Gingrich v Romney: lies and the lying liars…
Let’s get one thing straight: to be a politician is to lie sometimes, or at the very least to tell half truths and/or shade the truth when it’s strategic to do so.
And sometimes—as today, when Newt Gingrich called Romney a liar—those who call others “liar, liar, pants on fire” are lying themselves (or telling half-truths, or shading the truth) in the very act of accusation.
For example, after calling Romney a liar, Newt added, by way of explanation:
Well, I’ll let you go and check [Romney’s] record, Bob. Look, you’re a professional reporter. Did he support Reagan in the ’80s or not? The answer is no. Did he vote as a Democrat for Paul Tsongas in ’92 or not? The answer is, yes, he did. Did he say that he didn’t want to go back to the Reagan-Bush years in ’94? Yes, he did. Did he run to the left of Teddy Kennedy? Yes he did. Now, why is it politically incorrect to tell the truth?
Well, my name isn’t “Bob,” and I’m not a professional reporter, but I took Gingrich up on his invitation to check the record anyway.
Gingrich’s assertion that Romney did not support Reagan in the 80s—when Romney was a private citizen in business—appears to rest on a single statement Romney made during his 1994 debate against uber-liberal Ted Kennedy in uber-liberal Massachusetts for the Senate seat Kennedy had held for decades. Romney tried to deflect Kennedy’s criticism of certain Reagan polities by saying, “I was an independent during that time of Reagan-Bush. I’m not trying to return to Reagan-Bush.”
Note that Romney says nothing about whether or not he actually supported, or voted for, Reagan in the 80s. He merely speaks of his Independent registration and his reluctance to return Massachusetts to the Reagan-Bush years, a typical politician’s dodge to try to avoid a knotty problem: how to appeal to liberal Massachusetts voters as a Republican without being branded as that horror of horrors (to the majority of Massaschusetts voters anyway), a Ronald Reagan wannabe. The answer was to distance himself as best he could. Whether he actually supported Reagan or not in the 80s we simply do not know.
On to Gingrich’s next assertion. Here’s what I found about Romney’s vote for Tsongas—whom, by the way, I remember well, having supported him in 1992, and who remains one of my favorite politicians of all time and was a person who was far enough to the right that he’d be drummed out of today’s Democratic Party. Romney offers two stories, both of which feature him crossing over as a registered Independent to vote for Tsongas in the 1992 Democratic primary in Massachusetts and then voting for George H.W. Bush in the general election.
So no, Romney did not “vote as a Democrat” for Tsongas; he voted as an Independent in the Democratic primary, and then voted for Republican Bush in the general. Romney’s explanations for this decision are as follows: (a) he wanted to support Tsongas over Clinton because the former was a Massachusetts native son and a candidate Romney liked better than Clinton, always intending to vote for Bush in the general; and (b) Romney thought Tsongas a weaker candidate in the general, less likely to beat Bush, whom he favored in the general.
This sort of strategy is performed all the time in crossover states such as Massachusetts, where Independents are allowed the freedom to vote in either primary. Since in 1992 the Republican primary was uncontested—the incumbent Bush was going to be nominated—Romney’s actions make sense and are not evidence of closet liberalism, whichever way you interpret them.
Now let’s tackle Gingrich’s statement that Romney ran “to the left of Teddy Kennedy.” Gingrich knows, of course, that in order to have a chance of winning in Massachusetts at all, Romney had to throw off the conservative label and color his positions in the most liberal possible light. I’ve studied that 1994 campaign and listened to several segments from their debates, and I see no justification for Gingrich’s statement. There’s no question that on some issues Romney tried to position himself not too far to the right, and not too far to Kennedy’s right. But to the left of Kennedy? That is, at least as far as I can see, a—lie.
Now, maybe you don’t think someone who is not completely conservative on all issues, and/or who was not always conservative on all issues—someone who’s changed and become more conservative, as Romney says he has—should be nominated or even elected president, even if the alternative is Obama. Maybe you think no one who’s ever campaigned for office in a liberal state against a liberal, and who therefore had to present himself as not-so-conservative in order to have a chance of winning, is too hypocritical for you to support, even if the alternative is Obama (although if hypocrisy disqualifies a candidate for you, you better sit out virtually every election). Maybe you think that no one who’s ever won office in a liberal state and had to compromise with a liberal legislature and its veto threat is someone you could vote for, even if the alternative is Obama. Maybe you just don’t trust Romney, then or now, because of all of this.
