-
All the President’s Props
January 31, 2012 | 58 comments
-
A Fling With Federalism
January 23, 2012 | 84 comments
Another Perspective
Mitt’s Masquerade
The problem with our likely frontrunner.
During the election season of 2010, there was a schism in the Republican Party between populist Tea Partiers and more politically-sensitive establishmentarians. Today those two factions have been reshuffled into the Romney voters and the Anyone-But-Romney voters.
The media is still gawking at the volatile Iowa caucuses where the two camps did battle for the first time, resulting in a hair-breadth victory for Romney over the insurgent Rick Santorum. But in New Hampshire, it’s a much steadier affair. Polls have consistently crowned Romney the frontrunner, up to and including a recent 7 News/Suffolk University survey that found 41 percent support for the former Massachusetts governor. Ron Paul, in second place, is barely visible in the rear view mirror with 18 percent.
New Hampshire is the Mitt Romney Show. This doesn’t mean that Romney will win the nomination. The quirky, occasionally eccentric alloy of libertarian and moderate politics that is the Granite State Republican primary has produced presidential candidates and has-runs. But it will give him significant velocity going into other states.
But what happens if Romney gets the nomination? That question has been stubbornly elusive in media coverage, which has instead focused on the lothario innuendoes surrounding Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich’s grandiosity. Meanwhile Romney slips by relatively unscathed, the beneficiary of the perfunctory conventional wisdom of political strategists. Well, he looks good on television and doesn’t say outlandish things, so he must be the best candidate. He’s the flag-carrier for hardheaded realists who will compromise generously for a win over President Obama.
But he’s also a patrician flip-flopper from Massachusetts. Sound familiar?
This is the problem with Romney: a strong comparison can be made between him and 2004 historical footnote John Kerry, and the similarities aren’t just superficial. Romney seems to be haunted by Kerry’s ghost, perhaps as it sips a fine Sauvignon Blanc.
When Kerry won the Democratic nomination in 2004, the historical moment was rooted in the tumult of the Middle East and in smoldering memories of 9/11. But Kerry’s political genealogy traced back to the 1960s counterculture, found in war medals chucked over the White House fence and accusations of monstrous crimes against his fellow soldiers in faux committee rooms. The American people wanted a rock-ribbed leader who would prosecute the war and keep them safe while they slept. Kerry didn’t fit the part.
Kerry’s political life wasn’t any more helpful. He’d somehow made the transition from counterculturalist to Beacon Hill bon vivant, sipping French wines and parking his yacht at the Rhode Island marina, an almost-cartoonish portrait of a New England senator. But deep in his past, Democratic strategists spied a glimmer of hope. Kerry had spent three months serving in Vietnam and was decorated afterwards. It wasn’t much, but in the greasy hands of the right political strategist, it could work.
Thus Kerry was transformed into a barrel-chested war hero; a steadied military hand in a time of uncertain war. This charade was at its manufactured best when he stepped out at the Democratic convention and declared, “I’m John Kerry, and I’m reporting for duty.” It hit an absurd nadir when the old war horse took up arms again and decided to go goose hunting, mugging for the camera in a camo hat. Inconvenient details, like the accusations of war crimes he leveled at his fellow soldiers or his fastidious record of military pruning in Congress, were papered over.
Today’s historical moment is one shaped by recession and belt-tightening. It’s also shot through with outrage. The American people are animatedly angry at their political and corporate elites. Romney is both a political and corporate elite, and it’s difficult to imagine him animated about anything, much less angry. All the open shirt collars and appearances on Letterman can’t erase those facts. They also can’t blot that damning picture from Bain Capital, where Romney grins as dollar bills flutter downwards.
But erase he must try. If Romney wants to win the general election, he’ll have to don the coat of a populist fighter ready to raise hell for the coupon clippers struggling to pay the mortgage. It is, to say the least, difficult to imagine — perhaps even more difficult than picturing Kerry as a GI Joe.
No demographic of Americans is reserved greater rage these days than the political class, a fact borne out by Congress’s 11 percent approval rating, according to Gallup. This may present the most daunting challenge of all for Romney: he’s a firmly entrenched politico. Romney’s been dipping his toe in the pool of presidential politics since at least 2005. He spent much of the Romney Administration — governor of Massachusetts, in this case — running for president. The Boston Globe calculated that Romney spent 212 days absent from Massachusetts in 2006, visiting 35 states to dig the foundation for a presidential bid. As one Bay State Republican operative told me in 2008, “It seemed he had Potomac fever from the time he got in, and everything was done to position himself to run for president.”
Republicans rose to national power last year on the wings of the Tea Party, which put its trust in citizen-politicians and rallied voters with cries of “Throw them all out!” It’s difficult to imagine an electorate of this composition rallying behind a man who’s spent the last six years running for president.
This is just one of the many contradictions and unfortunate facts that Romney’s political handlers will have to blur. Right now the polls pick Romney as being the most electable Republican candidate. This alone may ultimately score him the nomination, as Republicans fall into ranks and decide he’s their worst candidate except for all the rest. But will he still be able to win if the Obama campaign opens the historical vault and starts screaming about his Bain capitalist and Massachusetts runaway roots? If they do, his campaign handlers may find themselves in the awkward position of having to craft an alternative personality for their man, à la John Kerry in 2004. And as Kerry’s flameout that year would prove, such masquerades can be tough to stage.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (86) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Matt Thomas
More Articles From Another Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/01/10/mitts-masquerade
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Ailes: A Voice for the Silent Majority
- The End of the Castros?
- Current Wisdom
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 1.10.12 @ 6:23AM
The comparisons you make are ludicrous to say the least.
First, Senator Kerry has done everything possible to stab his own country in the back in many ways. The incident you mention about throwing the medals over the fence is a perfect example. Kerry exclaimed for decades he had thrown his medals over the fence until a sharp eyed reporter noticed the medals displayed on Kerry's office wall. Kerry then stated he had never said he threw his medals over the fence but had simply thrown someone else's medals over the fence. That's not a flip flop but a deliberate, easy to prove lie. The media loves liberals so it was no big deal the drive by media.
