A Recidivist Reviser

Is this why Mitt Romney is changing his position on climate change for the umpteenth time?

Conservative columnist, and frequent Sunday morning bobble-head guest, George Will has a problem with Mitt Romney and his use of facts.

Romney, supposedly the Republican most electable next November, is a recidivist reviser of his principles who is not only becoming less electable, he might damage GOP chances of capturing the Senate: Republican successes down the ticket will depend on the energies of the tea party and other conservatives, who will be deflated by a nominee whose blurry profile in caution communicates only calculated trimming. Republicans may have found their Michael Dukakis, a technocratic Massachusetts governor who takes his bearings from ‘data’ … Has conservatism come so far, surmounting so many obstacles, to settle, at a moment of economic crisis, for THIS?

He takes his bearings from "data?" We can't have that!

It makes sense, though. A preclusion of data and facts is a basic requirement for being a modern conservative. You must shun empirical reality and embrace with open arms the bliss that is know-nothingism.

One could argue the notion that Mitt Romney takes his cues from "data," as many of his policy positions defy what the data would suggest, but the fact that most conservatives view him in this light is what prevents him from ever moving beyond the steady 23% of support he has enjoyed over the last several months.

By the way, accusing someone of being a technocrat is not an insult unless you believe nominating your cleaning lady to the supreme court is an effective way to govern.

Conservatism is a mental illness.

  • i_am_allwrite

    Democrats need to reclaim the word “liberal.” Hamilton College did a scientific analysis of the accuracy of political talking heads earlier this year, and Will was among the worst in terms of accuracy, while Paul Krugman was the most accurate, and by a wide margin (followed by fellow NYT lefty Maureen Dowd, which I admit shocked me). Yet conservatives regularly trumpet Will’s bullshit, while quoting Krugman is considered toxic even by Democrats because he’s a liberal. George Will is a smart guy, but somewhere along the way he allowed his “facts” to be determined by his ideology, and his awkward attempts to make reality fit into those preordained facts has turned him into a hack of the highest order. No wonder he’s so hostile to data.

    • Rick Janes

      George ‘Eff’ Will has been a hack since 1980 when he helped prep Ronald Reagan for his debates with Jimmy Carter, and then failed to disclose that fact to his readers as he posed as an ‘objective’ analyst of the debates. A liberal like Krugman would have been fired for such a partisan lie-by-omission, but Will operates under the Special Media Rules For Conservative Republicans — no matter how corrupt or inaccurate he is, he just keeps cooking along. Will is an example of what happens when you give a man with no principles a large vocabulary.

  • mrbrink

    Mitt Romney is turning into the empty space where liberals are holding their intervention for right wing America.

    The only thing I see as “moderate” about Mitt Romney is his ability to appear moderately electable.

    Sometimes I wonder if people are trying too hard to like Mitt Romney enough to actually vote for him.

    • Rick Janes

      Romney has all the charm of a metal surgical gurney, the plastic smile of a Ron Burgundy, the oratorical attraction of a bottle of barbiturates, the deep intellect of a Ken doll, and the abiding convictions of a three-card monty dealer. The only reason he’s still in the game is that the GOP Elite, the ’25 percent’ in this case, can trust him to be a willing tool for their interests. The MSM likes Romney because he’s so easy to understand and he serves the interests of their employers.

  • eaglesfanintn

    We all know that facts do have a liberal bias.

  • D_C_Wilson

    Love Will’s use of scare quotes around the word data, as if data were some kind of myth someone just thought up.

    Will used to be a conservative that I respected even if disagreed with my 99% of the time. He wrote so well and he was one of the few cons willing to admit that the Bush administration had lost all credibility on the Iraq issue. But now he’s not only drunk the neocon Koolaid, but he’s gone back for seconds.

    What kind of a world do we live in where one major party considers making policy decisions based on scientific data to be a negative?

    The Daily Show had a good send-up of the current republican disdain for science this week and if featured a conservative spokesmodel who may be even dumber than Bachmann or Palin.—science—what-s-it-up-to-?xrs=share_copy

    • bphoon

      I never thought I’d run into anyone dumber than Michele Bachmann or Sarah Palin but I think you have something there…