As I’ve said many times before, I’m not trying to talk anyone into liking Romney. I’m not too keen on him myself; I would have preferred any number of other candidates who unfortunately are not running. But if you don’t like him, at least dislike him for the right reasons, not for distortions of his record.
“to be a politician is to lie sometimes, or at the very least to tell half truths and/or shade the truth when it’s strategic to do so.”
While I acknowledge this, it represents the triumph of cynicism. Our default assumption is that anyone seeking office is some shape of scoundrel. Our popular culture militates against virtue.
If or when the rare decent person volunteers to serve in government, we cannot accept it. We presume corruption and set out relentlessly to find some.
Separately, statements like “to the left of Ted Kennedy” are opinions and rhetorical assessments. To call them lies is to diminish the significance of knowingly stating that which is factually or logically untrue.
Thirdly, anyone who has been in the public eye for a time will have said so many things, all with the context forgotten, that I don’t trust anyone’s judgment of what is a lie. Show me the tape in context and I will decide.
Finally, I have seen the video of Romney describing himself as progressive. Was he lying then, is he lying now, or is the truth better revealed by his entire record instead of one clip?
Ironic that he would use Romney’s non-support of Reagan however many years ago, considering that Reagan was a longtime Democrat who formally changed his affiliation to Republican in 1962, and ran as a Republican in his bid for California governor which he won in ’66 and again in ’70. After being beaten in his first two bids for the Presidency — as a Republican, he ultimately won the Presidency in 1980 from Jimmy Carter, and then was re-elected. Again — still as a Republican.
Neo’s article re: Romney’s entire life story which clearly comports with the conservative view. As governor of MA, he was elected as leader of a very Democratic constituency, and had a duty to lead — tho’ a Repuglican — his Constituency which was not, and work with the almost all Democratic state Congress.
His statement of being moderate and “progressive” clearly did not mean “progressive” as Hillary Clinton might mean “Progressive.” It simply reflected his position as not being far right.
Frankly, in running to be the next President of the U.S. with Conservative principals, we are in need of some moderacy in a leader of ALL the people, who will be President of all the people as opposed to the presdent now occupying the White House, not just a liberal, but about the farthest left liberal that the U.S. has ever had, wreaking much destruction with his unassailable liberal ideology, arrogance and matchless ego.
A Republican who is able to work with both parties in Congress hopefully will be able to effect many more changes we badly need, as opposd to he who ‘s liberal ideology cannot.
foxmarks: “to the left of Ted Kennedy” is factually untrue, and Gingrich knows it. It’s a lie, and he’s counting on his audience to not know the truth and therefore believe the lie. And the rest of the paragraph I quoted by Gingrich contains omissions and distortions that are close to lies, and he knows that as well.
That’s politics. I don’t have to like it, but I acknowledge it. But I find it especially revolting when someone does it in the middle of making a big fuss about how the other person’s the liar.
I agree with you about trying to hear all statements in context, though. It can be very difficult and time-consuming to do so, however.
re Romney and conservatism
I do not think Tea Party conservatives see the issue as either:
1) being conservative on all issues, or as
2) having not always been conservative.
Rather, I assess that tea party conservatives do not believe that Romney believes in the “first principles” of conservatism.
Paul Rahe calls Romney a managerial progressive:
Rahe article: http://ricochet.com/main-feed/Peas-in-a-Pod
Rahe’s descrip is the descrip of the exact Republican which Tea Partiers are trying to defeat: Nixon, Bush 1, Bush 2: they all contributed to the big government mess which we currently face.
The only argument in favor of electing them = they are the only Repubs who are electable!
Tea Party types reject that argument. Reagan won two landslide elections via pulling independents in his direction: i.e., Reagan did not cave on his first principles; did not move his first principles towards independent voters.
This cannot be emphasized enough: I flatly reject the argument that moving one’s policies to the left will attract independent votes. I flatly reject the premise that Romney will attract more independent voters via this method. In truth, in a general election: the more Romney moves his policies to the left (in misguided attempt to attract independents), the less chance Romney has of winning.