Secondly, Kerry's only business venture, a cookie store, was a failure. He not only didn't create any wealth, he created disaster.
Lastly, Kerry has not accomplished anything in his entire career except marrying rich widows. When Kerry was running for President his lack of legislative accomplishments became an issue and his own campaign couldn't name anything significant in that area.
Some other comments made do not hold up to the facts. Your belief that Republicans rose to power on the wings of the Tea Party is only partially true. There are a great many disaffected voters out there who dwarf the Tea Party but don't have time to attend events. They are the force who threw out the Democrats. The Tea Party helped but there is also a great number of disaffected voters out there looking for some leadership.
Bain Capitol only proves one thing. Romney knows how to take failing companies and without government bail outs, makes them more efficient.
As far as Romneycare, he has plenty of room to run on that since he vetoed 10 provisions which are the provisions which have forced costs up. Romney can truthfully state, "It's not entirely my bill." In fact, it's not.
As far as his wanting to be President, that's the idle dream of many a young man. It's the American Dream. You make it sound awful which may say more about your politics than it does of the political ambitions of Mitt Romney. Running for President does not make you a "firmly entrenched politico."
You may want to be President to "save" your country as opposed to "destroying" it which is what is happening in the Obama White House as we approach November 2012.
Jack in Wi.| 1.10.12 @ 7:35AM
The latest national CBS poll has Ron Paul and Romney tied with Obama head to head. Ron Paul would be far ahead if he had honest media coverage. He has by far the most small contributors and most activists of any candidate. He polls by far the best among the young, independents, and disaffected Deemocrats. Plastic Romney with his warmongering, and being a tool of the big banks, has little chance of getting those votes. I have been saying for months here that it is down to Willard and Ron. The only way to unite the party is if these 2 factions can somehow make peace and come together. I don't see that happening. If Romney is the nominee, I am sitting this one out.
Dagny Taggert| 1.10.12 @ 12:16PM
"Ron Paul would be far ahead if he had honest media coverage." Listen Paulbot, we know he doesn't have honest media coverage. And you know what? No Republicans have honest media coverage once our nominee has been picked. So get over this "injustice" and realize it's always a headwind for the right. If Paul can't get past it now, he surely won't get past it from July to November.
VonMisesJr| 1.10.12 @ 7:57AM
Kudos, Bill.
Romney may not be the ideal candidate in TEA Party circles, but he is certainly no John Kerry. The gold digger Kerry was also just exposed for insider trading along with Pelosi, Moran and Boehner. Mitt may not inspire, but he is not a crook.
The major problem, in my estimation, is not that Romney is unacceptable. It is that the GOP and RNC are attempting to impose their guy on the conservative electorate. Last time I checked, it is the people that elect the candidate, not the Republican liberal leadership. We are fighting for the system.
If the parties pick the nominees, then the result is something like a two party Monarchy until it evolves into a Democratic socialist tyranny of the majority where 50+% of the population empowers the ruling class to turn this great nation into a socialist basket case.
If Romney wins fair and square, I believe we will all be behind him. But there is still a question of 20 votes in Iowa that would render Santorum winner. But it is not being reported and changes the complexion of the race. Where are the conservative writers and hosts, except Rush, that are forcing the Republican establishment to play by the rules? Once again, will we accept the lesser of two evils rather than stand on principle?
VMJr.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 1.10.12 @ 8:08AM
I doubt if the Republican establishment wants Romney.
You can observe it here at the AMSPEC as they do their best, now even using aliases, to post negativity aimed at Romney.
The Republican leadership fears Romney because he is an outsider and he is honest.
The greatest fear of Washington, D.C. is that someone may come and put a halt or slow down the corrupt practices that permeate the town.
In fact, Newt Gingrich is a poster boy for those corrupt practices.
Ironically, Romney is not running as an outsider although he is an outsider.
I prefer Perry but in he hasn't got the ability to get over the top with his verbal skills.
Romney is a gift to the Republicans but the leadership of the party tries to push the winners out each and every time for their preferred big government candidate.
Dai Alanye | 1.10.12 @ 9:12AM
Romney honest? He might not be an out-and-out crook but he has lied (yes, LIED) about his record in Massachusetts as a tax-raiser, lied about not being a politician, lied about not being aware of the details of ads put out by his super-pac, lied about his opponents' records.
All politicians shade the truth to a greater or lesser extent, needing to put the best light on their records. In this field of candidates Romney is right in the middle of the pack regarding dishonesty about his record and activities, well behind Ron Paul but far worse than Santorum. In short, Romnney is dishonest, simply not the worst of the bunch.
On top of that, he has now handed Obama a wonderful five-second sound bite with his statement about liking to fire people. Should he get the nomination, that one slip -- brought about by a boastful urge -- might be enough to do him in. All Romney has going for him he has possibly tossed away with one stupid remark.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 1.10.12 @ 9:36AM
Actually, your statement could be construed as a lie since the comment about firing people is out of context. The public is not full of stooges who won't check out the facts.
What Romney stated was he liked to fire people who did not give him good service. Who doesn't like to do that? It's called choice.
Al Adab| 1.10.12 @ 10:42AM
Romney is simple the latest of the Old School republicans who have opposed the Conservative Movement from its inception even though that is the only movement to bring the GOP success. Four years ago we turned him down in favor of McCain who is more to Romneys' right for just that reason even though McCain is no Conservative. When will we spew these lukewarm, tepid people from our mouths? Those who fail to stand for some principle stand for nothing. They will once again lead us down the road to defeat.
TrueBlue | 1.10.12 @ 12:30PM
The thing is, most people WON'T look up the facts. They will see the soundbite on the news (with the full statement cut off) and they will instantly vote the other side. If people looked up the facts about the candidates they wouldn't keep voting most of those hacks back into office.
VonMisesJr| 1.10.12 @ 9:34AM
Bill,
I like Perry also, but I agree he has some major ground to make up and fast.
