Mitt Romney’s always had a higher opinion of himself as a politician than his political record warrants. That’s why I’m not surprised by Mitt’s statements during his interview with Special Report’s Bret Baier aren’t that surprising:

Asked by Fox News’s Bret Baier in an interview Tuesday whether Gingrich could beat President Obama, Romney said: “I think to get President Obama out of office, you’re going to have to bring something to the race that’s different than what he brings.”

“He’s a lifelong politician. I think you have to have the credibility of understanding how the economy works. And I do. And that’s one reason I’m in this race.”

All politicians have egos. They couldn’t survive without them. Still, Mitt’s statements smack me as being Grade A BS. Saying that the man who put in place policies that created 11,000,000 new jobs doesn’t understand how the economy works simply isn’t credible.

It’s time for Mitt to stop pretending that he’s the economic wizard and his GOP opponents don’t understand the economy.

Let’s remember that the man Mitt’s criticizing also helped create 4 straight surpluses while reforming welfare and training people so they could be productive workers in the private sector. Does that sound like a man who doesn’t understand how the economy works?

The reason why Mitt’s in this race is because he loves politics. It isn’t because he’s a great presidential candidate. In fact, he’s played at the fringes of politics most of his life.

The only reason why he wasn’t a career politician is because he’s only won 1 election in his lifetime. Had he defeated Ted Kennedy in 1994, he would’ve been a career politician by now.

It isn’t surprising that Newt didn’t let Mitt’s comments go unanswered. Here’s Newt’s reply:

Gingrich fired back in an interview following a town hall meeting tonight at the Newberry, S.C., Opera House.

“You’re talking to a guy who was dead in June. I’m now being attacked by the former frontrunner,” he exulted.

He also defended his economic experience. “I would point out as a matter of fact, having participated in the development of supply-side economics with (former Rep. Jack) Kemp, having campaigned with Reagan on it in 1980, having helped pass it in ‘81 and having gone thorugh the recovery in the ‘80s and having 11 million jobs created over four years as speaker, I may have some knowledge of the economy.”

If Mitt wants to talk about who’s put together the strongest economic record while in office, he’d best be prepared to get thumped.

It’s one thing to balance a state’s budget. Most states require that. Balancing the federal budget isn’t anything like balancing a state’s budget. During Newt’s time in office as Speaker, they balanced the budget 4 straight years.

During his time in the private sector, Mitt killed thousands of jobs. That might’ve been justified but reality is reality.

Mitt’s got a bit of a temper when challenged:

Baier peppered Romney with questions about his inconsistencies over the years on key issues like climate change, abortion rights, immigration and gay marriage. Romney rejected the premise altogether.

“Well, Bret, your list is just not accurate,” Romney said. “So, one, we’re going to have to be better informed about my views on issues. My view is you can look at what I’ve written in my book [“No Apology”]. You can look at a person who has devoted his life to his family, to his faith, to his country. And I’m running for president because of the things I believe I think I can do to help this country.”

In trustworthy contests, Bret Baier will trounce Mitt every time. That’s why telling Bret Baier that he didn’t do his homework isn’t the brightest thing Mitt’s done lately. Then again, Mitt didn’t have any promising options available at that point. Mitt was pinned down.

One thing that’s clear is that Mitt gets testy fast when challenged. Mitt lost it when Rick Perry challenged him over hiring an illegal immigrant to do his lawn care. To date, that’s the only debate where Mitt hasn’t looked placid. It’s the only debate he’s clearly lost.

Mitt’s ego won’t allow him to admit that people don’t trust him. Mitt undoubtedly will continue making tortured arguments that the archived clips don’t really mean what all of America thinks they mean. That’s his choice. It’s just that his choice will sink him.

Mitt isn’t unflappable. In fact, he’s quite easily upset. That tendency, coupled with his flip-flops, won’t help against Newt.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

6 Responses to “Mitt Romney: Arrogant SOB”

  • eric z. says:

    With Cain reassessing, and with Bachmann and Santorum at levels where each should reassess; and with Huntsman assessing an independent run [today’s John Anderson, an attempt to talk in ways to delude dissatisfied Dems], the field is or soon should narrow.

    You see it as Mitt and Newt. Probably right, for now.

    Gingrich, worse than a career politician is a revolving door career politician and then career lobbyist [excuse, a “history teacher”] and then back again the other way — and that’s the Tinklenberg double-whammy.

    And still — Ron Paul. The one who may win Iowa, where and when it counts – the caucus voting.

  • ann says:

    ryan is a racist tea party bagger wolf in sheep clothing that wants to gut medicare and his mother does not count eveybody does not hae a sucessuful son to supplement their health care, and romney is hiding behiine ryan like mcain hide behind pallin romney is shady and stupid show your taxes for cheating poor people and getting your at the taxes payer cost romney we know it bad.

  • Gary Gross says:

    Ann (or whoever you are), Your accusations aren’t based on anything other than despicable misinformation. They aren’t rooted in fact. Next time you utter this tripe, do your homework rather than buying into this despicable BS.

    Hate like yours is beyond contemptible. Unfortunately, it’s what Democrats specialize in.

  • Jethro says:

    Ann’s argument is about as strong as her grammatical prose.

  • walter hanson says:


    Um since the people on medicare are white, black, hispanic, asian, indian, and others it doesn’t seem to be racist if the changes effect everyone the say way.

    But to more serious points on your rant:

    * It was Obama who cut medicare by over $700 billion so if you want to call somebody a racist it’s Obama not Romney.

    * By repealing Obamacare as Romney and Ryan want to do it will restore the cuts or is it your arguement that you don’t want those cuts restored?

    * If you want to leave medicare as it is right now how are you going to pay the $84 trillion dollar deficit that is projected that is needed to balance medicare’s future payments?

    * How is it racist if Ryan is giving you and me the same health care options that members of Congress currently have?

    * You do realize that if you try to seriously answer my comments you realize just how silly your claims are?

    Walter Hanson
    Minneapolis, MN

Leave a Reply