Mitt's "The One"?
I have two posters hanging behind my desk, at my Hoover Institution office.
One is from Herbert Hoover's first presidential run, in 1928.
Nothing fancy. Just a drawing of a serious-minded Hoover, who was indeed both a serious man when it came to stemming the tide of communism and a compassionate soul when it came to famine relief.
The other poster is from the 1968 Nixon campaign.
I like it because it's a clever attempt at re-branding the decidedly un-hip RMN as something more living-room friendly (remember, this came at a time in his comeback when Nixon was playing the piano -- seen here, at the Grand Ole Opry, in March 1974 -- and going on "Laugh-In" to prove he had a pulse).
Take a look at the "youth campaign" poster (below) and you'll see "The One" surrouded by the usual suspects: wife Pat, daughters Julie and Tricia, and future son-in-law David.
Plus assorted Republican pooh-bahs like Everett Dirksen, Nelson Rockeller and a certain first-term governor of California.
As well as a cluster of folks one wouldn't normally associate with a Nixon candidacy: Green Bay Packers great Bart Starr, NBA legend Wilt Chamberlain, and Clint Eastwood.
This got me to thinking: is Cindy Crawford's sudden emergence in the Romney campaign a coincidence, or a sign of things to come?
Like Nixon, is Romney going to surround himself with famous names and faces as a way to sell himself as a little more, shall we say, personable?
If so, who are your choices for a star-studded Mitt 2012 poster (and, yes, Donnie and Marie are too obvious . . .)?
If Nixon was willing to do "Laugh-In", what's the modern-day equivalent for Romney -- Stewart, Colbert, Maher . . . the next Charlie Sheen tour?
- Comment (29)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
May '10
Re: Mitt's "The One"?
Unable to convince people to support his candidacy on its own merits, Mitt (and supporters) are trying to project that air of inevitability through his fundraising prowess and through high-profile endorsements.
That's really unfortunate. Because it shows two things: 1) that elections are more about money than values, and 2) Mitt is unabashedly, unashamedly, cynically embracing this.
He's saying in effect, the nomination can be bought, and he's going to out-bid anyone else. How insulting.
Edited on May 17, 2011 at 11:40amApr '11
Re: Mitt's "The One"?
I like the idea of Mr Romney warming up for Radiohead. (I'll see your Common and raise you a Thomas Yorke)
Dec '10
Re: Mitt's "The One"?
I think he would have to consider being interviewed on Red State Update.
May '10
Re: Mitt's "The One"?
The set of "stars" who will align with a GOP candidate and not Obama, or just stay on the sidelines has to be pretty small.
Edited on May 17, 2011 at 1:12pmMay '10
Re: Mitt's "The One"?
Unable to convince people to support his candidacy on its own merits...
Really? You know this already?
Nixon went to China, and Romney will go to Obamacare, first waive it, and then get it repealed. And you still probably won't like him.
May '10
Re: Mitt's "The One"?
Romney should definitely do SNL (today's Laugh-in). Is it dangerous? It would have a high ROI: humanizing. Even mocking the LDS could reap dividends. Was Palin's appearance beneficial? Not sure, but with SP, the conventional wisdom was that she was already a joke (totally false, but whatever). But Romney's smarts aren't in question, so self-deprecation and humanizing could pay big.
Edited on May 17, 2011 at 1:23pmMay '10
Re: Mitt's "The One"?
When I think of Mitt and his personality I think of this.
Re: Mitt's "The One"?
So Mitt should do a drop-by on SNL's "Weeked Update" and show he has a sense of humor? I liked it when Palin did the same.
And while in NYC, should he take in "The Book of Mormon"?
I recall Bob Dole doing a great bit on SNL right after after the '96 election -- apologizing to Norm McDonald (the show's "Bob Dole") in third-person Dole-ese for letting him down.
I can't recall a time when Bill Clinton has come on the show and done a bit with Darrel Hammond. Maybe that's because his Clinton impersonation is both hilarious and devastating at the same time. At least Hillary did the show back in '08 . . .
