Romney and emotional intensity
In yesterday’s thread about Romney and the conservative message, commenter “kolnai” had an observation about Romney’s conservatism that I found interesting:
I don’t believe [Romney when espouses conservative thoughts]. But I’m going to vote for him.
So what’s the difference? I’m resigned to his inevitability, if not to him.
Why don’t I believe him? Because, to me, he’s not believable. That’s it. He seems like a cipher, a throughput for weird alien forces and focus groups. I guess that can be an advantage if he winds up like Jonah Goldberg said, a transactional guy. But it doesn’t change my opinion of his conservatism. If he genuinely believes what he says, then he is truly a singular creature on this big blue ball. I have never in my life seen someone speak as unconvincingly on behalf of his convictions as Romney (if they are his convictions). That, dear friends, is quite a talent indeed.
We’re humans but animals too. And we have animal ways of inferring the content of other people’s minds based on cues. All I can say is that every single cue ”“ with no exceptions I can think of ”“ that I have received from Romney has not just suggested, but screamed with glass-shattering violence that he doesn’t believe a word of what he’s saying. He doesn’t even know how to believe what he’s saying.
How do we decide whether people are believable or not when they are speaking? For the artificial purposes of this discussion, let’s take away consideration of their past actions. Right now, we’re just talking about their words and their affect, and how we evaluate the truth of the first based on the second. It’s very similar to the sort of thing that trial lawyers call a witness’s demeanor, composed of a thousand or more verbal and non-verbal cues regarding emotion.
We all rely on these signals in our day-to-day existence. I certainly do—and I will continue to do so, despite the fact that research has shown that the vast majority of people are quite bad at spotting liars. Unfortunately, it’s an iffier proposition than we like to think it is.
But back to Romney. I have a different impression of him than kolnai does, although I understand what kolnai’s talking about. I happen to believe Romney (at least, as much as I believe almost all politicians, and maybe a bit more than some). I “read” his acknowledged emotional stiffness as just that: emotional stiffness. He seems earnest to me, and perhaps awkward. But there’s nothing there that I read as dissemblance.
You may disagree. In fact, I fully expect many of you to disagree. That’s okay; judging demeanor is awfully difficult. But while I was researching this post I came across a video that I’d like you to watch. The following conversation took place in 1994, during Romney’s debates with Ted Kennedy for his Senate position. Please take note that, in the very liberal state of Massachusetts, Romney appears to be articulating some conservative thoughts here, and he does it with what I would submit is both sincerity and intensity. Plus, what reason would he have to say these things if he didn’t believe them, since he was running in ultra-liberal Massachusetts?
I’m curious to hear your opinion:
[NOTE: (I realize that now I’m talking about acts rather than words—that’s why this is in a note rather than the body of the post.)
For those of you who might say that Romneycare violated some of these things that Romney says in the video that he’s against, I want to point out that when Romneycare was passed in 2006, twelve years after his debate with Kennedy, Romney was quite consistent in being against those same things; the legislature inserted some of them anyway over his strong objections (and/or his veto; the vote was almost unanimous):
Romney…hated the employer mandate and vetoed the provision that employers of 11 or more offer coverage or face a penalty of $295 per employee. This veto, and seven others aimed at less controversial aspects of the law, were easily overridden by the Democratic Legislature.
Romney considers the Massachusetts plan needlessly gold-plated; he would have pushed for a much cheaper version that allowed minimal coverage options.
He believes the Massachusetts health connector, the insurance exchange which the Obama plan would emulate, has created an excessive regulatory burden, imposing too many requirements on what commercial insurers must offer for a policy to qualify as “minimum creditable coverage’’ under the law. His proposal, to require only a bare-bones policy that covered hospitalization and catastrophic illness, was rejected by the Legislature…
Romney also wanted a way for those of means to opt out of the mandate by posting a bond ”” essentially a promise to pay for future uninsured health care costs. Critics called it a “fig leaf’’ and Romney concedes that few would have taken advantage ”” just as only a handful choose a similar option to post a $10,000 bond rather than buy compulsory auto insurance in Massachusetts.
But the principle mattered to him, and the failure of the Legislature to agree still rankles…
And as for those on the economic margin, Romney thought that no one, however poor, should get insurance for no cost at all. He advocated a small premium, even a few dollars a month, for the neediest, but the Legislature balked.
Today, under the Commonwealth Care program, about half of the 160,000 receiving subsidized coverage pay no premium because their incomes fall below certain federal poverty level guidelines.
“When you give something away that is entirely free, people don’t value it as much as they should,’’ Romney said.]
Neo,
You are doing an INCREDIBLE job here. I have learned so much on these DEEP topics from you than anywhere else.
That’s not to say others might be covering it.
But to my knowledge you are doing it with SO MUCH PERSPECTIVE.
Did you notice the moderator had to step in and save Kennedy 🙂 Romney does and can speak with passion when the need arises. And he didn’t have to think back to some cue cards. These are some basic fundamentals. Before Romney said it I was thinking the same thing – that it should be the number of specialists chosen by the government.
People like Romney, Angela McGlowan, Neo, etc speak so easily on these topics.
People like Bill Bennet, Bill O’Reilly, Greta Van Sustern, etc seem to have to be drug kicking and screaming towards these understandings sometimes.
