Reluctantly Reconsidering Romney
I have a tough time getting interested in politicians to begin with, and a tougher time taking them seriously. (I dunno, maybe that makes me normal.)
Because of this, I suppose I'm liable to having my opinion of politicians swayed by incidents that folks who follow candidates more closely might find "shallow". But granting that this is so, how does that make me much different from the average voter? So perhaps my impressions are worth something, after all:
Take Herman Cain, for instance. I actually think 9-9-9 is a good idea. Not a perfect idea, nor the idea that's necessarily right for our country right now. But a good idea, an idea worth considering seriously and defending articulately. And Cain increasingly annoys me by his seeming inability to do just that.
Cain sounds less and less like he's defending a policy, and more and more like he's hawking barbecue sauce. 9-9-9 is bold. Did he mention it's bold? But when he's asked questions like, "So, how will you ensure the sales-tax rates won't creep up?" and he answers with, "The American people will elect politicians who won't raise them," that's a non-answer to me. It displays no acknowledgment of the fact that rate-creep over time is a common problem, nor does it propose a mechanism for ensuring that, this time around, it won't happen. And that frustrates me.
It occurs to me that selling ideas successfully in the private sector is quite different from selling them to voters. When you're promoting a venture in the private sector, you don't have to get a majority -- or even a large minority -- of investors interested. Just a very few fired up to lend you the capital you need. Likewise, you don't have to sell your product to a majority of consumers, or even a large minority. Just enough consumers to turn a healthy profit. If you piss off some -- even many -- investors and consumers along the way, it doesn't matter, so long as others remain sufficiently enthusiastic. But politics isn't like this, and maybe this part of Cain's problem.
As for Newt... The dude has no filter. If logorrhea is an unstoppable flow of words, Newt has ideorrhea, an unstoppable flow of ideas, irrespective of whether they're good 'uns or bad 'uns. True, it's the legislative, not executive, branch that's supposed to turn new ideas into law, which should act as a check on Newt's Big Idea-ism, but our system is so broken that it no longer works that way.
I also hear that Newt is the candidate able to most articulately defend conservatism. But when I listen to Newt talk, I mostly get the impression that he's the candidate most articulate at putting down liberals, which isn't the same thing.
Plus, there is Newt's past... How can it not be a serious problem? I can't convince myself that his history of moral failings has no bearing on his trustworthiness as a politician. I just can't. Moreover, his history makes it all the more difficult to warm to him personally. The closest I've gotten to feeling a personal connection with Newt is when I heard that he likes to visit the salamanders at the zoo, too. That's not much. Maybe voters are fools for desiring a personal connection to the politicians they elect, but there's no doubt a lot of them do.
And then there's Perry, who seems to have gotten himself a terminal case of stage-fright (even if he does have a welcome sense of humor about it). And Huntsman, who's Romney-lite. And Bachmann and Paul, who'd be wonderful if they could resist the temptation to intersperse their many excellent proposals with the occasional declaration that sounds completely cracked (even when it's not -- which is a real, er, gift)...
All in all, maybe Romney deserves a second look. Never thought I'd be saying that...
- Comment (78)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments :
Jun '10
Re: Reluctantly Reconsidering Romney
I'm afraid I've reached the same point.
Dec '10
Re: Reluctantly Reconsidering Romney
Perhaps the talking heads that declared Romney a done deal were more farsighted than we gave them credit for. If there was a serious contender against Romney he would go down in flames. Sadly, however, every possible non-Romney has demonstrated flaws that overcome his/her positives. It's like eating at Luby's because every other restaurant in town either burned down, got shut down by the health department, or ran out of food. All that being said, if Dr. Rahe is right concerning Romney's managerial progressive nature we are really out in the cold on this one. /sigh.
May '10
Re: Reluctantly Reconsidering Romney
Midge, I'm with ya, word for word.
