-
SEQUESTER: The Horror!
March 1, 2013 | 4 comments
-
SOTU Preview: Human Props, Budget Fights, and Wedge Issues
February 12, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Hello, I Must Be Going
August 14, 2012 | 18 comments
-
Weekend Political Wrap-Up, Paul Ryan Edition
August 12, 2012 | 16 comments
-
Esquire Blogger Sees Paul Ryan, Shreds His Safety Net
August 11, 2012 | 13 comments
The Spectacle Blog
A number of Palin defenders have argued that Mitt Romney similarly cut and run from Massachusetts. While there is an important distinction between resigning office and declining to run for reelection — Romney served out the entire term to which he was elected — I basically agree with this criticism. Romney’s abandonment of Massachusetts during a critical juncture in fights over health care, the budget, and the definition of marriage was the single greatest factor that shifted me from a Romney-sympathetic commentator to a critic. (The spin of Romney’s flip-flops by some of his overzealous supporters played a role too, as did his health care plan.)
It would have admittedly been difficult for Romney to have run for president after being reelected as governor of Massachusetts. In fact, given the political climate in 2006, particularly in blue states, it would have been exceedingly difficult for Romney to have been reelected at all. And none of this has any bearing on the merits of Sarah Palin’s decision.
But watching Romney exit the field while so many of the issues he claimed to care about were in play, leaving the commonwealth to suffer one-party Democratic rule for the first time since the Dukakis years without any serious check or challenge, was too much to take. The man who rode back into the Bay State to save the GOP from a certain disaster at the hands of Jane Swift ended up merely delaying the inevitable for four years. Whatever his ambitions, that in my view represented a form of quitting too.
View all comments (47) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by W. James Antle, III
http://spectator.org/blog/2009/07/06/mitt-quit-too
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
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
Missy| 7.6.09 @ 1:26PM
Myth Romney: The cardboard cutout repub who is bloodless and boring. Thanks but no thanks.
Tim| 7.6.09 @ 1:32PM
Romney may have come off as self serving and opportunistic but that's probably better than whiny and pathetic.
Aaron| 7.6.09 @ 1:38PM
Agreed, Romney could have done far more by staying in the fight and at least tried to defend his own abomination of a health care system that the Mass dems cobbled and porked up. He opted for tanning and teeth whitening sessions instead of real work.
thirteen28 | 7.6.09 @ 2:09PM
I've fileted fish that have more charisma than Mitt, whose commitment to conservative principles is at best, highly questionable.
If Mitt is our best hope in 2012, we are truly fcked, win or lose. He's the kind of guy who is stiff and squishy enough on his principles that he could actually lose to even a weak Obama (after all, he lost the primary fight against a weakened-by-the-immigration-battles McCain), and even if he won, he would do little to advance the cause of conservative governance.
NHobserver| 7.6.09 @ 3:08PM
Give me a break. Mitt is exactly what we need. Honest. Competent. Disciplined. Talented. Smart. He is not squishy or stiff. He's our last hope.
lomi| 7.6.09 @ 3:15PM
I still think that Mitt is the best we can have. He is the best qualified out there to work out our economy. But for now enjoy our first affirmative president, very soon the honeymoon is over. Oh, sorry, it is over. Look at our economy...it sucks.
Jack| 7.6.09 @ 3:35PM
Well that is shocking. You agree with criticism that supports your hacking on Romney. So what you are saying is that any politician who runs for another office without resigning their current position is a "quitter" just like Palin? Deep insight, that. Any other revelations coming today, like say water is wet?
What conservatives really need is more pundits who have no idea what they are talking about.
CF| 7.6.09 @ 4:49PM
I just don't get how Obama gets away with running for president while living on a Senate salary (all before he finished his first term), but Palin and Romney get skewered for doing something far less despicable.
I agree though, Romney is our best hope. He is a "full suit" candidate. He has a giant resume, is constantly talking and blogging about ideas and ways to fix current problems.
I think we'll see Romney beat Obama in 2012, regardless of where the economy goes. People like Obama because of his race, and his "pop-star" image, but when you look at polls, everyone hates his policies.
