The “Virtue” of Mitt Romney

 

Those who are supporting Romney because Newt went negative and unfairly attacked Bain ought to be more than a little disturbed that Romney is deliberately distorting Newt’s Congressional ethics record.  

Add (see my post yesterday) that  someone on Romney’s team selectively pulled obscure quotations, deliberately out of context, and handed them to Elliot Abrams (one assumes he has not himself been pouring over age old special orders for quotations one could miscast), to smear Newt as being insufficiently conservative and Reagan-supporting, when Newt’s determined support for Reagan was one of the things we ought to all be grateful for, makes this a pattern.  It ought to give the “Romney’s more ethical” choir pause.  

Newt had many faults for which he can be criticized, but these myriad charges were slung at the wall by desperate Democrats in Congress, who were furious at their defeat, and trying to balance out the sins of Bill Clinton.  The charges DID NOT HOLD UP; indeed, it was a political mugging, and on review the IRS said there were no violations at all.  Romney knows that.

That Romney nonetheless would use these despicable, known-to-be-false arguments (and there are no shortages of others he could legitimately use) unfortunately indicate that he’s just one more ambitious guy who’ll say whatever he needs to say, and spend what he needs to spend, to get what he wants. Apparently he’s just been successful and powerful enough all his career that we haven’t seen what happens when someone gets in his way (who would want to?), and how well that virtue holds up.

It would be MUCH better for the party, and for Romney, if he doesn’t walk away with Florida despite his bottomless financial capacity to saturate the state with breathakingly negative ads. (Will he be that hard on Obama?  If so, where has he been these last years? Where was he in the ObamaCare fight when he actually could have helped the country, not just himself?)

Already we have seen that he — who didn’t have answers for his tax returns, or better defenses of Bain, and didn’t prepare any despite seeing that they were coming, has been improved by not being able to presume his own coronation.  

Moreover, Romney remains deeply vulnerable, something his supporters seem to have trouble seeing, not just to Occupy Wall Street this summer, and the entire fairness 1% meme – whose premise Romney has already accepted in his incremental tax plans – but to Axelrod & Co’s predictable distorting but vicious attacks.  

Those attacks will come, on things like Bain’s connection to the Guinness Scandal and Romney’s adult participation in a church that until 1978 singled out blacks as not having full rights and privileges.  Will the attacks be fair? No.  Will they come? Yes.  Is Romney prepared for them? Given past performance on what should have been layups, one can safely say: absolutely not.

And that leaves aside Romney’s real problem with the conservative base: his own understanding of what happened in MA.  He ignored every accurate prediction the Wall Street Journal made in imploring him not to impose Romneycare, and even now somehow thinks that a mandate which imposes increased costs and fewer choices on everyone only applies to 8% of the MA population.  

His capacity to argue powerfully and persuasively on ObamaCare is deeply compromised by this — there is a difference between a state being allowed to do something, per 10th Amendment, and whether that something is good policy — and if he doesn’t understand the larger principle the Republican base won’t trust him, because so far his redefinition of the idea of “individual responsibility” apparently is “the (state) government tells you you will be responsible, and the (state) government will decide what that entails, and what your menu of choices are” — basically, Obama’s position.  And we will not win, nor likely see full repeal and a genuinely better approach, with Obama v. Obama Lite.

So please, hope that Romney has to work at least a little longer and harder in the primary sparring room, lest like John Kerry he gets to the Main Event, and is unprepared for what hits him.

Published in General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 83 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Profile Photo Member
    @DrewInWisconsin
    K T Cat: It’s simply mind blowing that staring four more years of Obama’s Peronist fascism right in the face, the Republican Party is tearing itself to shreds for the sake of Mitt Romney, unrepentant author of the template to Obamacare.

    And if I apply Occam’s Razor, my only conclusion is that the establishment wishes for Obama to remain President for four more years.

    • #31
  2. Profile Photo Member
    @Franco
    DrewInWisconsin

    K T Cat: It’s simply mind blowing that staring four more years of Obama’s Peronist fascism right in the face, the Republican Party is tearing itself to shreds for the sake of Mitt Romney, unrepentant author of the template to Obamacare.

    And if I apply Occam’s Razor, my only conclusion is that the establishment wishes for Obama to remain President for four more years. · 5 minutes ago

    They are just too clueless to see what they are doing. I didn’t think they could get worse, now I see they can’t understand and will lose, and then they will pull this same crap on us again as if it never happened, just like 2008. They haven’t learned a thing.