But I respectfully disagree that Romney is not the GOP/RNC favorite. He has not gotten attacked like Cain, Perry and Newt, or marginalized like Bachmann and Paul. He also is saying all the same things the Bushes, McCain and Dole said about "just getting along" with liberals.
You cannot work with socialist, and all the others make this clear. Romney again the other day said he could win over Reid after "Dingy Harry" said he would oppose any Republican POTUS.
VMJr.
Kpc| 1.10.12 @ 8:46AM
Congressional ethics surrounding using public service to get rich is a problem. However, the Schweitzer book does not stand up well when you look at the accusations made.
The Boston Globe has an article that looks at numbers by looking at all trades made, not just cherry picking them. http://articles.boston.com/201.....-portfolio
However, there have been some legislators who really have ethic problems and who should be forced to answer for them. The problem with the book is that his technique picks up many legislators where there really is nothing suspicious. The danger is that the issue itself will be discredited because several high profile legislators, who really are clean, will be found clean. One example is Senator Kerry, who has issued a statement saying among other things that all the trades mentioned were in the Heinz Family trust that he has nothing to do with.
Even the author of the book has demurred that he does not know whether Kerry used insider trading. The facts are actually pretty clear that he didn't. The trades that the book points to were made by the professional manager of the Heinz Family trust which Teresa is a beneficiary, but not a trustee of.
In addition, there are errors. The book speaks of Kerry chairing the subcommittee of the Finance committee that oversees health in 2003 when the drug benefit bill was written. In fact, the Republicans controlled the Senate and had the chairs and Kerry was campaigning for President and was AGAINST the bill - not writing it.
Similarly, there is an error when they mention a sale of stock in a drug company a few weeks before Medicare announced it would not cover it. The book suggests (but does not even try to get a definitive answer) that the Health, Education, Labor and Pension committee in the Senate would have been advised of the Bush HHS decision. The problem is that Kerry was not on HELP - he was on the Finance committee, which has nothing to do with healthcare decisions other than as they impact taxes.
Then there is the problem that the stock tanked earlier in the year before the Heinz trust sold it and was actually higher than the price at which they sold a month after they sold it. Something that could easily be seen if they bothered to look at the stock chart. Another interesting point is that one financial chart put in the key events for the stock - that decision not to cover the drug was not mentioned.
Tthe technique used by Palin's former national security expert would find almost anyone in the Senate who has healthcare stock as suspect. The reason is he looks for any healthcare purchases in 2003 or 2009, but it clearly was not a secret that Congress was working on healthcare legislation. It also was not clear even in January 2010 that HCR would pass. It is also ridiculous to be surprised that stock values increased from 2003 to 2004 and 2009 to 2010. Look at the Dow/Jones for those time frames - both went from a market bottom to a market high - it increased 59% from the bottom in March 2009 to April 2010 when HCR passed. In fact, looking a random stocks - Tiffany increased about 250% in that interval.
Anthony M| 1.10.12 @ 10:01PM
I do not know of a single senator or congressman who has not gotten richer while serving in office. Our political class is among the most corrupt in the world but because our founding fathers had the genius to create a free market system, those willing to work hard, had a good chance to succeed. Now that we are leaving behind our free market ways, the corruption of our politicians will become more noticable and might wake up the once great American people.
MainerDoc| 1.11.12 @ 5:56AM
I think that Santorum even said the 20 votes was insignificant. I seriously doubt anyone voted in NH based on the outcome in Iowa. You're grasping at straws. I don't particularly like Romney. I don't particularly like ANY of the GOP candidates, but, by far, anyone of them will be a much better President than the incumbent.
JLJordan| 1.10.12 @ 9:39PM
"There are a great many disaffected voters out there who dwarf the Tea Party but don't have time to attend events."
Those disaffected voters out there ARE tea party to the bone. They loathe and despise the Democrat. They are disgusted by the Republican. Old habits die hard, don't they?
Mr ED| 1.10.12 @ 6:37AM
Former governor Romney is from a small state that is right next to New Hampshire where Tuesdays primary is being held. The fact that the former governor could almost be considered a "favorite son" candidate in New Hampshire because of the geography and proximity of the two states, and yet he can still garner only 41% in the latest polls, tells you everything you need to know. But all you will hear from both the Leftist and RINO media machines is "Romney has a wide lead" and perhaps "Romney will have an insurmountable lead after his win in New Hampshire!!" Heady sounding sound bites from the media, until you scratch just a littlle under the surface. The numbers belie mostly the fawning enthusiasm of the media talking heads themselves and their snotty confidence in their own ability to package a message that will sell the Romney flag to flyover country. Romney is going to be merely an admixture of the "I'm not Obama" candidate mixed with the the latest incarnation of the "compassionate moderate conservative" candidate. Woo hoo, I feel a tingle running up my leg now. The excitement is palpable I tell ya!
I'm feeling those ambivalent, moderate, yawning passions starting to flow, and you better look out cause nuthins' gonna stop them now! Unless I nod off to sleep that is. Those deeply held moderate passions shouldn't get in the way of a good nap, should they? Hell no! I expect 'ol Mitt to begin his rally of the base any day now with his own deeply held moderate views about, well, about almost everything. I swear I can feel Mitt's infectious moderation beginning to salve over any lingering doubts about his almost fanatical moderation! Whoa nelly! The Mitt train is rollin' now and ya better git on board or git (moderately) run over by it!
Actually I kind of like Mitt and I believe he is a decent guy, but I absolutely do not trust him to do the right things once elected. If he should stumble into the office of POTUS I fully expect him to do as every other Republican moderate does - moderate his position on about everything and stand firmly in the middle of every issue which will then be pushed by the Leftist MSM further and further to the Left, dragging the middle (Mitts passionate domain) further and further Left too. What this all boils down to is that we will still be drug ever further into the hell of Modern Liberalism, but without the ability of a (hopefully) Republican congress to effectively stand in opposition to those things as they would certainly do if the Obamesiah should retain the office. The Leftist MSM understands all of this very well and that is why they try so mightily to sell the Mittster too. Even if the Obamesiah loses, the "moderate" Republican president can be counted on to care about what the MSM says about him and steer his ship of state firmly to the middle, which, thanks to the Leftist MSM, tacks further and further Leftward too.
