Mitt Romney: Trick or Treat?

I had an opportunity to sit down tonight with a cuppa and relax after the flurry of activity that is Halloween night. Scrolling through my Twitter feed, I caught a headline:

I admire a smooth liar, and Mitt Romney is among the best.

Wow. Short, sweet, and to the point.  I clicked through, and found Richard Cohen's column from back in April.  Cohen, an opinion columnist for the Washington Post, had written a very calm, very reasoned article which exactly sums up my opinion of Romney.

But where Romney is different is that he is not honest about himself. He could, as he did just recently, stand before the National Rifle Association as if he were, in spirit as well as membership, one of them. In body language, in the blinking of the eyes, in the nonexistent pounding pulse, there was not the tiniest suggestion that here was a man who just as confidently once embodied the anti-gun ethic of Massachusetts, the distant land he once governed.

There you have it. He's not honest about himself.  This is a man with ice water in his veins, who will say whatever he needs to say to satisfy whatever audience he's speaking to, whether it's supporters or reporters, voters or other candidates, in debates and campaign appearances or, one can only assume, in his own living room. 

He is powerful, as illustrated by his accomplishments; humble, as illustrated by the people who come forward and talk about his humility; charitable and devout, as illustrated by his contributions to his church and faith.

At the same time, this successful, humble, charitable man, this devout man seeks and then proudly accepts the endorsement of Donald Trump? He goes off to North Carolina and prays with Billy and Franklin Graham, seeks and obtains their endorsement, the Grahams who for years maintained that Mormonism was a cult, similar to Scientology, Jehovah's Witnesses, and others? (Notably, the cult reference was removed from Graham's website after the meeting).

Are either of these acts consistent with the devout, humble, charitable persona of Mitt Romney we are supposed to be voting for? Or are these the acts of the businessman persona of Mitt Romney we're supposed to be voting for?  And can they be so easily separated?

I guess I can understand how people can look at a businessman and think, "that's what we need in the White House, we need someone who can balance the budget to get us out of this mess." But in my mind, the President should be more than a person who believes in whatever the person he's talking to believes in, and should stand for something other than whatever the person he's standing next to stands for. and shouldn't pretend he didn't do the things he did to become successful, or that he'd never do them again, or that others shouldn't have the chance to become successful doing exactly the same thing.

Back to Richard Cohen one last time:

Instead, what his career has given him is the businessman’s concept of self — that what he does is not who he is. This is what enables the slumlord to be a charitable man. This is what enables the corporate raider to endow his university. Business is business. It’s what you do. It is not who you are. Lying isn’t a sin. It’s a business plan.

Don't we deserve better?