-
Not Just the Media: First Amendment Under Attack
May 22, 2013 | 1 comment
-
Curl is Right: Don’t Dismiss Benghazi
May 22, 2013 | 2 comments
-
Artur Davis Says Scandals Are Real
May 19, 2013 | 3 comments
-
Good New Book: ‘Precipice’
May 19, 2013 | 1 comment
-
A Long Record of Obamite Thuggery
May 16, 2013 | 4 comments
The Spectacle Blog
To answer commenters about my thoughts on Romney, well, here. And here. And here. And here. And this. Hardly the words of a fan.
And here I criticize the other candidates for not effectively blasting Romney:
[I]t’s worth noting that it was odd that everybody let Romney skate on everything Monday night, from Romneycare to abortion to Romney’s utterly ill-informed and leftist acceptance of global warming mythology. As a conservative, Romney’s authenticity rates somewhere between that of Egg Beaters and that of the Great and Powerful Oz....It doesn’t matter one bit if Mitt Romney’s “individual mandate” was imposed by a state instead of by the feds; either way, a government forcing people to buy a product the person doesn’t want, just by virtue of living and breathing within the government’s jurisdiction, is a government without any real limits whatsoever. Tyranny is tyranny at any level. By Romney’s logic, it would be better still if your local township, rather than the state, could send police to oversee you filling out your insurance application and writing the check. Next stop: SWAT teams to escort you to the hardware store to buy widgets.
On the other hand, for the sake of accuracy, I went back and checked my own claim that I have been opposing Romney for five years. As it turns out, I was effectively neutral toward Romney four years ago, spending most of my fire against Huckabee and McCain while saying far more nice than not about Fred Thompson and Duncan Hunter and James Gilmore. I consistently rated ROmney in the middle of the pack in debate performances, and neither blasted him nor praised him much on issues. I DO remember being angry with Romney’s explanation of Romneycare’s individual mandate at an off-the-record dinner, but as it was off-the-record, I wrote nothing on it then, nor can I rightfully report now about what I remember he said, except that I didn’t like it — and that, based on what I have written this year about Romney’s mandate, one can imagine that my objections then and his comments then were probably rather similar to what we are hearing today.
For the record, my candidate for president is Mike Pence. But he’s not running.
View all comments (10) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Quin Hillyer
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/12/06/my-takes-on-romney
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
The Spectacle Blog
Former IRS Commissioner Refused to Say That Targeting Conservative Groups is Wrong
Benjamin Brophy | 2:27PM
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
teflon93| 12.6.11 @ 4:33PM
In order:
May 17, 2011: "Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney both have serious problems that have nothing to do with their presidential campaigns: At least on health care, both of them are statists, and philosophically incoherent ones at that." Okay, didn't see this one, since it was over at the Center for Individual Freedom, but I think it's evidence Quin gets the problem with Romney and lumps Romney and Gingrich together as he should.
October 14, 2011 - "Okay, let me interrupt this criticism with a note that Romney gave good answers on how regulations harm community banks and on why "permanent changes to the tax code" are preferable to temporary and targeted tax breaks. But aside from those, he was nothing but platitudes -- wrapped, I'm sure, in his trademark coiffed hair, relaxed posture, and pleasant tones, and topped off at the end of each answer with an oh-so-earnest smile.
Lord, please save us from candidates who want to be president to either equal or out-do their presidential or near-presidential or considered-for presidential or national-military-leader fathers. Romney the father complained about being brainwashed; now Republicans are on the verge of being brainwashed by the son." This I missed because it was not about Romney but the entire field. Gingrich 8, Romney 2 in the past six weeks then.
June 1, 2011 - "Yeah, yeah, I know: Nothing in the U.S. Constitution explicitly prohibits such a mandate at the state level. Fine. This isn't an argument about constitutionality; it's an argument about First Principles, about the nature of liberty itself. Romney fails the test of First Principles; he fails to respect the Natural Law; he fails to observe the idea that government's proper ends and means should be limited." Okay, but why do we have to go back so far in time?
November 11, 2011 - "Juliet Eilperin of the Wash Post, a superb gumshoe reporter (although she seems to lean left), does a number on Mitt Romney today, reminding people just how radically he has shifted on social issues in order to pander to whomever could give him needed votes. Great reading." Endorsing somebody's link's not really criticizing Romney yourself.
Now, the list of Quin attacking Gingrich just this week is longer than this one. The intensity is a lot greater in tone too. I'd also point out that the intensity of Quin's attacks on Romney diminished significantly just as the likelihood of Romney getting the nomination grew, which is probably what people are picking up on.
Note also it's a pretty unsatisfactory answer to say "My guy's Mike Pence"---great; my guy's Ronald Reagan---as it dodges the very real question conservatives have as to who Quin's candidate is in the current field.