I think people will have learned their lesson by 2012 and the rock star "new" image will have faded dramatically. People will vote someone based on principles next time.
W. James Antle III | 7.6.09 @ 5:01PM
"So what you are saying is that any politician who runs for another office without resigning their current position is a 'quitter' just like Palin?"
No.
"What conservatives really need is more pundits who have no idea what they are talking about. "
Commenters, too.
Jeff | 7.6.09 @ 5:20PM
The premise of this article is utterly preposterous. Only the most sympathetic Palin supporter of the most ardent Romney hater would espouse such a position.
When a politician runs for office and the voters give them their support, the voters and the candidate have entered into a four-year contract. Both parties know the terms of the deal. To say that someone “quit” or “cut and run” because they choose not to ask for a contract extension is dishonest at best.
Romney fulfilled the terms of his contract with the people of Massachusetts and by most accounts left the state in better shape than he found it. When the going got tough, as it certainly did with the gay marriage issue and the onslaught of protests and media attention, Romney stuck it out, held his ground and performed the job he was elected to do.
What Palin has done is the exact opposite; she is exercising the ‘cancelation clause’ of her contract and bailing. She is leaving mid-term and not fulfilling her obligation to her state all because she can’t take what Truman called the ‘heat in the kitchen’.
To say that Romney or any other politician shouldn’t leave while “issues he (they) claimed to care about were in play” makes no sense either. The issues that he left in play are still in play today, and I suspect will remain in play for the foreseeable future. To say that one can’t leave office until the issues of importance to them disappear would require George Washington to still be around because the Nation’s national debt has yet to be repaid.
Let’s just be honest. Palin quit and damaged her political future in the process and no amount of spin can make that equivalent to fulfilling one’s elected term in office and then leaving to chase after a bigger prize.
Jane| 7.6.09 @ 5:50PM
Mitt did not QUIT midway of his term.
It is not the same. Then Pawlenty is guilty too because he isnt going to re election?
Please , that is just unfair and stupid to suggest
Sean| 7.6.09 @ 6:05PM
We do not need more liberal Republicans like Mitt as the nominee. Romneycare just shows how liberal this guy is. He has no backbone and would be pushed around. He also has no record of being a conservative.
Roy| 7.6.09 @ 7:07PM
What we really need is backbiting between supporters of two conservative politicians, so that Obama can be re-elected after seeing off a spunky challenge by Olympia Snowe.
Basil Plumley| 7.6.09 @ 7:28PM
Tim| 7.6.09 @ 1:32PM
Romney may have come off as self serving and opportunistic but that's probably better than whiny and pathetic.
When compared to you, that would be an understatement.
Lori| 7.6.09 @ 7:50PM
James, you confuse abandonment with plowing into brick walls. In Massachusetts with democrat control, there was only so much Romney could hope to accomplish. He accomplished much to turn around the troubled state, to keep inevitable health care reform in the private sector and imagine the MA health reform without his conservative leadership. He fought without success to get the legislature to tighten up the marriage laws after the court weighed in. What more could he have done in a second term that he had not already done in the first with the opposition party tired of bipartisanship and wanting his seat for one of their own. You sir, are very unreasonable and I think you spend too much time on a certain MA anti-Romney website which I purposely will not name.
Bob| 7.6.09 @ 8:35PM
Antle -- given your attitude, you would be well advised to only write half of your column and then quit. Then you can be like Sarah as well.
Romney is, and has always been, a pragmatist. As a business school graduate, he would have looked at the fundamentals of winning a second term and made a decision whether to run or not. Given his ambitions, it is better not to run for a second term than to lose. Being a Republican and winning in MA is an uphill battle. The fact that he did it once is quite amazing.
Romney has lots of skills, but his great talent is being pragmatic. He's not going to excite a crowd, but he is going to figure out a solution that can work. He didn't abandon extreme right positions on issues -- he never had them. But he saw that winning in today's Republican party requires bowing at the altar of social conservatives. If you are not willing to do that, you shouldn't run. Romney is willing to do almost anything to win and be successful. That is his real religion.
And since politics should be a secular exercise, a pragmatist would do well in governing. The other problem Romney has is that he is as exciting as solid white wallpaper. Thus, he can never beat the odds like Obama -- and he knows it. Besides, he wanted to make more money.
