Wherefore Romney's Fingernails-on-Chalkboard Capital Gains Tax Policy?

Not that I read or care about David Brooks's musings at all, but it is hard to be a political junkie and not cross paths with a smattering of Brooksitry. Recently the NY Crimesian had this to say about Mitt Romney's economic advisors:

"He seems to know how to pick staff. His economic advisers include R. Glenn Hubbard of Columbia, Greg Mankiw of Harvard... This is the gold standard of adviser teams."

Mankiw, of course, is fine although in desperate need of a Pigouectomy; and, of course, I have highlighted Hubbard here on this blog numerous times. I think Hubbard can be a top notch economic policy advisor and, more importantly, a formidable influence on the US economy. So I don't doubt that Mitt Romney is getting great economic policy advice. Or is he? Frankly, I can't disagree with Landsburg's takedown of Romney's capital gains tax incoherence one iota (gotta click thru, no copying/pasting allowed apparently).

So what is going on here? Can such economic gibberish really be emanating from the Hubbard and Mankiw braintrust? Were they overruled? Fine, but who overruled them? Political strategists? Mitt himself? Answers are needed. (Actually answers aren't truly needed, I'm in the ABBO camp and I'm gonna pull the lever for Romney if he's the nominee, but it would be nice for the fingernails-on-the-chalkboard effect of this policy stance to go away.)

My hope is that this is just a pander, so that the campaign doesn't have to directly confront the anti-rich sentiment loose in the land, and that more rational tax policy would prevail in a Romney administration with a Treasury Secretary Hubbard. Sure it's dishonest, but it's a dishonest game and this pales in comparison liberal omelette-makers.

UPDATE: More here in re Romney and economic policy from the fantastic Scott Grannis.