The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

Romney the Weak

By on 4.11.12 @ 12:34PM

Mitt Romney is the weakest candidate Republicans have put up since Barry Goldwater in 1964 — but at least Goldwater served a higher purpose. Romney is plastic; he can’t “connect” with non-wealthy Americans; he has shown underwhelming ability to use financial advantages to secure wins anywhere near the size of those advantages; he has no geographic base; he has alienated large swaths of the Republican base; he’s stiff; he seems humorless; and he has no personal story of ever overcoming any real personal hurdle.

Still, he’s against an extraordinarily beatable incumbent — and an extraordinarily dangerous one, dangerous to the entire American idea. If Romney runs a perfect or near-perfect campaign, he can win, just because Obama has energized so much of the public against him. And Romney might put up decent Supreme Court candidates, and certainly will put up ones that at worst are fence-sitters rather than leftist activists; he will show at least some understanding of and appreciation for the free market; and he will not use the administrative agencies to run roughshod over individual liberties.

Conservatives should be thankful for small favors.

View all comments (60) |

Ted| 4.11.12 @ 1:47PM

"And Romney might put up decent Supreme Court candidates, and certainly will put up ones that at worst are fence-sitters rather than leftist activists"

Does the name David Souter ring a bell?

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 2:00PM

And John Sununu---who gave us David Souter after vouching for his "conservative" bona fides---is a top Romney advisor.

Wake up, people!

Big Java| 4.11.12 @ 1:48PM

very small...

Vern Crisler | 4.11.12 @ 1:56PM

Quin, this is just a variation on the where-are-you-going-to-go? argument: the trump question in an abusive relationship.

Looks like some NR writers, now that their man has won the nomination, are having second thoughts about Romney:

http://www.nationalreview.com/.....dberg?pg=2

Can you say, duh?

Christopher C| 4.12.12 @ 6:10AM

Dear Vern Crisler - "second thoughts"? To have second thoughts, you have to have had a first thought, and if Romney is the presumptive nominee, that is not at all clear.

Christopher C| 4.12.12 @ 6:10AM

Dear Vern Crisler - "second thoughts"? To have second thoughts, you have to have had a first thought, and if Romney is the presumptive nominee, that is not at all clear.

Mickey Cochran| 4.11.12 @ 1:57PM

Quin,

As usual, you write without clarity. You accuse without substance. You show your anti-Romney bias without any desire to assist in the cause of defeating Obama and his devilish coercion.

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 1:59PM

Romney put up liberals--not "fence-sitters" in Mass.

I've asked this question many times and have never gotten a response:

What---in his 28 year political career---has Mitt Romney ever done to advance the cause of conservatism?

He's got a record---a liberal record.

Have you people lost your minds that you think he's going to become a conservative now? Based on what evidence?

Extremist Defender of Liberty| 4.11.12 @ 2:15PM

Willard will use underhanded executive actions to promote his "progressive" views. While governor of MA Willard stacked the executive department with progressives. In public he talked a moderate line. However, his executive appointees implemented his progressive policies by administrative actions.

Santorum and Gingrich ineffectually tried to alert the primary electorate by two examples 1) Willard's passive approach to gay marriage, which was implemented by executive fiat; 2) Willard's executive department's order requiring Catholic hospitals to provide abortafacients to rape victims. Willard cannot be trusted.

Al| 4.11.12 @ 1:59PM

Most Americans are too ignorant to understand what's coming their way if BHO is reelected. Most people learn the hard way.

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 2:00PM

Oh we see it.

It's what Romney brought to Massachusetts.

Drek| 4.11.12 @ 2:09PM

Hillyer,

is it really the time now to rehash what has been thoroughly gone over by conservatives for the last year and a half?

What now is the purpose of exposing the weaknesses of our candidate, when we can zero in on the abomination in the White House?

Some on these threads I've little doubt are Democrats, working for the opposition, doing their best to hoist bitterness to the nth degree.

We all fought Romney, but the establishment was far better prepared than the rank and file, they settled on their candidate a long time back, while the base was still struggling on who to get behind.

Romney lined up money and pushed out others in the race.

Romney won.

Now let's just make sure obama doesn't win again.

Warrior | 4.11.12 @ 4:23PM

I remember having a similar discussion with Mr. Hillyer when I questioned him about his support for liberal Republican Joe Ciao. His only argument was that it was the best they do in a Democrat district. So I find this criticism of Mitt Romney to be hypocritical. What Hillyer and most of his peers do not acknowledge is that there was no real Conservative in the race. It will be difficult to hold my nose hard enough to vote for Romney.

slhancock1948| 4.11.12 @ 2:12PM

I hope this is true, but let me explain something that the Elitists are refusing to understand. Mitt Romney is not a true conservative and that argument is based on facts, his own record in MA. I have been reading a lot of comments lately from readers on a plethora of sites who claim they will NOT vote for a pro-choice candidate. If even 1/3 of these hold to that, it will make a huge difference in the November election. Romney has a record, and it is not pro-life. It doesn't matter which way you try to look at it, he cannot be called a pro-life candidate. Facts are stubborn things and pro-life people normally do not hold their nose and vote against their consciences in the matter of LIFE. They may compromise on other things, but not life. A lot of people are upset because Romney and Paul basically seemed to collude to take out all the conservatives so he could win. There is a lot of anger out there towards Romney, which could be overcome when thinking about the alternative. But I still fear that the pro-life crowd will be the deciding vote. I am pro-life, too, and I am struggling with voting for Romney. Right now I'd have to say NO! In 2008, at least you knew that McCain was pro-life, even if you didn't like his pro-socialism views on other things.

