we have to shoulder our share of that responsibility. A leader can only lead so much. He's trying to lead us, a charging mass of elephants headed for the cliff, but we don't want to "change" directions, even when we once believed in that change.