Edited on Nov 12, 2011 at 10:25amAug '10
Re: Reluctantly Reconsidering Romney
I agree with your thoughts regarding Newt. However, because I don't want Romney to think he has a mandate for compromise with the left (which is what I see him doing, if elected) - I will continue to work against him by sticking with the current best not-Romney - Cain.
Presidents don't make decisions in a vacuum (well, Newt would - because he is the smartest guy on the planet) but I don't think Cain would. Presidential associates do matter, because that is the pool they draw their advisers from (see the current crop of czars) and I am looking for Cain to begin to draw more policy folks to his banner. I am not going to withdraw my support because he doesn't know the most common political catch phrases.
It doesn't matter - If Romney is the nominee, I want him to know he has my support begrudgingly. I will stick to the "Syphilitic Camel Rule."
My real hope, "Run Sarah Run".
May '10
Re: Reluctantly Reconsidering Romney
Thanks for waking up, MFR. I am not a Romney enthusiast- nor is Scott Reusser, etc. (Frozen is, but it is fairly clear why he is actively enthusiastic)
We all simply recognized early that the hive racing from one impossible candidate to another was a form of denial, and that the smarter strategy would be to box Romney into the most important positions now while we still have a small but of leverage.
When people here started to seriously talk Bachmann for president- I have watched her in action up close for years- I knew that we weren't serious.
The only really good candidates are not running, or are already out. That means that we have to live with what we have, and there is only one (flawed) possibility remaining.
Denial is not a strategy.
Dec '10
Re: Reluctantly Reconsidering Romney
Do the other candidates provide something toward the end of boxing Romney in? As a man of great conviction (as we've been repeatedly told by his supporters) can we expect him to remain in his box?
Apr '11
Re: Reluctantly Reconsidering Romney
Midget Faded Rattlesnake:
Plus, there is Newt's past... How can it not be a serious problem? I can't convince myself that his history of moral failings has no bearing on his trustworthiness as a politician. I just can't. Moreover, his history makes it all the more difficult to warm to him personally.
Well, maybe Newt's daughter can change your mind.
http://www.creators.com/conservative/jackie-gingrich-cushman/setting-the-record-straight.html
Aug '10
Re: Reluctantly Reconsidering Romney
Herkybird
Well, maybe Newt's daughter can change your mind.
http://www.creators.com/conservative/jackie-gingrich-cushman/setting-the-record-straight.html
Unfortunately, no.
I'm not the most clued-in about politicians' quirks, but I already knew the "abandoning his wife at her death-bed" story was hooey. I still don't feel comfortable with Newt.
Perhaps it has something to do with the awe in which I hold Catholicism (not being Catholic myself, but wondering if that's where I'm headed), but converting to Catholicism because you had an affair which led to divorce, and then your paramour required you convert in order to remarry (or something like that) just seems.... weird to me. And even if I don't have this particular story straight, it's not like this affair-divorce-remarry thing was an isolated incident, right?
I can't reasonably doubt the sincerity of Newt's conversion (which of us can on a subject so intimate?), or claim that he isn't a changed man now, or cannot be forgiven as a Christian. But I can't help desiring leaders who can lead by their example to some extent, even if it's not a perfect example... Adultery used to be called "petty treason"...
Edited on Nov 12, 2011 at 1:50pmAug '10
Re: Reluctantly Reconsidering Romney
The King Prawn
Do the other candidates provide something toward the end of boxing Romney in?
That's my question, too.
Though I'm reconsidering Romney, it would seem to me that the more competition he has from the other candidates at this point (not that we should support trashing Romney, oh no -- not with what I know now), the more boxed in he'll be.
Am I crazy for thinking this? Do politicians just not respond to incentives in the way normal human beings do?
Aug '10
Re: Reluctantly Reconsidering Romney
Even though I'm reconsidering Romney, your decision still seems like a reasonable one to me.
FWIW, the Reason.com GOP matchmaking survey* is still matching me up with Cain, and the idea of "President Cain" by no means frightens me, especially considering the alternatives. Mostly, I can't shake this sense of impending doom about Cain's ability to be an articulate candidate, irrespective of scandals. At this point, I can't help seriously doubting his ability to persuade politically, as opposed to entrepreneurially. This is a liability in a president, sure, but an even bigger one in a candidate.