Don Goodman| 4.11.12 @ 2:17PM

It is much worse than you represent. Romney is best understood as a corporate communist in the same sense that obama is a political communist. Both believe control should be owned by an elite. Both believe average citizens are incapable making good decisions in their own interest. Both believe that outcomes have more importance than principles. Do you REALLY believe Romney will nominate liberty-oriented conservatives to the Supreme Court? Really!? I don't. I believe romney is obama lite. We are going to have higher unemployment, higher taxes, less liberty and a bleaker future for generations to come. And there is nothing we can do about it other than apologize to our children for the mess we have made.

johnd2| 4.11.12 @ 2:47PM

Time to grow up guys. The overall electorate does not want a hard core conservative. Especially when it comes to social issues. Romney will look darn good next to O when the real campaign starts. The clear eyed core of the Republican party just figured this out and acted on it,

The Big E| 4.11.12 @ 3:36PM

Oh, I don't know. Last time the "overall electorate" had a chance to vote for one against a Democrat was 1984. How'd that work out?

mjs_pa| 4.11.12 @ 9:49PM

gerald ford, bob dole, john mccain, mitt romney.....republicans are stuck in a cycle of sheer stupidity. More reminiscent of the Twilight Zone or Ground Hog Day.

Christopher C| 4.12.12 @ 6:29AM

"Romney will look darn good next to O when the real campaign starts"? Get a grip, man. Obama is a classic Lord of the Flies. He appears to believe that he's telling the truth when he's mouthing the words. As Shakespeare wrote, you can smile and smile and be a villain. But most people register only the smile.

Romney? Well, once upon a time, I was in (mainly retail) advertising. Would I have used Romney as a pitchman? Are you serious (as Nancy Pelosi might say)?
And then there's the problem with the manner in which Romney seems to have won. Does he actually stand for a damn thing? His campaign so far has been a continuing program of dishonorable attack ads. So, the utilitarians will say, honor? What's honor? He won, didn't he. Well, he's won dirty victories in the primaries. The same tactics will not be effective in the general election. Then, it's values and ideas that will carry the day. Sure, Obama's ideas are utterly poisonous, and his values are morally idiotic.
But put the speciously-credible huckster against the fake "severe" conservative, and I personally am fearful that the huckster will prevail.
The best of the R candidates has just left the building.

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 3:14PM

Then how do you explain the 2010 Congressional results?

Sure looked like the "overall electorate" didn't want more liberal Democrats and turned toward Tea Party Republicans en masse to me!

Oldefarte| 4.11.12 @ 3:26PM

And THIS is the ALTERNATIVE in November:
'.....Breitbart.com... Holder Promises Sharpton 'Thorough' Investigation .... by Ben Shapiro 1 hour Today, Attorney General Eric Holder spoke at the National Action Network Convention in New York. Its tagline: No Justice, No Peace. He was introduced by Al Sharpton, the rabblerousing, race-baiting MSNBC host who has inserted himself into the Trayvon Martin shooting case and threatened the city of Sanford, Florida with civil disobedience. Holder said:
Now I know that many of you are greatly, and rightly, concerned about the recent shooting death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, a young man whose future has been lost to the ages. As most of you know, three weeks ago the Department of Justice launched an investigation into this incident which remains open at this time and prevents me from talking in detail about his matter. But I can tell you that in recent weeks Justice Department officials … have traveled to Sanford, Florida to meet with the Martin family, the community, and local authorities. The FBI is assisting local law enforcement officials … the Justice Department’s peacemakers are continuing to meet with civil rights leaders, law enforcement officers, and area residents to address and to help alleviate community tensions …In all of these discussions, we’re listening carefully to concerns, and we’re emphasizing that the Department will conduct a thorough and independent review of the evidence … I can assure you that in this investigation and in all cases, we will examine the facts and the law. If we find evidence of a potential federal criminal civil rights crime, we will take appropriate action …Why is Holder even speaking at this event? Why should he be introduced by Al Sharpton, the man who once incited a race riot in Crown Heights ending in the murder of an Orthodox Jew, the man who pushed the trumped-up Tawana Brawley case, the man who forwarded the false Duke lacrosse rape case, and the man who is currently stirring up trouble in Sanford?He’s doing it because that’s his job: to pander to extremists like Sharpton. That’s why we’ve heard nothing from the DOJ about the New Black Panthers’ bounty – or even their voter intimidation back in 2008. That’s why the DOJ is more focused on voter ID laws than it is on voter fraud.Holder is part of the Obama re-election campaign. And each and every day, he demonstrates how he uses the power of his office to create alliances that will help his boss reach a second term......' THINK ABOUT IT!!!!!!!!