Therefore, Romney is not castor oil which we must injest; is not spinach which is good for us. The actual situation is exactly opposite: Romney has less chance of winning a general election than, for instance, my favored candidate: Rick Perry. Romney has less chance of attracting down ballot votes than Rick Perry. Who wins down ballot elections? A motivated base. Romney motivates nobody. The smart internet set, i.e. the internet opinion persons who buy into Romney, have bought into MSM/ progressive/ moderate/ leftist/ D.C.Republican propaganda about appealing to independent voters.
The Tea Party is not rejecting Romney out of spite. Rather, we believe he is not best for our nation, AND we believe he does not have the best chance of victory.
neo:
I don’t see how “to the left of” is a testable hypothesis. People are saying Paul’s foreign policy is “to the left of” Obama (and lately that his entire platform is “to the left of” Obama). Interventionist foreign policy was a Progressive innovation. Through the 1950s and 60s, the Rs were akin to Paul, while the Ds wanted to send the Marines around the world. Paul is right of FDR but left of Obama?
The single-axis political model is inadequate.
gcotharn:
That depiction of Romney is what I see, too. And add to it his lifelong association with banksters (Goldman, KKR, Blackstone). Romney is a tool of the powers responsible the 2008 collapse.
I am fond of asserting that the first candidate to say, “Stop the looting and start the prosecuting!” will walk away with the election. Any of them but Romney could credibly say it. I am disappointed that none have.
gcotharn: I wrote about whether RINOs (and Romney) attract independent voters here. The relevant passage is this:
By the way, Romney has not moved to the left in his campaign in order to attract independents. He has moved to the right of his record as governor. He also moved to the right of that record as governor in his 2008 campaign.
Now, you may think he was sincere in his slightly-to-the-left stances as governor of Massachusetts, and insincere now. I happen to think (as I’ve written before) that his life taken as a whole indicates his tenure as governor was an accommodation to the liberalism of Massachusetts, and that his stance now is the more sincere one. I can understand, however, the point of view of people who differ with me on that score.
You can also believe that, contrary to what the polls say, he does not have the best chance of victory of any of the Republican contenders (not an imaginary Republican; the actual contenders at hand). You can believe that, but it’s unsupported by data. You don’t have to vote for him because of his better showing against Obama in polls, but the data indicates he is the most likely of the bunch to be able to defeat Obama (which also isn’t to say he will do so, if nominated).
As far as Reagan goes: as governor of California, his record was not unlike Romney’s in that he did some things in office that were not conservative (and California, although a moderately liberal state at the time, was not nearly as liberal as Massachusetts). It was his conservative rhetoric in the 1980 campaign, plus his ability to make people believe he believed in that rhetoric, plus various other personality traits (such as leadership), that allowed him to pull Independents to his side while espousing conservative principles. Very few candidates (and NONE of the ones in the race today) have that magical combination of conviction and traits.
foxmarks: testable hypothesis? This is not a chemistry experiment. I’ve looked at and read many of Romney’s statements during that 1994 campaign that Gingrich is referring to (including a video that purports to show Romney’s stances to the left of Kennedy), and there was nothing I found there (in a great deal of looking) that’s even remotely or arguably to the left of Kennedy.
Nor, by the way, did Gingrich offer any evidence to support his outrageous statement.
It very much matters how a particular candidate would govern once elected. The boundaries of any President however are set by both the Constitution, their party’s dominance of Congress and the current mood of the public.
The election of 2012 will be determined by just how dissatisfied independents are with Obama’s performance vis a vis the economy. This is truly another “it’s the economy stupid” election.
Bush 1 lost reelection because he was incorrectly perceived (due to media reportage) as not having a clue as to how to revive the economy. (Clinton left unchanged Bush’s economic policies and the rise in productivity brought by computers pulled us out of the recession)
The MSM will do its level best to portray Obama as just on the cusp of turning it around. And remember, the country reelected Roosevelt in 1936 despite his inability to get us out of the depression. Republicans under Hoover had been thoroughly rejected and in 2012, the MSM will do its best to portray any Republican candidate as Bush III…
No current republican candidate impresses, so any election of a Republican will in fact be a rejection of Obama.
In general, conservatives vote on principle and liberals feelings. Independents mostly vote according to feeling because if they were motivated by principles they’d either be republicans or libertarians. They are liberally inclined but haven’t bought the liberal rationale because it intuitively doesn’t ‘feel’ right.
Independents in the main vote as the wind blows, so the real question is will the majority of independents ignore the proclamation of the MSM that the wind is at the democrats back and that independents should ‘stay the course’ or will they decide that the MSM and the democrats are pissing on their head and telling them its rain…
In my view, Obama has a damn good chance of reelection, I too fear his ideology will reemerge in a second term and what most concerns me is the inability of republicans to fabricate a sound strategy in dealing with MSM manipulation of the facts.
Compelling Political ads will be critical.
More than any other factor, the MSM are influencing election results. They have a license to lie and they are using it to the best of their ability.
IN 2012 there’s no substitute for a solidly believable (Perry), verbally facile republican candidate able to respond to liberal media attacks and distortions (Gingrich) a compelling economic resume (Romney) and a support structure of political ads that effectively refute the democrat’s Pravda outlet, the MSM.
Since that combination appears unlikely, we may well lose and only the disaster of another 4 years of Obama with the inevitable consequences of economic collapse, terrorist attacks and a nuclear Iran with the regional nuclear proliferation certain to follow will permit the American public to judge the democrats as unfit for governance, as they, due to MSM propaganda, currently judge the Republicans to be.
I’m really glad I checked in here today after a long absence! Great OP, Neo!
I agree with your analysis of Newt’s ironically dishonest indictment of Romney. And to foxmarks, Newt presented this diatribe to “Bob” as if it were a seriies of objective facts about Mitt’s record, not just Newt’s opinion.
As an aside, while it is probably too late to revive the 11th Commandment per se, I do think Republicans should at least insist that GOP candidates not demagogue one another. If you want to attack a fellow Republican for dishonesty or flip-flopping or being a closet liberal, fine; but be fair about it and don’t distort his/her record in order to make the charge.
As for whether Romney is really a liberal social engineer, I don’t buy it. First of all, he comes from a Republican family and, to my knowledge, has always been a Republican. I have to infer from that he’s more ideologically aligned with the GOP than the Dems. (“It walks like a duck.”)
Second, it seems to me that at least 90% of the evidence against Mitt’s conservatism comes from statements he made in attempting to get elected to office in Massachusetts. I would take all of that evidence with a huge grain of salt.
Third, just based on demographic factors, I have a hard time believing Mitt is not a conservative. If you work through the census data, I’d bet you’d find it quite statistically unlikely that a white, male, married, churchgoing, rich guy is, in reality, a card-carrying liberal.
Finally, people who argue against Romney’s being a conservative never seem to cite any CURRENT position in support of that contention. This strikes me as fairly remarkable. Usually, we are content to examine a candidate’s stated positions on the issue in deciding whether he is a liberal or a conservative or whatever. In Mitt’s case, nobidy seems to dispute that his positions and proposals are conservative, rather that he harbors a liberal alter ego that would come out — Mr. Hyde-like — if he were elected president. Perhaps this is true, but I still feel that his STATED positions on the issues deserve to be taken into account as part of the overall picture.
Along those lines, if it’s true, as his critics seem to think, that Romney has no “core” beliefs, and that he’ll only say or do what he thinks the voters want to hear, then why does it follow he would govern as a liberal? I mean, he’s RUNNING as a conservative against a very liberal BHO. If Mitt wins, then that would represent a mandate from the country to govern as a conservative. If Mitt wants to please the voters and win reelection in 2016, he would presumably go along with their wishes and be a terrific conservative president.
I think Mitt is a conservative whose path to national prominence (through Massachusetts) more or less required that he present himself as a moderate. Stalwart conservatives either don’t understand this or simply don’t approve of it: they think it’s indicative of a character flaw. I don’t think they appreciate that this kind of manipulation or even outright invention of a politician’s own public image is pretty widespread. Certainly by the time a candidate is in position to run for president, he or she has engaged in a LOT of puffery in selling his or her image to the voters. The only alternative, really, is not to get involved in politics or to get involved but then lose a big election beand never get another chance at high office. We could demand the Mitt Romneys of the world do this, but then the political class would be dominated by an even MORE disreputable species of men.