RINOism means both a dead end and a fresh hell.
No more RINOs.
Maxwell| 1.10.12 @ 7:51AM
Mr ED, well said, wish I could express what you said so well but I'm just a grunt, programmer. Do better 'talking' code.
As Appleby wrote below you 'There's nothing wrong with Romney except that I don't like him. And usually that feeling is a good one to listen to'.
TrueBlue | 1.10.12 @ 12:34PM
The fact that Romney barely hits 30% when looking at national polls for Repubs is more telling than the 41% in NH honestly. That tells you that 70+% of the party doesn't want him as their candidate. It's something NOBODY ever seems to want to point out either...
liz fox| 1.10.12 @ 4:04PM
I live in Massachusetts and spend a lot of time in NH. I laugh every time I hear what an advantage Romney has in NH because he is from MA. Anyone who spends time in NH knows that, in general, they have a strong dislike of MA. The common nickname for people from MA in NH is "Massholes." If anything, I would think Romney is at a disadvantage because he is from MA. Many NH people have moved there to get away from MA. Also, I beg to differ that MA is a "small state." It is #14 in population, compared to NH at 42nd!
typical white woman| 1.10.12 @ 7:49PM
Right on, I couldn't have said it any better, thanks.
Appleby| 1.10.12 @ 6:54AM
Romney reminds me increasingly of the Dad on Father Knows Best. I can picture him calling his daughters, "Kitten" although I doubt his wife wears high heels and pearls in the kitchen, except when she goes in there to give the cook and housekeeper her orders for the day. The Romney Family will be presented as a Fifties picture, and while that will reassure a lot of people, it will confuse a lot of other ones. Are we ready for bland, chuckling Dad in the White House?
On the good side, he will not embarrass us by bowing to foreign kings, he can probably throw a baseball overhand, if he rides a bicycle it will be a boys' model, and his wife's wardrobe will not remind one of Fruit Basket Turnover.
On the bad side, he is the boring, plain, chuckling "Nice Boy" that your Jewish Mother's best friend first started urging on you in high school, and who becomes more and more irritating the more often he shows up at your house. He would probably make a fine husband, be good to the kids and bring the paycheque home, and Lord knows he's better than what your girlfriends have been picking up. But in the end, when I look at Romney I hear my Granny's advice ringing in my ears: "Ain high and settle."
There's nothing wrong with Romney except that I don't like him. And usually that feeling is a good one to listen to.
W| 1.10.12 @ 7:52AM
So you would not want your daughter to marry someone who makes a fine husband, be good to the kids, and bring the pay check home? You said the same last week.
As I said last week, the nice Jewish boy goes to med school, becomes a nerosurgeon, pays to send the three kids to med school and law school, and the wife attends the opera, plays tennis, and has a nice house.
Meanwhile the daughter who takes your advice is chasing her ex for child support, borrowing money from mom to pay the rent, and having an affair with her boss to break up his marriage.
This type of clear thinking has led to the choices to vote for politicians who are fun and exciting and ring up a 15 trillion dollar debt.
JimH| 1.10.12 @ 10:54AM
It may be no fault of his own, but his perceieved persona is less the Dad on Father Knows Best and more Hollywood’s idea of the evil suit. Let’s face it; he would not be out of place in the OCP board room in Robocop. Also I look askance at anyone who has his dog riding on the roof of the car. I think Santorum with his sweaters is the going for the 50's avuncular look.
JimP| 1.10.12 @ 1:18PM
My 'Jewish' mother wanted me to be friends with Mitt and get into his country club and hang with all the swells and get well connected so I could grow up and be a 'suit' and be 'successful' and marry the 'right kind of girl' who would be an "asset" to me. Barf!
Need I say that I turned out to be a think for myself, march to a different drummer, renegade, just like dear old Dad?
JimP| 1.10.12 @ 2:01PM
I should add that I married a beautiful intelligent girl with ambitions of her own who has a great career. We are still married after all these years with three fine sons. I've never been divorced and have no other children. Things certainly have never been boring during our marriage. I'm so glad I married a girl who was looking for love and not one looking to marry for money [doctors, lawyers, 'suits' of any and all kinds]. Those money marriages are the kinds of marriages that produce divorce and deadbeat dads that have to be chased for child support. Interesting how 'W' places all the blame on the men. It's not ever the fault of the women?
W| 1.10.12 @ 4:02PM
JimP
Not all the blame, but most of the divorces are caused by men.
JimP| 1.10.12 @ 4:58PM
"...most of the divorces are caused by men."
Really? According to whom? All my male friends that are divorced got divorced because of the women. So I'm very curious about your source on it being mainly men's fault.
W| 1.10.12 @ 5:28PM
For you to even ask such a question shows you are not thinking clearly but just want to argue. Your male friends must be the exception, or they are not telling you the truth. My source is my knowledge based on 35 years as an attorney. If you believe otherwise you are in dreamland. If you want some anecdotal evidence look at Governor Arnold, Bubba, Jim McGreevy, Wiener,TeddyK,
Spitzer a/k/a client 9. If you have the time, go to your local courthouse and sit in on the child support hearings.
JimP| 1.10.12 @ 6:12PM
"For you to even ask such a question shows you are not thinking clearly but just want to argue."
That's an evasion 'W'. OK, so you are sore at notorious cheaters. Why? You aren't married to them? You are right, that is anecdotal and therefore proves nothing. Until you provide a credible source you appear to be just a bitter woman and a sexist. Shame on you. End of "argue"ment.
W| 1.10.12 @ 7:55PM
I am not a woman. Now you are being a sexist by assuming only a bitter woman would say this. Shame on you. You sound like Obama now, bitter people clinging to guns( just kidding).. Ask your friends to tell you the truth. Then go sit in court like i suggested, and do some reading without asking me to spoon feed you. Call your lawyer and ask him, or her, who causes most divorces.
