Mitt Romney is either taking his time or taking too much time. He's hopefully just letting the flyweight incumbent punch himself out before setting up for a knockout that would cost the present title belt's wearer an award earned by shifty default.
But picking the Handsome Math Fellow as his running mate seems to have also sparked him to better performances. He just has to keep capitalizing right this second. Romney has a far more compelling personal story without the self-righteousness that dominates his opponent's bizarrely cushy past. Instead of coasting as a spoiled brat, Romney made businesses while certain former community organizers made myths.
Barack Obama and his henchmen have tried to make the election personal by whining about things like Romney's taxes, which distracts from how Obama's policies are a waste of everyone's taxes. It's way past time for the challenger to immunize himself against lame criticism regarding his prosperity with a satisfyingly pointed “So?” If one asks him to apologize, he should reply, “For what?” Mitt should also flip off any horrid liars who accuse him of murdering cancer patients as a profitable hobby. It's time to get unchained when opponents get unhinged.
The late Andrew Breitbart might not seem to the reserved Mitt like a campaign role model. But the only non-Obama choice needs to be assertively bold right now if he hopes to impress anyone. Embracing his personal history would be a vote for unapologetic aspiration.
Go ahead and be a capitalist goon. If Mitt is seeking a corporate model to complement Breitbart mode, he should spend time on the campaign trail acting like unapologetic earners who sleep on currency bundles. Romney ought to conduct himself like the prototypical evil scary Kochs, who go about their business without concern for what their rabidly irrational critics say.
We're supposed to be at the mercy of one percent bullies. Yet we seem to be free to live our lives despite the shadow cast by Bain's headquarters on Mount Doom. Similarly, the charities and cultural institutions that benefit immensely from the diabolical duo's gifts seem to not be fronts for infant incinerators.
The left is going to accuse every business that endorses small-government principles of buying protests, as it's what corporate haters do do in lieu of being productive. They are vexatiously attacking any company that favors of small government as one that acts within their own self-interest.
Why can't corporate concerns be selfish and choose to scuttle their life's work in order to fund lousy health insurance? Collectivists inadvertently flaunt how they can't grasp the concept of excelling without governmental interference.
A principle can be correct while benefiting the person who holds it. Advocating limited federal tooling just enables everyone to start at the same line. Entrepreneurs and human liberty excel simultaneously, and it's no wonder that those with statist impulses are suspicious of both.
Besides, the truly calculating entrepreneurs are those who claim they want everyone to share. It would be easier for free market-backing companies to kiss serious government ass rather than rake in revenue on their own merits. Such a strategy worked for General Motors, sort of. Heartless conglomerates can swallow bureaucratic meddling that chokes smaller competitors.
Regulations inevitably squeeze smaller competitors out of the market, which is why Amazon deviously supports online sales taxes. They're just honored to support the government that by chance also happens to hamper rivals.
And they can just beg the government to fund solar-powered daydreaming. In truth, the most selfish companies are left-wing icons who grab every government break and dollar. An Obama-approved business is the only one that will thrive in an Obama-run economy.
Don't question the altruism of left-wing benevolence barons. On a related note, Warren Buffett would prefer that you not draw attention to his history of buying family companies that couldn't afford the death tax. Also, don't ask George Soros about destroying the British pound. They were just trying to compassionately share resources, namely the ones belonging to you.
But limited-government-minded people who sell you things just want you living in the cheapest dirt available. Advocates of creeping government are renowned for shrieking about how devilish commercial concerns hate the poor as much as they love dirty water. And you thought they were just trying to make a buck offering goods or services.
You have maybe even heard such business-punching rhetoric from a sitting president, which is the sort of nastily envious rhetoric that should have stayed in Columbia's off-campus housing instead of making it to the Oval Office.
Americans are just trying to make a living, and the president is trying to make them as selfish villains. How about an utter contrast? Romney somehow succeeded financially without relying on employees trained by the government. His history making Staples go is far more compelling than his history of making liberal policy detours.
He can get to promoting his candidacy's virtues any time now, especially considering that he's been running since the last election. Call it impressive if he's being patient, but he better not just be acting tentatively.
Romney should spend the campaign's last months promoting that you can unassumingly hit the big time like he has. The hope of countering the animosity toward initiative lies in voters who are not looking for special breaks but rather the same ones everybody else gets, which is ideally to say none.
Anthony Bialy is a writer and “Red Eye” conservative in New York City. He tweets at http://twitter.com/AnthonyBialy.