These are all good people. But where does Gingrich stand???
He’s out there yelling about Romney doesn’t “care about the poor”.
I tell you ! Gingrich is NOT a person I could vote for. He NOW FALLS in the RON PAUL CAMP. He’s loony!
Yesterday he was on the Hannity show blasting Romney for not wanting to invest in the space program and that we need to dominate space.
Romney never said he doesn’t support the space program – he said that he supports getting corporations involved to see how space could be beneficial to them.
And isn’t that the attitude we need? What goals do we as people (corporations are people) want to accomplish in space? Is there processes or medicines that could be developed in space that can’t on earth.
What if there is a molding or casting process that can develop strength in steel 10 x higher than on earth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-strength_low-alloy_steel
Look folks, there are so many things to talk about and Romney adjusts and seems to when needed be pretty on target. Then there is the art of listening. What do you hear when Romney speaks…
Gingrich seems not to be able to adjust. His focus is on space, grandma’s, Romney, etc.
Gingrich’s focus is NOT on conservatism.
oops. Should above should be shouldn’t
Thanks for the bump neo.
He did alright in that video, taking his usual as the status quo point. I was overstating my case to stir the pot, and because I was restricting the discussion to the immediate perceptual effect he has on me. I found on that basis that you were right – I can’t imagine what Romney could say or in what way he could day it that would make me have a different impression of him.
There are other things aside from Romneycare, however, where he does seem to me to speak from conviction. It’s always struck me, for instance, that he’s my kind of neocon in foreign policy, and that is why I supported him briefly in 2008.
Another thing to note is that I don’t a priori reject people because they strike me as ideological impure – I’ve made it clear in prior comments that this isn’t about purity for me, or even about having a straight shooter (though all of that would be nice, reality is not nice). I happily supported Giuliani in 2008 – hardly a right-winger’s right-winger. I have a rather high opinion of GW Bush and his presidency, as well.
What it comes down to is that I don’t see enough in Romney’s record of a conservative nature to override the impression I get from him in other contexts. And this began in 2008, before I cared about Romneycare. I stopped supporting him because he seemed – to use the standard line – like a robot to me. In a sense, aside from an electable candidate, what we’re aiming for is someone who will be an effective adovcate (lawyer) in pleading our case against the other side’s advocate before the court of the public. Romney lost me on the advocacy dimension.
Will that matter in 2012? I have no idea and all I can do is guess. But let me suggest the advocacy problem can be put in another way, that is, not in terms of sincerity or conviction. Grant arguendo that he does believe everything he says, and that he is a conservative in his bones. The problem is as follows.
Have you noticed, neo, that when you present Romney saying something that might cut against the impression people like me often have of him, we seem to not to listen? Case-in-point is the above video. I watched it, about ten minutes ago. Here’s what I remember of it:
Romney: “blah blah, (raised voice) blah blah blah.”
Kennedy: “blah blah.”
The video is a snippet from a context, of course, but I use it anyway to illustrate a larger problem with Romney. I’ve watched him do interviews for the past month, and when my brother is around, I always ask him, “Can you recount for me anything he just said?” Far too often, it is incredibly difficult. For some reason, I do not know why (for me, I think it’s because I’ve already judged him in my mind as a salesman, so I discount everything he says before he even speaks), most of the time when Romney talks, the impression is:
Romney: “Blah blah, (inflection) blah blah blah.”
When you ask people about Romney’s platform, you usually get a blank stare. It isn’t that he doesn’t plump for it or that he doesn’t have a plan on his website. It’s that none of it gets through, and it isn’t ONLY because conservatives are biased against him. It’s also because he is a godawful communicator, whether because of an unfortunate demeanor (unfortunate for politics, that is), or for other reasons. This is not a remediable problem.
I bring this up because it matters for electability. It isn’t so much that Romney is not a fire-breather. It’s that, communicatively, he’s a cold fish. It takes a real effort to have anything he says stick in one’s mind. When I see him in interviews, my mind just wanders and focuses on oddities, wondering more or less, “What’s up with this guy? What’s he about?” This is going on while he’s telling me what he’s about. And it happens every damn time. It’s like I have to get “oriented” to the RomneyVerse before I can really hear him, but by the time I get oriented to it, alas, he’s finished speaking.
Brother: “What did you hear, dear Kolnai?”
Kolnai: “Like Hamlet, words, words, words.”
This goes way beyond policy and ideology, and if it’s a problem for conservatives it could very well be a problem for everyone else, especially when Obama is going to be demagoguing Romney with bold colors and no scruples.
So, let me suggest this. When you add up all of the preceding – the distrust of Romney’s conservative bona fides, the lack of inspiration he gives as an advocate, and the judgment that, as a communicator, he’s as bad as it gets, thus leaving him wide open to get painted however the opposition wishes – you get a big multidimensional ball of misgivings. The ball solidifies, like Voltron, into a giant Misgiving. Then, whenever Romney does anything the ball gets chucked at him – “Bah! I have The Ultimate Misgiving” – *chuck,* and then: “Whap!” The conservative Ball of Misgiving will be more like a Husk of Apathy and Mild Distrust of the Rich Guy for independents, but it’ll hurt just the same when Romney gets pelted with it.