_______________________
* Despite my reputation as a wild-eyed, long-haired libertarian, I don't actually visit Reason.com that often. But their matchmaking survey is fun, if simultaneously frustrating.
Apr '11
Re: Reluctantly Reconsidering Romney
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
Perhaps it has something to do with the awe in which I hold Catholicism (not being Catholic myself, but wondering if that's where I'm headed), but converting to Catholicism because you had an affair which led to divorce, and then your paramour required you convert in order to remarry (or something like that) just seems.... weird to me... But I can't help desiring leaders who can lead by their example to some extent, even if it's not a perfect example.
I'm reminded of something St. Paul wrote of those who comprised the early Christian Church, "We hold a treasure in earthen vessels." You're right, we can't know the mind of another person. But we can keep in mind the possibility of two things: Forgiveness and Redemption.
Feb '11
Re: Reluctantly Reconsidering Romney
Interesting point about the differences between selling in business vs in politics. I agree that Cain has been too quick to come back with 9-9-9 as the solution to all ills...a proper response to the question about the bridge being made of prefab steel components from China SHOULD have dealt with regulatory issues and with the disrespect for manufacturing promulgated by certain elites, not just with tax policy.
BUT, I have major concerns about Romney's sales ability. Too often, he sounds like a PowerPoint presentation, and a mediocre one at that. He just doesn't seem to have the gift for communicating economic issues in simple and vivid terms, as opposed to long strings of boring and abstract phrases.
Newt is very, very quick on his feet, and this could make a significant difference in electability.
Jul '10
Re: Reluctantly Reconsidering Romney
david foster:
He just doesn't seem to have the gift for communicating economic issues in simple and vivid terms, ...
· Nov 12 at 4:17pm
I thought RomneyCare spoke loud and clear.
(...he sounds like a PowerPoint presentation, and a mediocre one at that. Funny.)
Apr '11
Re: Reluctantly Reconsidering Romney
I'm not sure if I'm part of the "etc.", but I'm an enthusiast. We are moderately likely to face a financial crisis of near biblical proportions, with China, Europe, and much of the rest of the world falling into violence and depression. More than ever before, America does not merely want, but needs, a President who will cut spending and keep the economy alive, a man who works wonders with workforces on the edge of bankruptcy. It is not America's greatest threat in history; Washington, Lincoln, FDR, and the Cold Warriors were all answers to worse. It is the greatest threat to which slashing spending without economic collapse is the only answer. As always in American history, cometh the man, cometh the hour.
I'm a Greek Orthodox Christian who got a Master's degree in theology before starting law. Romney is not my hero because of a tribal religious affiliation, but because of a tribal patriotic affiliation. He passionately loves, and will save, America.
Apr '11
Re: Reluctantly Reconsidering Romney
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
The King Prawn
Do the other candidates provide something toward the end of boxing Romney in?
That's my question, too.
Though I'm reconsidering Romney, it would seem to me that the more competition he has from the other candidates at this point (not that we should support trashing Romney, oh no -- not with what I know now), the more boxed in he'll be.
Am I crazy for thinking this? Do politicians just not respond to incentives in the way normal human beings do? ·
If it forces him promise to cut taxes further before the deficit crisis hits, increasing the cataclysmic harm of a serious debt crisis, it will make him a worse President. If it forces him to pander to interest groups, it will be terrible.
What position could it make him more conservative on? You can't believe that a negative ad campaign will make him flipflop on Romneycare, and what else is there?
Put pressure on by supporting the Tea Party in the long term. Do good.
Dec '10
Re: Reluctantly Reconsidering Romney
Instugator: I agree with your thoughts regarding Newt. However, because I don't want Romney to think he has a mandate for compromise with the left (which is what I see him doing, if elected) - I will continue to work against him by sticking with the current best not-Romney - Cain.
