A politician vs. a statesman

It was just claimed in an “Other Views” article on Oct. 9 in TH-Record that “Romney won by two touchdowns” in the recent Presidential debate.

You may win matches by cheating and lying, but hopefully that will not let you win the division.

I have never seen anybody change his opinion depending on his audience so frequently and drastically as Mitt Romney. Apparently, Romney is willing to say anything to please his immediate listener; health care with pre-existing conditions is no problem, he is no longer disregarding 47 percent but is for all 100 percent, suddenly he will not give a tax break for the highest income earners, no changes to Medicare, etc.

The Republicans have said that the most important thing was to make Obama a “one-term president” regardless of other negative outcomes; the U.S. economy, car manufacturing in Detroit, middle class taxes, debt ceiling, etc.

Shame on them.

The difference between a politician and a statesman is that a politician will say what is best at the time, while a statesman is somebody who stands up for what is right regardless of the political consequences. For example, Churchill was a great statesman; Romney is just the worst kind of politician.

The only thing Romney didn’t lie about was Big Bird, and this will probably hurt him. I assume the Republicans think he should have lied about that, too?

Svante Roding

Highland Mills