Democracy by Date Rape, Representation by Roofie

So this morning I was alerted - via Anne Laurie over at Balloon Juice -- about this Jon Chait piece regarding Mitt Romney.  I've read the Chait piece in its entirety and its premise is that Mitt Romney is just a goddamned liar.  He lies repeatedly, he lies often, he lies regularly, and he lies without regard for the truth.  Good.  Glad Chait recognizes that.

But then, there's this from that same piece:

I've always had a soft spot for Mitt Romney, who strikes me, in a way I can't completely define, as a good guy.  The fact that he is an audacious liar does not strike me as a definitive judgment on his character, but primarily a reflection of the circumstances he finds himself in -- having to transition from winning a majority of a fairly liberal electorate to winning a majority of a rabidly conservative one, one that cannot be placated without indulging in all sorts of fantasies. 

[snip] 

I see him as a patrician pol, like George H. W. Bush, who believes deeply in public service but regards elections as a cynical process of pandering to rubes.

I gotta tell you . . . I'm not quite sure what to make of this.  I understand what Chait is saying here -- and I understand that his main take-away is that Romney is, in fact, an inveterate liar on the campaign trail -- but couple that with the foregoing and I think what I am listening to is an excuse for Romney to be a huge liar on the campaign trail.

The excuse goes something like:  Yeah, sure . . . Romney is lying, but he's only saying things he doesn't believe in order to get elected.  Deep down and underneath it all, he's not a bad guy -- he's like Poppy Bush.

GOP Admits to Putting Party Over Country

I’ve claimed many time before that - as a general rule – the Democractic party is actually interested in governing the country, in that by and large its members want to enact policies that can actually help the American people. 

I’ve also claimed that – as a general rule – the Republican party isn’t really interested in governing so much as it is interested in acquring political power for power's sake.  If these two interests conflict, the Republicans are much more likely to do whatever they think will help them electorally even if that course of action hurts America itself.  Certainly Mike Lofgren’s recent article bears out this general characterization.

And then today, via Steve Benen (again) over at The Washington Monthly, we have this:

And despite public declarations about finding common ground with Obama, some Republicans are privately grumbling that their leaders are being too accommodating with the president.

“Obama is on the ropes; why do we appear ready to hand him a win?” said one senior House Republican aide who requested anonymity to discuss the matter freely.

For all of the debate over what motivates Republicans on Capitol Hill, could this quote be any clearer? GOP goals have nothing to do with boosting the economy or creating jobs, and everything to do with undermining the president during a crisis.

The correct answer to this aide’s question — Americans get back to work is more important than partisan politics — never seems to enter the picture.

Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas), chairman of the NRCC, added that no one should assume congressional Republicans will support policies, just because “we’ve been for them” in the recent past.

No, of course not. (emphasis added).

It is difficult to convince a political opponent to do the right thing when your opponent’s entire worldview is filtered not through the lens of appropriate social or economic policy, and instead through the lens of sheer political calculation.  When the only question asked by Republicans is ‘How can we best hurt Obama?’ the President’s ability to suggest anything that might help jump start the economy pretty much goes out the window.