Mitt’s convictions

Here’s a candidate with the right idea about big money corruption in politics:

I am personally of the belief that money plays a much more important role in what is done in Washington than we believe. I personally believe that when campaigns spend the kind of money they’re now spending — this race, I understand, [my opponent] will spend about ten million dollars to be reelected. He’s been in 32 years. 10 million dollars — I think that’s wrong. And that’s not his own money, that’s all from other people, and to get that kind of money, as an incumbent you’ve got to cozy up to other people — all of the special interest groups that can go out there and raise money for you from their members — and that kind of relationship has an influence on the way that you’re going to vote. […]These kinds of associations between money and politics, in my view, are wrong. And, for that reason, I would like to have campaign spending limits. […] I also would abolish PACs.

That would, of course, be Mitt the first, back in 1994 — before he turned himself inside out to be a Tea Party conservative. I don’t happen to think he ever believed that. He was trying to beat up Teddy Kennedy for being a rich guy at the time and it sounded good. And then, times changed too, largely as a result of the wrecking crew that Newtie and the gang brought into power that very same year.

Again, I do not understand why the Tea Partiers are so hostile to this guy. If they truly believe their agenda is popular and right, they have no reason to think Mitt won’t fulfill it. He has shown that he will do whatever it takes. If they maintain their control of the House, they’ll be home free. He’ll sign anything they put in front of him.