For conservatives, when you add the resentment from the sense that “the establishment” is feeding us crap about Romney’s electability that we have already judged to be implausible, the Ball of Misgiving turns into something much more negative, an Asteroid of Animus (or whatever).
The “blah blah blah” problem should not be underestimated. Not because we can change it, but because we can brace ourselves.
Here’s what I was trying to say above about space.
Romney understands that the needs/wants need to come from the people. Supplying the demand. Meeting demand with a supply. Creating and innovating.
Gingrich comes from the government knows best attitude preaching to us about what we need to accomplish in space. Why?
It was the same approach with immigration. Gingrich somehow believes Romney wants to deport Grandmas.
It was the same approach with the environment and sitting with Nancy Pelosi (btw, Gingrich on Greta’s show yesterday was saying that he cares about the environment and saying sentences intimating that others may not care about the environment). How Gingrich handled the issue on Greta’s show yesterday had my jaw dropping AGAIN!
I’m hoping that people can SEE gingrich with their own eyes. I don’t know why there is even 10% support for Gingrich at this point.
Kolnai my friend, we need to actively listen yes – but there are moments in that video that jump at me above blah blah.
I think my ire got up with Kennedy’s assertion and I wished for somebody to bring the hammer down on why a politician should determine the number of specialists.
Romney did it. He brought that hammer down.
Now – it’s up to us to hear that.
I was going to link to a Romney 1994 stump speech in my comment on yesterday’s thread. Neo does the work so I don’t have to!
This clip shows a much more passionate Mitt than what I was going to post. But I find I have the same reaction as kolnai. Romney starts talking and in about three seconds he starts sounding like Charlie Brown’s teacher.
Here’s the alternate Mitt, puffing through standard GOP campaign points: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZohlc6mMow
Lower Taxes! Tough on Crime!
Mitt’s only sincere passion comes when he is annoyed. Six years after these clips, when he became Governor, Romney started compromising the righty talking points. Sure, he did the best he could given the MA legislature. But he still compromised and/or showed shallow conviction. Maybe a staunch conservative shouldn’t have tried to be Governor of such a lefty State? He should have stuck to running for Senate.
Today it is 18 years after these clips. That bright young idealist Romney has died on the pyre of pragmatism. He is running to be the FedGov CEO (just like he was the CEO of MassGov). But the FedGov has already been levered up (just like one of Bain’s targets from the 1990s). We’re past the point where a CEO can help. A different sort of personality is required to take the pieces of a bankrupt entity and reassemble them into a functioning system.
Mitt lacks the fire of an entrepreneur. He lacks the authority of a commander. We don’t get to vote for the best 90 seconds of Romney from two decades ago. We have to deal with the scarecrow he has become over the past five years.
…a couple of [blessedly] quick observations (which probably should have been in the previous thread).
@kolnai – Point. And for the very rationally articulated insight in both threads. Thank you. (And for giving me back my weekend btw, and allowing me to toss a multi-page comment that I’d worked on for a couple of hours last night, but hadn’t finished/posted, when my attention was diverted to “more pleasant evening pasttimes”. The daviss both thank you for that LOL.)
@neo – This is the most effective support of Romney you’ve posted since I’ve been paying attention. It actually changed my mind about a few things. Thanks.
Foxmarks wrote, “Maybe a staunch conservative shouldn’t have tried to be Governor of such a lefty State?”
Are you KIDDING me?
Essentially, that is the issue then.. It’s the people and legislature of Mass. (not Romney)
You are unpleasable.
Gingrich won as a representative where there wasn’t much competition.
He didn’t act as an executive (governor) and his company he ran was small and received lots of cash for services renedered to the government.
How CAN we please you foxmarks? How can Romney please you?
I think you WANT to be negative and nay-bob. You ever met somebody like that? THat’s you!
Glad to have you davisbr.
I actually had Romney as 4th on my list after Cain, Bachmann and Santorum.
Gingrich and Paul are loonier each day. To me it’s not a degree of conservatism with me. They can’t adjust and have no perspective.
“You are unpleasable.”
Pretty much sums up the dead-enders, doesn’t it?
Just read the Wikipedia entry on Romney. It seems to a be a fair account. He’s obviously an effective leader and turn-around expert. But, he is not a great campaigner, as his political record shows. Losing to Kennedy, bailing on a second term as governor, and losing to the loathsome McCain are not good signs.
Gingrich is/was running as the anti-establishment candidate. He’s the default choice for the Conservative Tea Party folk (constitutionally limited government/free markets/fiscal responsibility) because their other candidates flamed out – Bachmann, Cain, and Perry. About the best that can be said for Gingrich is that he showed fiscal responsibility in enacting welfare reform and balancing the budget. When he’s good, he’s great, but when he’s bad, he’s just plain awful.
Santorum is a social conservative, but far from a fiscal conservative. He might pick up Conservative support if Gingrich continues to self-immolate, but he won’t last long once his record in the Senate comes under scrutiny.
Ron Paul is still crazy on foreign policy and has some rather unpleasant antisemitic baggage.
If Gingrich continues to attack Romney from the left, it won’t help Gingrich with Conservatives, but it will improve Romney for the general. If Gingrich gets back to promoting Conservative positions, and bashing the real opponent, Obama, he might have a shot.
