New York Times Editorial Blasts Myth of "Moderate Mitt" - Flip Flopper Label Not Pejorative Enough

The New York Times blasts The ‘Moderate Mitt’ Myth suggesting that Mitt Romney does not "demonstrate seriousness of purpose and a set of core beliefs," nor the "trustworthiness and judgment" necessary to be president of the United States.

 

From the beginning of his run for the Republican nomination, Mr. Romney has offered to transfigure himself into any shape desired by an audience in order to achieve power. In front of massed crowds or on television, he can sound sunny and inclusive, radiating a feel-good centrism. His “severely conservative” policies and disdain for much of the country are reserved for partisans, donors and the harsh ideologues who clutter his party’s base. This polarity is often described as “flip-flopping,” but the word is too mild to describe opposing positions that are simultaneously held.

It's great that the New York Times announces on its editorial page that "flip-flopping" is too mild a word to describe Romney's serial bald faced lies, but they fall short when they suggest the "Convenient Mitt" is somehow more harshly descriptive. Did "Mendacious Mitt" not occur to them? Maybe someone ran off with their thesaurus?

How about a few headlines on the front page of the NYT reporting that Mitt's intentional serial deceptions, as Rachel Maddow has done describing the near half a dozen cases in a row where in the televised afternoon rallies,or debates, Moderate Mitt announces he will not restrict abortion, or "his health plan" will prevent insurance companies from refusing to insure people with pre-existing conditions, but then in the evening, Andrea Saul issues the "wink, wink, nod, nod" retractions to conservative blogs and outlets?

The rest of this NYT editorial proves that the they are aware of Mitt's misleading pattern of behavior - when will they start reporting this as part of the most notable facts of the day, rather than just repeating Mitt lies?

A candidate’s political calculations when fewer people are watching is likely to say far more about character than poll-tested pleasantries in the spotlight. ... That’s what is disingenuous about the “Moderate Mitt” in recent speeches and the first presidential debate. He hasn’t abandoned or flip-flopped from the severe positions that won him the Republican nomination; they remain at the core of his campaign, on his Web site and in his position papers, and they occasionally slip out in unguarded moments. All he’s doing is slapping whitewash on his platform. The immoderation of his policies, used to win favor with a hard-right party, cannot be disguised.

This week, for example, in the swing state of Iowa, Mr. Romney tried to cover up his strident anti-abortion agenda. “There’s no legislation with regards to abortion that I’m familiar with that would become part of my agenda,” he told The Des Moines Register’s editorial board. But that carefully worded statement was designed to mislead, because the threat to women’s rights doesn’t necessarily come from legislation. He would cut financing for Planned Parenthood, and he has said he wants to overturn Roe v. Wade and would appoint justices who would do so.

This editorial then diligently reports Romney's essay the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act that proposes banning abortion as soon as a fetus can feel pain, his hypocritical "pre-existing conditions" deceptions, and distortions of his record of "bipartisanship" in Massachusetts, which I congratulate them for.  This is progress, but, my question for the NYT, and all the media is when will they start reporting these facts, side-by-side with Romney's daily deceptions in rallies where he has learned how to game the media to enable his mendacity?

We are three weeks away from election day, and the majority of media is still reporting Mitt Romney's lies as if they are the "falsely equivalent" opposing policy views of President Obama's solid real positions.  

When this alternating pattern of deceptions repeats over and over again, on the same issues, these no longer are "errors and retractions," but flagrant deceptions of gaming the media that the New York Times seems all too happy to complain about on it's op-ed but to continue to enable by reporting "Moderate Mitt's" intentionally misleading rallies on its front page without the headlines "Mendacious Mitt Repeats Lies!"  

And, how is it possible that traditional media and pundits declare Mitt Romney the "winner of a debate" where-in he commits about two dozens lies, anyone of which could have been a "disqualifying" scandal in previous elections?

My understanding is that three such repetitions in a row, in one week, is sufficient to establish a "pattern of behavior" in courts, so why doesn't the NYT report this pattern of intentional "strategic deception," as part of "all the news that's fit to print on the front page, instead of just headlines repeating the lies in reports on the daily campaign "themes"?

But, I do appreciate this editorial which closes with the devastating conclusion that "Anyone willing to advocate extremism to raise money and win primaries is likely to do the same to stay in office."

This election looks as if it will be close enough that our democracy's ability to reject a campaign based on an intentional strategy of falsehoods and deception may depend on the courage and integrity of our traditional bastions of journalistic integrity like the New York Times, which is still my favorite newspaper. And, despite my plaintive pleas for even more aggressiveness I do also appreciate this important progress in this editorial.  Please join me in letters to the editor to the NYT, CNN, and all other traditional media outlets to stand up for the integrity of our political system.