May '10
Re: Mitt's "The One"?
ParisParamus: Unable to convince people to support his candidacy on its own merits...
Really? You know this already?
Well, he didn't exactly get a great reception to his speech on Romneycare the other day.
Really? You know this already?
And what is this I'm hearing? You are suggesting there's an implicit prejudice, that I won't like him regardless of anything he does in the future? Is his record already not enough to dislike him?
Furthermore, Nixon's trip to China was a big blunder in my opinion. As was his decision to go off the gold standard. All in all, even if opening China was good in your opinion, Nixon was a disastrous president. He did all the more damage because he was a Republican. If a Democrat had done what he did, the Republicans would have opposed it vigorously.
I can see Romney, with his past "flexibility" and record, doing far more damage to conservatism in the future than most of the other candidates in the field. Just like Bush's "compassionate conservatism" did more to grow government than a Democratic president vigorously opposed by more principled Republicans might have been able to do.
Edited on May 17, 2011 at 2:21pmDec '10
Re: Mitt's "The One"?
Palin on SNL was funny, but Palin on Leno with William Shatner - Shat reading from Palin's autobiography and she from his - was even better.
May '10
Re: Mitt's "The One"?
.
Edited on May 17, 2011 at 7:21pmMay '10
Re: Mitt's "The One"?
Well, he didn't exactly get a great reception to his speech on Romneycare the other day.
I find the reaction to this speech bizarre, if only in its amplitude. Was the reaction to the speech so strong because he didn't repudiate Romneycare, or because it was lackluster stylistically; no Mr. Obama tear down that mandate line?
Romney was speaking to MDs and medical school people. It was a policy speech to the field; not a campaign speech from a train caboose (or the end of a high-speed rail car--yuck!)
If Paul Ryan gave an analogous speech, he would be praised; Ryan=wonk=good. Romney=technocrat: bad.
Basically, you saw in that speech what you wanted to see before it started.
May '10
Re: Mitt's "The One"?
ParisParamus:
Basically, you saw in that speech what you wanted to see before it started.
Hm, again with the suggestions of implicit bias.
Fine, I'll agree-- that I don't believe anything he can say will change my mind at this point. This is simply because his actions have already spoken loud enough about his lack of conservative principles. If you call that bias or prejudice, so be it. I call it discernment-- judging a tree by its fruits.
Actually, to be fair, I think he could persuade me, but it would be mighty difficult at this point. It would have to be the most sincere, most humble "I was wrong" speech, and with the most convincing promise to be different, along with clear specifics, to persuade me. It would have to be a lot different from what I'm hearing now from him. And even then it would be hard because I've seen his tendency to say what he thinks people want to hear at the moment. The consummate politician, not a principled leader.
And what scares me is that as a skilled politician with oodles of money, he might actually pull it off and become the nominee. This is the kind of stuff that turns people off to politics and makes them not even want to vote. The bandwagoning. The pandering. The lack of sincerity and principles. Do I have a clear alternative candidate in mind? Not yet, and that's part of the problem.
Edited on May 17, 2011 at 3:07pmMay '10
Re: Mitt's "The One"?
Chris Deleon, that's perfectly fair. I just hope you'll support him if he gets the nomination--with or without Rep. Allen West as VP.
May '10
Re: Mitt's "The One"?
As of a few days ago, I would have said there was no chance of a Romney win, but looking at the money he rakes in, I'm beginning to think he has a chance. And I believe that's exactly the effect he wants to project with his big fundraising success. The air of inevitability. The money juggernaut.
If he succeeds on that basis... well, that's my whole point. Given his record and the reaction I was hearing from people a few days ago, he wouldn't have a chance on a more level playing field where money wasn't such a big factor.
I'd probably support him if he got the nomination, but where would the enthusiasm be? As we saw in 2008, enthusiasm wins in the national election.