Meanwhile, Conservatives are organizing. for the long run, for the first time in a century. We don’t really have a horse in this race. But we will support anyone against Obama.
foxmarks: A different sort of personality is required to take the pieces of a bankrupt entity and reassemble them into a functioning system.
Actually, that is some of what Romney did at Bain, wasn’t it?
Romney wasn’t my first choice by a long shot, but now he’s the only one up there with any executive experience.
The professionals are often quiet; they don’t need to bray and beat their chests for the simple reason that they are competent. It’s the quiet men we need now.
This negative orientation in life brings businesses down, neighborhoods down, the country down, wars down, hospitals down, football teams, etc.
I’m not asking you to be superficially positive in life.
I’m asking you to be reality oriented.
How can we please you when Romney’s problem to you is that he was governor of a liberal state????
That’s bold!
That’s Chris Cristie, Scott Walker, etc. You’ve disqualified them? They can only accomplish what they can accomplish given the bunch of negative nay-bobs in that state who want their precious unions and benefits to the detriment of the state.
@baklava – LOL.
I dunno if I’d read that much into it, bak’. I still prefer Newt’, and think he’d make the better leader (by a nit).
It’s just that this post has at least moved me from having deeply troubling misgivings to the far more tractable “meh” column (after Romney missteps in Florida moved me to implacable column). For the Mitt-sters, that is a net positive though.
I hadn’t previously considered that the Romney demeanor may be less calculating, and instead may be this uncomfortable-socially, too-earnest over-achiever, nerd-boy …like a bunch of people I grew up with …and continue to admire, actually.
I [now] consider my original read on him quite possibly wrong …which only means I don’t have a real problem (again) with him, in the general.
On Newt: I’m a starry-eyed space-geezer (ex- space-kiddie), who believes that man’s manifest destiny is “out there” …for reasons most may not understand, but I don’t even consider debatable. Newt’ gets this …unfortunately, Romney stumbled on the subject (as finally, did Santorum). By being too clever by half, it was an unforced foul …he’d have done better to study up, than to play a Seinfeld foil.
(An aside: space policy is one of the few things that Obama administration has been correct on btw. Kudos to the prez’ for that.)
Since I’ve argued for an age that “the Republican wins” (which effectively anaesthetizes the electability issue as raison de’tre), due to the economy, I’m free to disregard the irrelevant, and focus on things of “greater import” if you will.
…which is why I would have preferred Palin …as the only standout in the early probable field, and the better leader by an order of magnitude. Alas, ’twas not to be, and the nation is poorer for it.
(And any and all responses exhibiting any degree of PDS will be met with the stony stare of silence such sibalents should be swiftly sundered from polite discourse with.)
Baklava
How can we please you when Romney’s problem to you is that he was governor of a liberal state????
Exactly. I doubt that many of those who are against Romney have any direct knowledge, like Neo and I do, of how moonbat crazy Massachusetts is? Romney vetoed and vetoed the moonbat legislature, which proceeded to override many of Romney’s vetoes.
When as President, Romney is dealing with a moderate/conservative Congress, there will be much different results.
People are easier to believe when they are saying things you agree with and when they are part of your tribe. I honestly believe that tends to be more important than anything objective.
Baklava,
You mentioned Christie and Walker in terms of their running in liberal states. In some ways they may have done more for conservatism than stauncher conservatives from safer areas. Their successful policies may just cause enough cognitive dissonance in the population to allow them to question the conventional wisdom of the libs. I don’t think you can really win a purely ideological battle. What you can do is make people look at what works and explain why it works. Their change in outlook will follow.
I guess I associate with Romney because I made some of the same transitions from lib to conservative. I supported civil rights and feminism until I saw where they were going: the acting white BS and the denigration of the strong, invisible women who went before them. I realized that my life experiences were a lot deeper than their slogans. I don’t feel the need to have my ideological purity validated. I can talk with people who have different viewpoints. Sometimes I may change my thinking a bit, but I can explain why if the other side is willing to listen. I won’t, however, be intimidated by name calling.
I’m usually pretty calm (wimpy), but when people push me too far I fight back and I usually win.
Excellent stuff, neoneocon.
The man is simply wired with the cool temperament. I have known some truly outstanding men with the same “thermostat” over the decades of experience in the often volatile entertainment business. Both executives and top producers. They have been gifted with that calm sanity and maturity when all else around them were whirling like dervishes. Mitt’s the real thing. It is a special Adult that has an accutely organized and critically reasoned mind and a steady, non-impulsive gut. He is, in almost all ways, the profound opposite of Baby Newt.
Did any of you watch Romney’s foreign policy segment with Hannity yesterday? I would characterize it as steely determination and a big fat message to the world that if he is elected, the days of Obama kumbaya are over and America will be back and you won’t be messing with the USofA and not suffer the consequences.
Baklava –
Your points are well-taken, but I remain slightly more apprehensive than davisbr, in that I lie awake terrified at night that Romney (should he win) will not sacrifice his life to get Obamacare repealed.
This is where the rubber of the “do you believe him?” question really hits the road. I don’t believe him, but I don’t disbelieve him. I can’t get past a firm “No clue” on it.
There’s nothing that can settle the question (for me) until he acts. Jonah Goldberg gave me an angle of hope that was very effective – Romney is not a philosophical guy, but a man of duty and purpose. He does what he’s tasked to do. So if it is hammered home that he is tasked to repeal Obamacare, he probably will try to do it.