My angle here is the overuse and misapplication of “lying”. Too many years of hearing about how “Bush lied” has inclined me toward a courtroom-style trial of facts. Both ends of my radio dial habitually call their opposites liars. That word, they use it so much, I don’t think it means what they think it means.
I defer to y’all’s assessment of this particular Gingrich statement. Even if Newt wasn’t lying at the Clintonian level of perjury, he’s shown an eagerness to fudge. Gingrich is one who has trained us to expect deceit from politicians.
Conrad: I agree with you, and you said it better (and more succinctly) than I.
Rarely am I accused of succinctness.
This is classic Gingrich; an over-the-top statement that becomes a story in itself. It’s one of the reasons why the conservatives in the House asked him to step down or be voted out in 1998, and why he would not be a good choice as our nominee this year.
Conrad: well, succinct in comparison to me.
Conrad,
Both Reagan and Perry shifted from Dem to Rep: has either left anyone in doubt as to their positions on issues?
First principles. I’ve no doubt Mitt is a social conservative. I’ve no doubt Mitt is a conservative. But, Mitt does not have first principles ingrained in his core.
Look at Obamacare:
My initial instinct: a travesty, which violates both the Constitution + first principles of small government philosophy.
Romney’s initial instinct: keep the good parts.
Romney rarely has an initial instinct to follow first principles of small government philosophy. At his core: he is not what we want.
This is a horrible thing, b/c everything about D.C. tends to pull a POTUS leftward. A SCOTUS, also. A Senator, also. D.C. is a conspiracy to pull everyone to the left. The only possible salvation is to have first principles embedded in your core. I will agree, with you and with neo, that Mitt will govern conservatively in some ways. Yet, that will not be enough. Mitt is at risk; puts us all at risk: he does not have first principles embedded in his core.
The current situation reminds of the outcry when GWB nominated Harriet Miers for SCOTUS. She, also, would have often ruled in judicially restrained fashion. However, we could not be confident that she had first principles (of judicial restraint) embedded in her core. Miers = Romney. We KNEW Alito did have first principles embedded in his core. Alito = Perry. Alito will not be pulled to the left by the embedded cultural forces inside Washington, D.C. Alito will not be O’Connor or Souter.
neo, respectfully, your Nov 2011 poll is mere noise.
Would Barack have won a Nov 2007 poll of independents? No. Hillary.
Would McCain have won a Nov 2007 poll of independents? No. Giuliani. In Nov 2007, media were writing McCain’s obituary.
Would Barack have won a hypothetical Nov 2007 contest against McCain? No. McCain, due to uninformed independent voters being more familiar with him, would have won.
Would Kerry have won a Nov 2003 poll of independents? No. Kerry never became a factor until a week before Iowa.
You have to go back to Nov 1999, and GWB (and his massive name recognition) to find a newcomer who would have won an independent poll to be nominee of his party. Even then: would GWB, in a hypothetical Nov 1999 contest against Gore, have won a poll of independents? No. Gore, with his superior familiarity among uninformed independent voters, would have won.
Slightly different, but:
Was Bachmann’s lead in polling significant?
Was Perry’s lead significant?
Was Cain’s lead significant?
Was Gingrich’ lead significant?
A Nov 2011 poll, of the the most uninformed voters in America, has little significance.
Expecting a politician to be a straight shooter is akin to expecting to find a Scoop Jackson or a Pat Moynihan in today’s democrat party. Its a rapidly vanishing phenomenon. Romney, like 99% all politicians, has bent and stretched the ‘truth’. They all do it at the drop of a hat. Newt does it to the extreme, as does BHO. IMO Newt is a loose cannon.
gcotharn: you are comparing apples and oranges.
I did not cite the poll to say that Romney would beat Obama in November of 2012. I cited it to say that the contention that he has no greater appeal to Independents than the other Republican candidates do is wrong. The poll shows that right now he does, by a long shot.
None of us knows what will happen in November of 2012, but the only indications we have are those polls now. Obviously, things can change. But there’s no reason to suppose they will, and no way to know in what direction they would change, either. Our only data so far is those polls.
The poll I cited does not compare the Republican candidates to each other to see who does best among Independents. It compares each candidate to Obama to see who wins the Independent vote against Obama. Romney is the only one who does right now, and he does it by a mile.
You write:
Your point exactly? I believe Hillary would have won the election against McCain, with perhaps an even wider margin than Obama did.