Jack| 7.6.09 @ 9:30PM
>>Commenters, too.
Witty and predictable. A winning combination.
>>It would have admittedly been difficult for Romney to have run for president after being reelected as governor of Massachusetts. In fact, given the political climate in 2006, particularly in blue states, it would have been exceedingly difficult for Romney to have been reelected at all. And none of this has any bearing on the merits of Sarah Palin's decision.
Then why bring it up? I live in MA, likely longer than you ever did. MA is not AK and if you lived here then you should know better. Comparing the two is as useless as equating Romney serving his full term and running for president and Palin quitting half way through her term. Romney got hammered every day by perhaps the most left wing paper in the country and a veto proof Dem legislature. Palin had to deal with neither. Romney did his job. Palin quit.
Your only point was to try and make the childish linkage of "Romney did it too!". Your antipathy for Romney is noted. So is your lack of logic.
Try again.
Denny B.| 7.6.09 @ 9:38PM
Romney is the only Republican who stands a prayer against Obama. Our only chance for a victory is to make the center-right case that we can fix the economy, restore fiscal sanity and compete with China. No candidate in either party -- now or ever -- is better equipped to deal with those issues. And Romney is the cleanest man in politics. Who else is going to remove the stench from the corruption of the DeLay era and the string of GOP sex scandals? And who else can raise enough money to give the GOP even a chance to compete with Obama? Do people not realize Obama will raise $1 BILLION to run for re-election. Anyone thing the Pastor Huck or Gov. Pawlenty are gonna compete with that?
Missy| 7.6.09 @ 10:16PM
Antle, you're supposed to be the paid professional. We aren't compensated for our comments--perhaps you shouldn't be either.
Jamaica| 7.6.09 @ 10:21PM
Myth Romney is a loser. He's a cardboard cutout of a man and just the next repub presidential candidate debacle. No thanks to another boring elitist white guy.
Bobbie| 7.6.09 @ 10:25PM
Romney is a RINO. We can see what happened when we ran the last one in 2008. No thanks.
Romney will NEVER get the nod.
Mike | 7.7.09 @ 12:32AM
James:
I am not buying it. Palin's departure is self-serving. She's a quitter and you're just trying to spin Palin's wacky behavior while taking a swipe at Romney.
Romney did not "abandon" Massachusetts. Palin abandoned Alaska during an "elected" term.
Romney has never "exited" the field, but continued to lobby across the nation for candidates that share his ideals.
Look, Palin goofed big time, again. It's not Romney's fault that Palin is a country bumkin who can't decide what she wants to do or what she intends to stand for.
Is she a quitter? Yes. Is she a fighter? No. Is she probably looking at lucrative speaking engagements as opposed to a big hassle in Alaskan Government with less pay? Yes.
No intelligent person is going to "buy" into the Romney quit too.
We could argue that Palin quite TWICE. The first time during her elected term, the 2nd time when she ABANDONED her State by not "running again."
What a bunch of nonsense James.
Is this the best defense you have for Sarah Palin?
You watch... the liberal media will have a new name for Governor Palin in the next two years... and it will stick:
Quitter Palin.
"When the going gets tough, Sarah quits."
How will you argue against that if she's nominated by Republicans in 2012?
Who should be the President: Palin Quits, Obama doesn't quit.
Rebecca Anne| 7.7.09 @ 1:13AM
Palin may be seen as a quitter temporarily, but Romney is a loser forever. Loser Romney the RINO.
Palin 2012!
JonH| 7.7.09 @ 3:42AM
WJ Antle III,
Either you left it out or you never knew. For your information the percentage of democrats in Mass. is 85% while the republicans are around 12 % to 13%. Mitt Romney manoeuvred all that he could for 4 years. He was elected because the democrats had brought Mass. to financial ruin and once he had pulled off the impossible fix of the SLC Olympics was coaxed to return home to Mass. to run for Gov. and fix the dem financial mess.
Once he had solved the mess why would anyone want him to stay in office? His mear being in office reminded the vast population of dems how bad they were at governing. His chances were less than slim at being re-elected.
With many republicans knowing of his talents--wanted him to run for PREZ. How would he have come across with a 2nd term loss running for gov. of Mass. when most people outside of Mass. haven't a clue of the dem to rep margin?
The choice he made was an obvious one to make. It wasn't even hard.
"...certain disaster at the hands of Jane Swift ended up merely delaying the inevitable for four years." Mr. Antle you KNOW THE HISTORY! YOU are an out and out L.......
Sean| 7.7.09 @ 6:53AM
Rebecca you are right Romney is a RINO and he has the record to prove it. Where is the evidence that Romney is a conservative on fiscal issues? Where is the evidence that he can stand up to Democrats and liberal Republicans that are now in charge of the party? Where is the evidence that he is conservative on social issues? Who believes his conversion to prolife?
BrianW| 7.7.09 @ 11:09AM
Sean:
Palin is a quitter. When the going gets tough she quits. It really doesn't matter if Romney is a RINO or not, arguably Romney is more appealing to independents and moderate Republicans.
Palin only wins big among fundamentalist Christian Republicans. Whooopee. Big deal. Fundamentalist Christian conservative Republicans can't carry an election by themselves. How is she going to beat Obama?
It now looks like Palin quit to make more money on the speaking circuit. Maybe to pay for all of those clothes she bought with campaign money. Who knows.
If Palin get's the republican nomination, how will she beat?
How will she claim she has more executive experience, having just quit her Governor job?
How will she claim she has more foreign policy experience?
How will she claim she has more experience solving fiscal problems?
How will she speak to health care issues?
Palin's days as a "platitude" speaker are over.
I haven't heard any strong arguments for Palin in view of Obama - she's not running against Romney - she has to convince a large share of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents that she is capable of leading the nation better than Obama.
At this point, Obama is a leader and Palin is a quitter.
BrianW| 7.7.09 @ 11:27AM
Rebecca Anne:
Why would Democrats, moderate Republicans and Independents want to vote for Palin? Have you all forgotten that moderate America elects Presidents - not conservative Christians.
I find that Palin supporters are still stuck in the in Republican primaries of 2008.
For months she argued that Obama didn't have enough executive experience,and now Palin just quit her executive job! What?! Temporarily a quitter?
How can she remain credible? Do you see how her "conviction" about experience cannot be "real?"
Sarah Palin cannot beat Obama in 2012.
Jack Davis| 7.7.09 @ 1:36PM
As you noted, Mitt didn't quit the way Sarah did. If she DOES run in 2012, make sure she's got a VERY strong VP.
Rebbeca| 7.7.09 @ 1:45PM
Myth Romney is a RINO and will NEVER get my vote. I will campaign against him. I'm tired of running RINO candidates and getting our butts kicked--like 2008!
rcocean| 7.7.09 @ 1:48PM
Hard to understand why this is important. Palin quit for the good of the state. Had Palin quit to become VP - no one would have cared. Further, we don't want Governor's to hang on to power when it hurts the state.
Romney did quit and refused to run for re-election. But he's a bad choice in any case. No charisma, a flip-flopper, no popular message, no record of political success, weak candidate who couldn't even beat McCain, a moderate republican who would be even more compassionate and less conservative than Bush II.
Marvin Bauman| 7.7.09 @ 1:58PM
It used to be you'd run in a few primaries to demonstrate your electability and then have the
delegates at the party convention pick a candidate.
Now everybody has to spend years laying a groundwork and generating a base of support for the insane primary season. When was the last time anybody ran for president while still fulfilling the obligations of their current office? Since the death of Michael Jackson is the headline story she doubtless figured resigning now would mean less
aggravation from a scornful media.
lynn | 7.7.09 @ 2:58PM
praying for condoleeza
lynn | 7.7.09 @ 2:59PM
praying for condoleeza
John| 7.7.09 @ 3:16PM
I can't believe RealClearPolitics linked to such an illogical excuse for Romney bashing. Choosing not to run for re-election is quitting? So if Barney Frank decides not to run for his 20th term (or whatever it is) as a Massachusetts rep, he's a quitter too? So the only way for a politician to not be a quitter to put term limits on all elected office? You can't equate Palin leaving office during her first term and Romney finishing his term (when he knew in 2006 he was running for Prez in 2008) as the same thing. You didn't actually get paid to write this, did you? If it's free, it's like any other of the millions of bloggers out there, but this is what you're PAID to write? This Mitt hitjob with the most tortured logic? Really?
