It was Alexander Hamilton who said, “Those who stand for nothing fall for anything.” And I say, by extension of that logic, “Those who stand for everything believe in nothing.”
While I think that it might be a little unfair to fully ascribe that latter maxim to Republican presidential candidate and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, I think to some extent, we can all agree that he has stood on both sides of just about every political issue one can think of.
He was pro-gun control, now he is pro-gun (for a more complete perspective on “Romney on Guns,” click here). He was pro-choice, now he is pro-life. He was for government run health care, now he is for the repeal of Obamacare, etc. It seems that Mitt is willing to adopt any position that will help get him elected.
I’m sure Mitt would argue, as he did in the Bret Baier interview, that my assessment of his political history is grossly misled. But, the reality is, and as seen below in this video, when it comes to being a consistent conservative, Mitt has serious credibility issues.
Mitt, it seemed, purposely delayed making a judgment call on whether or not Holder should resign from office for his prevarication or at the very least his incompetence in handling Fast and Furious, which lead to the death of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.
Back in October, Mitt was at a campaign stop in Hooksett, NH, giving one of his prefabricated lectures. After he finished speaking, he said he would answer questions, provided “I can answer it ‘yes or no.’”
Well, someone from the Daily Caller asked the former governor this question, “Governor, should Eric Holder resign over ‘Fast and Furious’? That’s a yes-or-no question, governor.”
Mitt ignored the question the first time it was asked. But when it was asked a second time, he gave an answer. Needless to say, it wasn’t a “yes” or a “no.”
“I do press [availabilities] and then I answer questions, that are important questions, in the length that I want to do,” Romney told the DC. “But what I don’t do is in a group like this is stop and rattle off questions to people just as we walk along.”
“So that way,” he continued, “you don’t get the chance to hear the full answer that I’d like to give. So those are important questions. I’ll be happy to address them in a press avail or at the town meeting. But in these events, at events like this I don’t take press questions, because it doesn’t give you or me the chance to have a full discussion of the topic, when particularly it’s an important one like that.”
In examining his answer, one can argue he was playing it coy or that he simply did not know all the facts and didn’t want to rush to a decision about Holder’s incompetence and/or malfeasance.
One can also argue that he was waiting to see how it would play out in the media and in the eyes of potential voters. And once he drew a bead on what the court of public opinion had ruled, he would take a stance.
Well, a few days ago, after a month or so of dodging the question, he finally took a stance (see video below).
Mitt called for General Holder’s immediate resignation or failing that for President Obama to fire him.
According to the Associated Press, Romney told reporters in New Hampshire this past Saturday that Holder has “brought shame” on the Justice Department through his handling of the Fast and Furious scandal.
Romney joins former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann and fifty-two Congressmen, Sens. Johnny Isakson of Georgia and James Inhofe of Oklahoma and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal in calling for Holder’s immediate resignation.
So, what are your thoughts about Mitt’s sudden declaration that Holder should resign or be fired? Is he trying to curry favor with voters, especially the gun community? Or does he genuinely feel this way? Was his decision to take such a public stance on the issue politically motivated?
Lastly, would you consider voting for Mitt Romney if he wins the Republican nomination?