Not sore at notorious cheaters, they make good clients and pay. I am just telling you realilty unlike your friends blaming their wives.
I enjoy arguing,but pick topic where you have more knowledge. You seem to like Newt, are you upset I criticized him? Argue about Newt, then.
JimP| 1.11.12 @ 6:29PM
Gee, sorry 'W'. That's what happens when Alan Alda meets Sgt. Rock I guess. LOL
W| 1.11.12 @ 9:51PM
What are you sorry about, Alan?
W| 1.10.12 @ 8:05PM
JimP
What is your authority for saying "money marriages are the kinds of marriages that produce divorce and deadbeat dads that have to be chased for child support." Curious, why are you so riled about this?
JimP| 1.11.12 @ 6:31PM
I'm not riled. You are. I find your generalizations funny in a ridiculous sort of way, so I was agitating just for the sheer fun of it.
W| 1.11.12 @ 9:50PM
Nice evasion.
JAWilson| 1.10.12 @ 7:23AM
How can you imagine a vote for Gingrich as the presidential candidate is going to go any better than a vote for Romney? It really is a question to me on who can beat this bunch of clowns and it doesn't look like a intramural fight between the Republicans will help the cause.
Romney is not perfect by a lot, but put a conservative flame thrower in that position and the harm to the country will be as bad as what we have now. And if we have the senate as well as the house, a moderating hand in the White House would serve us well to right the country for everybody.
In my opinion.
Starchild | 1.10.12 @ 7:40AM
Mr. ED is spot on with this comment:
"I absolutely do not trust him to do the right things once elected. If he should stumble into the office of POTUS I fully expect him to do as every other Republican moderate does - moderate his position on about everything and stand firmly in the middle of every issue which will then be pushed by the Leftist MSM further and further to the Left, dragging the middle (Mitts passionate domain) further and further Left too."
Mitt Romney as president would be a recipe for a second term of George H.W. Bush.
Melvin| 1.10.12 @ 7:50AM
Have anyone ever had the feeling of loathing someone even though you haven't me them, to somehow justify the loathing.
Someone made the comment the other day that Romney was, "Plastic." The more I thought about it the more it seem to fit his persona.
Imagine walking into a toy store and lining both sides of the isle were caricatures of smiling Mitt Romney in clear plastic boxes with the string to make him talk. "Hi, I'm Mitt Romney, I fire people, Democrats are my friend, I would cross the isle for them." And every time we pulled the string he would say the same thing over and over and over.
The fact is that every time Conservatives reached across the isle we got burned, and we knew we were going to get burned but we didn't exactly have many choices in the Republican leadership willing to stand up for Conservationism.
The Speaker of the House a former bar maid, who cries allot and spends more time in the tanning booth than he does on the House Floor, other than when he isn't golfing with Barrack.
Mitch McConnell only problem is that he has to keep leaving the Senate Floor to have his adult diapers changed.
Does it sound like Republicans need new blood in the ranks? Conservatives are stuck with these senile curmudgeons who take their teeth out when they go onto the Senate and House floor. They got no fight or bite to take it to the Democrats. At least Harry Reid keeps his teeth in to chew on Republicans.
Regardless the direction of how this election goes, Conservatives are going to have to purge the ranks of these so yesterday toothless Progressive Republicans, because if we don't the Democrats are not going to be sitting around waiting for the Republicans to get their crap together. Come to think of it Republicans haven't had their crap together since Reagan, and then Reagan forced them to do it.
Jeremiah| 1.10.12 @ 8:49AM
Romney is the preferred candidate of all house-broken conservatives.
I want to take America back, not demonstrate to the left and the establishment media how I will docilely approve of better management of the new socialism.
Al Adab| 1.10.12 @ 1:15PM
House broken Conservatives? Those who accept the legitmacy of Leviathan perhaps? I rather like the term.
The quote on point from Goldwaters' Conscience of a Conservative is, "Do not talk to me about making government more efficient, for I intend to reduce its size." Who is campaigning on that platform? A compromise with statism is a compromise with slavery.
John Kerry| 1.10.12 @ 9:14AM
Please, here on Martha's Vineyard, we enjoy Cabernet Sauvignon with my family's ketchup. Sauvignon Blanc is a nice cocktail wine, but nobody outside my zip code would think it "fine."
jd| 1.10.12 @ 9:25AM
While my first choice would be Santorum, if Romney were to win the Republican nomination I will vote for him for no other reason then his wife, Ann, is a jewel. She epitomizes everything I cherish in a First Lady -- someone who is sincere, modest, unaffected by wealth, lives a value-laden life. She has done a superb job raising their children, all of whom I would be proud of as a parent. As a Michigander, I remember Mitt's dad as governor -- a "moderate" who even my conservative father admired. Hardworking, self-made, ran an automobile company before becoming governor --even without a college degree. Why do people attack Mitt for his wealth? He EARNED IT and lives a modest lifestyle, unlike our current elitists in the White House who live like all newfound wealthy people do who did not earn it or deserve it. Save your derision for the Obamas.
emilio lizardo, PhD| 1.10.12 @ 9:50AM
Romney: Successful businessman, saved the Olympics, minimal-modest success as Mass. governor. So he isnt all that the mossbacks would like in a candidate. Consider:
Gingrich: ethically challenged, disgraced POS
Paul: Isolationist squirrel
BHO: Community organizer, absentee president POS that is hell bent on destroying the country he despises, and with the media, academia, public and private sector unions all in the tank, has still managed to screw the pooch.
Jack in Wi notwithstanding, does anyone really believe a Romney presidency would be the worst option?
Al Adab| 1.10.12 @ 2:43PM
Emilio:
I should have answered you earlier. Do I believe a Romney presidency would be the worst option? Not compared to Obama II. However, the difference between a rapid American collapse and a slow motion American collapse would leave History debating who was at fault. Sine the collapse is inevitable given either posited scenario then YES. It is imperative for the future Liberty of mankind that the collapse be rightly blamed on the Left and Marxist theories.
