Your friend Jim George thinks you'd be a great addition to Ricochet, so we'd like to offer you a special deal: You can become a member for no initial charge for one month!
Ricochet is a community of like-minded people who enjoy writing about and discussing politics (usually of the center-right nature), culture, sports, history, and just about every other topic under the sun in a fully moderated environment. We’re so sure you’ll like Ricochet, we’ll let you join and get your first month for free. Kick the tires: read the always eclectic member feed, write some posts, join discussions, participate in a live chat or two, and listen to a few of our over 50 (free) podcasts on every conceivable topic, hosted by some of the biggest names on the right, for 30 days on us. We’re confident you’re gonna love it.
You forget how diligently Romney opposed him during the primaries in hopes the party would turn to him. Even so, after the election he wanted to be Secretary of State. If Trump made a mistake with him it might have been in not offering him the job. As the saying goes, keep your friends close but your enemies closer. Romney, unfortunately, is just a has been politician in league with the Never/Neocon crowd in hopes their day in the sun will come again. Whether they succeed or not remains to be seen, but it won’t be for the lack of effort.
Socialism has none of those.
Neither do the Democrat party in general, or Joe Biden in particular.
Maybe because Trump won, and he didn’t?
As I’ve noted before/elsewhere, a lot of people in 2016 voted for Hillary or didn’t vote at all, because they were worried about Trump being an unknown quantity who might have gone liberal, or worse. That is no longer an issue. I expect that number to be far greater than the number of people who voted for Trump in 2016 but now think that disliking what someone does on Twitter is worth having President Biden. (Remember, people who DIDN’T vote for Trump in 2016, and won’t do so now, are irrelevant to that calculation.)
Biden might still win, because I try to never underestimate the ability of people to be wrong and/or stupid. But it doesn’t really make sense in terms of rationality.
A far bigger problem is likely to be that the left didn’t think they needed to cheat in 2016. That will be different this time, especially if they get to use voting-by-mail to do it.
Or maybe–just maybe— it’s a bit more than that? One thing you can say about Mitt Romney is that he appears to not have a vindictive bone in his body. So perhaps we can conclude that Mitt Romney’s public statements on Trump are indeed what he actually feels about him.
If you honestly think Trump is down eight to ten points in the polls solely because of the Tweets, then kudos to you. Wish I could compartmentalize or obfuscate like that.
If we end up having a mostly vote by mail election in November, it won’t be because only Democrats are pushing for it. It will also mean that the pandemic is still going strong in the fall, which will be terrible news for all incumbents.
Or, put another way that I’ve heard elsewhere, “not awful, just wrong?” That might be gratifying if the goal is just for Romney to not be actively hated. But the problem is it doesn’t change the outcome, especially not the way the left uses it.
Regarding Romney’s impeachment vote: There were two charges of impeachment against Trump. Romney voted affirmatively on one but not the other.
If vindictiveness was the guiding factor, why not go all in and vote yes on both articles? Considering how he was pilloried about voting for one article, what did he have to lose by agreeing to both?
The best explanation is that he really thought one charge was worthy of impeachment and one was not.
I don’t know if Romney has a vindictive bone in his body. I believe Trump has about 206 vindictive bones in his body.
Whether it’s just tweets, or other things that have nothing to do with actual policy, doesn’t really matter. I find it far worse that people – especially pundits etc – who championed various things for possibly their whole life or career, now don’t seem to care about those things actually happening, rather than just continuing to talk about them, because Trump is the one doing them.
Or just that some people have convinced enough other people of it, and other people are willing to go along… I fully expect the left to push hard for vote-by-mail, since they know they can use it to their advantage, and they can cow others into going along because “if it saves just one life…” etc.
If you can show me any one election day where nobody died in a traffic accident going to or from the polling place, or from a heart attack while shoveling snow so they could get to the car to go vote, etc, then I might believe “if it saves just one life…”
Meanwhile, how many statistical “lives” might it cost to have all that mail going around? What about elderly poll workers who lose their reason to live? etc, etc.
Um, there were a number of other R candidates in the primary actually running against Trump. Where’s the evidence that Romney hoped the party would turn to him? I don’t remember that at all.