That is not my worry, however. I believe he will try. I do not believe that he will blow up his presidency and fall on his sword to get it done. Unfortunately, to get maximum repeal – to repeal as much as humanly possible of that republic-destroying doomsday device – our president will have to be willing to truly do his duty, i.e., the duty to defend the Constitution.
Since he is a task man, I am far from confident that Romney has the stomach or the guts for such a momentous battle. That’s where I’m coming from. Obamacare is not just domestic issue number one for me, but 1 through 10 or 15.
I realize Romney probably means it when he expresses disapproval of a federal mandate – he’s been pretty consistent on that. Repealing the mandate is doable, but that’s far from enough. All of the key props must be vaporized, and there is no way in hell the left is going to take that lying down.
That Romney may try is enough to justify a vote for him over Obama – that’s easy. But it is not enough for me to believe he will risk a lot to get it done.
I want to see dirt on his face and blood on his hands. Obama had to sully himself and his party to get his socialist coup de grace passed, and he did it. He never gave up; if it hadn’t passed two years ago, he’d still be fighting for it. We cannot demand less in reversing it, for less will not be enough.
We have to remember – almost every major provision in the bill, save the mandate, is very popular with those whom Bill O’Reilly calls “the folks,” that is, most people. Community rating? Awesome. Pre-existing conditions? Sweet! And so on and so forth. Tactical insight into how to effectively gut the bill of its policy and administrative heart and drive a stake through it will be a necessary condition of success.
We may not succeed even with a determined warrior – but this is the line in the sand. This is for all the beans. This is where the republic continues to wheeze along or, in principle and eventually in practice, disappears. Obamacare is the straw; we are the camel’s back.
Everything else about Romney I’m “meh” to “yeah” about. And I still think for many reasons I’ve mentioned including the “blah blah blah” problem that he is probably going to lose.
Seen the unemployment rate lately, by the way? If these trends continue even modestly, then it’s lights out, baby. Romney’s pitch is that he’s competent. When the economy trends positive for a year, guess who looks competent? “What the hell do we need Romney for?,” quoth the American people. “And what’s he about anyway, except firing people?”
Neo is right to underestimate the political intelligence of the average independent voter. But I think she doesn’t quite underestimate it enough. As the economy improves and optimism begins to return, conditions matter less and arguments matter more. Obama makes more effective arguments by miles. As Colonel Kurtz said, “This is my nightmare.”
davisbr –
Funny you said that. I’ve been really busy lately, so I’ve been “looming” (or lurking or whatever), and I often want to say of your comments, “Thanks for saying what I wanted to say.” It’s kind of spooky, actually.
Two words: GREAT MINDS. 🙂
Baklava: You can please me by foisting someone other than Romney on us all.
The other side of my snarky remark is that Romney is not the principled fellow y’all are wishing him toward. Or he has foolish judgment trying to bring Goldwater to the MA legislature.
vanderleun: If all you have is Romney, we’re all dead-enders. I prefer the textual Constitution, so I am going to lose. It was a nice experiment in republicanism.
Tom: No that is not what Bain did (during Mitt’s 2nd term there). Bain used debt to buy earnings. This is the critical point, which nobody (almost nobody) around here seems to grasp. The quiet man will get steamrolled by the entrenched forces of government. It happened to Romney as Governor. The FedGov machine will chew him up.
Gringo: I live in an 80% Progressive neighborhood. Nobody knows leftoid moonbattery better than I do. Romney is not running as a veto master. He wants to get along, to make things work. Giving him a moderate Congress suggests that everything will be for sale. I see his Presidency as building more government, but with the Republican factions getting most of the candy this time.
Here is the clip of Romney on foreign policy.
Neo was an early-adopter of Romney. Now I see others looking for excuses to be comfortable with him. It feels the same to me as the righties who projected their hopes onto Obama.
The defenses of Mitt have the same problem as Mitt himself. All y’alls heart really isn’t in it. He was almost nobody’s first choice, and if a non-Romney (other than Newt) was somehow nominated, y’all would heave a secret sigh of relief.
Y’all might imagine you are older and wiser than I, and begin to lecture me on the fact that Mitt is who we have left. Again, pragmatism over principle. The Bain Way. You’re settling, and settling early. You just want it to be over.
Maybe that’s some of Romney’s appeal. His personality is a sedative.
But I am not all dimestore psychoanalysis. I’ve started reading Romney’s “Believe in America” plan. I’m not pleasable because his proposals, where not uselessly vague, are comically inadequate.
I look forward to more Mitt-bashing when y’all start looking through that monster yourselves…
foxmark: I’ve been a Romney supporter since the Olympics and I truly felt and still feel that he would have been the best man for the job at hand in 2008 and again in 2012.
Romney stands for what I stand for, more efficient government, lower taxes, a strong defense, individualism and American exceptionalism. I believe him to be the consummate “fix-it” man and will do what it takes and take on anyone he needs to take on to make this country work again for the benefit of all. There is nothing in his past to indicate that he is anything but a man of integrity and honor, tough and a detail man, who can step back and see the big picture (as his colleagues have described as on of his best business skills).