Oldefarte| 4.11.12 @ 3:34PM

AND '''''THINK''''' ABOUT THE FOLLOWING ALSO......THINK GD IT, THINK:
'....Romney: Obama Has Destroyed Economy For Women Wednesday, April 11, 2012 01:02 PM
By: Martin Gould and Michelle LopataWomen have been hit the hardest by the massive job losses under President Barack Obama — a fact that gives lie to the allegation that Republicans have launched a "war on women," GOP presidential front-runner Mitt Romney said Wednesday.Women have lost nine out of every 10 jobs that have disappeared during the Obama administration, said Romney, who now looks to be the president's opponent in the November elections. Female unemployment has risen by 16 percent since Obama entered the White House in 2009, up from 5 million to 5.8 million, he said.
“Women in particular have been hurt by this president,” Romney told Fox News’ Martha MacCallum.“He’s lost 800,000 jobs during his presidency and, by the way, do you know what percentage of those jobs lost were lost by women? Over 92 percent.“His policies have been really a war on women,”said Romney, co-opting a phrase that Democrats have used to attack Republicans on social issues such as abortion and contraception.“People want jobs,” he said. “If they want bigger checks, they can go vote for him. If they want jobs and a bright future and an opportunity, they can vote for me. I am in the race because I understand what it takes to make America strong again economically, culturally and militarily.”
Romney acknowledged that Wednesday marked the first full day of the general election campaign, and from now on he and Obama will be going at it head-to-head for seven months leading up to Nov. 6.Democrats have used the healthcare battles to claim that Republicans are anti-female and Romney was keen Wednesday to make them the focus of his first TV interview since the withdrawal of rival Rick Santorum on Tuesday.
MacCallum pointed out that Obama will almost certainly try to paint Romney as rich and out-of-touch. Romney responded: “The person I’m out of touch with is Barack Obama. I’m in touch with the American people. They want to see good jobs and rising incomes. They recognize this president has failed them.”He then quoted the tea party’s eminence grise, Dick Armey. “He said the American Dream has to be redefined. It’s no longer owning a home. It’s owning a home where your kids are not living in it. We’re going to have to make sure that people understand that my job is to get people working, get America strong again, creating the jobs, creating the engine that creates a brighter future for the American people.”Romney said he now expects Santorum to come over to his side and support him, even after the hostile words the two have slung at each other during almost a year of debates, campaigns and primaries.“Sen. Santorum, throughout the campaign, has been speaking about issues that we care about very deeply so we’re on the same page on those issues and you’ll see us all come together in a very powerful way.“But the time for that will happen down the road as we spend more time together, hit the trail together," Romney said.“We share very much the same beliefs about the course the nation must take and the fact that under this president America is not going in the right direction," Romney added. "There are just too many people out of work and really feeling economic stress under a series of failed economic policies.”Romney insisted the GOP will be more united than it has been in years, saying that Republicans are as one in opposing Obama’s policies that have “taken America in such a different course than we have ever gone as a nation before.
“We’re becoming far more like a European social welfare state and people don’t want to see that and we will get behind our nominee as a party and work very, very hard to get America creating jobs again, leading the world economically," Romney told Fox.“President Obama, in some respects, is one of the reasons our party will be so united."The one issue that Romney was not prepared to go into during his 13-minute chat with MacCallum is his choice for running mate. “Sorry, Martha, I haven’t got a list for you,” he said.“We’ll begin sorting through the possibilities, but there’s a large number of people in the Republican Party who are extraordinary leaders, including some of those who have run in this last contest with me. So we’ll go through that list and decide who could potentially become a president, if that were necessary.
“That’s a process that has not begun yet but will begin pretty soon.”............'

Oldefarte| 4.11.12 @ 4:10PM

These true conservative purists need to THINK ABOUT THIS as opposed to branding people as RINO'S-CINO'S:
'......CHURCH AND MINISTRY Coming Soon to Your Church: A Child MolesterBy Voyle A. Glover, Esq.Guest Columnist CBN.com – (Book excerpt from Protecting Your Church Against Sexual Predators by Kregel Publications).In church after church around the world, reports have come to light about children being molested by someone in the place where they should feel safest. The Roman Catholic Church is reeling from staggering financial judgments in lawsuits filed by molestation victims. Most of these cases have come into the spotlight many years after the alleged sexual crimes occurred. For decades, the Catholic Church quietly settled abuse cases out of court and shuffled pedophile priests to different parishes. Not until the early 1980s did the news media start digging into allegations that had surfaced in places such as New Orleans, Louisiana.1 In 1992, the Boston scandals began a nightmare of litigation for Roman Catholic diocese administrators in the United States. After more than a decade, the end of litigation is not yet in sight.But the Roman Catholic Church is only the most visible defendant. Lawyers also have other church organizations in their sights. In some of the targeted churches, leaders have made the same mistakes that got the Roman Catholic bishops into so much trouble. Incidents were concealed. Law enforcement agencies were stonewalled. Safeguards were lacking. Misconduct was not subjected to church discipline.Sexual misconduct toward children in the church is not new, but attitudes and perspectives about child molesters have changed and absolutely must change. Otherwise we will continue to cope with devastated lives, financial disaster, and member disillusionment. Church leaders had better take a long, hard look at this issue.To begin with, let us look at some facts about these crimes:
1. The vast majority of child molesters are male.
2. Victims may be male or female.
3. Child molesters tend to work hard to win positions of trust. Authority, trust, and respect enable molesters to manipulate children, parents, and other leaders.
4. A child molester will create fear in the child, so that the child is afraid to tell anyone.
5. There are no “typical” child molesters. They may be of any age.
6. A child molester in the church looks for and tries to create opportunities to be alone with a child or children.
7. Prior to being caught, the typical child molester attacks thirteen children.
8. Child molesters often are married, may show evidence of a strong Christian witness, and may be in positions of responsibility.
9. Child molesters often do not recognize that any harm has come to their victims. Frequently, there is more remorse from being caught than for injuries inflicted by the crime.
10. A child molester is very likely to return to criminal sexual behavior after release from prison........'

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 4:18PM

You might want to look up LDS history of child abuse before you open your damned mouth, Oldefarte.

http://www.mormonabuse.com/

Now go sit on your thumb.