    • #32
  3. Profile Photo Inactive
    @Palaeologus

    It’s simply mind blowing that staring four more years of Obama’s Peronist fascism right in the face, the Republican Party is tearing itself to shreds for the sake of Newt Gingrich, who woke up one morning and said:

    Hey, it’s Tuesday. I think I’ll run for President and build a moonbase.

    • #33
  4. Profile Photo Member
    @ScottR

    Does anybody think for a millisecond that Gingrich would not exploit a similar incident in Romney’s past if he could? Come on, people.

    Both these guys are cynics in a street fight. Both are proving to have more than their share of “nasty”, even outright lying about the other on occasion — although maybe Newt’s proving to be a shade less clever and subject to it’s-not-fair tantrums in a way that Romney is not.

    • #34
  5. Profile Photo Inactive
    @Palaeologus

    Because the only alternative is that we end up electing a man who thinks Obamacare just needs a little tinkering, and it’s good to go for all 50 states.

    That is simply untrue, Drew.

    • #35
  6. Profile Photo Inactive
    @KTCat
    Scott Reusser: Does anybody think for a millisecond that Gingrich would not exploit a similar incident in Romney’s past if he could? Come on, people.

    Both these guys are cynics in a street fight. Both are proving to have more than their share of “nasty”, even outright lying about the other on occasion — although maybe Newt’s proving to be a shade less clever and subject to it’s-not-fair tantrums in a way that Romney is not. · 1 hour ago

    He didn’t, Scott, not until Romney went negative in Iowa. He told his people to run a positive campaign and they did until Iowa. After that he got just as nasty as Romney. Romney set the tone.

    • #36
  7. Profile Photo Inactive
    @KTCat
    DrewInWisconsin:

    Conservatives are becoming increasingly alienated from the GOP. They couldn’t care less about the party, and will not vote for a candidate just because he has an R after his name.

    · 1 hour ago

    Amen, brother.

    • #37
  8. Profile Photo Inactive
    @Alcina

    People might like deluding themselves into thinking that Romney’s questionable (ahem) campaign tactics vs. Newt et al. are really okay because they show that Romney can take the fight to Obama. What they forget is that Romney has had the Republican establishment at his back with this stuff, while the national media is so pro-Obama that they won’t let him get away with distortions. Of course, there are many ways to attack Obama’s record that don’t involve distortions, but unfortunately Romney is pretty poor at articulating them.

    • #38
  9. Profile Photo Member
    @HeatherHiggins
    Leslie Watkins: I’m guessing, Heather, that you do not agree with the point of view voiced by Ann Coulter on the current Left Coast/Right Coast podcast that Massachusetts Democrats were going to force something down the throats of the state’s residents and that Romney’s plan was better than theirs. Also, I’m guessing, you disagree with the Heritage Foundation on this issue. Just wondering if you think there’s anything at all to that point of view. I personally don’t think Ann is correct when she says that Romney will repeal Obamacare. I doubt he—or Newt—will be able to do that. On the other hand, I don’t see Newt being helpful to the congressional races, which are crucial if real changes are to be had. · 5 hours ago

    Leslie, I haven’t had a chance to listen to the podcast, but my understanding of the history is that indeed what Mitt offered was far better than what passed. What seems odd, and deeply disturbing, to me is that key provisions that he argued for that would have mitigated Romneycare he now ignores and does not mention.

    • #39
  10. Profile Photo Member
    @HeatherHiggins

    Continued… –

    If Romney doesn’t think them worth mentioning, even if Ann does, then I think we have to assume they were merely academic, not an indicator of core conviction.

    That he doesn’t want to create any distance between himself and what passed, and that he doesn’t apparently understand that laws by definition will be implemented by the other team at some point and so had better be crafted to withstand perverse incentives, is another discouraging reflection.

    Like you, though I hear him say he will repeal ObamaCare, I am both dubious that it would be full repeal, and leary of what he might deem an acceptable substitute, as Romney strikes me as a man driven by data and problem solving, while oblivious to any underlying philosophical principles.

    And yes, I was in the WSJ editorial page’s camp then, and disagreed with Heritage, though fortunately they have since come around on both the mandate question and on exchanges (which would be wonderful if they actually were free markets, but seem in practice to be about collusion between large insurance companies and bureaucrats.)

    • #40
  11. Profile Photo Inactive
    @LeslieWatkins

    Thanks for responding, Heather. Seems about right to me. Regarding Newt, do you think he would be more determined to repeal, or are you mostly just pushing back against the idea that Romney is playing fair while Newt is not?

