Why Mitt Romney Has My Best Wishes, But Not My Support
In New Hampshire at this hour, Mitt Romney is announcing his second candidacy for the presidency. He is in many ways a good and impressive man, and I wish him well. But I do not wish him the Republican nomination.
On policy, of course, Mitt Romney has a single large achievement, the enactment of mandatory health coverage in Massachusetts, or RomneyCare, which did a great deal to make possible ObamaCare--and which, even now, Romney refuses to recant. "For a right-leaning businessman with no conservative philosophical roots, no great familiarity with the range of conservative thinking on health care, and no deep skepticism about the way politics and bureaucracies work," as Ramesh Ponnuru writes in the current issue of National Review, "the plan must have had strong appeal." Yet the plan has proven costlier than Romney promised, increased waiting times even for routine medical procedures, increased the number of insured citizens only modestly, and, in the form of the individual mandate, profoundly altered the relationship between the state government and the citizens of Massachusetts. RomneyCare was wrong--all wrong--yet Romney continues to embrace it.
What disqualifies Romney for me personally however, is something that has received little attention. Running for the Senate in 1994, Romney debated Edward Kennedy. The following brief exchange took place (you can see the exchange yourself about a third of the way through this video):
KENNEDY: Under your economic program, under the program of Mr. Reagan and Mr. Bush, we say the growth in terms of the unemployment, the growth in the number of children living in poverty....
ROMNEY: Look, I was an Independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I'm not trying to return to Reagan-Bush.
A brief exchange, as I say, yet think about. The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush represented a pivotal moment in American history. Reagan rebuilt our defenses, restored the nation's morale, won the Cold War, and set in place the economic policies of limited government and lower taxes that initiated a quarter of a century of economic expansion, and then Bush consolidated and for the most part continued Reagan's policies. Americans in the tens of millions understood the importance of what was taking place--and supported it, even in Massachusetts, which Ronald Reagan carried in both 1980 and 1984. Unemployment didn't rise during those dozen years. It fell. Poverty didn't increase. It shrank. Yet in his exchange with Kennedy, Romney proved too defensive--too frankly unnerved--to remind Kennedy of the record. That says something basic about Romney. It says he lacks conviction. To quote Ramesh once again, Romney is a man "of no conservative philosophical roots."
Romney's exchange with Kennedy also revealed something basic about his character, at least his political character.
Tens of thousands of members of Romney's generation gave of themselves to help Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush do what they did. In Washington, young men and women accepted long hours and modest salaries to staff the White House and the agencies, fighting--and it was a fight--to implement their policies. In the country at large, thousands more fought the fight at the level of local politics, organizing, persuading, turning out the vote. These young Americans recognized that something important--something historic--was taking place. They took part. They extended themselves. They worked. They fought.
Mitt Romney? On his own account, he sat it out.
When I said on a podcast a couple of weeks ago that I thought Romney was too badly wounded to win the nomination, Ricochet member Richard Young put up a post, vividly begging to differ--and elicited dozens of comments, many supporting Romney. That's as it should be. We're here on Ricochet to exchange ideas, opening our minds to each other, and sharing our enthusiasms, and even if I remain convinced that Romney cannot win the nomination, he represents a major candidate. In other words, Richard, and other Romney supporters among the great Ricochetoise, keep at it.
But I wanted to explain myself, letting you know that I won't be joining you. Anyone of intelligence and accomplishment who sat out the Reagan years so completely that he remained an Independent has no right to ask the rest of his to make him Reagan's successor.
- Comment (25)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Re: Why Mitt Romney Has My Best Wishes, But Not My Support
Mr. Robinson, tear down this candidacy! (Sorry, Peter. Couldn't resist.)
Re: Why Mitt Romney Has My Best Wishes, But Not My Support
I'm about to get even with you, Pat. Check back on your thread.
May '10
Re: Why Mitt Romney Has My Best Wishes, But Not My Support
Booyah!
Re: Why Mitt Romney Has My Best Wishes, But Not My Support
Food fight!
Re: Why Mitt Romney Has My Best Wishes, But Not My Support
As Rob and I are always saying, Pat, what we love about you is that you bring such tone.
May '10
Re: Why Mitt Romney Has My Best Wishes, But Not My Support
Romney says what he thinks the electorate wants to hear. A far cry from Reagan, who wasn't afraid to tell people the way it was.