Oldefarte| 4.11.12 @ 4:55PM

DA, you may wish to look up ya boy's past before excrementing your lying garbage concerning his conservatism:
'..... WASHINGTON -- "P.... Christ," Andres Serrano's photograph of a plastic Jesus submerged in a jar of urine, caused outrage when it was exhibited in the U.S. in 1989. The photo caused a stir not just for its content, but for the National Endowment for the Arts' association with the work. Conservative politicians in Washington pounced, and soon the NEA became a target.The controversial photo, along with Robert Mapplethorpe's NEA-endorsed homoerotic nudes, helped define the early-'90s culture wars. Legislation aimed at shuttering the NEA became annual ritual in Congress.But one conservative chose to sit out the NEA floggings: then-Rep. Rick Santorum. The current GOP front-runner voted repeatedly against measures to defund the agency.Santorum said he supported the NEA because it helped keep afloat less controversial subject matter in his state, Pennsylvania. A 1997 Pittsburgh Post-Gazette story quoted a statement from Santorum, by then a senator, defending the endowments: "many highly acclaimed orchestras, fine arts programs and performing arts groups in Pittsburgh and across the state rely on NEA funding."In his statement, Santorum went on to defend the arts in a way that even an NPR tote-bag carrying Democrat could love: ''The arts foster a strong sense of community and bring new ideas and cultures to many individuals and families all over the nation. Elimination of such programs would create a cultural vacuum that could not be easily filled.''The Washington Times recently pointed out that Santorum had plenty of opportunities to change his mind -- voting to protect the NEA's funding for every year during his stint in the House and, for three consecutive votes in the Senate from 1997 through 1999.The votes were just some of the reasons that the American Conservative Union, the oldest grassroots conservative lobbying group, well known for its sponsorship of the Conservative Political Action Conference, gave Santorum less than perfect ratings during much of his time in office. After his first year in office in 1991, the American Conservative Union slapped him with an 80 out of a possible 100 score. The following year, he scored an 83.Larry Hart, the conservative group's director of government relations, attributed Santorum's less-than-perfect conservative rating to the politician's voting record on the NEA, along with support of labor union protections, tobacco taxes, and preservation of wilderness. "I don't want to comment," Hart said of the Santorum votes. "They are what they are."Santorum also voted against an amendment that would require the Department of Defense to ask those entering the armed forces if they are gay and if they've ever had gay sex. Nevertheless, Hart said Santorum fits his group's definition of a conservative."We considered an ACU conservative or solid conservative an 80 or above," Hart explained to Huff Post.In 1993, the American Conservative Union hit Santorum with a 70 rating. Santorum's campaign didn't respond to a request for comment.Nearly 20 years later, those ratings are coming back to haunt him -- proof of the challenge of running for president after years of voting in Washington. In the recent Arizona debate and on the campaign trail, rival presidential contender Mitt Romney has begun to attack Santorum's conservative credentials. Romney has knocked the former senator on spending votes, his support of No Child Left Behind and endorsement of fellow Pennsylvanian, Sen. Arlen Specter.
The American Conservative Union was merely quantifying what Santorum associates had already known -- that he began his political career in the moderate wing of the Republican Party.Santorum first got his start in politics while attending Penn State in the 1970s. It was there that he volunteered for John Heinz's senatorial campaign. An American Spectator analysis of American Conservative Union scores slams Heinz as a moderate Republican version of John Kerry.
On Oct. 26, 1976, The Daily Collegian, Penn State's independent student newspaper, interviewed Santorum about his support of Heinz.
“Rick Santorum (1st – political science), president of the Students for Heinz organization, said he was working for Heinz because he shares similar views with the candidate, especially in the area of mental health and senior citizens.
Santorum said also that his support was for Heinz because ‘he is a better representative of the entire state of Pennsylvania. Heinz is for the state, and not just for special interests in Philadelphia.’”In 1976, when Heinz was still a congressman, he earned a 21 rating from the American Conservative Union. The following year, Heinz' first as senator, he got a 33 rating.When Santorum campaigned for his own senate seat in student government, he ran on a platform President Barack Obama might admire. In a 1977 campaign ad in the Daily Collegian, Santorum promised "doing all I can in the areas of rent control, quality of housing, and especially in the area of consumer protection."
it was at Penn State that Santorum interned for Pennsylvania state Sen. J. Doyle Corman. Corman, a Republican, told Huff Post he made no secret of the fact that he was pro-choice. Huff Post reported last week that it was a belief Santorum shared -- and something the Santorum campaign subsequently denied."We first met Rick when he was a sophomore at Penn State," Corman said. "We took an immediately liking to him ... I was very impressed with his ingenuity, the way he could help solve problems for people that called in."
Santorum had less passion for Ronald Reagan and the icon's followers. According to a 1995 Philadelphia Magazine profile, a friend recalled: “There was a Youth for Reagan group on campus, but Rick shunned them. He always described them as right-wing fringe. But I don't think he gave it much thought. Through three years in the College Republicans with Rick, I never heard him actually discuss issues.”
After receiving his MBA from University of Pittsburgh, Santorum had to decide whether to work for then-Gov. Dick Thornburgh or return to Corman's office as his chief of staff. He chose Corman. "I would say he was very conservative," Corman explained. "He, too, believed in smaller government and trying to get people to pull their own weight."Santorum also attended Dickinson Law School, graduating with a law degree in 1986. Mark Podvia, a former classmate, said there was no doubt Santorum was conservative. But he says the future politician never brought up his Christian faith or social issues like abortion. "I don't remember ever having a discussion with him on that," Podvia said.As U.S. senator, Santorum's voting record became more conservative and closer to his own true-conservative talking points on the campaign trail. In 2000, he scored a 100 American Conservative Union rating. In 2006, his last year in office, he got a 96.Jeff Mondak, a professor of political science at the University of Illinois, compared the early version of Santorum to Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, "who pretty much defines common-sense conservative." Mondak said Lugar's American Conservative Union scores were similar to Santorum's."Santorum certainly was more moderate when in the House than he now casts himself. I'd characterize his House years as being ideologically in-line with a standard rank-and-file Republican, or perhaps slightly moderate by Republican norms at the time," explained Mondak, who was on the political science faculty at the University of Pittsburgh during Santorum's tenure in the House and during his first Senate term.......'

PCP Smoker| 4.11.12 @ 9:39PM

No one reads this shit of yours. Try getting on line and masturbating. It would be more useful than the mental masturbation you keep writing.

Oldefarte| 4.12.12 @ 4:03PM

You are the very definition of MASTURBATION, and like all such YOU SHOULD BE FLUSHED DOWN THE TOILET OF LIFE AND FORGOTTEN !!!!!!!!!!

Oldefarte| 4.11.12 @ 4:59PM

Whether it be at the hands of Mormon or Catholic clergy, WTF difference does it make, moron? It's still child sexual abuse? You're STUPID! What's your point? Are you saying the former has a larger and more extensive history than does the latter? Your statistics to prove your point?????? Typical BS from a moron!!!!!

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 5:42PM

Look it up, dumbass. Remember that for a long swath of its history LDS embraced polygamy and child marriage.