May '10
Re: Mitt's "The One"?
The enthusiasm will come from having a serious chance to defeat Obama's socialist state. And the enthusiasm would come from having a chance to flip a number of purple, and even blue states red (but not NY or CA, which are GONE!). You'll get some octane from the VP candidate (well, you better). And if you're concerned about Romney being a RINO, or something (I'm not...), flipping Congress will allay your concerns.
Part, although not most of my enthusiasm for Romney is knowing that the MSM won't be able to demonize him, or paint him as stupid, or crazy, as it will with almost every other possible GOP nominee. And competing with the Obama $1b is also a consideration.
May '10
Re: Mitt's "The One"?
One other interesting proposition. What if Romney's LDS background actually works as a net asset? Not in the primaries but the general election. Because he's a "good family man?" Well, I was thinking more the lines of reassuring independents and disaffected Democrats who who believe that the GOP is controlled by fundamentalist Christians. But if the fundamentalist Christians done't like this LDS guy, then he's acceptable.
Hey, it's possible! ;-)
Edited on May 17, 2011 at 3:57pmMay '10
Re: Mitt's "The One"?
The enthusiasm won't be there in the base.
Going back to what could make me listen to Romney, it would have to be something along the lines of this:
"I made a mistake with health care in Massachusetts. The results were not good at all. I learned from that mistake. Knowing what I know now, I would not do it at the state level, nor at the federal level. Nor do I advocate that states do so even if it may be constitutional for them to do so. Moreover, I have realized that the very idea of government mandating this much of peoples' lives is wrong on principle. Like many, my position has changed over the years. I've learned from my mistakes. I promise I will do X, Y and Z to undo the mistakes I made and to undo the national healthcare plan implemented by Obama. I will fight for a more limited government answerable to the people and not give special favor to firms 'to big to fail.' I will shut down the crony capitalism that has plagued us in Democratic or Republican years. I will not expand the scope of government but will work tirelessly to shrink it, measurable in the trillions. I will not push for any new benefits programs but will push for reform in existing entitlement programs. The reforms I will support will be X, Y and Z".
Something along those lines would go a long way with me. I don't promise it will make me a loyal follower but it would make me a lot less nervous. But... I don't hear that kind of thing from him yet.
Edited on May 17, 2011 at 3:58pmMay '10
Re: Mitt's "The One"?
The enthusiasm won't be there in the base.
If this election is about the conventional base, you are correct, and Obama wins with Romney, and probably every "uber-conservative" alternative. But I suspect this election will be about a lot of the normally politically apathetic being scared to death. That's what the Tea Party has been all about. The Tea Party is not coextensive with the conventional GOP base. Moreover, the only way to defeat Obama will be to get enough of the Tea Party People, but some of those who would normally vote Democrat, or not vote at all. If you have to lose some of the Red State voters, that's fine: if you win Texas by two or six million doesn't matter in the electoral college. But you need to win the purple states, and flip a few blue ones. Michigan and New Mexico come to mind.
Edited on May 17, 2011 at 4:09pmMay '10
Re: Mitt's "The One"?
The results were not good at all.
The question is, is this true? I've heard that state spending on healthcare has gone from 39% to 40%. I've heard that wait times for certain MDs are long. But what were the wait times before before Romneycare (BR)? What are they in other similarly-situated states?
Again, until I hear some hard stats that compare MA BR and AR (before and after Romneycare), and compare MA AR to other similarly-situated states that aren't "plagued" by Romneycare, I don't know what to believe. If Romneycare is, indeed a huge shackle on MA, then I'll have to reconsider my endorsement of Romney. But I'm still waiting for the stats that compare apples to apples.
Again, I'm not sure I support or oppose "mandates" at the state level for the simple reason I'm not sure the extent to which they differ from a tax with an opt-out provision (you get to opt-out if you get private insurance). Do I oppose excessive taxation? Yes. Do I oppose all taxation? No.
Edited on May 17, 2011 at 4:38pm