Calling All Romney Supporters
I'm not doing this to needle you--honestly I'm not. Romney's not my choice, but we here at Ricochet have a big tent--well, a big-ish tent, anyway--and the supporters of the former governor of Massachusetts are not only welcome but among our shrewdest contributors. Yesterday, though, Jonathan Last put up a post about Mitt Romney that's biting and funny and that strikes me as pretty largely true.
How would you rebut it?
It’s funny that Romney’s line of attack on Perry seems to be that Perry is a “career politician” because he’s been in elective office since 1984. Well, Mitt Romney would have been a career politician too, if only voters would have let him. He’s been running since 1994. His real gripe about Perry is actually, “Hey, that guy wins all the time! No fair!”...
[Ross] Douthat says [in a recent column in the New York Times] that “The greatest danger to Romney’s candidacy — the thing that could destroy him long before the voting even started — has always been that a more appealing establishment candidate would enter the race.” But that’s not right at all. The greatest danger to Romney’s candidacy is that he has no constituency because he’s not very good at campaigning and, as the electoral results of the last 17 years have shown, voters don’t like him very much. The danger to the Romney candidacy is the candidate.
- Comment (75)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (5)
Comments:
Apr '11
Re: Calling All Romney Supporters
My support of Romney comes more from my non support of Perry. Perry's Texas swagger I believe will do disproportionately poor with the youth vote and the female suburban vote. Look at the national polls, Romney fairs better against Obama than Perry does. It will take about two seconds for the lefties to retrofit the anti-Bush machine for Perry.
I think that conservatives have forgotten Obama's ability to campaign. Obama has been good at presenting himself as the 'reasonable' one ( truth be told he is very much a conventional liberal). Standing next to a polarizing figure is where Obama shines the most, and Perry is very much a polarizing figure.
I am not saying Perry can't win, I just don't think his odds are as good as Romney's when it comes to the national stage, SO FAR the polls reinforce this.
Mar '11
Re: Calling All Romney Supporters
Serious? Just for the record, he doesn’t dye his hair.
Edited on August 31, 2011 at 10:24pmMay '10
Re: Calling All Romney Supporters
The King Prawn
There are a few here including katievs and a few others.
I don't know that I'd call myself a supporter exactly. But I do prefer him over Bachmann or Perry. Phil Gramm's endorsement of Perry this week has given me pause, however. So I'm waiting for the debates.
Dec '10
Re: Calling All Romney Supporters
Duane Oyen:
Etoile, show me evidence that Americans vote for swagger. Duke in the movies, yes, Schwarzenegger as Terminator, yes. As president, I can't think of any. John Connally sure didn't better RR in 1980, and RR was confident, genuine, and calm, not swaggering. The Left's biggest weapon against Bush was to try to paint him as a Texas cowboy unfit for tea with the French president. · Aug 31 at 12:19pm
In 1980, I worked as a pilot for the Reagan Campaign. It was a front row seat to all of the dynamics of the campaign, both public and private. On several occasions we flew to campaign events with John Connally as a passenger. Connally wasn't thought of or criticized as a swaggering Cowboy, he was a Southerner. On the other hand, Reagan was widely portrayed as a dangerous cowboy and a lot of voters, who thought Reagan was a cowboy, voted for him.
All of the insults, vile and smears aimed at conservatives like Rick Perry and Sarah Palin have been plagiarized from the press clippings written about Ronald Reagan in 1980.
Edited on August 31, 2011 at 10:43pmAug '10
Re: Calling All Romney Supporters
From what I can discern, Peter, much of your distaste for Romney stems from his disavowing of the Reagan mantle in his first debate with Teddy in 1992 (a debate in which the newcomer was clearly rolled by the slick veteran).
How odd then that you now support a candidate - Rick Perry - who, as a Democrat at the time, presumably supported Carter and Mondale over Reagan!
Look, I'm the first to admit that Romney is not the most ideologically pure conservative in the race but give the man some credit - he clearly can see what works for the economy and what does not. He is a proven budget cutter who knows how to balance the books. He can get things done in a hostile environment.
I believe Mitt is a man of his word and when he says he's going to do something there is a better than average chance he will keep his political promises - which we all know typically have a very short shelf life.
Romney has accomplished some very impressive things in his career in both the private and public sector.
Rick Perry has won a lot of elections in a deep red state.