Apr '11
Re: Why Mitt Romney Has My Best Wishes, But Not My Support
Good thrust and parry Mr Sajak.......keep it up gentlemen, everyone enjoys a good duel.
Let's see how long it can go back and forth.
Peter if Pat does run and get elected (your words to God's ear) then you can lead the crusade for term limits.
Love you both...keep it going.
Jul '10
Re: Why Mitt Romney Has My Best Wishes, But Not My Support
Peter Robinson:
KENNEDY: Under your economic program, under the program of Mr. Reagan and Mr. Bush, we say the growth in terms of the unemployment, the growth in the number of children living in poverty....
ROMNEY: Look, I was an Independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I'm not trying to return to Reagan-Bush.
I too go back to a 1994 quote from Romney for everything I needed to know about him. (and if you didn't know that it's not my fault.)
When Newt announced the 'Contract With America' Romney's first instinct was to deflect. When he was asked about the contract he instantly uttered, "That's the House, I'm running for the Senate."
Romney also has a tendancy to do what I call 'Go Political' when asked about some issues that call for Principled Answers. Rather than taking a stand that lets you know where he stands he will give that safe equivocal non-answer that's designed to Not Offend anyone rather than to show leadership.
I've known Romney to be without any convictions since that day in 1994 and have wanted nothing to do with him ever since.
Mar '11
Re: Why Mitt Romney Has My Best Wishes, But Not My Support
I've no problem with people not supporting Romney. My real objection was in simply writing him off despite his leading in the polls. His past does uncover a lot of warts. However, I suspect there isn't a candidate out there with a substantial political history who is free of blemishes. The important thing for me with a candidate is whether one can believe their commitment on the positions they are now taking. That's a very subjective judgement. I happen to believe Romney will follow through with his currently stated positions, mainly because his current statements are much more consistent with the majority of other Mormons. If there was inauthenticity in his positions it was probably when he moved left to suit the Massachusetts electorate. However, if that is true it doesn't speak well of him; I hope he was sincere then and is sincere now. I truly think we need someone in there that can turn this country around economically and he's the best qualified to do that. Still, if we could enlist an equally competent person such as Paul Ryan who could unify the party that would even be better.
Re: Why Mitt Romney Has My Best Wishes, But Not My Support
Fair enough, Richard. I should note that I'm making a couple of distinct points. On the podcast, I was expressing my judgment that Romney would prove unable to win the nomination despite his standing in the polls--at this point, and for months to come, the polls will register little besides name recognition. I should have made that clearer.
The second point? Well, that I consider Romney to have disqualified himself long ago, as I explain, perhaps (I see now) at too much length. But we can certainly disagree about that in the friendliest way.
One way or the other, thanks. I love your observations.
May '10
Re: Why Mitt Romney Has My Best Wishes, But Not My Support
Yep. Yep and yep.
Aug '10
Re: Why Mitt Romney Has My Best Wishes, But Not My Support
Peter Robinson: I
On policy, of course, Mitt Romney has a single large achievement, the enactment of mandatory health coverage in Massachusetts, or RomneyCare, which did a great deal to make possible ObamaCare--and which, even now, Romney refuses to recant.
Read the feature story on Romneycare in the current issue of the New Yorker. It's written from the perspective of "Obamacare-was-really-a-bipartisan-plan-even-though-no-Republicans-voted-for-it" but reading between the lines it really makes Romney look terrible. Tim Pawlenty should send a copy to every Republican household in Iowa.
Mar '11
Re: Why Mitt Romney Has My Best Wishes, But Not My Support
Well, I would add that there is a big difference between Reagan and Bush to real conservatives. I don't ever want to return to Bush either (either one of them), so I am not ready to buy into the premise that this quip from Romney is somehow symbolic of a secret disdain for small government and low taxes. Perhaps, Romney bought into the fear that most Republican candidates have, which is the fear of being conservative and the fear that if they do not repudiate other conservatives then they are not independent thinkers. At the same time, your column makes a good point and we should question the motives of our Republican presidential candidates to better understand their principles and philosophy.
Edited on June 2, 2011 at 8:04pmJun '10
Re: Why Mitt Romney Has My Best Wishes, But Not My Support
If a Republican can't stand up for Reagan, what's the point?
