A Romney apple landing fairly far from the tree.

All along, Mitt Romney's flip-flop waffling has seemed to me an extension of the sacred and periodically correct business axiom, "The Customer Is Always Right." It's nothing new to base one's political campaign on telling voters what they want to hear, whether the sales pitch is contradictory or not, although Mitt's pitches are noteworthy for the sheer bottomlessness of their lies and contrivances.

Romney Is Attacked by His Father’s Longtime Aide, by Michael Barbaro (The Caucus blog at New York Times)

A longtime aide to George W. Romney issued a harshly worded critique of Mitt Romney, accusing him of shifting political positions in “erratic and startling ways” and failing to live up to the distinguished record of his father, the former governor of Michigan ...

... “While it seems that Mitt would say and do anything to close a deal – or an election,” he wrote, “George Romney’s strength as a politician and public officeholder was his ability and determination to develop and hold consistent policy positions over his life.”

Numerous Romneys, real and imagined.

Just barely, I'm old enough to remember George W. Romney's name in the 1968 presidential scrum, but little else about Mitt's father. After reading a bit, I conclude that in this case, father is a far more compelling figure than son. Republicanism of the elder Romney's variety seems to have been purged from the body politic.

Romney vs. Romney: ‘The Real Romney,’ by Michael Kranish and Scott Helman ... reviewed by Geoffrey Kabaservice (New York Times Sunday Book Review)

... The argument that Romney is not a moderate at heart emerges most clearly in the book’s comparisons between him and his father, who was a leader of the moderate wing of the Republican Party in the 1960s and ’70s. This is ironic, since Mitt has said he “grew up idolizing” his father, and the authors imply that his motivation for wanting to be president is “avenging his father’s loss” in 1968. But Romney appears to have little in common politically with his father, and his candidacy in no way aims to uphold the moderate legacy his father embodied.

George Romney was born into exile and raised in poverty, and he worked his way to prosperity in the automobile industry. As chairman of the American Motors Corporation, he was wealthy but nowhere near as rich as his son became and, unlike his son, was known for refusing bonuses that would have made his income too many multiples of the average worker’s salary. Civil rights for African-Americans was George Romney’s lifelong, passionate cause, undertaken in defiance of his church as well as the conservative wing of his party; Mitt has shown scant inclination to follow his father’s example. Where George saw the dissent and protest of the 1960s as legitimate responses to real social and political problems, Mitt saw only inexplicable disorder and lack of proper deference toward authority.

George Romney governed at a time when Republican moderation meant something. He stood not only for pro-business fiscal conservatism but for civil rights and civil liberties, Republican outreach to minorities and labor, an internationalist but noninterventionist foreign policy, wise public investments in infrastructure and education, and government programs to promote equal opportunities for all Americans. If his son has the courage to champion such positions in the face of conservative opposition within his party, he has given little indication of it in his campaign so far.