Others run for office for a variety of reasons, power, title, acclamation, celebrity, whatever. It is their drug. Romney’s, I think is success. He sees a problem as needing a solution. That, I believe, is what drives him. Well, no amount of pure ideology will do us any good if we do not take care of the business at hand first. That business, IMHO, is the economy and regaining respect in the world.
Sara,
Thanks for that link. Romney has obviously done some serious homework on foreign policy. Sadly, it seems that many conservative purists haven’t considered that a requirement for their support (think Cain). Newt probably understands the issues, but could he state his positions without going overboard? I have my doubts.
Sara: Watched the clip. Much of what Romney said is inane.
The U.S. already has battlegroups on station in the Gulf (the Lincoln, replacing the Stennis) and the Med (the Bush). Didn’t anybody brief him?
Mitt’s campaign point about having a military so strong nobody will attack is worthless. It has been that strong since 1945. No nation has attacked the United States in the past 65 years. Switzerland hasn’t been attacked in almost 200 years, and their military is puny.
Romney doesn’t like Obama’s style, but who has been blowing people up with drones across South Asia and dropping bombs in North Africa? Who was the nominal C-in-C when somebody killed ObL?
Obama’s foreign policy is also inane, because it is, in effect too similar to Mitt’s and the neocon idea.
The threat does not come from foreign governments and foreign forces. As always, the establishment wants to fight the last war, not the next one.
And, underneath it all, how is Romney going to pay for the wars he threatens?
@Kolnai You say:
The whole edifice of Obamacare collapses if the mandate is removed. Just like the Class Act has already.
In passing Obamacare, the Democrats set precedents they will likely regret. It was passed by reconciliation and it can be killed the same way with a simple snate majority. I think Romney could get that done.
“Romney stands for what I stand for, more efficient government, lower taxes, a strong defense, individualism and American exceptionalism.”
This is why I am an outlier here. I want smaller government as the means to the rest of it. I do not think “American exceptionalism” requires or implies the US Gov’t has the biggest navy or the most warheads. My concept of exceptionalism is rooted in the Declaration, when we used to see gov’t and standing armies as an obstacle to liberty.
foxmark: Aaaaah, I am new here, I didn’t realize you were an Obama supporter. I thought you were trying to have a genuine discussion. Sorry for the confusion.
My concept of exceptionalism is rooted in the Declaration, when we used to see gov’t and standing armies as an obstacle to liberty.
Excuse me? The founders and earliest settlers and pioneers understood that communities had to organize, that is called government. And, they raised their own army. What they saw as the “obstacle of liberty” was and still is TYRANNY.
Sara:
You must be new here. I would hate to presume your worldview is so simplistic that there can be only two perspectives.
You’re talking about communities organizing, and you fling the Obama epithet at me? Did you never hear the Founders talking about gov’t that governs best governs least? Or when they regarded gov’t as a necessary evil? Did you miss Washington’s farewell, where he mentioned the problems that arise from foreign entanglements?
We have tyranny today. Putting Romney in charge of it liberates no one.
That is your opinion about Romney, not mine at all. So who, in your mind, is the great liberator?
foxmarks,
Have you ever been to Switzerland? Only an idiot would attack such a mountainous landlocked country, especially since it protects the fortunes of many of the world’s most corrupt leaders. Besides which, Swiss men have served in the military and are required to keep guns at home. That means any war there would provoke an incredible insurgency. Why would anyone bother?
BTW foxmarks,
Do you know anyone who actually lived under tyranny? Do a little reading before you make such preposterous claims.
Governing least is efficient government, only what is absolutely necessary under the Constitution. Foreign entanglements come when you operate from a position of weakness, when you operate from strength it is pretty much black and white, dead or alive, with us or ag’in us. A leader, not an appeaser.
Washington and Eisenhower both warned about the evils of war and a militaristic society. Men who had proved their mettle under fire and could speak with authority. But, don’t confuse that and make it a justification for weakness going forward.
I must have been delusional when I imagined the attack on the Marine Base in Beirut, or the attack on the USS Cole, or the attack on our Embassies, or 9/11, or the attack at Ft. Hood, or the attack on Kuwait, Iranian Embassy hostages, Iraq, al-Queda, the long dark years of the Cold War, Korea, Libya, Rome, Spain, UK, Bali, the Israeli Olympic athletes, the Danny Pearl video beheading, scud missiles into Israel, suicide bombers, etc, etc.
Sara:
There is no great liberator. Lincoln wasn’t a great liberator. Nor was Reagan. Palin might be, if she gets a turn at the wheel. Moses is not on the ballot, either.
I like that Paul has presented a budget that makes the FedGov $1T smaller. I also trust RP to veto more stuff than Mitt would dream of. Santorum has a talking point about cutting $5T in five years, but he offers no detail. And he is an enemy of liberty in other areas.
The Presidency is but one aspect of a bigger problem. Too bad Burr didn’t kill Hamilton 20 years sooner.
expat:
You reinforce my point about Switzerland and how it more closely resembles the Founders’ vision than does neocon America.
How do I answer your question about knowing anyone who lived under tyranny? What counts? I have been acquainted with people who lived under foreign dictators. I do not know anyone who survived the Shoah or was genuinely tortured. Or if they have, they don’t talk about it. I do know people who have been imprisoned, people who have had their assets seized, for crimes for which we can identify no victim. I live under constant threat of punishments for noncompliance with a panoply of laws no single person understands.