You write:
Your point? If Giuliani had won the Republican nomination, he would almost certainly have done very well in the general with Independents. He might have even won the election because of that fact.
You write:
Your point? The 2008 election was unusual in that there was no incumbent running and no heir apparent either (no VP or clear frontrunner in either party). Obama was an unknown with whom voters were unfamiliar. Obama is no longer unknown, to say the least, and the only relative unknown (Cain) in the Republican field is gone. There is no analogy.
You write:
I fail to see how this is relevant to this year’s contest. In your hypothetical Nov. 2003 poll of independents, to be comparable to the poll I cited it would have to have compared each Democratic candidate against Bush among independents. I have no idea who would have done best, or how Kerry would have done, but I cannot find such a poll, and I doubt you can, either.
However, in trying to guess how well Kerry would have done against Bush in Nov. 2003, it might be instructive to look at Gallup polls. Bush’s approval ratings in November of 2003 were about the same or slightly worse (low 50s) than they were at the time of the 2004 election, and his disapproval ratings were about the same or slightly higher than they were at the time of the 2004 election. So the public’s opinion of Bush was lukewarm in Nov. of 2003 and similar to what it was in Nov. of 2004. Hard to say whether Kerry would have done similarly in a poll against Bush in November 2003 among Independents as he did a year later during the election (he carried Independents), but Bush’s standing probably didn’t change much. And the fact that Kerry was not doing well among Republican voters until Iowa in 2003 is irrelevant when trying to understand how he would have polled in Nov. 2003 among Independents, a very different group to say the least.
Geoffrey Britain@6:10pm,
What you said, sir. Very well put.
I lived in California when Reagan was governor. I loved his speech for Goldwater in the 60s but was disappointed in the trend in California government during his term. IMO, he was in a situation much like Romney in Massachusetts. He had his principles, but had to deal with a majority democrat legislature. In actuality, he had a similar problem as President. He had to deal with a democrat Congress and hostile MSM. As a result, he was unable to stem the tide of spending. He did, fight some good fights – most notably his willingness to stand up to the USSR and his battles against the EPA fought by his Secretary of Interior, James Watt. His work, however, was but a holding action. Nothing was done about spending until we actually had a majority Repblican Congress in 1994. I think G. W. Bush would not have been the big spender that he turned out to be if 9/11 had not occurred. The GWOT needed to be paid for by cutting spending on domestic programs, but in order to get dem support for continuing the war, he had to bribe them by not cutting their pet projects. He also made the mistake of claiming to be able to work in a bipartisan fashion with the dems. No Republican should ever go there. The dems will continually scream for more spending even when they know the President (and the majority fo the citizenry) is opposed. “It’s for the children!” is their battle cry.
I agree with those who say that Newt’s running his lip in a fashion that brought him down as Speaker. And it’s a shame! So much knowledge, a combative temperament and the ability to debate with the best all combined in a person who can’t quite restrain himself from sticking the dirk in when it isn’t necessary. He was doing so well as the candidate that was above ad hominem, but now he’s baring his fangs – the old Newt is showing.
You make some fair points.
Here is my point:
Independents are uninformed. Independents are most familiar with Romney (b/c of the 2008 campaign). Therefore, in Nov ’11, from among all Repub candidates: Romney polls best among independents.
I contend that half (or more) of all independent voters cannot even remember Gingrich from his days as House Speaker; cannot remember Santorum from his days as Senator. Among (politically uninformed) independent voters: Romney has the most name recognition and familiarity.
Therefore, the Nov ’11 poll does not have much value in predicting which Repub candidate would do best, among independent voters, in Nov ’12. If we let Santorum have an entire summer and fall Presidential campaign in which to make himself known to independent voters: it is fully likely, in Nov ’12, that Santorum would do better among independents than would Romney.
That is my point: the Nov 11 poll of independent voters is about familiarity, and not much else. I have little respect for its predictive value (vis a vis any Repub candidate who would become the Repub nominee) for a Nov ’12 election.
gcotharn: there is certainly a familiarity factor. But how important it is this time I don’t know, because certain of the candidates (actually, quite a few of them) have become less popular as they are better known, although I don’t know if that is true among Independents. I suspect it would be, but I don’t know and I can’t cite any statistics for or against my hunch.