It may still take a thousand years for the world to rediscover the value of freedom, but, like Cato, we will have made our record and refused to live under tyranny. Both Obama and Romney lead only to a new dark age.
emilio lizardo, PhD| 1.10.12 @ 4:11PM
Sadly, you are so right.
obadiah| 1.10.12 @ 10:00AM
My prediction of the moment. If Romney is nominated, the only way for him to unite the party is to ramp up abuse of Obama, e.g., with Santorum as VP and taking of the Nixon VP role. Obama will portray Republicans as hateful plutocrats and squeak out re-election.
Lance DeBoyle| 1.10.12 @ 1:48PM
Santorum for VP, I seem to remember something....someone...Sarah? wasn't that her name? How'd that work out? How about Palin/Santorum? Ward Cleaver has no stones.
The Bishop| 1.10.12 @ 10:01AM
Just to add my deflated two cents worth: Romney is a living bobble head doll. Since he wants to make compromise a hallmark of handling the corrupt and destructive Democrat Party, if he is the nominee, I will vote for him knowing he is the much lesser of two evils. Santorum at least has principles from which he will not deviate and, in my opinion, would make a far superior Chief Executive and national leader. God save us!
KennesawJack| 1.10.12 @ 10:03AM
At the end of the day, folks, despite a lot of belly-aching, if Romney's the nominee we're going to vote for him. To sit this one out and hand Obamarx another four years is about as selfish an act as one can imagine. The conservative remake of the Republican Party has been, and will continue to be for quite some time, a work in progress. We got it started with Reagan, took a couple of steps backwards with George H. W. Bush, a few steps forward in '94 and sort of treaded water (well maybe a step back, or two) with Bush II but made a quantum leap in 2010. It would be well for all of us to remember the very likely vacancy of at least one Supreme Court Justice during the next four years. Roberts and Alito bear witness to the importance of a Republican in the Oval Office if we are going to eventually win this fight. Remember, those two were appointed by George W. Bush, not your basic model of Republican conservatism. We absolutely have to win this election. We have no choice. It's whole or hog or none this go 'round and everyone better wise up to that.
sdm| 1.10.12 @ 10:03AM
Iowa had nothing to do with the establishment and tea party...is was more about evangelicals. I honestly can't believe that the headline out of Iowa isn't the fact that 2 weeks before Iowa Romney was expected to place 3 or 4th. Crack pot journalism.
Stefan Stackhouse| 1.10.12 @ 10:17AM
It's a pretty sorry lot, all six of them. Not one of them inspires much confidence as a truly viable candidate, let alone inspiring passionate support.
The Republicans had such a deep and talented bench, but all of the first string are no-shows and we're stuck with these second stringers. It might still make for some entertaining ball, but the odds of winning the game are starting to look pretty bleak.
Sweaty Federalist | 1.10.12 @ 10:22AM
Mitt Romney would make a fine Democratic nominee for president of these United States. He has impeccable hair and is a Keynesian of the first order.
I will forever defend Mitt against the accusations that he possesses no core convictions. That is entirely untrue. Mitt believes – with great sincerity – that he’d make a bang-up politician, a conviction he has held since at least 1994 when he first unsuccessfully campaigned for federal office. Indeed, this is the Everest of Mitt’s convictions; he lets no political, social or economic platform block that view.
Few public men are as easily penetrable. Progressive, conservative, moderate – which goes with which tie? If I resemble Martin Sheen, their votes are mine!
To the extent that our compatriots in New Hampshire understand all this, what gives? I suspect bribes, that each resident has been promised a buy-one-get-one Chevy Volt. What else could it be?
Better managed socialism is, after all, still socialism. Cast that vote for a conservative: Newt, Rick or Rick. Or shock us all, and stand one up for Ron Paul.
But whatever you do, vote like our country depends upon it (it does). Don’t vote for the dude with the great hair.
JimP| 1.10.12 @ 1:21PM
Touche`. Dead on accurate and fun to read. Nice style, SF.
Ray W| 1.10.12 @ 10:44AM
The apt comparison is not Romney to Kerry but rather Romney to Reagan in the sense that both were moderates with conservative views and principles in certain key areas. Remember that Reagan signed into California law one of the biggest state tax increases ever and he signed a law permitting abortion in California. But he changed his views on abortion - as did Romney - and generally governed from a right-of-center perspective, although not always. (Reagan agreed to give amnesty to millions of illegals and allowed spending to increase dramatically during his tenure.) Americans came to love Reagan as a president whose innate decency would guide him to do the right thing on their behalf. I detect a similar innate decency in Romney as well as in Rick Santorum but not in Gingrich. None of the candidates have exhibited the combination of warmth, grace, confidence without ego, and inspirational leadership that Reagan had but Romney is the only candidate who I believe could develop and successfully apply those qualities which are so desperately needed these days. Every candidate has flaws but the ones that Gingrich, Perry and Paul have are incorrigible and they are extremely unlikely to develop into the kind of leader that Reagan was - or anything close to it.
bill| 1.10.12 @ 10:55AM
Mitt Romney supported:
-abortion
-gay marriage
-RomneyCare
-trade war
-card check in favor of labor unions
-cap and trade
He's a "big government RINO." He buys NH with his money and smear campaign, but cannot win in SC with his liberal policies.
He's a "dead man campaigning."
Ray W| 1.10.12 @ 11:23AM
Bill - say what? When did he support gay marriage? I only find evidence that he opposed it while favoring tolerance towards gays. Same on card check - in fact, he vetoed card check in MA. As for a trade war, he's not in favor of one but is willing to risk it to oppose China's currency manipulations and intellectual rights piracy. China won't start a trade war since they have vastly more to lose compared to us based on the export/import imbalance. If you have facts that refute these comments, please cite references. Thanks.
bill| 1.10.12 @ 11:50AM
Ray W, thanks for your input. Here comes the ref.:
-Under Romney's watch, MA became the 1st state in America to allow gay marriage. He did nothing to stop it. Actually, he supports gay rights, he admits in the debate, reluctantly.