Again: if we end up having a mostly ballot by mail election, there are going to be a lot of red states joining in as well. TX, FL, and GA just to name a few.
@blueyeti — You’re the one, not I, who said Romney turned Massachusetts “red” or at least “pink”. (I think you meant purple.)
Perhaps you should simply admit that you misspoke. Even though they currently have Republican governors, the states of Maryland and Massachusetts are still considered blue states.
It’s not uncommon for Democratic voters to elect a Republican mayor or governor to clean up a fiscal mess; for example, I lived in Jersey City when Bret Schundler was elected mayor. But the change is superficial only, and afterward the voters go back to their old, bad habits.
Maybe so, but it won’t be of their own volition. Even to the extent that Republican governors might appear to agree, it will be under duress. Because if they don’t, they will be accused of “caring more about votes than lives,” etc.
Which actually tends to give the game away. It admits that vote-by-mail invites fraud, but insists that’s less important than “saving lives.”
@dhmorgan — Curiously, you quote my argument, that Romney’s vote to remove Trump will help defeat vulnerable Republicans, but then proceed as if you don’t understand it.
Let me add to the argument, even if you don’t understand it.
By voting to convict, Romney provided cover for potentially vulnerable Democratic Senators from pro-Trump states to vote against Trump.
It occurs to me, you may not be an American, so you have an excuse for not understanding American politics. For example, I think Sen. Susan Collins showed great courage and intelligence voting to confirm Brett Kavanaugh, as well as voting to acquit the President. And if courage and intelligence were enough to reelect you, she would be a shoo-in.
But it also takes this thing called “money”. And her acts of courage and intelligence outraged deep-pocketed Democratic donors.
In that sense, yes, these vulnerable Republican Senators are “weak”. They are likely to be heavily outspent: the Democrats have most of the billionaires on their side. And that’s even before the liberal media put a heavy thumb on the scale to help the Democrats.
No if Trump made a mistake with Romney, it was having diner with him and perhaps letting him believe he was in the running for Sec of State. Trump is not magnanimous in victory. Trump should’ve been real upfront about with Romney about which scores needed to be settled. Romney made his bet and lost, he should have been smart enough to see that he would have no significant role in an administration he campaigned against.
Yes, I should have said purple. And I don’t dispute what say, but from my perspective here in CA, the prospect of a fiscally conservative Governor with at least some Republican bonafides –how every temporary it may be– looks pretty damn good to me. I’d take it in a nano second.
Wait, are you suggesting that politicians sometimes do something because only their constituents or even their donors demand it? Woah. I need to sit down because you just blew my mind.
Um, who said it wasn’t Trump’s fault, as well? If he had not injured Romney‘s amour propre, Romney wouldn’t have been looking for revenge.
Incidentally, I wonder if Romney himself believes his stated rationale for voting to convict the President. It’s obviously untrue.
If Romney really believed Trump should be removed from office, then the first thing he would have done is lobby his Republican colleagues to vote with him, because his one vote, by itself, couldn’t do the job.
Of course, he did nothing of the kind. Just the opposite: he concealed from them what he was planning to do. It was pure grandstanding: he wanted to be the only Republican to vote against Trump.
P.S.: I hope you’re right, that voters have forgotten all about impeachment by now. However, I’m not sure Democratic donors have!
P.P.S.: Individual Republican Justices occasionally succumbing to the temptation to act like philosopher kings actually strengthens the case for increasing the Republican majority on the Supreme Court and, thus, for reelecting Trump.
No, that’s not it at all. I find it difficult to believe that you actually think Republican politicians believe their actual Republican voters support these things. But maybe it’s part of living in PRC (People’s Republic of California).
Even before we factor in the non-secret (or mail) ballot, Florida is not a red state any more, now that the Democrats have successfully passed a referendum making it easy for felons to vote. Felons vote overwhelmingly Democratic, it should surprise no one.
See #198 for why we know Romney is an … well, you know!
That last bit is ridiculous. Pelosi has obstructed Trump in every way she possibly can. She and her party have zero interest in cooperation, and it takes two to do that.
Never go full frontal.
