Who is the real Mitt Romney? If you were hoping for a definitive answer to that question on Thursday night, you are a disappointed voter Friday morning.
But Romney’s acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention was among the best he’s given. It was full of confidence and optimism — and it was among the most personally revealing. He appeared presidential, and that should help him.
Romney appealed to voters who feel let down by President Barack Obama, as the final act of the Republicans’ version of our great American political theater drew to a close.
“If you felt that excitement when you voted for Barack Obama, shouldn’t you feel that way now that he’s President Obama? You know there’s something wrong with the kind of job he’s done as president when the best feeling you had was the day you voted for him,” Romney said.
Romney told anecdotes about his family, his wife, his boys, even his parents. He seemed to connect.
Romney did his best. But it will take more than a speech to blow away the cloud that still hangs over his campaign: his nagging habit over the years of shifting with the political winds.
Whether you like the new, “severely conservative” Mitt or the old moderate Mitt — the version we prefer and the one that seemed to shine through Thursday night — you just aren’t sure you can trust him.
And because he has provided so few details of his plans for the country, those questions persist.
Romney wants to lower tax rates and broaden the tax base, for example. It’s a good idea. The Simpson-Bowles deficit-reduction commission argued that the government could increase revenue by overhauling the tax code. But the hard part is deciding which deductions could safely be scaled back or eliminated. The ones that cost the most — for employer-sponsored health plans, retirement accounts, mortgage interest and charitable giving — have loud and large constituencies.
What would Romney do? He hasn’t said.
And what of the budget that the Republican-controlled House passed in March? It was written by Romney’s running mate, U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin.
Does Romney embrace it? It’s hard to tell.
The Ryan budget would slow growth of the deficit but wouldn’t balance the budget until 2040 — not necessarily a bad thing because big changes should be implemented slowly.
But Ryan unwisely would keep in place the Bush tax cuts and then cut taxes by another $4.4 trillion over the next 10 years. Ryan doesn’t bother to explain how he’d pay for those tax breaks.
Elements of the Ryan approach are worth debating, but the cuts necessary to provide trillions of dollars more in tax relief that simply isn’t needed are unacceptable.
Romney seems like a decent and modest man. He has quietly given of his time and treasure in the service of others. The testimonials on his charitable work were touching and persuasive. But it’s one thing to keep your charitable giving private. It’s quite another to keep your plans for the country private.
Details, Mr. Romney. We need details.
The night before Romney spoke, Paul Ryan did what was expected of him. He attacked President Barack Obama. He made the case for Romney.
The speech included some memorable lines including the one about college grads lying in their beds at home and “staring up at fading Obama posters and wondering when they can move out and get going with life.”
His delivery, halting at first, was powerful by the end. He was sunny and optimistic, calling to mind his mentor the late U.S. Rep. Jack Kemp.
But his speech was littered with loose talk. Three of the biggest stretches:
Ryan insinuated that Obama promised he’d keep open the General Motors Corp. factory in Janesville, Ryan’s hometown. The president never promised such a thing, and the plant closed before Obama took office. Ryan has since claimed he was merely making the point that Obama promises big things and doesn’t deliver. That’s not how we heard it.
Ryan once again claimed Obama “funneled” $716 billion from Medicare, a claim that Romney repeated in his speech. They’re wrong. Obama, like Ryan, wants to wring savings from the providers of Medicare. The $716 billion is how much the architects of the Affordable Care Act believe can be saved. The health care reform law doesn’t cut benefits, as Ryan’s claim might lead you to believe.
Ryan said Obama “did exactly nothing” with the report from the Simpson-Bowles commission. Obama showed very little interest in confronting entitlement spending, but some aspects of the plan did show up later in his budget proposals. What Ryan didn’t tell you: He was on the commission and voted against the report.
Paul Ryan’s happy warrior disposition and his wonky ways are endearing. He has big ideas worth debating. Democrats would do well to emulate him in that respect. And he did give a great speech. But it was marred by how often he shaded the truth.