    Heather Higgins: Continued… –

    Like you, though I hear him say he will repeal ObamaCare, I am both dubious that it would be full repeal, and leary of what he might deem an acceptable substitute, as Romney strikes me as a man driven by data and problem solving, while oblivious to any underlying philosophical principles.

    And yes, I was in the WSJ editorial page’s camp then, and disagreed with Heritage, though fortunately they have since come around on both the mandate question and on exchanges (which would be wonderful if they actually were free markets, but seem in practice to be about collusion between large insurance companies and bureaucrats.) · 15 minutes ago

    Edited 15 minutes ago

    • #41
  12. Profile Photo Inactive
    @JamesOfEngland
    Jonathan Cast

    Palaeologus

    Jonathan Cast

    Palaeologus: Because the only alternative is that we end up electing a man who thinks Obamacare just needs a little tinkering, and it’s good to go for all 50 states.

    That is simply untrue, Drew. · 6 hours ago

    Then why does Romney keep claiming that it is? ·
    He hasn’t.

    What are you talking about? ·

    Mitt Romney has said that there are only three things about ObamaCare he doesn’t like:
    1. It’s a federal law. Pass ObamaCare in all 50 states and that problem goes away.
    2. It raises taxes. Apparently the individual mandate doesn’t count as raising taxes, but nevertheless — tweak the revenue structure to be revenue neutral and this problem goes away.
    3. It cuts Medicare. Since medicare is mostly a federal responsibility, obviously this isn’t something state laws are likely to do.
    So yes, Romney has claimed that with a few minor tweaks ObamaCare would be equivalent to RomneyCare — which he’s actively endorsed to be passed in all 50 states. ·

    Do you lie awake at night worrying that Texas is going to pass an individual mandate? Even if Romney did push it, he’d obviously fail.

    • #42
  13. Profile Photo Inactive
    @JamesOfEngland
    wmartin

    K T Cat

    Scott Reusser

    First, primary campaigns haven’t hit full stride “until Iowa”. · 29 minutes ago

    Looks like Mitt’s hit full stride. My Tea Party friends around here are frothing at the mouth with anger against Mitt and his endless attack campaigns. I’m sure we’ll all calm down and donate and volunteer for Mitt in the general, right?

    Have fun storming the castle, boys. · 2 hours ago

    According to the NBC/Marist poll, Newt is beating Romney among tea partiers in Florida by only two points. Tea partiers want to win too. · 9 hours ago

    And in Iowa and New Hampshire, they strongly preferred him to Newt. What you’re missing is that real tea partiers, and particularly the guys who will swing the general election through their efforts, live in South Carolina. And Georgia. ;-)

    • #43
  14. Profile Photo Inactive
    @GusMarvinson
    K T Cat

    Scott Reusser: Does anybody think for a millisecond that Gingrich would not exploit a similar incident in Romney’s past if he could? Come on, people.

    Both these guys are cynics in a street fight. Both are proving to have more than their share of “nasty”, even outright lying about the other on occasion — although maybe Newt’s proving to be a shade less clever and subject to it’s-not-fair tantrums in a way that Romney is not. · 1 hour ago

    He didn’t, Scott, not until Romney went negative in Iowa. He told his people to run a positive campaign and they did until Iowa. After that he got just as nasty as Romney. Romney set the tone. · 1 hour ago

    Newt was generally praised in the media and blogosphere for being so positive about the other candidates and focusing on Obama during the debates. Then Romney revealed his true colors in Iowa and everything changed.

    • #44
  15. Profile Photo Member
    @HeatherHiggins

    Yes, Newt’s more likely to repeal, as he has already changed his mind on the mandate and other features, and he gets that you can’t get real reform by building off of what is an inherently broken model.

    BTW, Newt has taken the Repeal Pledge, as has Santorum, but Romney despite repeated requests has not.

    Does that mean that every alternative idea will be a good one? No. But are you more likely with Newt to get the scale of change to the system that’s required? I think so, because – as a great generality – Newt starts with an idea of what something ought to look like, then tries to work out how to get there, while Romney is not animated by ideas, but seems to look backwards at the data and wants to make it work within that existing framework.

    Moreover, Newt for one doesn’t care much about adhering to “the way it’s done” – much of the complaint from his contemporaries in the House was very valid, but a lot of it was driven by his running roughshod over their self-indulgent perks and entitlements, which earned him great enmity.

    • #45
  16. Profile Photo Inactive
    @LeslieWatkins

    Very interesting! Thanks.

    Heather Higgins: Yes, Newt’s more likely to repeal, as he has already changed his mind on the mandate and other features, and he gets that you can’t get real reform by building off of what is an inherently broken model.

