Mitt, we hardly knew ya
Mitt Romney has dropped out of the Presidential race.
Whether it’s because he sees there’s no hope and wants to avoid further squabbling in the Republican camp, or whether he still harbors thoughts of a brokered convention in which he emerges victorious, he failed to capture the nomination in the primaries and his campaign is officially over.
My opinion as to why his bid never quite made it is that his greatest problem was personality. People vote for a candidate for many reasons, but among them is a gut reaction to a certain je ne sais quoi. Romney has a slick and almost too-perfect air, as though he were a Hollywood actor cast in the role of President, rather than an actual person—warts and all—seeking the office.
We often respond to one another based on characteristics that are nonverbal and seemingly irrational. But they can be telling, anyway. Demeanor and persona can convey truths that words can cover up. It may be that Romney is exactly the decent and intelligent man that Hugh Hewitt says he is, or there may be something too slick about him that is worrisome and meaningful.
John McCain may be many things, but he’s certainly not a candidate sent from central casting. His metaphorical warts are all too visible. I’ve rarely in my lifetime been wildly enthusiastic about any Presidential candidate, and I’m not feeling that way about McCain either. But in the last few days I’ve written quite a bit about why I will support him, if nominated. In this, I’m with Hugh Hewitt, who writes:
The campaign ahead is first and foremost about victory in the war. As Romney argued today, Senators Clinton and Obama are committed to retreat, and Senator McCain to victory in that war. That’s all the reason any conservative should need to fully support Senator McCain now that his nomination is assured.
And in this, I’m with Mitt Romney as well. As he said in his withdrawal speech:
Frankly in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror.
I saw it on Fox. The man has great class, and it was an excellent speech!
It was indeed a fine speech. Probably the best he’s been all campaign. He couldn’t have made it any clearer to all who aren’t enthusiastic about McCain (me included). We must support McCain because the stakes of a Clinton or Obama presidency are too high.
Good luck Mr. McCain. Perhaps Romney would make a good and fence mending VP selection.
I always thought that Romney let the talk radio people the handlers define him too much. He just should have been himself, without the manufactured conservative stances that all the experts said he had to have.
I hope he does not head for a brokered convention, because I think that will only make a Democratic victory more likely. And he is right about one thing, this is not time for intraparty warfare.
douglas:
I had the same thought about the VP thing. Remember Bush used to call Reagan’s economic ideas voodoo economics, until he became his VP.
Romney said:
“If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I’d forestall the launch of a national campaign and, frankly, I’d be making it possible for Sens. Clinton or Obama to win,” he said in an appearance before CPAC, the Conservative Political Action Conference that is a touchstone for the party faithful.
And, frankly, in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror.”
So, if I understand him correctly, he’s saying that a vote for Clinton or Obama is, in essence, a vote in support of America’s surrender to terrorism.
Perhaps he imputes no ill will towards the Democrats, and believes they’d surrender with heavy hearts, or believes that the Democrats would relish a chance to surrender to terrorists. But, either way – is it ok to start calling this die neue DolchstoéŸlegende of the American right?
Wikipedia:
some guy:’
When we start losing, you can start making your argument.
“When we start losing, you can start making your argument.”
Jiu-jitsu! Well played, sir.
Worked with the Romney campaign a bit this year, first time for us, didn’t know Mitt, shook hands a few times. But after speaking with his staff, it seems the more you know him the more you realize how genuine he is. I appreciate him, and am very sad. Whenever I had a presentation to give, I would prepare and prepare, and hopefully make it something that didn’t sound too canned. Likewise Mitt is a super hard working person. Maybe he sounds and looks too perfect, but that comes from a lot of hard work, and I suppose some good genes.
Neo, I’ll be sure to stop by more often. I’ve enjoyed you on some podcasts and now I’ve found the website.
As a fellow conservative in a liberal New England, I appreciate your predicament. I’m surprised my car, with it’s Romney stickers hasn’t been keyed yet.
Addendum to the VP idea- it works for a Clinton contest, but for an Obama contest, I actually think McCain would need someone with a better anchor in the south. Perhaps Haley Barbour.
Some Guy, I don’t think Mitt said or even implied that it was the Democrats intent to surrender. It’s that it is the de facto result of their proposed policies.
Thought this comment I saw following a great deal of griping about McCain at Michelle Malkin was apropo-
” On February 7th, 2008 at 1:13 pm, Bonsai Billy said:
Har! I love reading these posts – you right wingers had control of the white house AND congress for six years. You had two positive things to show for it …: the Iraq War and progress on the Supreme Court. Now you’re going to retreat from Iraq and give up on reversing Roe v. Wade when you were a single vote away, even though you have a candidate who would support you on both.