May '10
Re: Why Mitt Romney Has My Best Wishes, But Not My Support
I think Romey is a "dead candidate walking" for one simple reason, the TEA Party. What I mean is that for too many years people were willing to accept the best looking, slickest talking, etc., candidate even though they really knew what he was, because that's what he was supposed to be, it was expected. Well the people of this country have risen up against such things through the TEA Party and we are saying just tell us the truth, say what you are going to do, and do what you say and we don't care what you look like, what gender, race or sexual orientation you are. According to the pukefest inducing David Brooks, people are tired of trying the Texas Governor route and are strongly looking at Huntsman...pause for extended laugh...but I say people are tired of the Ivy League route and we want people who have lived reality and not just studied the theory. Expecially when you are talking about people who lied about their grades, cheated on their tests and ones who won't even release their grades but are supposedly the smartest man to occupy the office.
Jul '10
Re: Why Mitt Romney Has My Best Wishes, But Not My Support
I supported Romney in his battle against McCain but I won't this time around. Many people I respect have argued that Romneycare is okay because it's a state level mandate. I disagree. Government should not be in the business of telling us, on any level, what we MUST purchase.
To Peter's larger point of Romney sitting out the Reagan years, I judge our current crop of GOP luminaries in the same manner.
Why are so many the "cool" candidates, (Daniels, Christie, Ryan), refusing to run?
I simply don't understand it. Paul Ryan and I are roughly the same age. I also have small children. Ryan is obviously in the fight. He authored a budget that puts America on a glide path to elimating our crushing debt. This places him in the perfect position to champion those ideas as a presidential candidate, particularly given the profligacy of President Obama.
I'm aware of the fact that it's easy for me to say, but if I was in Ryan's position I couldn't help but run, and if he makes the choice not to enter the race, I will be both disturbed and disappointed with Ryan.
Dec '10
Re: Why Mitt Romney Has My Best Wishes, But Not My Support
I'm playing a bit of the devil's advocate here, because I think we mostly agree mizzoujgrad, but what about auto insurance? Some mandates at the state level seem reasonable.
However, I know life-long conservatives who have talked themselves into the advisability of health-care mandates at the state level. I think it is a terrible idea because it pretends to lower costs by requiring market participation, rather than trusting in the one empirically proven method of lowering costs: free-market competition.
I'm like Pavlov's dog... I've been Liked for this before, so I'll say it again... When a guy tries to convince us he's a better administrator of Leviathan than the Democrat holding office, I don't doubt his self-assessment. I doubt his small-government conservatism. Romney is an administrative progressive.
Jul '10
Re: Why Mitt Romney Has My Best Wishes, But Not My Support
Western Chauvinist
what about auto insurance? Some mandates at the state level seem reasonable.
But driving is a priviledge, not a right.
If you choose not to participate in Driving, then you don't have to purchase Auto Insurance.
If the state issued a Mandate that I become licensed to drive, and purchase auto insurance as a result of obtaining the license they have mandated I get, then you'd have an apples to apples comaprison.
Unfortunatly the only option alternative to being alive (the condition requiring me to get health insurance under these mandates) is to die.
The two do not compare, the auto insurance mandate is tied directly to an optional activity, health care mandates are not.
Edit:
I might add, that most states that have Auto Insurance Mandates, mandate ONLY Liability insurance to cover the Other Guy. They do not require you to carry Comprehensive, or Colision, et al.
Edited on June 2, 2011 at 11:34pmAug '10
Re: Why Mitt Romney Has My Best Wishes, But Not My Support
Jaydee_007
If you choose not to participate in Driving, then you don't have to purchase Auto Insurance.
That's the argument from principle.
There's also the practical argument that auto insurance requirements are usually limited to liability but don't require you to get coverage for damages to your own car, let alone a pre-paid regular oil change plan. The legitimate concerns about moral hazard could be solved by a mandate for catastrophic coverage (or for that matter, by direct federal reinsurance). That Romneycare/Obamacare requires you to get a plan with a relatively low deductible and that covers a wide range of services shows that it's not really just about moral hazard.
The political demand to make insurance cover everything is extremely expensive and is driven by providers and/or patient groups who want various non-essential services covered. That's the real genius of the proposal you occasionally here to sell insurance across state lines. It's not that insurers would be competing on efficient processing but that it would allow consumers in states like NJ to circumvent overly expansive requirements and buy catastrophic plans.
Jul '10
Re: Why Mitt Romney Has My Best Wishes, But Not My Support
Peter Robinson: As Rob and I are always saying, Pat, what we love about you is that you bring such tone. · Jun 2 at 9:50am
It's the gravitas.