HEART ATTACK

Almost had a heart attack this morning. There, on the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal, was an editorial critical of Mr. Mitt. How dare they! It was at the bottom of the page, but still. . . .

The Journal's editorial page is normally in lockstep with Fox Noise, only the Journal uses bigger words. In this particular editorial, the Journal chastised Mr. Mitt for saying that on day 1 of his Presidency, he would label China a currency manipulator. The Journal characterized the likely result as "a showdown that would shake the global trading system" and argued that such a "heavy-handed government solution" was unwise.

Several things are of interest here. First, Mr. Mitt's view of China as an international economic villain was about the only foreign policy position of his to survive from the previous weeks and months. If China had not come up, Mr. Mitt would have been in almost total agreement with everything Barack said on foreign policy during the evening. In fact, Barack spent much of the evening pointing out the discrepancies between Mr. Mitt's current and previous views.

Second, the matter of Chinese currency manipulation is a matter of numbers, of statistics. Most of the other foreign policy issues touched on during the debate involve, at a fundamental level, much more amorphous stuff: ancient grievances, national pride, jihad, historic trends. Mr. Mitt does not seem comfortable with amorphous stuff. He is a man of numbers. His business career was confined to the world of finance, to numbers. Reduce a problem to numbers, and he has the solutions. But the real world is much more complex than just numbers.

Finally, the Journal's disagreement with Mr. Mitt on a matter is just a foretaste of the donnybrook that would likely ensue in the Republican ranks if Mr. Mitt were to be elected. To take back the White House, the Republican party has papered over its many internal differences. On day 1 or shortly thereafter of a Mr. Mitt's Presidency, that paper would likely be shredded. Social conservatives, tea partiers, Wall Street big money, main street little money, big business, small business would each be pushing agendas. Could a party that has made no-compromise an anthem over the last four years come up with enough internal compromises to govern?