    BTW, Newt has taken the Repeal Pledge, as has Santorum, but Romney despite repeated requests has not.

    Does that mean that every alternative idea will be a good one? No. But are you more likely with Newt to get the scale of change to the system that’s required? I think so, because … Newt starts with an idea of what something ought to look like, then tries to work out how to get there, while Romney is not animated by ideas, but seems to look backwards at the data and wants to make it work within that existing framework.

    Moreover, Newt for one doesn’t care much about adhering to “the way it’s done” – much of the complaint from his contemporaries in the House was very valid, but a lot of it was driven by his running roughshod over their self-indulgent perks and entitlements, which earned him great enmity. · 6 minutes ago

    • #46
  17. Profile Photo Member
    @ScottR
    K T Cat

    Scott Reusser: Does anybody think for a millisecond that Gingrich would not exploit a similar incident in Romney’s past if he could? Come on, people.

    Both these guys are cynics in a street fight. Both are proving to have more than their share of “nasty”, even outright lying about the other on occasion — although maybe Newt’s proving to be a shade less clever and subject to it’s-not-fair tantrums in a way that Romney is not. · 1 hour ago

    He didn’t, Scott, not until Romney went negative in Iowa. He told his people to run a positive campaign and they did until Iowa. After that he got just as nasty as Romney. Romney set the tone. · 2 hours ago

    First, primary campaigns haven’t hit full stride “until Iowa”.

    Second, if true, then Newt’s painfully naive. But I doubt he’s naive. The “relentlessly positive campaign” was a strategy, nothing more, and as with any strategy, he ran with it for as long as it was useful. Then he got dirty.

    Nothing at all new here.

    • #47
  18. Profile Photo Inactive
    @JohnMarzan

    Why are some bigshot Republicans so down on Reagan in the late 80s and early 90s?

    • #48
  19. Profile Photo Member
    @
    Heather Higgins:

    BTW, Newt has taken the Repeal Pledge, as has Santorum, but Romney despite repeated requests has not.

    Well.

    That a good indication of just how committed Romney is to repealing Obamacare- and by extension the Republican establishment.

    That is, they aren’t.

    • #49
  20. Profile Photo Member
    @ScottR
    Heather Higgins: Yes, Newt’s more likely to repeal….

    Repeal will require 60 senators — at least a half dozen of them Democrats. The 60 number will be easier to reach with a less divisive figure in the White House. A partisan firebrand like a President Gingrich would give Dems great cover to dig in, while a President Romney would allow them to join in while still saving face.

    I’m not saying full repeal will happen in either case, but the challenge would be greater with Gingrich.

    Heather Higgins:

    Moreover, Newt for one doesn’t care much about adhering to “the way it’s done” – much of the complaint from his contemporaries in the House was very valid, but a lot of it was driven by his running roughshod over their self-indulgent perks and entitlements, which earned him great enmity.

    My understanding was that Newt ushered in the modern era of ramped-up earmarking to congressional districts — the mother of all self-indulgent perks.

    Then in retirement he went on to “get his” as a member of the governing class — in “the way it’s done.”

    • #50
  21. Profile Photo Inactive
    @JamesOfEngland
    Percival: The “Heritage Foundation made me do it” defense has a little problem — they don’t think that anymore. From The Volhokh Conspiracy

    ……….One possibility is that the Heritage Foundation is simply more conservative, or more free market, than it used to be. Another is that the legal environment has changed dramatically. In 1994 it had been over 50 years since the Supreme Court had invaildated a federal law for exceeding the scope of the Commerce Clause. The Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Lopez , striking down the Gun-Free School Zones Act, was not until 1995 — after the Clinton health care plan had been defeated and after the Republicans had retaken Congress….

    That’s the thing about think tanks. They think, then they disseminate what they have thought, then they rise and think again. If they don’t think again, they become thought tanks. ·

    If the Heritage Foundation had moved with Lopez, that would make sense, but they still supported it in 2006, and were present for the signing of Romneycare (you can see them in the photo). They clearly came round to the consensus conservative view along with the crowd; after Clinton claimed the plan.

    • #51
  22. Profile Photo Inactive
    @KTCat
    Scott Reusser

    First, primary campaigns haven’t hit full stride “until Iowa”. · 29 minutes ago

    Looks like Mitt’s hit full stride. My Tea Party friends around here are frothing at the mouth with anger against Mitt and his endless attack campaigns. I’m sure we’ll all calm down and donate and volunteer for Mitt in the general, right?

    Have fun storming the castle, boys.

    • #52
  23. Profile Photo Inactive
    @JamesOfEngland
    Scott Reusser

    Heather Higgins: Yes, Newt’s more likely to repeal….