What I do know is this: the people I know best, which is typical liberal Democrats, are quite familiar with the Republican frontrunners (Romney and Gingrich and Paul). They do not fear a possible Romney presidency anywhere near as much as they fear a Gingrich or Paul presidency. They are disaffected with Obama and not energized to vote for him, but they would be very energized to vote against Gingrich or Paul. They would be far more inclined to stay at home if Romney is the candidate.
This may be a bug, not a feature, to you, proving that Romney isn’t conservative enough. But it is a factor in his electability. Whether it would be offset by the staunch conservatives who would stay home if Romney is the nominee and who would come out to vote if Gingrich or Paul were the nominee, I don’t know. I suspect the number of liberals who would stay home if Romney were the nominee is greater than the number of conservatives who would stay home if he were nominated, but I don’t know for sure and I can’t prove it.
“If we let Santorum have an entire summer and fall Presidential campaign in which to make himself known to independent voters: it is fully likely, in Nov ’12, that Santorum would do better among independents than would Romney.”
IMO Santorum is this cycle’s Huckabee. He’ll drop to 5th place in NH and quickly fade in SC and FLA.
J.J.,
I second your take on Bush making sacrifices to Dems to get support for the GWOT. He really felt for every person fighting that war and would have considered it dishonorable not to do all to support them. Furthermore, I think he had a pretty good understanding of the enemy and knew we had to show resolve and stand up for democratic principles. Despite his best efforts, the Dems stabbed him in the back every chance they had. I don’t know how he would have governed sans 9/11. I can’t really respect some of those “principled” people who forget that 9/11 occurred when assessing Bush. I also know he accomplished quite a bit in getting our foreign friends (at least the ones who bore responsibility for security–not the intellectuals) to face up to the dangers in their midst.
Dear neo-neocon, so interesting to read your reaction.
You said in a recent post that you did all kinds of in-depth research some years ago to see if something a columnist had written was true. And you found out that the columnist was writing distortions and lies. (He shall remain unnamed so as to not contaminate this conversation.)
I’ve done a similar kind of in-depth research about Newt in the past year. I did not start out as a supporter of Newt, not at all. I didn’t like anyone else and I had liked Newt back in the 90’s, so I decided to find out for myself.
I now support Newt. I see Newt as a genuine conservative who is also a true visionary. I’ve watched many of Newt’s speeches in the last year on YouTube and I would love to have the American people team up to bring government back to local communities under the 10th Amendment, as Newt is proposing, and I would love to implement so many of the other ideas Newt is proposing.
So it’s interesting to me, and understandable to me, that you were stung by Newt’s response, when he was asked in a very gotcha way by a tv interviewer, “Are you calling Governor Romney a liar????” And Newt said, “Yes.”
I can understand your reaction. I totally agree that it creates hard feelings when people distort other other guy’s record. I understand why you went and researched it and published the results of your findings.
But here’s the thing. I saw part of an ad that a Romney superpac was running in Iowa. As I understand it, the Romney superpac is run by Romney’s former top aides and paid for by Romney supporters. As I understand it, Governor Romney says there’s nothing he can do about the ads, he’s just an innocent bystander. Millions of dollars, 7, 8, 9 times an hour, for weeks?
I saw the as in a news interview with Newt when I happened to be near a tv, and every point they made against Newt, and the way they made it, I knew, because of my extensive research in the last year into Newt, was untrue. Governor Romney is not uninformed enough to think those accusations are true, and there is no way in the world his consultants think those accusations are true.
It’s my understanding that the WAPO gave a Romney ad four Pinnochios; I imagine it’s that ad.
Newt has been saying all along that the only one who benefits from Republicans trashing each other is Obama.
Romney could have criticized Newt on Newt’s record but chose to tell lies. Sorry. It’s not diplomatic to call them lies, but it’s true that they were lies.
I don’t know enough about Governor Romney’s record to know whether he ran to left of Teddy Kennedy or not, or the other things Newt said, so I have no opinion about that. But that’s not really why I’m responding.
The reason I’m responding is, as much as it bothered you to hear Newt say things that you believe are not true, it bothered me to hear Romney’s superpac broadcast things about Newt that I believe are not true, while Governor Romney pretends he has nothing to do with it.
There is something wrong with this process.
