Romney's Oily Pandering Works in Michigan

Almost a month and a half ago, before all this primary madness began, the Economist gave us strong reasons of why we should look at John McCain, reinforcing my impressions from the debates.

It basically cast the difference between the two Republicans leading today as follows:

"His [McCain's] willingness to stick to his guns on divisive subjects such as immigration stands in sharp contrast to Mr Romney's oily pandering."

I love that characterization, not least because it's true. McCain leveled with the people when he said in Grand Rapids last Wednesday:

"I've got to give you some straight talk: Some of the jobs that have left the state of Michigan are not coming back. They are not. And I am sorry to tell you that."

And as McCain pointed out, neither is it the government's responsibility to protect certain segments of the economy from market forces or globalization. McCain said in Livonia:

"It wasn't government's job to protect buggy factories and haberdashers when cars replaced carriages and men stopped wearing hats. But it is government's job to help workers get the education and training they need for the new jobs that will be created by new businesses in this new century."

As a former CEO and venture capitalist well versed in how the free-market economy runs, Mitt Romney knew this. McCain and Romney both know that the best thing that the government can do for unemployed workers is to provide them the skills that they need to compete now and to get back on their feet as soon as possible, not offer them false hope.

Unfortunately, Romney did what he does best, pander. Mitt Romney claimed that "He [McCain] said, you know, some jobs have left Michigan that are never coming back. I disagree. I'm not willing to accept defeat like that."

Romney went further with his pandering. He railed against the new mileage regulations passed by Congress and signed into law by Bush, saying it was akin to an anvil on a drowning industry. Never mind that the Massachusetts flip-flopper had, in his time as Governor, signed into law some of the toughest emissions standards in the country. Never mind that the decline of the American car industry has been because Detroit has refused to increase efficiency while Asian rivals have and now unfortunately workers are paying for the CEOs gross incompetence and neglect.

But perhaps Romney's views on emissions regulations, like his views on abortion and gay rights have "evolved" and as the Economist pointed out, "in a direction that is strikingly convenient - perhaps through intelligent design."

Before the Michigan results came out, a blog post on The New York Times remarked that if Michigan voters selected John McCain's hard truths and rejected Mitt Romney's feel-good pandering, "it may signal that industrial-state voters understand more about modern reality than most of their leaders tend to think."

Unfortunately, that didn't happen. Industrial-state voters continue to cling to vestiges of hope and I can't blame them. I can however blame politicians who are willing to distort the truth and raise false hopes for people who are down on their luck so they can lie, cheat, or steal their way into office. We've already had one such President under George Bush. Do we really need another one in the form of Mitt Romney (I wonder if Mitt Romney makes it to the general election as the Republican nominee, and that's a big if, then will his views intelligently design themselves again to the new group of voters?).

For now, the Mac's looking good in South Carolina. Fortunately, Romney's oily pandering will not work everywhere.