Stay ideologically pure comrades!”
Seemed a pretty sound chastisement of remaining ideologically pure. The Primary is essentially over. We’ve had our ideological battle and lost. Now it’s time for pragmatism until the next time we can fight over our shared ideology.
The problem with this political process is that in your accommodations you kill off yourself (i.e., your principles, values) by degrees for the good of a party that is no damned good to stave off a party you believe to be even worse. Meanwhile, the good of the country dies the death of the thousand cuts in this “for the good of the party” accommodation. The party doesn’t deserve spit, much less your sacrifices.
How long does this go on? Conservatives should write off the Republicans who will apparently do anything, bear any burden at any cost to do business as usual. How can anyone still believe the Republicans and Democrats are principled adversaries? They are simply competing power blocs. Period. As such, they would sell you, me, their mothers and country for power–and have done so. Leave the party and let it wither. It deserves to die.
No one is making the conservative case to the people. I don’t believe the people want to see this country wrapped up in a nice geo-political ball (Remember “Rollerball”?) called Ameri-Cana-Mex for the sake of corporate governance–with the Mexican Illegals serving the role of the Chinese peasant in the new global economy. How damned cynical can you get with regard to governance of the American people. And that’s my complaint with McCain, Bush and old man Bush–I could add the names of most of Congress. They are political elitists who govern, rule rather than administer the will of the citizenry. The idea that the country belongs to the people may be too dead to revive. And so may be the people.
Those of you who sneer at Coulter and others as ideologues who, in reference to McCain, essentially shout “Give me liberty or give me death” should ask yourselves what your position would have been at the critical point of this country’s creation. “Oh, gosh, for the good of domestic tranquility, public relations, and above all, a boat that doesn’t rock, give a little, get a lot. Go along with George.”
The principled conservatives I have in mind are the the classic liberals who believe in a country ruled by law, not personal or political power, and in individuals who are empowered by their government to seek self realization and self-fulfillment in their lives as sovereign citizens. Forget the social vs. economic divisions of conservatism. It’s a bunch of crap. The conservative principles are those historic limitations upon the federal government and those citizen enablements noted (but not granted) by the Bill of Rights. What else is there to conserve? Certainly not the self-serving encroachments of the politicians.
Mit Romney:
Wow. What class huh? What selfishness. What principal. Almost raises it up a notch for those sore loosing 20% purists and elitists who’ve been foolish enough to back him instead of “the Maverick”.
I can certainly see why we 20% had to endure the insults. You certainly wouldnt want to see any of our candidates prevail.
harry9000: As I think I said before, I never had any beef with anyone who backed Romney. Just the ones who say they’ll not vote in the general election, or vote for Obama or Clinton, rather than vote for McCain.
I preferred Giuliani, myself, in the Republican field. But I would have supported either Romney or McCain against Obama or Clinton.
I also think it’s a very common thing that candidates are most graceful, relaxed, eloquent, and human in their concession speeches or withdrawal speeches. Not all of them, of course, but many of them. It’s as though the tension is finally over and they can be themselves.
I wasnt refeering to you neo. There are others here though, that for whom reluctant compliance wasnt enough.
I can remind Churchill’s response to critics reproaching him on “unprincipled” aliance with Stalin in WWII: “If the Devil invaded Germany now, I could find a pair of kind words for the Devil”. So much for ideological purism in the time of war.
In November everything will hinge on how the main issue of the campain be framed. Dems want it to be “War or Peace”, Resp. “Victory or Surrender”. Romny was wise enough to underscore the latter formulation.
Sergey:
Don’t know what the Russian translation was, but the original Churchill (speaking to Anthony Eden):
“If Hitler invaded Hell, I would say nice things about Lucifer in the Houses of Parliament.”
I think you can find the whole quote in Churchill’s Memoirs: Their Finest Hour (Volume II of his history of World War II).
Pedantically Yours…G. O. C.
One wonders at the “bend-over” attitude toward Romney–conservatives will tolerate anything from any candidate who mouths some words today, but spewed nonsense yesyerday. If Romney’s liberalism was excusable when he was a governor (just to get elected in a liberal state), why is he any more genuine today, spewing superficially held “conservative” ideals while he was trying to become a Presidential candidate. One comes back to the marvelous remarks of the late Grouch Marx, “These are my principles. If you don’t like them, I have others.”
