The inspiration for this piece is an unhinged article written by Paul Slansky for HuffPo called "(Dukakis + Kerry x Nixon) = Romney (see)." In this piece the author predicts that Romney will share the same fate in November that Dukakis and Kerry (both from Massachusetts) suffered from the two Bushes. Slansky bases his prognostication on two things: 1) Romney's Dukakis-like lack of charisma verses Obama's "million dollar smile" (which has been devalued with the dollar); and 2) Romney's "mystery tax returns," which Obama and Dems will use to swift-boat Romney and keep him on the defensive like Kerry suffered when the GOP swift boated him into defeat using his military record and anti-war radicalism. Of the last Slansky says: "If you have any belief in any kind of God, pray to Him, Her or It that Mittens is still hiding his tax returns when he and Obama step on stage for the first debate."
To this I say AMEN! I too pray to the great "IT " (sorry Lord) that Romney double down and stay the course on making public no more tax returns. One year of returns is concession enough because no more are needed for Romney to turn this issue against Obama and win the debate and the presidency. This is what I mean.
In their blind hatred and fear of Romney's "Sterling" record at Bain, and economic competence as Massachusetts' governor, Slansky and the Left overlook the fact that Romney has a winning card up his sleeve with which to clobber Obama in the debates. I call it the Transparency Card.
In 2008 the smile and lie messiah pledged that he'd be the most transparent thing on earth since the invention of glass and took the oath of office on the Lincoln Bible to give that impression-signaling that he'd be the second coming of Honest Abe in dealing with the people. In challenging this lie Romney can have his Reagan Moment in the debates and turn Obama into a one term blunder.
Indeed, if during the debates Obama or the moderator raise the tax return issue all that Romney need do is pull out this card for an October Surprise and put Obama on the spot. All he need do is pledge to disclose ten years of tax returns if Obama first unseals his medical and college records; and then pledge another decade of returns if Obama makes public all info pertaining to the murderous Fast & Furious fiasco. "Fair is fair, Mr. President," Romney could say, "If the public has a right to see all my tax returns then the same applies to you and all your records and hidden F&F docs. As it currently stands we are even in our disclosures. You made public your last medical exam and I did the same with last year's tax returns. If you want more from me then give more yourself. Come clean and I'll come clean."
What could Obama say? "I've released 12 years of tax returns now you must follow suit" and nothing more? That would only raise suspicions that he was hiding something damaging in his college and medical records, and make him look like Jimmy Carter when Reagan said "There you go again." This tactic and taking Obama apart on the economy would ensure his defeat with a public losing confidence in his leadership-or lack there of.
But what about "plastic" Romney's lack of charisma and starpower vis a vis Obama's golden glow? In 2008 Obama (aided by the housing crash) charmed the nation into voting for him over lack luster craggy John McCain. But the Obama magic is practically gone as he failed to charm the economy into a rip roaring recovery exceeding Reagan's (which he promised). By 2010 with a weak recovery and Obamacare hurting certainty, private investment and growth the public had grown weary with Obama's charismatic leadership style; realizing that it's no substitute for sound economic policies they landslided Republicans into power-in the House and legislatures across the land-giving Obama a good shellacking. And a worse shellacking is coming at the hands of a stiff, plastic-looking man with the competence and right stuff to fix the economy. COMPETENCE not CHARISMA is what America is looking for in a leader in November. And COMPETENCE is Mitt Romney.
Harding + Coolidge x Kennedy = Mitt, or something like that.
Slansky writes in his article:
"The Massachusetts era of Democratic political brilliance ran from JFK through John McCormack and Tip O'Neill, abruptly crashing to a halt in 1988 with the hapless Michael Dukakis, the anti-Kennedy, a black hole of uncharisma destined to be remembered for two things -- his bloodless debate reaction to the proposition that his wife was raped and killed, and, most definitively, the "Snoopy in the tank" video. Sixteen years later we had John Kerry windsurfing while letting himself -- an actual war hero, as opposed to the Smirking Chimp, with his affinity for going AWOL -- be put on the defensive about his military service. But both of them pale in comparison to the astonishing spectacle of Willard Mitt ("Mittens") blah, blah, blah..."
This analysis is completely loony.
If the US economy of 1988 and 2004 was as miserable as it is now Dukakis and Kerry would have been the 41st and 44th Presidents. With the economy in the crapper the time is right for the first Massachusetts politician since JFK, and the next Republican after the Bushes (who beat two Massachusetts pols) to be President. And this is born out by the signs (if signs they be) as I wrote about HERE.
For on May 29th when Romney seized the GOP nomination it fell on the 95th anniversary of JFK's birth in the great state of Texas where the last two Republican Presidents reside and JFK died. Concidence? Providence?November will decide.
Commenting on Slansky's article nkurland writes: