I continue to find this kind of logic baffling, although if you’re a vanishing breed of moderate Republican (or particularly clueless postNaderite dead-ender) I suppose you have no choice but to try to convince yourself:
David Brooks blames the Romney 47% comments on maladroitness: the awkward mis-expression of a man pretending to be something he’s not.
But they also reveal that Romney has been reshaped by this campaign.
For reasons that Jon Chait lays out in detail (1, 2), I don’t think there’s the slightest reason to believe that the Romney captured on tape isn’t the “real Romney.” As far as I can tell, there is in fact every reason to believe that the Romney who tells people that as son of a governor and car company president he succeeded entirely by the sweat of his own brow and anyone who didn’t is a hopeless parasite is, in fact, telling the truth.
Again, it’s unknowable and doesn’t matter — as a president situated in the contemporary Republican Party he will govern like the guy ranting about the 47%ers whether he believes it or not. But I have no idea why anyone thinks that the Romney who was only as conservative as a governor of Massachusetts could be and remain viable is the “real one.” Pretty much all evidence suggests that the Romney who considers himself a Galtian superhero is the “real Romney” and the moderate Romney was the panderer. The idea that Romney is secretly like his father is nothing but projection.