You really are a moron.

Oldefarte| 4.12.12 @ 4:01PM

AH, quit asininely attempting to fight a Catholic Crusade within a presidential political campaign. It's the GD Democrats, you STUPID SOB...WAKE UP!!!!!!!!!!!

Dai Alanye | 4.11.12 @ 3:44PM

Romney is not merely a weak conservative, he is a weak Republican. Worst of all, perhaps, he's a very weak candidate, his only electoral victories coming at the expense of underfunded opponents.

Republican hopes must be centered on the VP choice. Sarah Palin almost saved John McCain, and it will need someone as good or better to drag Romney first across the finish line. I hope that person is not Rick Santorum, but for Santorum's own good. If he can avoid being besmirched by a losing Romney campaign he'll be viable in 2016, while if Romney manages to pull out a win there's always 2020 for Santorum.

As far as "The clear eyed core of the Republican party," I've been active in Republican politics for many years, and have yet to see anything like that. The Republican core so often manages to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by nominating weak-kneed centrists that such a descriptive is laughable.

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 4:07PM

If Santorum runs in 2016, it will clearly be "his turn".

Whereupon the same RINOs insisting that Romney be elected because it's "his turn" will turn on a dime and decide the GOP needs "new blood".

Just as they did when Reagan ran in 1980.

Why?

Because conservatives never get "a turn".

THAT's how RINOs define victory--not winning elections.

Oldefarte| 4.11.12 @ 5:05PM

Santorum's turn? He never should run currently since he is a fake, a fraud and a worthless politician. Hades he doesn't even have a notable piece of congressional legislation to his name [at least McCain etc do]. He's just a Yankee longterm politician who tried to falsely claim the presidency. Guess he can revert back to his lobbying career now. He's as fake a conservative as the Kennedys/Pilosis etc are Catholics

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 5:43PM

That was quick!

Quin| 4.11.12 @ 9:04PM

That's not true, my friend. He was the prime mover of welfare reform -- a HUGE success -- and the lead author of the ban on partial birth abortion.

Oldefarte| 4.12.12 @ 3:57PM

I never doubt your facts, Quin, but I do know enough to understand that this recent comparison to Ronald Reagan is ludicrous. If anyone deserves that, it's Newt....not Rick [he a Yankee, a former lobbyist and a solicitor of labor unions in Pa which I posted proof of yesterday]. If I'm appearing anti-Rick I apologize [as he's obviously a devoted and moral person beyond doubt] BUT HE AIN'T NO REAGAN AND NEVER WILL BE, and that's a fact!!!!

Oldefarte| 4.12.12 @ 3:59PM

PS:'.....Fighting the last warby Ann Coulter (more by this author)Posted 04/11/2012 ETUpdated 04/11/2012 ETIn a fast-changing world, a common mistake is to keep fighting the last war. For example, why would Republicans support sending more troops to Afghanistan, when that war was long over, or helping topple Moammar Gadhafi, who had become an ally in the war on terrorism? Some Republicans seem to support all military deployments just out of habit.
For years after the 9/11 terrorist attack on America, Democrats hysterically bemoaned any military action, especially in Iraq. They claimed to have many precious objections, but the truth was, they thought we deserved the attack -- or at best, both sides were at fault. So when it came to Obama's pointlessly sending more troops to Afghanistan or foolishly intervening in Libya, some Republicans' first instinct was to demand muscular American military action, forgetting that we are the party that cares about American national security and does not fling troops around the globe just to look tough, as the Democrats do. Republicans who supported sending more troops to Afghanistan and taking out Gadhafi were fighting the last war. Similarly, sometimes it seems as if Republicans' only move on the economy is to cut taxes. With the highest corporate tax rate in the world, there's much to be said for cutting taxes. But, unlike when Reagan ran for president, it's going to take a lot more than tax cuts to rescue this country from its $16 trillion debt. When Reagan took office, the top marginal tax rate in this country was a staggering 70 percent. Lowering that to 28 percent was an enormous shot in the arm to the economy. Cutting the top tax rate today from 35 percent to 30 percent -- or even 20 percent -- cannot possibly have the same dramatic effect. Republicans, as the only responsible party, are going to have to do something that's never been tried before in Washington: Cut government spending. To keep prattling about cutting taxes, rather than cutting our behemoth, useless government is fighting the last war.Finally, some Republicans have been fighting the last war in our primaries. For at least the last half-century -- probably since Abraham Lincoln ran -- there has always been liberal Republican pain in the ass in the GOP primary race. (You can tell who the liberal is by whom The New York Times calls a "pragmatic" or "moderate" Republican.)In 1968, there were two liberals -- Richard Nixon and Nelson Rockefeller -- and one conservative, Ronald Reagan, who nearly won the nomination.
In 1976, it was Reagan again, vs. Gerald Ford ("moderate"). In 1980, it was Reagan a third time, vs. pro-choice, "voodoo economics" George H.W. Bush. In 1992, it was Pat Buchanan, the conservative, against "Read My Lips" betrayer Bush. In 1996, it was, again, Buchanan against moderate Bob Dole ("tax collector for the welfare state" in the immortal words of Newt Gingrich). In 2000, we had conservative George W. Bush against liberal John McCain. In 2008, it was liberal McCain vs. Mitt Romney, the conservative. You will note that liberal Republicans have always stayed liberal Republicans and conservative Republicans have always stayed conservative Republicans. Only their match-ups change. Until this year. For the first time, the last cycle's conservative has been rebranded a "liberal" by right-wingers eager to resume their battle against liberal Republicans. This year's actual liberal Republican, much admired by the Non-Fox Media, was Jon Huntsman. But he dropped out after the New Hampshire primary.
Mitt Romney isn't a liberal. He isn't even a moderate. And he certainly isn't liked by the Times. Liberals so loathe Romney that in 2008, their most Christian-phobic columnist, Frank Rich, was forced to write admiringly about pro-life Christian conservative Mike Huckabee. He may have been a Christian, but at least he wasn't Mitt Romney! Conservatives know perfectly well Romney isn't a "moderate" -- he was our conservative hero just four years ago! Indeed, when Romney withdrew from the 2008 primary at CPAC that year, gallantly throwing his support to the front-runner, McCain, a college-age Christian standing next to a friend of mine expressed the general sentiment of the 10,000 assembled right-wingers by saying, "This f-ing blows." But the need to revert to comfortable old roles has forced some right-wingers to designate our 2008 hero as the Rockefeller Republican this time around. It has nothing to do with the facts. Conservatives who attack Romney as the "establishment Republican" are behaving like Democrats, giving us epithets in lieu of facts. Perhaps it is because they were asleep at the wheel four years ago when Republicans actually did run a liberal for president that these conservatives feel the need to create an imaginary liberal Republican to oppose ferociously this time. John McCain was worshipped by the liberal media, was the author of the unconstitutional campaign finance law and a global warming bill, adamantly supported amnesty for illegal aliens, opposed the Bush tax cuts as "tax cuts for the rich," wanted to shut down Guantanamo, called waterboarding "torture" and viciously attacked Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson as "agents of intolerance" (and then immediately faxed that speech to The New York Times). And he was from a conservative state! Where were you people four years ago when we were running him? By contrast, when he was governor, every single budget Romney submitted to the 85 percent Democratic legislature in Massachusetts included tax cuts. He became a pro-lifer when it mattered -- while he was governor -- and vetoed a stem cell research bill. He slashed government spending in one of the most liberal states of the union. He is the rare elected Republican who is tough on illegal immigration. He has forcefully denounced Obama's dangerous foreign policy.
But the facts are irrelevant to people busy fighting the last war. It's not about Romney at all, but their own posing. Romney is the Emmanuel Goldstein of GOP primary voters looking for a moderate to hate because they fell down on the job last time. Liberal Republicans always lose. Because he is not a liberal, Romney stands a good chance of beating Obama this fall. But if the fantasist posers keep turning this presidential race into their personal "Dungeons and Dragons" battle against "moderates," Romney's victory will go into the "Liberal Wins" column, when it is anything but.........'