Mr. McCain is as he is: rough hewn, “old as dirt and with more scars than Frankenstein,” as he himself said, but a real human being, less polished or tailored than Romney, but real. Mr. Romney has spent a life of feathering his financial nest, less than aggressively serving the nation, and certainly not encouraging his sons to serve (contrast this with Mr. McCain and his sons). Similarly, it would have been a delightful political season with Mr. Romney answering embarassing questions from the press: “Mr. Romney, we live in an age of great scientific accomplishment. Do you really believe the Garden of Eden in in Missouri, or that the American Indian tribes are really the Lost tribes of Israel.” This is the election of 2008 confronting us, not 1848, and the world is a bit more sophisticated.
Neo, please consider looking at Joe Carter of the Evangelical Outpost. (A big Huckabee fan)
It reviews, excellently, the post Super Tuesday results.
It also links to a fine anti-Romney list, especially the Romney’s Bain takeover of a company that was then lent money to expand, a LOT (with lots of fees for Bain), which then went belly up. NOT impressive (except for Bain collecting fees). (Some comments there pro-Romney)
Joe doesn’t think McCain will offer Huckabee the VP spot — and doesn’t think Huck should accept if offered.
I doubly disagree. But the unspoken continuation of the “fight” for the Reps will probably be for McCain to decide to accept Huck as VP or not — and for Huck to decide to accept or not.
Huck haters will probably be pushing Thompson or some other Southerner.
You correctly picked up on only 1 of the 7 reasons to support Reps, Victory. The other 6 — are the US SC Justices over 68.
Until Roe is overturned, and abortion returned to the states, the pro-life folk (about a third or more Rep voters, often Single-Issue) will continue to have it high on the agenda. The gay marriage stuff is mostly an abortion fight substitute, against Courts jamming ‘legislation’ in the form of ‘penumbras of unenumerated rights’ down on unwilling voters. Elitist judges.
#3 Ron Paul — has long been the MOST conservative, MOST principled, and MOST honest politician in Washington. But his anti-War (war is the health of the state) non-intervention (free trade NOT isolationism) is no longer for me (free trade, yes). The USA, and the world, need a Free and Democratic Iraq.
I continue to pray for:
A World Without Dictators.
Donald Wolberg,
Did you even try to learn more about Romney? He said he changed his opinion on abortion, end of story. He’s a very religious guy-do you doubt that? Given that he is a very religious guy, where do you think he has ALWAYS been on the abortion issue? Yes he said while running for Governor that “he would do nothing to interfere with a women’s right to choose.” It wasn’t an important issue for him as Governor of Mass. He did other things.
You guys keep saying the same things about Mitt, with no appreciation of his explanations. Very superficial analysis. Great comments about Mormonism also. Really good. Every religion has it’s strange components. Mitt has lived his life, governed, lead a business, without his beliefs coming into play. Are you a religious person Donald? You don’t think your faith sounds strange to people who don’t believe.
McCain’s push on Amnesty is strikes 1-3 against him. Six months ago he and others said we had to give these people amnesty because they we couldn’t deport them all. Turns out if you enforce the laws in the workplace, they won’t have work and they will go home. Gee, that was tough. Brilliant guy your man. Don’t even have to start on McCain-Feingold, Keating 5, etc.
Ah, the “stabbed in the back” meme arises yet again! (and I thought Romney was done campaigning…perhaps this is one thing he actually believes.) Of course this comment is linked to approvingly at this blog, which is not surprising given that the meme is mentioned prominently in about 2-3 posts a week at this blog alone.
You know, by so boldly opposing “surrender” Romney has allied himself against those who are likely to win the Presidency, their opposition to the war playing no small part in that victory. Of course, acknowledging that fact would undermine the idea it’s a small minority of “traitors” and “useful idiots” who are undermining are great and glorious effort in the war, and so it is summarily dismissed.
Here’s the reality guys: the American people are about sick of this war because they don’t see no end in sight. No one who is a proponent of this war can say what the conditions are for victory, or under what conditions our troops would be allowed to go home. The last several years of seemingly pointless war have raised the skepticism of the average American to enormous levels, and in response to their legitimate doubts proponents of the war say “We’re defeating al Qaeda…but we can’t leave or al Qaeda will follow us here!” or “Yes, yes…the first four years of the war were completely botched, but we’ve got the right strategy now!” In response to questions about the politics of Iraq, there are only blank stares (as that subject has nothing to do with the military, and is completely without interest to most war proponents.) Yes, yes…things have gotten better…but only in the sense that they’re as bad as they were in late 2003, or 2004 or 2005. Nobody seems to know what our goal is supposed to be besides somehow justifying staying in Iraq for a hundred years or so.