-We owe China over trillions od dollars, a trade war will weaken us, not the Chinese. We got more to lose.
-He supported climate change regulations as a governor of MA
Romney can run for presidency, but he cannot hide his records.
Ray W| 1.10.12 @ 12:27PM
-Supporting gay rights is different than supporting gay marriage.
- We don't have more to lose under a trade war with China. The fact that they own our debt is not the issue. What's relevant is that 25% of all Chinese exports go to the US while only about 7% of US exports go to China. It's clear that China would be devastated by a significant decline in exports to the US. We'd feel it if our exports to China declined but it would not devastate us.
- No politician is perfect. Reagan signed the largest state tax increase in history to that point while Governor of California and also signed a permissive abortion law.
-Alternatives are Gingrich (ethically challenged, nasty, huge ego); Perry (dubious intellect); Santorum (big spending voting record, uncertain appeal outside of religious conservatives but may be the best alternative to Romney); Paul (foreign policy disaster, no credible defense to newsletters from his past); Huntsman (seems to favor combination of isolationism and appeasement, government spending rose dramatically in Utah while he was Governor, supported cap & trade, gushing praise of Obama's leadership). So no one is without issues but I think Romney, followed by Santorum, have more positives than negatives.
bill| 1.10.12 @ 4:02PM
Romney helped enact the gay marriage law in MA as governor. It's a sin if he says that he's a conservative. Romney is a MA moderate. He buys NH with his money and smear campaign, but he cannot convince SC voters about his stance on gay marriage and abortion. He should be defeated in SC, and that should be the end of his campaign.
We don't need another John McCain in 2012.
Romney is a liability for GOP.
JTaylor73| 1.10.12 @ 12:46PM
Bill,
Your argument still falls flat:
- MA became the first state in the Union to enact Gay Marriage, but Romney did everything in his power--UNDER THE LAW--to stop it and to ammend the MA constitution to define Marriage as between One man and One woman. He has stated many times that if same-sex couples are not to be discriminated against, civil unions with allowance for hospital visitation rights and other issues should be permissible under the law, but calling it MARRIAGE, with all the attendant trappings, is something altogether different--he never supported this
- Yes, we owe China trillions of dollars, so if they cut us off or try to kill us, who loses most? They don't get paid, and we squash their military (although, agreed--this would be a very bad scenario for all involved). China wants a return on their investment, so of necessity, they will play as nice as they have to or they are left out in the cold.
- I'd have to study more on the climate change issue, to be honest--but he has said recently that this issue is called "Global Warming, not America Warming" for a reason and that the US cannot shoulder the burden economically to stop climate change--it would destroy us economically. He's a numbers guy, so he looks at the science...Yes, the earth is warming based on the data, do humans contribute? Maybe, but how much? It is probably negligible...we just dont know. US won't support a climate change policy that will hurt our economy. I agree with that stance.
bill| 1.10.12 @ 4:04PM
As a governor of MA, Romney should have veto the gay marriage bill, instead he got on the "liberal band wagon" , and helped pass the bill.
Romney is a "dead man walking" in SC.
SC does not care about a "MA big government liberal moderate RINO."
Romney will be defeated in SC.
Paul from SA| 1.10.12 @ 11:05AM
The article is weak and incomplete, and could have easily omitted comparisons to John Kerry.
sablegsd| 1.10.12 @ 11:30AM
mittens romneycare CANNOT beat comrade downgrade. He is NOT the most electable. He has won one election, in years of running. NOBODY wants him, nobody likes him.
JTaylor73| 1.10.12 @ 2:25PM
Keep telling yourself that all the way to the inauguration. You can keep closing your eyes and move to Canada...
rightasrain| 1.10.12 @ 12:16PM
I've read article after article about how the current crop of candidates isn't weak or at least not weaker than in other elections. But it sure seems weak and I am growing more disconsolate by the day. I can't imagine Santorum's social conservatism or Gingrich's snotty arrogance playing well in the general election. So that leaves Romney's mushy moderation and bland inauthenticity. I still pray for the white knight but know I'll be settling as much as I did in 2008. With all the success of the tea party, how is this happening again?
Doug| 1.10.12 @ 12:39PM
Imagine a President Romney with a Democrat controlled Senate and/or House after the 2014 mid terms. Now please explain why ANY conservative would vote for Mitt as the GOP leader?
JTaylor73| 1.10.12 @ 2:35PM
Look at his governing record in MA.
- Took the state out of crippling debt, balanced the budget all 4 years. Left a significant surplus.
- Sided on the side of life with every piece of pro-choice/pro-life legislation that came before him
- Vetoed in-state tuition assistance for illegals
- Worked with 85% Dem Legislature and was able to bridge the gap to get things done
Just a few examples, but my guess is you really don't want answers, or to do honest research, you simply hate Romney and want to bash...
David| 1.10.12 @ 3:35PM
Hey JTaylor, are you one of those bashing Santorum for his vote on the National Right to Work Act that was an issue 17 YEARS AGO?
I'm just curious because if you are, and you are going to defend Romney's liberal record by saying that he was governing liberal MA, then in all fairness, you have to cut Santorum some slack because he was representing heavily democratic and heavily union PA at the time.
bill| 1.10.12 @ 4:05PM
SC, please help defeat Mitt Romney.
SC, please help defeat Rick Santorum.
SC, please help elect Rick Perry.
Brad| 1.10.12 @ 6:19PM
Please people, lets get serious about the GOP nomination. Who really has a chance of wining if not Romney? Gingrich the "raging"( not Reagan ) liberal? I think he has just demonstrated how nasty, mean spirited and anti-capitalist he is with his recent attacks against Romney in the last debate and his new Bain ad. His new anti- Romney ad should say; " I am Obama and I approve this message." Santorum is a nice fellow but talk about Romney being bland and not exciting? Perry has shot himself in the foot long ago and would never hold up to Obama in the debates. Besides most of these gents have no organization or money and aren't even registered to run in the primary of Virginia and who knows how many other states! Romney can take out Obama in a landslide if conservatives will stop the circular firing squad and get behind the only person who can win. ( I didn't mention Paul or Huntsman for the same reason both will only register a blip on the radar screen after New Hampshire.)
bill| 1.10.12 @ 8:28PM
Hello, Romney lovers:
Romney stole IA, bought NH, and will be defeated in SC.