(italics added) It’s even AntiTrumperiffically better than you describe, @arizonapatriot:
First, let’s admit the obvious: if Trump were a normal Republican President, he wouldn’t have gotten half as much conservative policy implemented as Trump has. There would be no emphasis on eliminating unnecessary regulation; college males – even black ones – would still be denied basic due process in allegations of campus misconduct; Brett Kavanaugh would not have been confirmed; the US Embassy would still be in Tel Aviv, …
But Singleton’s subsequent protestations that rhetoric matters – in his case more than results – is all so much cow manure. Singleton left the Republican party because he doesn’t like Trump’s personality. This isn’t policy or principle, this is 100% personal. Singleton is no longer a Republican because of the feels (or is it The Feels?).
I have a couple of suggestions.
straight– I mean, go immediately to CATO, they will be happy to comfort @shermichael there. But be careful – as Jonah Goldberg explained to the Ricochetti in a podcast recorded at @roblong‘s ConPodCon, if you drop your wallet at CATO, you will need to kick it all the way to CEI before you bend over to pick it up.Yes, thats a fair point. Pelosi missed an epic opportunity.
Dearest Taras,
Not an American? My parents were born in Kentucky and I was born in California where my father was stationed while in the Marines. Q.E.D. I’ve lived quite a few years, probably more years than you, so it’s amusing that on so little evidence you think I don’t understand American politics. But enough of that.
I believe I understood the gravamen of your initial argument well, but you think not. You think ill of Romney, and believe his vote for one article of impeachment somehow puts the majority of the Senate at risk in the next election. I don’t agree. I believe this will have little, if any, impact on Senate elections. If Senate Republicans are having problems, I’d look instead at the drag of Trump.
Yes, some Democrats may use their “money” (the quotation marks were cute – as if I wouldn’t understand the concept) to highlight Romney’s vote to their advantage. But money can’t buy happiness, or necessarily elections. Ask Michael Bloomberg.
If I’m a Democrat, would I waste money on a Romney clip, when I have a treasure of ignorant, narcissistic, and hateful Trump rants from which to draw? If these could be converted into gold they would have made Croesus envious.
Money and liberal media aside, it’s still up to candidates to make their own sale. I’ve not heard or read of a single Republican Senator say that Romney’s vote would be a complicating factor in their re-election (if I’ve missed someone, I’m sure you’ll let me know).
Best wishes to you. If things go badly in the fall elections – and prospects are not looking bright at the moment – I hope you don’t become bitter – or at least are not embittered for the wrong reasons.
If things do go badly, and especially if the margins are small-to-middlin’, aside from Democrat cheating I would have no difficulty blaming so-called-Republicans/”conservatives” who failed to buckle down and do the right thing, because “Trump is icky.”
Charlottesville ? Charlottesville? At this late date, people are still criticizing DT for Charlottesville?
Anyone still making that claim made up their mind about DT and are now seeking evidence to bolster their feelings, truth be damned.
I recently debated a favorite nephew and made a statement that was somewhat ambiguous. When I saw how I was misinterpreted I circled back and codified it
Till the end of the conversation my nephew brought up my ambiguous statement over and over to bolster his own argument, truth be damned.
My nephew is 20 and his immaturity is excused. No so with the guest. Unserious and a waste of time
Here are the unambiguous actual words of President Trump:
“Excuse me, they didn’t put themselves down as neo-Nazis, and you had some very bad people in that group. But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides. You had people in that group – excuse me, excuse me, I saw the same pictures you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.”
After another question at that press conference, Trump became even more explicit:
“I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and white nationalists because they should be condemned totally.”
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/03/21/trump_didnt_call_neo-nazis_fine_people_heres_proof_139815.html
(I’m thinking of following @garyrobbins so that I can pop up every time he retells this false story and correct him. His counterargument might be that 1) Trump meant “very bad” in the ghetto sense of very good; or that 2) Trump used his time machine and jumped back in time to insert that first sentence, so it’s OK to ignore it.)
(Once they have crossed out the first sentence, Robbins and the liberal media continue their reasoning as follows. 1. All opponents of tearing down statues of Robert E. Lee are white supremacists by definition. 2. White supremacist = neo-Nazi. 3. Disagreeing with #2 proves you’re a white supremacist.)