Presidents don't make decisions in a vacuum (well, Newt would - because he is the smartest guy on the planet) but I don't think Cain would. Presidential associates do matter, because that is the pool they draw their advisers from (see the current crop of czars) and I am looking for Cain to begin to draw more policy folks to his banner. I am not going to withdraw my support because he doesn't know the most common political catch phrases.
It doesn't matter - If Romney is the nominee, I want him to know he has my support begrudgingly. I will stick to the "Syphilitic Camel Rule."
My real hope, "Run Sarah Run".
Cain's mega-watt leadership capability guided by a principled conservative philosophical core is exactly what is needed to lead America out of this statist abyss.
If Romney gets the nomination, I'll pass.
Aug '10
Re: Reluctantly Reconsidering Romney
James Of England
What position could it make him more conservative on?
I'm thinking less "make him more conservative" and more "keep him from thinking there'll be no consequences if he acts significantly less conservative than he's acting right now".
For instance, given the popular sentiment against ObamaCare, repeal actually seems possible. Moreover, repeal is necessary not only economically, but from a humanitarian perspective. Like many other Ricochetians, I suspect that RomneyCare makes Romney more likely than others to crumble in his support for ObamaCare repeal.
Is it so crazy to imagine that the more competition Romney faces in the primaries, the more likely he is to realize the dangers of crumbling once elected?
James Of England
You can't believe that a negative ad campaign will make him flipflop on Romneycare, and what else is there?
I realize any serious political competition involves a certain amount of negative campaigning, but I've already said we shouldn't support trashing Romney at this point -- and I mean it.
James Of England
He passionately loves, and will save, America.
I don't doubt his patriotism. But I do doubt any one person can save America.
Jul '10
Re: Reluctantly Reconsidering Romney
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
FWIW, the Reason.com GOP matchmaking survey* is still matching me up with Cain, and the idea of "President Cain" by no means frightens me, especially considering the alternatives.
That quiz was fun. Matched me with the Nootster, though I'll pull the lever for Mitt. Not so surprising, I suppose. It was a series of quotations, and Newt is the best yakker in the bunch, I think.
I understand why some folks resigned to a Romney candidacy would try to push him to the right by propping up his comp. I think Duane's point is that conservatives (by no means a majority of the GOP primary electorate) lose leverage by being cheap dates for anyone but Mitt. We should push Mitt to adopt things we like about Huntsman's plan rather than first running to Huntsman. If he won't...then...
I also agree that the idea of "President Cain" isn't so frightening. First, while he may say ludicrous things occasionally, I think he'd listen to advice before doing them. Second, I don't much fear wildfires in Michigan, during winter.
But I do not, and probably will not, understand the presumption of an Obama loss that seems prevalent on Ricochet. And I do not, and never will, understand why any conservative would prefer Obama to a too squishy Republican. I find none of the arguments for that remotely compelling.
Edited on Nov 12, 2011 at 5:33pmAug '10
Re: Reluctantly Reconsidering Romney
Herkybird
I'm reminded of something St. Paul wrote of those who comprised the early Christian Church, "We hold a treasure in earthen vessels." You're right, we can't know the mind of another person. But we can keep in mind the possibility of two things: Forgiveness and Redemption.
I have no doubts that Newt can be both forgiven and redeemed through Christ's love. But, given the Catholic church's hard line against divorce, this protestant finds it somewhat... unsettling... that Newt doesn't act rather more sheepish about his past misbehavior than he has so far. It just doesn't contribute to my ability to trust the guy.
Edited on Nov 12, 2011 at 5:42pmJul '10
Re: Reluctantly Reconsidering Romney
Palaeologus
And I do not, and never will, understand why any conservative would prefer Obama to a too squishy Republican. I find none of the arguments for that remotely compelling. · Nov 12 at 5:30pm
Edited on Nov 12 at 05:33 pm
It's about principle. There are people who will not compromise their principles regardless.
Candidate A (R): "2+2=3"
Candidate B (D): "2+2=5"
"I'll have nothing to do with either one of them."