And as I think more about it, yes, I do. I know tobacco users. First they came for the smokers…some didn’t think it was tyranny. Then they came for the overweight…
Well said, Mitt.
Sara:
You’re flying off into the great mental gap of neoconnery. All the attacks you list were not attacks on the United States, or not perpetrated by nations. You’re making Hannity’s mistake of conflating any evil in the world with an imminent threat to the US population.
Right off the top your claim about entanglements is jeopardized. The UN had the position of strength in Korea. Truman had already proven he was willing to use the Bomb. That didn’t stop the Chinese from attacking US troops far from home serving a foreign entanglement. Foreign entanglements are not a product of weakness, they’re a product of hubris.
Although, your simplistic “fer us or agin us” reminds me of Cain’s “peace through strength and clarity.” I wish Cain was still in the race. He understood and articulated aspects of foreign policy that others shy away from.
Here’s what I cut off my last comment, pasted right form my computer’s clipboard:
Romney also appears to see the word “Israel” in the US Constitution. I keep looking but I can’t find it there.
I suspect you are trying to put me in some box so you can write me off. So, just to keep you on the hook: I think political Islam is an existential threat to Western society and culture. You hear any Obama folks or libertarians saying that?
Sara,
Please feel welcome and stay 🙂
Vigorous discussion welcomed.
I’ve mixed it up here for years.
Mostly people are respectful and Neo makes sure of that.
Great post!
Not many have gone through to parse exactly what Romney was himself responsible for with Romneycare; an intellectual laziness more often associated with the left and unbecoming conservatives.
@Foxmark: I’m going with Sara here. The attacks she listed were not perpetrated by nations, but by an ideology, masquerading as a religion, that has been at war with the rest of the world from its inception. The question is, how do we fight it? If we think in terms of nations, we miss the point. Most people in Muslim nations just want to get on with their lives. But there are always believers who want to be true Muslims, killing infidels, especially Jews. Jihad forever.
We need to target the perpetrators. I’m going to go out on a limb I really don’t want to go out on, but the Obama administration’s use of targeted drone attacks on radicals within nations is a better approach than trying to build nations inside Islam. I suspect he is trying to satisfy his anti-war base on the one-hand while preventing attacks on the homeland on the other. But I think it is a better approach.
If we apply it to Iran, the policy should be to use drones to attack the leaders rather than bombs to attack the facilities.
Pat:
It sounds like you’re agreeing with me, not Sara. I wrote that political Islam is a threat, and that the US population is not threatened by any nation.
If war is declared, or if a credible imminent threat to the US population is identified, I agree that droning enemy leaders is better than going house-to-house for years trying to make people like or fear the United States.
Romney appears to be in for more nation-building. Maybe he should find a time machine and administer the Marshall Plan.
Y’all are making my head hurt. We need to tone down this discussion some and foster serious thinking and discussion. Some of these comments are getting personal and that’s bad.
We need to take some of the emotion out of the words we use. For example, the use of the word “inane” to describe Romney’s interview with Hannity made my jaw drop.
Maybe we could talk some about Santorum, Neo. Instead of ignoring him, just like the MSM.
The problem with Romney, or more succinctly the right of center American people, is we don’t rightly see elections as a form of negotiation for our country’s politics like the left does.
What i mean is, if you want fiscal normalcy, you have to demand outrageous cuts and fall back to a position of normalcy through compromise. But we start out stating the policies we actually want and are getting our clocks cleaned by an opposition that doesn’t mind shoving an unwanted communist healthcare system down our throats on Christmas eve. And they’ll surely end up with some form of stepped up govt healthcare from this tactic.
Good point, SteveH. The only candidate who is talking about the kind of cuts that are necessary is Ron Paul. And we’re reminded daily that he is an extremist loon who can be safely ignored.
SteveH-
It’s because we are hamstrung by our own innate duty to at least a semblance of honesty. We keep bringing knives to what we were told is a knife fight, but the other brings its guns, and we get blown away again and again.
Don Carlos-
Surely our founding fathers were men of decency and encountered this same dillema. Seems to me you have to get to a point where ruthlessness in self defense of imposed tyranny is not just a neccessary stance but a just and moral one.
Pat –
Alright, so if the SCOTUS strikes down the mandate, nothing further to worry about from Obamacare?
Wishful thinking.
The policy planks become unsustainable in fiscal terms, but they do not crumble. The regulatory planks remain like a sword of Damocles, as well as the billions of other provisions of a dictatorial nature unconnected to funding. The mandate is a red herring for repeal.
As Avik Roy said, “Repealing the mandate is a terrible idea,” precisely because “leaving the rest of the bill intact would be disastrous.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/272515/repealing-individual-mandate-terrible-idea-avik-roy
Kevin Glass agrees: “The only thing worse than Obamacare is Obamacare without a mandate.”
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/11/16/the-only-thing-worse-than-obam
And Jeffrey Anderson:
http://pjmedia.com/blog/what-else-is-wrong-with-obamacare/
People haven’t been writing a lot about this, but if you believe the bill is toast without the mandate (unless the SCOTUS knocks it down while accepting non-severability, but that’s not what we’re talking about) – then you, as well as the other conservatives who have bought into the mandate-centric argument are in for a rude awakening.