Aug '11
Re: Calling All Romney Supporters
Maybe this was true in '08, when Obama was a relatively fresh face on the scene without a real record. I think it's safe to say that he is now at least as polarizing as GWB ever was, and probably a good deal more. The key will be for the nominee to actually go on offense and not worry about the approval of the MSM (I'm looking at you McCain). Make Obama defend his record. Make him defend his personnel choices. Make him defend his policies. If there were ever a time for the gloves to come off, it's now.
Aug '11
Re: Calling All Romney Supporters
Forrest Cox
DrewInWisconsin
Although perhaps it's worth noting that W got elected to two terms. Bob Dole didn't get even one. So if given the choice between another Dole or another Bush . . . which option gives us a better chance of making sure President Obama doesn't get another four years?
Important to remember that W also got us $4 trillion in mal-financed debt, . . . etc.
Well, yes, but I take it as a given that we simply cannot survive another four years of Barack Obama, so in spite of his failings, I'd even take George W. Bush for a third term if that was the only other option.
Apr '11
Re: Calling All Romney Supporters
danok1
If there were ever a time for the gloves to come off, it's now. · Aug 31 at 1:41pm
I agree with you that we should vigorously go after Obama's policy decisions. But we need to make sure that the attacks do not appear personal.( Even though the media will try to portray any questioning of Obama's policies as a personal attack I think that ultimately the public will know the difference ).
For instance it would probably be taking it too far to call the President treasonous.
Sep '10
Re: Calling All Romney Supporters
DrewInWisconsin Well, yes, but I take it as a given that we simply cannot survive another four years of Barack Obama, so in spite of his failings, I'd even take George W. Bush for a third term if that was the only other option. · Aug 31 at 1:42pm
If the scenario were such that we controlled both houses of Congress with healthy majorities (as I think will likely be the case), I would far prefer another four years of Obama to another four years of President Bush. If you can curtail the activities of his Cabinet and of the Departments, he becomes the political gift that keeps on giving. His administration is a train-wreck wrought from incompetence - even if he had the right ideological leanings, he would still be a disaster of a kind. This guy is just a couple of months on the fortunate side of a primary challenge.
The rise of the GOP tide will crest - just on the math - in 2016. That bodes well for us, whomever is POTUS.
Of course, the odds that we win huge in Congress and don't take the White House are almost nil, so...
Sep '10
Re: Calling All Romney Supporters
I can't help but believe the media will try to portray (or allow the portrayal - by visible media personalities - of) any questioning of his policies as racist, not personal. Check out Politico's treatment today of Andre Carson's latest race-baiting tirade and you'll get a flavor of what's in store for us...(my treatment of the Politico story can be found here)
May '10
Re: Calling All Romney Supporters
jetstream
Duane Oyen:
Etoile, show me evidence that Americans vote for swagger. Duke in the movies, yes, Schwarzenegger as Terminator, yes. As president, I can't think of any. John Connally sure didn't better RR in 1980, and RR was confident, genuine, and calm, not swaggering. The Left's biggest weapon against Bush was to try to paint him as a Texas cowboy unfit for tea with the French president. · Aug 31 at 12:19pm
In 1980, I worked as a pilot for the Reagan Campaign. It was a front row seat to all of the dynamics of the campaign, both public and private. On several occasions we flew to campaign events with John Connally as a passenger. Connally wasn't thought of or criticized as a swaggering Cowboy, he was a Southerner. On the other hand, Reagan was widely portrayed as a dangerous cowboy and a lot of voters, who thought Reagan was a cowboy, voted for him.
Jetstream, that sounds like fun in 1980, and I still disagree. I read the same things you did from NY, etc. But in the flyover heartland, Connally was a Texas cowboy. Maybe you were too close to the front line.
May '10
Re: Calling All Romney Supporters
Forrest Cox Important to remember that W also got us $4 trillion in mal-financed debt, Nancy Pelosi as a national political figure (from repeated exposure to the visage of whom, I may never recover), a (still!) Harry Reid-led congress, and a tremendous continued exposure to a catastrophic collapse of the financial system (it's coming - don't you worry).
Oh yea, and W got us Barack Obama, .....
Oh, baloney, Forrest. Except for transformative figures (FDR, RR), we change presidential parties every 8 years. If Gore couldn't win in 2000, McCain, even with a good campaiogn, wasn't going to win in 2008.
The isolationists abandoned Bush because they were tired of the wars (example of head-in-the-sand turncoat: Jonah Goldberg, whom I usually like a lot). And both Bush and McCain tried to reform Fannie & Freddie- blocked by Frank, Bush even tried to reform both Medicare and SS- and got killed by the pusillanimous Congress that had lost its way completely and was, as always happens, more interested in immediate re-election than doing necessary strategic things.