bob feland| 4.11.12 @ 3:44PM

Great Quin! Let's just throw in the towel. We need Barack for 4 more years. Hell, why not 12 more-we can change the Amendment. Give up! Stop writing your whiney, woe is me nonsense, assume the fetal position and stick your thumb in your mouth!

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 4:08PM

Better a conservative in 4 years than a liberal for the next 8.

Oldefarte| 4.11.12 @ 5:06PM

Well it will not be Santorum as a false-conservative, thats for sure!!!!

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 5:44PM

Yeah, says the guy wearing the Mittens kneepads.

How do you like your socialized medicine now that your fellow moustache parade grand marshal is covered?

Oldefarte| 4.12.12 @ 3:51PM

Go fight your GD social conservative war at the Vatican instead while ignoring the takeover of your country from the domestic terrorists aka Democrats. Oh, and also read try and contemplate the following:
'.....Fighting the last war by Ann Coulter (more by this author)Posted 04/11/2012 ETUpdated 04/11/2012 ETIn a fast-changing world, a common mistake is to keep fighting the last war. For example, why would Republicans support sending more troops to Afghanistan, when that war was long over, or helping topple Moammar Gadhafi, who had become an ally in the war on terrorism? Some Republicans seem to support all military deployments just out of habit.
For years after the 9/11 terrorist attack on America, Democrats hysterically bemoaned any military action, especially in Iraq. They claimed to have many precious objections, but the truth was, they thought we deserved the attack -- or at best, both sides were at fault. So when it came to Obama's pointlessly sending more troops to Afghanistan or foolishly intervening in Libya, some Republicans' first instinct was to demand muscular American military action, forgetting that we are the party that cares about American national security and does not fling troops around the globe just to look tough, as the Democrats do. Republicans who supported sending more troops to Afghanistan and taking out Gadhafi were fighting the last war. Similarly, sometimes it seems as if Republicans' only move on the economy is to cut taxes. With the highest corporate tax rate in the world, there's much to be said for cutting taxes. But, unlike when Reagan ran for president, it's going to take a lot more than tax cuts to rescue this country from its $16 trillion debt. When Reagan took office, the top marginal tax rate in this country was a staggering 70 percent. Lowering that to 28 percent was an enormous shot in the arm to the economy. Cutting the top tax rate today from 35 percent to 30 percent -- or even 20 percent -- cannot possibly have the same dramatic effect. Republicans, as the only responsible party, are going to have to do something that's never been tried before in Washington: Cut government spending. To keep prattling about cutting taxes, rather than cutting our behemoth, useless government is fighting the last war.Finally, some Republicans have been fighting the last war in our primaries. For at least the last half-century -- probably since Abraham Lincoln ran -- there has always been liberal Republican pain in the ass in the GOP primary race. (You can tell who the liberal is by whom The New York Times calls a "pragmatic" or "moderate" Republican.)In 1968, there were two liberals -- Richard Nixon and Nelson Rockefeller -- and one conservative, Ronald Reagan, who nearly won the nomination.
In 1976, it was Reagan again, vs. Gerald Ford ("moderate"). In 1980, it was Reagan a third time, vs. pro-choice, "voodoo economics" George H.W. Bush. In 1992, it was Pat Buchanan, the conservative, against "Read My Lips" betrayer Bush. In 1996, it was, again, Buchanan against moderate Bob Dole ("tax collector for the welfare state" in the immortal words of Newt Gingrich). In 2000, we had conservative George W. Bush against liberal John McCain. In 2008, it was liberal McCain vs. Mitt Romney, the conservative. You will note that liberal Republicans have always stayed liberal Republicans and conservative Republicans have always stayed conservative Republicans. Only their match-ups change. Until this year. For the first time, the last cycle's conservative has been rebranded a "liberal" by right-wingers eager to resume their battle against liberal Republicans. This year's actual liberal Republican, much admired by the Non-Fox Media, was Jon Huntsman. But he dropped out after the New Hampshire primary.
Mitt Romney isn't a liberal. He isn't even a moderate. And he certainly isn't liked by the Times. Liberals so loathe Romney that in 2008, their most Christian-phobic columnist, Frank Rich, was forced to write admiringly about pro-life Christian conservative Mike Huckabee. He may have been a Christian, but at least he wasn't Mitt Romney! Conservatives know perfectly well Romney isn't a "moderate" -- he was our conservative hero just four years ago! Indeed, when Romney withdrew from the 2008 primary at CPAC that year, gallantly throwing his support to the front-runner, McCain, a college-age Christian standing next to a friend of mine expressed the general sentiment of the 10,000 assembled right-wingers by saying, "This f-ing blows." But the need to revert to comfortable old roles has forced some right-wingers to designate our 2008 hero as the Rockefeller Republican this time around. It has nothing to do with the facts. Conservatives who attack Romney as the "establishment Republican" are behaving like Democrats, giving us epithets in lieu of facts. Perhaps it is because they were asleep at the wheel four years ago when Republicans actually did run a liberal for president that these conservatives feel the need to create an imaginary liberal Republican to oppose ferociously this time. John McCain was worshipped by the liberal media, was the author of the unconstitutional campaign finance law and a global warming bill, adamantly supported amnesty for illegal aliens, opposed the Bush tax cuts as "tax cuts for the rich," wanted to shut down Guantanamo, called waterboarding "torture" and viciously attacked Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson as "agents of intolerance" (and then immediately faxed that speech to The New York Times). And he was from a conservative state! Where were you people four years ago when we were running him? By contrast, when he was governor, every single budget Romney submitted to the 85 percent Democratic legislature in Massachusetts included tax cuts. He became a pro-lifer when it mattered -- while he was governor -- and vetoed a stem cell research bill. He slashed government spending in one of the most liberal states of the union. He is the rare elected Republican who is tough on illegal immigration. He has forcefully denounced Obama's dangerous foreign policy.
But the facts are irrelevant to people busy fighting the last war. It's not about Romney at all, but their own posing. Romney is the Emmanuel Goldstein of GOP primary voters looking for a moderate to hate because they fell down on the job last time. Liberal Republicans always lose. Because he is not a liberal, Romney stands a good chance of beating Obama this fall. But if the fantasist posers keep turning this presidential race into their personal "Dungeons and Dragons" battle against "moderates," Romney's victory will go into the "Liberal Wins" column, when it is anything but.........'