Thinking that repealing the mandate, which conveniently for us is unpopular, is all we need to get rid of the worst in Obamacare is going to turn our noble goal into a quintessence of dust. That’s it. We want it to be true. It is not true. At some point we’re going to have to come to terms with that.
Reconciliation? I agree that Romney COULD get that done. But it will be a war unless he truly rams repeal down our throats, like ripping off a bandaid. That’s worth trying, but Romney sure as hell will not do that.
In other words, metaphysical possibility does not imply positive likelihood. I agree that it is metaphysically possible for Romney, as it is not (obviously) for Obama, to repeal most of the bill through reconciliation. I do not believe it is positively likely. That was my point. Agree with it or not, don’t twist yourself into knots imagining the mandate is all that matters in Obamacare and that using reconciliation to decimate the bill is really easy to do. Just argue that you think Romney has the stomach for the fight.
But…
@kolnai
Precisely.
…which is why I offer up a prayer to the blessed saints and Judge Vinson every morning that if the Supremes rule the mandate unconstitutional, they ALSO rule that the absence of a severability clause within the bill IS indicative of the actual “intent of Congress”.
…because if they don’t …well, as you say ….
…and the Obama administration weighs in with precognitive confirmation of kolai’s point, too.
“they [SCOTUS] ALSO rule that the absence of a severability clause within the bill IS indicative of the actual “intent of Congress”.”
If that happens (we can only hope) the left will be screaming bloody murder about “judicial activism” ten times louder than the right ever did.
@gary
…from your comment to God’s ears.
Oops:
…from your comment to God’s
earseyes.texexec: I’m displaying emotional intensity. Romney wishes he had my charm. 😉
But “inane” was my sincere reaction, particularly on his stumping point about “so strong nobody will think of attacking.” There’s so much stupid in that idea that it deserves its own thread.
If we had 50 or 500 carrier groups, it wouldn’t have stopped 9/11. When we put our soldiers in Beirut or Vietnam or Afghanistan, they’re going to be attacked. Is Romney promising one US soldier for every household in the Islamic world?
It’s Super Bowl Sunday!
If you’re not eating a lot of meat, drinking a lot of beer, and otherwise using the event to act a lot like Homer Simpson, well, Lord love a duck. (I actually have no idea what that hell that means, but I’m thinking it means the Good Lord loves us all whether or not were in each other’s narrow descriptions of OK.)
I’m cooking up sirloin steaks and deep frying the most beautiful chicken breasts w/ mushrooms.
Breasts! What don’t they give us?
@curtis Lord love a duck …which suggests that the last word of the phrase may be a Cockney onomatopoeia-ic euphemism.
…and there was a rather decent ’60’s comedy of the title, too: , Rotten Tomatoes and Wikipedia
…all while totally missing your point, ignoring your final jest, AND giving you more info than I’m sure you ever wanted to know about the subject.
…time to go out and have a life for the duration of the afternoon, I suspect.
Enjoy the game, Curtis (and all).
Oops:
…and there was a rather decent ’60’s comedy of the title, too: IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes and Wikipedia
Thanks, davis…come over to my place for some steak that is outrageous and chicken to die for.
I went over to my Czech friends and we cooked the steaks.
Somebody or other said that politics is the art of the possible. I suppose that’s true, the impossible being impossible by definition. So it’s profound and idiotic at the same time.
However, leaders should be capable of pushing boundaries so that “possible” starts moving into previously impossible territory.
That can go a number of ways, of course. My problem with Romney is that he looks like the kind of guy who will look at the fences and never, ever ask himself if there’s some reason to move them. I don’t, repeat, don’t mean growing government. I recall Reagan moving the fences on what a lot of people thought the US could achieve.
Newt could see moving the fences. Problem is, between his good days, when I get a real sense of solid, intellectual, innovative thinking, he’s off the beam altogether.
I recall an earlier debate when the other candidates were mumbling about how the OBL raid might have damaged our relations with Pstan, Newt said, “we should be furious”, a completely valid, completely justified view. And one the others hadn’t mentioned, which would be too bad, and possibly hadn’t thought of, which would be horrible.
Introverts tend to illicit these reposes when they have to do public speaking. Their concentration tends to be on their thoughts and argument/s; not the audience.
Just back from a “harrowing” passage around Cape Horn and blessedly out of the political loop for two weeks. I pull up neo to see what’s going on and find this great post and discussion about Romney. A great way to return to “reality.” I can add nothing to the discussion, but can say that I missed my daily fix at neo’s while away.
Neo, you defend Romney’s actions as Governor eloquently.
What I don’t understand is why, given just how unpopular Obamacare is and how it seems modeled on Romneycare, why Romney himself cannot defend himself as eloquently as you do.
The Congress is despised, as is the Legislature. “The Legislature screwed it up” seems a compelling – and winning – argument. So Why won’t Romney make it?
I mean, he’s smart, he’s shrewd, he calculates the political benefits well. Why won’t he go here? I’m a bit mystified.
A number of people have told me they can’t read me.
To an extent, that’s a goal. Not that I want to be secret. I want to be in control of the messages I send.
As they said in OCS, an officer shouldn’t look scared or lost or uncertain. Surest way to panic.
But I had other reasons as well.
So I suppose Romney may could have a component of learned control which prohibits sending messages other than with his words.