POST American| 1.10.12 @ 9:29PM
"----Mitt Romney is the same as
Newt Gingrich. BOTH 'on board'
Globalists'. Mitt Romney's just the
same ---just better looking."
-ALEX JONES
(days ago)
And with the passage of NDAA 1031
and the overturn of BOTH the Consitution
and the Bill of Rights, about which he's
said NOTHING ----we're sure you too
will realize he is
--------------SUB-Mitt ROME----KNEE---------------
boojum4| 1.10.12 @ 9:54PM
the stuff with Bain just smells bad. better to figure out how to defend it now, rather than after getting the nod and have stuff come out from oBa this fall. it now becomes clear why Dems prefer romney
POST American| 1.10.12 @ 11:14PM
--------------------BOTTOM LINE----------------------
BEYOND the Globalist RED China set up,
sellout, TREASON and EUGENICS OP---
----BEHOLD!
--------------'SUB---Mitt ROME--KNEE'--------------
------------------------BEHOLD!--------------------------
Naturalborn Texicanette| 1.10.12 @ 11:16PM
I still back Perry. And as to his "poor" speaking skills...I would rather have a president who is plain spoken, up front, and honest.
There are enough silver-tongued devils in the pack who spout a lot of blather, contradict themselves over and over, manipulate the facts, and run circles around the issues.
I'm hoping and praying for a major miracle.....
Heaven knows we NEED one.....
Dan| 1.10.12 @ 11:54PM
Judge Andrew Napolitano summed it up on the Daily Show tonight: the Obama Democrats are for war, taxes, and entitlements, the Romney Republicans for war, deficits, and corporate entitlements. .
Conserdude| 1.11.12 @ 1:03PM
the so-called "judge" napolitano is a simplistic idiot. Obama is for corporate entitlements (GE, Solyndra), and the post-Bush Republicans have tried in vain (thanks to Obama and Democrat Senate) to cut the deficit.
jagged| 1.11.12 @ 3:23AM
Don't you guys ever get tired of writing the same crap? We get it, Mitt has flip-flopped and he's a (*shudder*) moderate. It's the same article in another form that's been written 900,000 times by now. Of course, if you don't him to become president, you might want to stop it doing it.
Because if you can't beat him in the primary, and it looks like you can't, hearing that the right wing can't stand him just makes him all the more appealing to us moderates who will actually pick the next president.
Maybe a conservative who is a better candidate could beat him and still have a chance at the presidency. But, no such candidate entered the race.
I don't know that Romney can beat Obama. But, I do KNOW that nobody else in the field (except for Huntsman, but that's moot) stands a chance. The American people are open to firing the largely ineffectual Obama, but they are not going to replace him with someone who's politically insane. And every other Republican candidate (save Huntsman) has taken at least one or more position that them make absolutely unelectable.
We "squishies" as you like to deride us are not going to vote for someone who wants to arrest/ignore judges, eliminate half the government, or come out against birth control.
Self-identifying conservatives comprise approximately 1/3 of the electorate. If you need help with math, that's not enough to win an election. So you might want to think about making peace with somebody who those 1/3 of us in the middle find broadly acceptable.
MainerDoc| 1.11.12 @ 5:53AM
I'm taxed enough already. I'll take Romney for President EVERY day of the year over Obama.
Jay Michael| 1.11.12 @ 10:02AM
Kerry didn't exactly "flameout". Bush won in Ohio by 59,000 votes, otherwise it was Kerry's. Don't get me wrong, I hated Kerry, still hate the snobby elitist S.O.B., but 0.05% of anything is not what you'd call statistically significant. By contrast, Obama won Florida by over 231,000 votes. but that was last time. Now that 1/3 of all homeless live in FL, thanks to Obummer the Marxist, methinks there will be a little different outcome this time.
Conserdude| 1.11.12 @ 1:01PM
Romeny "grins as dollar bills flutter downward?" Are you kidding me? Who are you, Mr. Washington Pen-Name? I have doubts about Romney, but this is one of the dumbest, Gingrich/Perry-like dimwitted criticism I've heard yet.
Brian Richard Allen | 1.13.12 @ 1:43PM
Conserdude:
.... Romeny "grins as dollar bills flutter downward?" Are you kidding me ...?
Nope. DNC's already cut the Vulture "capitalist" commercials: http://gawker.com/5849632/the-.....-destroyed .
For effectiveness? Think 1964 and the little girl pulling petals from the obscenely-war-profiteering LBJ's daisy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDTBnsqxZ3k
BadIdea| 1.11.12 @ 1:56PM
U. S. World and News Report survey states "that Americans, two-to-one, when asked what they fear the most about the future, say Obama's reelection."
Two-to-one.
Jerome C. Borden| 1.14.12 @ 1:33PM
BadIdea's post is on target. Funny thing, NewsMax posted a "Top Ten Threats" list and the Obama things didn't make the list. Strange. By the way, the Dear Leader's footprint continues to grow. Ten months and counting......
maryp | 1.12.12 @ 2:30PM
The problem is Romney cannot beat Obama. Ron Paul will garner the GOP vote, the independent vote and some disenchanted democrats. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Hvuru-Slls
Brian Richard Allen | 1.13.12 @ 1:34PM
Massachusetts-Mitt. Running for national office on the Ted Kennedy Legacy "reason:" Because Pater woulda liked it so.
Jerome C. Borden| 1.14.12 @ 1:21PM
Bain Capital comments only provide donkey fodder. How about Gun Control as bad as California, Feinstein bad? Cap and Trade which he supported as Mass Gov? Then, of course, Romneycare which is so big that he is hanging on the albatross's neck. (Apologies to The Ancient Mariner)