Party Political

Ever since I heard Mitt Romney on the CNN YouTube debate answer the question of whether water-boarding was torture (i.e., "Let's not say...Might overinform the terrorists"), I knew he wasn't the right candidate for me. I liked McCain's answer better (i.e., "Yes, it is torture, we don't need it, and shouldn't use it") and McCain seemed to have some good ideas in other areas (i.e., "I'll make us energy independent in 5 years."). For these reasons, I decided McCain was a superior candidate to Romney. McCain may not be the best candidate, and indeed, many think he's just like Bush. But in my eyes, Romney was even less an ideal.

This is why it seemed odd that Romney kept going for so long. He seemed sure, sincere, and confident. Of course, every candidate must feel, appear, and behave that way, not only to convince themselves that they have a shot, but to convince their audience, the American public. Still, it just seemed wrong to me, because I was so set on McCain over Romney.

But now, finally, Romney's out, and he supports McCain. Just a few weeks and months ago, few within certain groups would have guessed, or even admitted to the possibility of this outcome. Indeed, many would call it impossible to predict. If I had asked certain people, "Do you think this will happen?" They'd have said, "Anything can happen. It's all up in the air. But as far as we're concerned, Romney will be the winner."

Yes, that's the problem. 100% sincerity at the moment, 100% inaccuracy in hindsight. And this doesn't just happen in election campaigns either. It keeps coming up in politics in general. "So and so said this, got us to believe, and was proven wrong..." It's too bad about how it has become so complex to hold someone accountable when they have been verifiably inconsistent.

If you liked this post, please subscribe to my RSS feed.