So, look, I know you don’t like Newt. Fair enough. That’s fair. Lots of people don’t like him at the moment.
But Newt is, to my eye, a truly visionary leader who can help the American people replace the Left with a constitutionally-based restoration of local government and a smaller federal government.
I think the current presidential election process of these game-show versions of “gotcha” “debates,” with 30 seconds to answer, and consultants in the early states, writing nasty ads, and the need for staggering amounts of money just to get into the race, needs another look. I think Lincoln-Douglas-style debates of 90 minutes, a time-keeper and no moderator, would be great. The American people deserve a better process.
Neo-neocon, I appreciate this forum and I appreciate your blog. Thank you for letting me express my opinion here.
I’m sorry Newt was less than diplomatic. I agree Newt was less than diplomatic. But I hope you will understand that from my point of view, Governor Romney is calling Newt a liar every day, repeatedly, by stealth through a superpac, and not even owning up to it.
I hope people will give Newt a chance. Newt is someone I can actually vote FOR.
e.g. Newt speech to a New Hampshire grassroots group, 2010
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/291823-1
“I understand why you went and researched it and published the results of your findings.”
I mean here in this post, about Governor Romney.
Neo —
Just 10 years before Romney ran against Ted Kennedy, the “majority of Massaschusetts voters” voted FOR “that horror of horrors”, as did majorities in all states other than Minnesota.
J.J. & expat: Thumbs Up, High Fives and Same Page for your comments above on our strong, steadfast President Bush. Judgment without the GWOT as a huge consideration of his 8-years is simply folly. Thank God for that resolute lover of America.
Peter K: barely, yes, and because he was against one of the weakest candidates in history, Mondale. But by 1994 Massachusetts was so very strongly liberal a state that Reagan WAS a horror of horrors to the majority of voters there, and it has remained so until the present time. Take a look.
neo:
reading your concerns about left side voters staying home v going to the polls … I am fondly reminded that you and I differed on this same point of contention in 2008, i.e. more conservative Repub nominee v Repub nominee who was more palatable to left side voters.
At that time, you supported McCain, and I – similar to today – supported all other possible small-government conservative candidates … until, at the end, I was reduced to arguing for Romney, and against McCain and Huckabee. Sigh.
Maybe the issue is as simple as geography. In Texas, I am concerned about right side voters lacking the enthusiasm to actually make their way to the polls in Nov ’12. Conversely, you, in New England, are concerned about left side voters being fearfully aroused enough to actually MAKE their way to the polls.
I am concerned about right side voters being enthused enough to persuade their independent friends. From Texas, I am convinced that this is truly the way elections are won and lost. From New England, you want some type of moderating appeal to independent voters and to left-side voters.
I argue that the following national circumstance favors my argument: independent of party affiliation, the nation, by about 2-1, favors conservative values over liberal values. I.e., the nation, by about 2-1, believes in personal freedom (get government off our backs) and the American dream. Therefore, I argue, the most effective Repub candidate would strongly promote conservative values (would not make the electoral campaign loser’s mistake of hedging towards the left, but would, rather, build natural enthusiasm amongst naturally conservative American citizens).
Your counterargument, I am guessing, would be: MSM skews voter opinion towards the left, therefore Repub candidate must account for (and genuflect to) the MSM skew. You want the Repub candidate to be clever/nuanced/pragmatic: an accomplished adult who understands the realities of the world.
I want the Repub candidate to be clear and unapologetic. I believe that is the path to victory.
gcotharn said, “Maybe the issue is as simple as geography. In Texas, I am concerned about right side voters lacking the enthusiasm to actually make their way to the polls in Nov ’12.”
Say what? If the thought of Obama winning re-election isn’t enough to get them to the polls, I question their understanding of reality. It’s true that conservatives stayed home in 2008. After three years of Obama they should be able to put two and two together and understand what another term will mean. It’s lofty and grand to stand on principle when there is seemingly nothing at stake. Any semi-sentient being should know what’s at stake this time.
I think highly of Newt. He’s smarter and more knowledgeable about the world and about government as all of the rest of the GOP candidates and Barry put together.
But he has a nasty streak, which he can’t hide and which the American people simply will not go for. VP candidate? Might be very good. Presidential? No way!
And to paraphrase Cicero:
Barry O’ delenda est!