Mike| 7.7.09 @ 4:11PM
Rebecca:
PALIN will never be president. She does not and cannot appeal to Democrats, moderate Republicans, and Independents to win a PRESIDENTIAL election.
Palin appeals to RELIGIOUS conservatives ONLY.
Romney bashers believe that the only REAL Republicans are those who are white, Evangelical, Christians (mostly who are bigoted against Catholic and Mormons.) With that statement, I don't believe that Romney can get elected either. At least at this point, but Palin has NO chance today or in 2012.
The days when religious conservatives called the shots in the Republican party are dead and gone.
Palin is the last remnant of the dying breed.
The MSM will make sure that she will never be elected president. I am not not sure I disagree with them on that.
Palin has no business seeking the Presidency, she is NOT qualified, by her OWN definition during the campaign.
JonM| 7.7.09 @ 4:27PM
Wake up Palin Supporters!
Famed Conservative Columnist: Palin Not Qualified to be President.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/30/george-will-palin-is-not_n_130647.html
Michael Steel: Palin off the table for 2012:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/07/steele-on-palin-2012-off_n_227057.html
Rassmussen Poll: 40% believe Palin’s resignation hurts her chances for Republican nomination in 2012.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2012/40_of_gop_voters_say_resignation_hurts_palin_s_chances_in_2012
Growing number of voters say Palin not qualified (this was BEFORE her resignation!)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/30/growing-number-of-voters_n_139493.html
Palin's lack of national experience, her unnerving ambition, and signs of her erratic nature are signs that she is not ready for the Presidency of the United States.
80 percent of Alaskans favored Palin last year, but only 55 percent have a positive opinion of the governor after the election.
Wake up Palin Supporters!
avro | 7.7.09 @ 4:42PM
the 2012 candidate will comw out of nowhere
Pingback| 7.8.09 @ 7:42PM
Exploding the “she abandoned her post” meme - Josh_Painter’s blog - RedState links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Dave| 7.8.09 @ 8:03PM
I'm scratching my head. All I can figure out is that you don't like Mitt Romney, therefore anything he did or does is bad. By your logic, no elected office-holder could ever decline to run for re-election, because all the jobs are NEVER done and everything in government is critical. I wish we had more elected officials who would quit before they were kicked out of office or hit a legal term-limit.
You must have loved FDR.
Tamara| 7.10.09 @ 11:31AM
This is scary stuff! The fact is that BOTH Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin are the best candidates the party has right now. He has a record of turning things around, he has met a payroll and understands the economy, he is a good man with good Chrisitian values (whether or not you believe that Mormons are Christians, this fact cannot be denied) and he loves this country. She is conservative, she has a record of trimming the fat in Alaska and she appeals to the Evangelicals who are so afraid of Mormons. Both of them are great Americans, Mitt Romney has more experience and she could learn what she needs from him. The two of them would make a great team and if their supporters continue to tear the other apart history will repeat itself and we'll have another John McCain type candidate! Romney/Palin would be a great ticket and we should all unite behind such a ticket NOW !!
Tootsie| 7.11.09 @ 12:36AM
Tamara, I like your Republican ticket but you've got it upside down--PALIN/ROMNEY 2012!! After all, Sarah was chosen to be the Republican VP in 2008--not Mitt.
Tamara| 7.11.09 @ 1:58PM
Tootsie,
My thought is that Romney is older and has more experience in the private sector than Palin, she is also more polarizing (according to polls if they are to be believed ) than he is. She would also be young enough to continue on to the Presidency and he would not. My point was mostly that together they could accomplish alot and I worry that if their teams work against each other we could end up with someone like Mike Huckabee and he would be the worst candidate to put up! ether they could do great things. I worry that fighting against each other I'd be okay either way really.
Tamara| 7.11.09 @ 2:00PM
Oops! Obviously I didn't delete an entire sentence - hope it doesn't confuse anyone!