I could criticize every candidate in this field relentlessly and still have a clear favorite.
That suspicion---combined with some other examples others have noted from Quin's past utterances--are why he's getting challenged now.
For my own part, I'm willing to withdraw the charge at the risk of looking like an idiot if Quin winds up endorsing Romney anyway.
Quin| 12.6.11 @ 5:52PM
Clearly, my preference isn't Newt Gingrich. I think it is fair to say, if you add up all my comments during the year,that I have been kindest to Santorum, and then to Cain (except that I rightly noted the purely objective point that the original harassment allegations against him came well before he was a politician, and were recorded then, and therefore should not be seen as politically motivated and thus merited looking into rather than pre-judging EITHER way). Despite my distaste for the idea of Gingrich as president, meanwhile, I praised some of his debate PERFORMANCES extravagantly, because I was in the mode of analyst rather than advocate -- a mode readers sometimes confuse. Had Tim Pawlenty stayed in, he excited me not at all, but I clearly would have rated him well above Romney. I've been neutral toward Bachmann and, aside from hating his answer on capital punishment, rather neutral on Perry. And, yes, harsh on Romney. All of which means nothing other than that, on the weight of the evidence, I am ANYTHING but a shill for Romney. Heck, I'm still hoping to see Paul Ryan get in the darn race, or Bobby Jindal.....
teflon93| 12.6.11 @ 10:39PM
Whereas people may sometimes confuse analysis with advocacy, Quin, it is also true that pundits mar the distinction when it suits them. For example, the clearest tell in this campaign is who savages Newt Gingrich for deviations from conservatism while studiously ignoring Romney's apostasies on the very same issue.
Mark Krikorian over at NRO has been slamming Gingrich over his position on amnesty for illegals while studiously ignoring Romney's even more egregious position. Rich Lowry has been slamming Gingrich for flipflopping. Others have attacked Gingrich on Medicare while ignoring Romneycare. It's comical to claim objective analysis while not applying principles evenly to candidates.
The problem is not that people have favorites--it's the pretense of objective analysis while denying having favorites that galls.
The flak you take from the more conservative commentators is almost invariably as a result of displaying outrage at conservatives but much more muted criticism of RINOs. We know how important not repeating 2008 is and want to see some sign that this time will be different. Meanwhile, a majority of the conservative writers are lining up behind Little Lord MittleRoy before a ballot is cast and without any consideration whatsoever of his liberalism. That feels like 2008 all over again.
kingsmill| 12.6.11 @ 5:27PM
Quin, sorry, if the choice comes down to Mitt or Newt ---I'll take Newt every time.
I don't doubt Newt's very high jackass quotient, but he is preferable to the Mittster.
Nancy in NC| 12.6.11 @ 5:48PM
Quin...I'm with you...I like Mike Pence very much, and he's heads above all the current crew.
I really don't want to vote for Newt or Romney, but anyone but Obama is my mantra. Hopefully, they will have a VP that I can stomach.
Brendan| 12.6.11 @ 10:44PM
My candidate is Ronald Reagan. Oh, look, he's not running! Forgive me, they pay you to be a commentator?
I still say that for the anti-whomever - you are doing the "I'm voting Perot protest vote" thing. If you want to tank the US, go for it. I have kids, and I'm not dumb enough to think we can reverse this with only a president. You need conservative congressmen to be elected. The Spectator should be focusing on the critical local races that can be won.
The old saying is you go home from the dance with the girl you bought. In this case, its closing time at the bar boys, and Angelina Jolie ain't there...
martin j smith| 12.7.11 @ 7:41AM
We will have to pick one of our candidates not one that is not running. So how about a little honesty. I do not like Romney but in comparative relative terms I would back Gingrich if he were the nominee and I back all of them against the smears of the Left or the Republican. I would have backed Cain. Romney is a no no ,so who is left:
Huntsman and Paul absolutely not. all the others I could live with sort of . If some one becomes a lost minute entree --say Palin i could back her.
Brendan| 12.7.11 @ 9:45AM
martin is correct. We can all wish for our perfect candidate, but in the end, its Obama and Not-Obama. Considering the damage already done, can you afford not to hold your nose?
We have close to 17% unemployment. We are being overrun by regulations. He is actively sowing class envy. For those that think "we can take a few more years of this" I hope you can live with yourselves when society begins to collapse entirely. I believe we are that close.
teflon93| 12.7.11 @ 9:56AM
Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich are not Not-Obama enough. That's the trouble.
Oldefarte| 12.7.11 @ 10:23AM
Which candidate would most probably benefit the voter-taxpayers of this country by seeking governmental expense reductions, and attempting to balance the governmental defecit and reduce its gargantuan and increasing debt over time, Romney or the current office holder which he could replace????????????