    Heather Higgins:

    Moreover, Newt for one doesn’t care much about adhering to “the way it’s done” – much of the complaint from his contemporaries in the House was very valid, but a lot of it was driven by his running roughshod over their self-indulgent perks and entitlements, which earned him great enmity.

    My understanding was that Newt ushered in the modern era of ramped-up earmarking to congressional districts — the mother of all self-indulgent perks.

    Then in retirement he went on to “get his” as a member of the governing class — in “the way it’s done.” ·

    I’ll write something separate (not this post) about repeal and Newt’s claims, but I’d like to note that it was Newt as Speaker who developed the modern system of earmarks and today’s pork barrel politics (which has much in common with the previous, milder, system). He did so in order to create electoral advantage, party and personal, in the House.

    Newt as President seems much less likely to be interested in this, and much more likely to be interested in executive power. I believe him.

    • #53
  24. Profile Photo Member
    @ScottR

    Re The Pledge:

    Not signing it is wise, so far as I can tell. Vowing to “promote and sign all measures leading to its defunding, deauthorization, and repeal” precludes a president from using his best judgment and advocating one measure over another, or one strategy over another.

    For instance, must he promote both a Bachmann defunding bill, say, and a Ryan defunding bill even if the two are at odds in certain tactics? Can he promote a Senate measure over a House measure?

    As a general rule, a president shouldn’t tie his hands with such specific vows written by others.

    • #54
  25. Profile Photo Member
    @ScottR
    K T Cat

    Scott Reusser

    First, primary campaigns haven’t hit full stride “until Iowa”. · 29 minutes ago

    Looks like Mitt’s hit full stride. My Tea Party friends around here are frothing at the mouth with anger against Mitt and his endless attack campaigns. I’m sure we’ll all calm down and donate and volunteer for Mitt in the general, right?

    Have fun storming the castle, boys. · 4 minutes ago

    Look, K T, we all resent candidates who go negative against “our guy.” I assure you I was every bit as furious as you when the whole gang, Newt included, were indulging in the manifestly false “he ran to the left of Ted Kennedy” silliness — and well before Iowa. Then the leftist “vulture Bain” stuff. Then Cayman Islands. Then Mitt and his millionaire friends do this or that. You know the drill.

    But it happens. If Mitt wins, I hope you’ll come around. If Newt wins — or Rick or whoever — I certainly will.

    • #55
  26. Profile Photo Inactive
    @Schwaibold

    I’m voting for whomever opposes Obama as the GOP nominee. However, I think Mitt and Newt have about the same chance of winning, which is very small.

    And, I think in defeat, Gingrich MIGHT actually advance the ball down the field by POSSIBLY openly, defiantly articulating what Obama is doing. Mitt Romney will not mention Saul Alinsky. Gingrich has, and will.

    We can go down to defeat quietly and politely, aka McCain, or we can go down with a flamethrower who goes down stating uncomfortable truths.

    • #56
  27. Profile Photo Member
    @
    K T Cat

    Scott Reusser

    First, primary campaigns haven’t hit full stride “until Iowa”. · 29 minutes ago

    Looks like Mitt’s hit full stride. My Tea Party friends around here are frothing at the mouth with anger against Mitt and his endless attack campaigns. I’m sure we’ll all calm down and donate and volunteer for Mitt in the general, right?

    Have fun storming the castle, boys. · 2 hours ago

    According to the NBC/Marist poll, Newt is beating Romney among tea partiers in Florida by only two points. Tea partiers want to win too.

    • #57
  28. Profile Photo Member
    @
    jhimmi:

    And, I think in defeat, Gingrich MIGHT actually advance the ball down the field by POSSIBLY openly, defiantly articulating what Obama is doing. Mitt Romney will not mention Saul Alinsky. Gingrich has, and will.

    Nobody except hardcore conservatives cares about Saul Alinsky. They don’t care now, and they won’t care no matter how often it is explained to them. They’ll just think that Gingrich is a nut for placing such emphasis on such an unimportant figure.

    • #58
  29. Profile Photo Member
    @

    Newt in May 2009, advocating the idea that Obamacare should include a federal mandate:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QSXJLZx5mpY

    • #59
  30. Profile Photo Inactive
    @JonathanCast
    Palaeologus: Because the only alternative is that we end up electing a man who thinks Obamacare just needs a little tinkering, and it’s good to go for all 50 states.

    That is simply untrue, Drew. · 6 hours ago

    Then why does Romney keep claiming that it is?

    • #60
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.