mrd| 4.11.12 @ 4:26PM

This is all really very simple, Romney is not a conservative, no one thinks he is. Would anyone who was a conservative say they governed as a "severe" conservative. There is no evidence that Romney is philosophically anything at all. He is a technocrat, a moderate Republican, who has no burning governing philosophy, You might say he is kind of a corporate pragmatist. Since he is up against a left wing ideologue in Obama, who is totalitarian in impulse and in some sense hostile to the American Idea he is an improvement. I think a review of both Romney's record and his statements reflect this.

In an emergency you take what you have, so I suspect most conservatives will vote for him. I certainly will. The problem is Romney by destroying the other candidates in the manner he did, and particularly by Rove et al clearly throwing the social conservatives out of the party he has risked turning off enough of them to lower the turnout ( rightly or wrongly) this need only be by a small amount, but if 10% of the evangelical voters in states like Ohio, North Carolina, Florida and Virginia stay home I think it will be difficult to imagine Romney winning. In 2000 Bush/Gore was a virtual tie, and in 2004 Bush managed to beat Kerry for several reasons. Kerry was personally obviously an elitist, Bush clearly turned out evangelicals because that year Gay marriage was on the ballot in several states. I think if the evangelicals did not turnout, Ohio is lost and Kerry wins.

Joe Trippe said on Fox that as a Democrat he though Santorum or Gingrich would have posed tougher campaigns and indeed they would have, both have greater conservative convictions, especially Santorum.

Statements like that of Mr Feland and other posters above reflect this "go to hell" attitude to those of us who who feel that when Santorum was attacked for his crazy "social conservatism" we too are being attacked, we too are being told to go to hell.. This is a peculiar way for Romney supporters to rally support so as to defeat Obama. Again the issue is not will you vote for him, its will you vote at all and more importantly will you volunteer to work a phone bank, donate, how hard will you work to elect Romney. I do not know the answer to this, As I prefer than Obama be defeated I hope folks do, still while I might vote for the lesser of two evils its not clear the lesser of two evils inspires a ton of volunteer work. Well the establishment has their guy so we shall see what happens.

Simon Templar| 4.11.12 @ 5:42PM

Mrd, excellent and well thought out comment.

Christopher C| 4.12.12 @ 6:40AM

mrd - exactly right. I hope Romney wins. That's not because Romney is actually worth voting for, but because the incumbent is mutating into a constitutional monster. The only difficulty. The incumbent is a thoroughly convincing liar. Romney is the least convincing idea salesman I've seen in a while. Who was it? Yogi Berra? "Ah, sincerity. If you can fake that, you've got it made." That's Obama.

Purple Lips| 4.11.12 @ 5:33PM

At best, Mitt will slow the pace. But the direction will not change. That is the best we can hope for. My prediction: Mitt and his advisors will veer Left as soon as GOP politics allow. We've seen this act, before.

Teflon93| 4.11.12 @ 5:45PM

Why do you think so many are pretending we haven't seen it before, PL?

It is a mystery to me---last time was just 4 years ago.

If we're going to the firing squad, I see no merit in the blindfold myself.