And if you try to talk about the growing problem in Afghanistan and Pakistan…well, just throw some airstrikes at that too!
Indeed! Except…the American people now favor Democrats on almost every issue, including the war on terror and national security. So, you have some work to do on that too.
I’m sorry about misuse of XHTML. I think there might be a need for some “/a” somewhere that is not shown in the hint.
Of course Xan doesn’t concern himself with what happens to the Iraqi people once we abandon them to people who use women with Down’s syndrome as weapons. He throws up smoke screens and strawmen about what he thinks our motives for remaining in Iraq are but liberals and “progressives” of Xan’s ilk studiously avoid broaching the subject of what happens next. Thats because the impending slaughter would only be comfortably shrugged off by enlightened liberals as a product of the Bush legacy. Not the direct cause of tolerant and caring liberals who were most afraid shoving democracy down the throats of Iraqis also equated with shoving courage and actual conviction down the liberals.
How long should this take Xan? As long as it needs to. I know slapping empty “Free Tibet” slogans on your bumper is as far as your convictions go, but they dont actually save anybody.
To Mike M
Excellent and thoughtful comments. However, unfortunately I must be blameless regarding religious beliefs…I do like the Flat Earth school as well as the world sits on the back of that giant tortoise and it is tortoises all the way down. Mr. Romney’s unusual beliefs are his own, as are anyone’s and I cannot doubt his sincerity, or anyone’s. My issues are of course, I am not a candidate for high (or low) office, and my non-religious views impact no public decisions. I do suggest that if indeed Mr. Romney holds that Missouri is the place to visit the Garden of Eden; that there were golden tablets that vanished but were interpreted by the angel Moroni, that Jesus appeared in the United States to preach and on and on, then there is a real issue about rationality, understanding the world and the significance of science in the 21st Century. If Mr. Romney does not believe these less than rational notions, he should have said so. But one suspects that in these matters, as in his poture vis a vis his new found conservatism post-Governor, Mr. Romney will say what ever he thinks the audience of the day wishes to hear.
Mr. McCain strenght (and short-coming politically) is that he says exactly what he thinks and can be less than prudent. Indeed he has a temper, and he is a hero. Oh my, perhaps this is excactly what the political process needs. But Mr. McCain is genuine, and intellectually more honest than Mr. Romney. He will be a great candidate, and if matched against Mr. Obama, an exciting series of very pointed and shar debates may occur such as we have not seen in our lifetimes.
Donald,
Again. So if a McCain/Hillary/Huckabee/whomever who happens to be Catholic or Evangelical doesn’t “admit” that he doesn’t believe Christ rose from the dead, that he doesn’t admit as you say: “these less than rational notions” then he will say what ever he thinks the audience wants to hear?
Components of all religions are “less than rational” and yet we don’t force our candidates to admit as much. The fact that you would list a few of the Mormon ones and think that proves anything shows that you are not going to accept a Mormon, end of story. You must think Christian beliefs are completely rational.
It just goes to show the amount of BullShit that voters focus on. He has slick hair so he must be a slick liar. Voters in a democratic republic have to be intellectual. We have to school ourselves in Government and the candidates. That my friend is the problems with people today. Too many vote on perception or looks and not on content.
Take McCain supports for example. Name one thing other than his hero status McCain has done good that is conservative. Did anyone watch the same debates I watched? This is what i saw; Commentator: “So McCain what is your stance on the economy”. McCain: “I was a POW and supported the surge”. Commentator: ” how about Immigration”. McCain: “I was a POW and I voted for the surge, and would vote for the amnesty bill if it came up but it wont come up because i got my shit handed to me by the American people…but i still would vote for it.”
In response to calling Mitt a Flip flopper that moved conservative from a liberal conservative from Mass. I say this. I’d rather vote for a guy that is a liberal conservative from a liberal state than a liberal conservative from a conservative state. Keep that in mind.
A brokered convention is our best hope of getting a decent candidate!
As to Donaldson,
Why is anyone even listening to this obvious bigot! The anti mormanism he spews is in no way different from the anti semetism out there.
If you disagree with his believes Donaldson then dont get baptised into his church but leave it out of Political debate.
Bringing it up only shows your bias and hate. Giving people like me more reason not to back a guy for pres that has the support of people like you. Same reason why i will not get be hind Huck. His bigoted remarks about Romneys religion was disgracful and his followers are just as bad.
Makes me sad to see in this party. I thought this kind of hate was a thing of the left not the right. I have found this political season that that is not the case. I for one am ashamed!