Re: Calling All Romney Supporters
Very nicely stated--and fair enough.
May '10
Re: Calling All Romney Supporters
And, Peter and all, may I remind you that there was no Republican candidate in the last 60 years who was less natural, warm, or likable than Richard Nixon.
I'm no Romney fan- I think his overpowering principle is that Romney should be president more than he favors small government or free markets, though he is fine with the latter. He's another Ivy League technocratic tinkerer. But he is also not unelectable.
And, compared with Obama, he exudes genuine warmth.
Sep '10
Re: Calling All Romney Supporters
Duane, your strong comments elsewhere notwithstanding, I fail to see how you've coherently articulated anything that runs counter to the points I made. Jonah Goldberg didn't "abandon" President Bush because of the wars - he spoke out against the President increasingly because of the realization that "compassionate conservatism" was just big government in socially palatable wrapping. Read Liberal Fascism for his treatment of the Bush Presidency.
Reforming Fannie / Freddie alone wouldn't have staved-off the financial crisis - the problem originates with the structure of the banking system. President Bush was incapable of (and until it was too late - uninterested in) understanding this or anything else related to the financial system, and should be held to account for having left us worse of than when he took office in this regard. After all, financing the wars requires a strong financial base, something to which he paid absolutely no attention.
Sep '10
Re: Calling All Romney Supporters
I fail to understand how President Bush's failure to form a coherent policy-making schedule has anything to do with his NOT substantially paving the way for Barack Obama in 2008. So he failed to get Social Security reform? So he failed to get Fannie and Freddie taken care of? What does that say about his ability to govern?
Point-in-fact, he DID get a very large Medicare Bill through in the form of a completely new kind of entitlement, and true-to-form, failed to pay for a single red cent of it.
To the text of your statement, what does it say about a man who "gets killed" by a body, any body, that "had lost its way completely"?
As I said before, I supported President Bush in a great many ways, and I still support the efforts in Iraq and in Afghanistan. But he was not a good President.
Apr '11
Re: Calling All Romney Supporters
Forrest Cox
I can't help but believe the media will try to portray (or allow the portrayal - by visible media personalities - of) any questioning of his policies as racist, not personal. Check out Politico's treatment today of Andre Carson's latest race-baiting tirade and you'll get a flavor of what's in store for us...(my treatment of the Politico story can be found here) · Aug 31 at 2:21pm
There is nothing that disgust me more than using the accusation of racism as a political weapon. It's just not acceptable. I'm hoping that as time passes it will be considered a bigger faux paux.
Re: Calling All Romney Supporters
Not sure that comparison is apt, though, Duane. Richard Nixon had been a political figure of national prominence--and this is something we often forget--ever since he broke open the Hiss perjury case during his second term in the House. And then, at the end of that second term, he was elected to the Senate. And two years after that, he was elected Vice President, serving for eight years with President Eisenhower. Romney's grasp of politics--his genuine political achievments--represent, by comparison, the merest trifles.
I suppose you could argue that, whereas Richard Nixon had deep experience in foreign affairs at a time when the Cold War dominated our national concerns, Mitt Romney has deep experience in business formation at a time when the dominant concerns are economic. I'd grant that. (Sort of. Running Bain Capital is a lot different from, say, getting tax cuts through Congress.)
Anyway, back to you, Duane. You, always always have something incisive to say.
Feb '11
Re: Calling All Romney Supporters
I disagree with the premise that Romney doesn't have a constituency, he does in the northeast. However, it's very regional. I agree with the other doubts about Mitt, but think he's got a lot to offer a Republican administration, just not in the 1 or 2 slot. I would love to see Romney as Fed Chair, Secretary of the Treasury or head of some other heavy-weight department that needed a good manager to wip it into shape.
Dec '10
Re: Calling All Romney Supporters
Peter Robinson
I suppose you could argue that, whereas Richard Nixon had deep experience in foreign affairs at a time when the Cold War dominated our national concerns, Mitt Romney has deep experience in business formation at a time when the dominant concerns are economic. I'd grant that. (Sort of. Running Bain Capital is a lot different from, say, getting tax cuts through Congress.)
Peter, don't forget the Vietnam War. Lyndon Johnson and Robert McNamara had turned the war into a strategic and tactical mess. In 1968 the Battle of Khe Sanh was on the front pages for months and the daily war casualties were very high because McNamara and Johnson thought they were the smartest military leaders on the planet. Hubert Humphrey, Johnson's VP, was seen as the next four years of LBJ and Nixon rightly had a reputation as a foreign policy expert with a plan to end the war.