Nite| 4.11.12 @ 8:47PM

Obama will play very dirty, and in this regard, Mitt can hold his own. It is important that we get Obama out any way we can, and if it means dirty politics, then so be it. Now it is very important we hold the House and take back the Senate with 60 or more. Then if Obama wins, Republicans can block anything he tries. If Mitt wins, then Republicans can keep him on the straight and narrow. The VP needs to be a conservative that is not afraid to speak his mind and provide good counseling to Mitt if he is the nominee. If we go to a brokered convention, then so be it.

Sparky| 4.11.12 @ 6:22PM

Mr. Hilyer, spare us your venting. If you have nothing intelligent to say, then back away from the keyboard.

The American Hagiographer| 4.11.12 @ 6:48PM

Willard is not a commie.

the end

mjs_pa| 4.11.12 @ 9:53PM

socialized medicine, mandates, government control of private enterprises, bailouts, cap and trade, global warming, corporate cronyism, state funded abortions, denial of conscience exceptions....need I say more.

The end

The American Hagiographer| 4.11.12 @ 10:12PM

well, I tried to post something positive. pass

Clint| 4.11.12 @ 7:22PM

We Are Being Set Up By The RINO-CINO Flunkie Stooges For The Ruling Elites' Frontman Mittens Romney.

These Are The RINO-CINO Flunkie Stooges Who Gave Us The Serial Traitor To Conservatism, John McCain Of McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy,McCain-Lieberman,Gang Of 14, Opposing Bush Tax Cuts Of 2001 & 2003,TARP.

Now They Are Trying To Give Us RomneyCare,TARP, Cynical Flip-Flops On Abortion, Gays, Refuses to Sign Pro-Life Pledge, Illegal Immigrants, "Little Chain Saw Al" At Bain, Crony Capitalism Campaign Money Trail.....

Mike Rogers | 4.12.12 @ 4:38AM

Do you have any other words to describe RINOs?

Eric | 4.11.12 @ 9:01PM

You are beclowning yourself Hillyer.

PCP Smoker| 4.11.12 @ 9:36PM

And Romney might put up decent Supreme Court candidates, and certainly will put up ones that at worst are fence-sitters rather than leftist activists (GLAD TO KNOW WE ARE, SUPPOSEDLY NOT GETTING A SHIT SANDWICH. THEN AGAIN, HE HAS NO GUTS TO PUT UP A THOMAS OR AN ALITO)

he will show at least some understanding of and appreciation for the free market; and he will not use the administrative agencies to run roughshod over individual liberties. (ASK THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY IN MASS WHETHER HIS ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES RAN ROUGHSHOD OVER THEIR LIBERTIES.)

THIS IS THE CRAP YOU AND THAT WHORE JEN RUBIN WHERE SELLING US? NOW, YOU AND COULTER ARE POSITIONING TO ACCOUNT FOR THE UPCOMING FAILURE.

mjs_pa| 4.11.12 @ 9:44PM

romney is not a small favor. He is a no favor.

With all the accusations republicans have made against obama, romney is just as guilty count by count.

Many say it is better to win the election than lose the country. Well we're past the point where the two outcomes are mutually exclusive.

By nominating romney and obama, the country has failed to choose a leader who will make the bold changes necessary for financial survival.

Do republicans really want to hold the White House during another financial collapse? This is how pelosi, reid and obama rose to power.

This is one sequel the country could sadly afford but has been corruptly manipulated into by a GOP establishment that is unwilling to shrink the size of government and restore financial sanity.

sjccoach| 4.11.12 @ 10:50PM

The election is over. Obama has won. If he is reelcted he has won. If he loses to Romney he has won. Romney and the RINOs, Boehner and McConnell, will continue down the same path, albeit at a slower rate. They are all part of the same ruling class that has contempt for the American public and the American ideal. The will seek to be bipartisan and accomodate the enemy. No one will care who Romney nominates tot he Supreme Court. They will wonder why the don't have job and the non-productive are living off of the productive. We will be Greece within 20 years.

Teflon93| 4.12.12 @ 9:42AM

We're Greece NOW. Another credit downgrade---2nd in our history, just happened. Compare the deficits and we're beyond the mess the Greeks have made---and we're still making ours.

The Boomers haven't even retired yet.

Mike Rogers | 4.12.12 @ 4:43AM

We'll support Romney if he oes indeed escape from Tampa as the nominee, but we have no high hope for wise and frugal government.
Glenn Beck made the best endorsement: "at least he's not a COMMY"! Brought out a Tshirt, too. http://granitegrok.com/blog/20.....ot-a-commy

More Blog Posts by Quin Hillyer

http://spectator.org/blog/2012/04/11/romney-the-weak

ADVERTISEMENT

The Spectacle Blog

Carney Goes Birther on Major Garrett

Aaron Goldstein | 12:10AM

UPDATED: More on Lerner Pleading the Fifth

Kaylin Bugos | 5.21.13

Did Virginia Republicans Just Elect Terry McAuliffe?

Ross Kaminsky | 5.21.13

Lois Lerner Will Take the Fifth

Ross Kaminsky | 5.21.13

Cook Insists: No Income Shifting, Tax Avoidance

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 5.21.13

Democrats Outraged Over IRS, But Not the Right Aspect of It

Kaylin Bugos | 5.21.13

What Happens If the Uninsured Can’t Register Under Obamacare?

Patrick Ryan | 5.21.13

Whitehouse Berates Republicans for Causing Tornadoes

Claire Healey | 5.21.13

Latest Headlines

Obama’s Assault on the First Amendment

George Neumayr|11 comments

Damage Control for Dummies

Matt Purple|11 comments

Time to Go for the Kill

Peter Ferrara|7 comments

Restrain the Abusive Administative State

Doug Bandow|3 comments

Disabling American Sovereignty

Iain Murray|2 comments

The Other Gosnells

Jordan Gonzalez|3 comments

Can He Unite Virginia’s GOP?

Carten Cordell|4 comments

Undoing the Brainwashing

Thomas Sowell|3 comments

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.