Comments

I’m with Ann Coulter on Romney and Romneycare — 48 Comments

1. I disagree that Romney is the only Repub candidate who would defeat Obama. To my mind, that concept is Romney’s major justification in asking for votes, i.e., “Elect me, b/c all other Repub candidates are unelectable extremists.” Romney’s justification is a lie. IMO. It says something, to me, that Romney’s major justification for his own election amounts to leftist-style personal attack on conservatives … which attack, again in leftist style, ignores actual issues.

   Barack is going down. Nominating Romney is a tragic missed opportunity.

2. I left this thread, thought I would skim around for 15 minutes, and immediately saw the following, from Jeff Goldstein:

   “I keep saying it but let me repeat it one more time: it is the ruling class vs the rest of us.

   Party affiliation no longer matters. And until we uproot the entrenched political class that keeps us in check – and until we refuse to accept the status quo as some sort of inevitable force of nature – we will never be able to reclaim our government or our country.

   Remember this the next time you hear an inside-the-Beltway expert talk about “electability.” You’re being played.

   Me, I refuse to be a useful idiot. And let the chips fall where they may.”

   My sentiments, exactly. Except, possibly, I have even more confidence that Barack will be defeated by whomever becomes the Repub Candidate.

3. “Barack is going down.” “Barack”‘s got a (hard) core of people of color, dedicated lefties, dedicated Democratic Party workers, union members, inexperienced and often brainwashed college students, and finally, . . .

   the mainstream media, who wield untold influence on far too many who pay attention to things non-political,

   as a very formidable base from which to begin.

   I detest the Obama regime. But I shudder when I see “Barack is going down,” ’cause it ain’t a given.

   No, not until well after the election, and all legal challenges (merited or not) are laid to rest.

   And then the 2016 campaign begins in earnest.

4. gcotharn: but which candidate do you think is electable? I would have preferred, for example, Paul Ryan. But he’s not running. Of the other candidates who are running, I just don’t see any of them winning, even against a weakened Obama.

   And please send me a link to any time Romney himself gave “I’m the only electable one” as the justification for voting for him. That’s what other people say. He says “because I know most about business and have executive experience” etc. etc.

5. I have long argued that liberal’s worst nightmares are that somebody somewhere is doing something without their permission.

   While the Republicans may be cursed with a few of these controlling types, the Democrats seem absolutely infested with them.

   So, don’t ever delude yourself that there is no real difference between the two parties. What I’ve just described above is fundamental, and worth fighting for.

   So in that spirit, if Romney becomes the candidate, however I may have wished it was someone else instead, I am damned sure not going to just sit out the election and allow a second term for the absolute worst president, ever.

   The bottom line is just as simple as that.
   –

6. I’m no fan of Romney, but unfortunately he’s by far, the most viable candidate against Obama. Not since H.W. Bush squared off against Clinton has an election been so singularly categorized as “it’s the economy stupid”. That’s Romney’s strong suit and nothing Obama can do can minimize or deflect that.

   The only areas in which Romney is vulnerable are his lack of strong, principled stands, his Mormonism and his central casting appearance. None of those are deal breakers for the independents, the critical and deciding constituents.

   Plus, the country may not survive another 4 years of Obama, so conservatives abstain from voting, at all of our peril. For, if reelected, what shall Obama dare when he faces his last chance to “fundamentally transform” America?

   Romney is a RINO who has bought into “the Narrative” but that is a long term threat that a strong conservative faction in Congress can do much to ameliorate.

   Surely we can all agree that even a RINO is an improvement upon Obama. Sins of omission are always less harmful than sins of commission.

   Let’s not make perfect the enemy of good enough.

7. People keep telling me that this election is somehow different from all the others. But I just don’t see that.

   During the primaries, I will vote for the Republican that best matches my views of what America needs. And, in the general election, I will vote for the Republican, period… because, as Gingrich said, any one of them would do a much better job running the country than Barack Obama has.

8. 1: who, here, would vote for Obama? No one.

   2: It is not Romney’s style to explicitly say his Repub opponents are unelectable extremists. However, I remember watching Romney, and becoming burning mad, when Romney – in the style of a leftist who ignores issues in favor of undefendable personal accusation – glibly/cleverly implied that his Repub opponents were unelectable extremists. I am sorry that I cannot find Romney’s specific words, and thus cannot present better evidence.

   3: re which candidates would defeat Obama?

   I’m the wrong guy to ask, b/c I think this: all Repub candidates would defeat Obama, with possible exception of Ron Paul. Kinky Friedman said: “Obama has done for this economy what pantyhose did to foreplay.” Barack cannot overcome that; the cheaters who steal elections for Barack cannot overcome that. Barack will go down. Hard.

   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

   Of the many things which bug me about Romney, this maybe bugs me most of all:

   Romney believes that you win via pandering to independent voters.

   I James Gimpel of NRO: there is no coherent political center. You do not pander to these incoherent, uninformed “political center” voters. Rather, you create enthusiasm for your candidacy, then politically enthusiastic families and friends and coworkers … use social influence to lead uninformed “political center” voters in your direction. Romney is COMPLETELY COMMITTED TO THE WRONG ELECTION STRATEGY. Romney is attempting to pander to incoherent, uninformed “political center” voters, and Romney does not inspire enthusiasm in anyone.

   Finally, I note that Ann Coulter, this year, told CPAC that Repubs had this choice: nominate Christie, or watch Romney win the nomination and then lose to Obama. the video: http://legalinsurrection.com/2011/11/ann-coulter-forget-everything-i-ever-said-about-romney-losing-to-obama/

   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

   James Gimpel of NRO:

   For 50 years now, survey research has suggested just that: It is, in fact, wrong, because there is no coherent center. There are no fixed, well-considered policy positions in the center to which voters there adhere.

   The research suggests that those who at various times occupy this center, often described as moderates or independents, are not very knowledgeable about or interested in politics. They do not follow campaign coverage closely, are inconsistent in their policy views, and are often not able to identify what positions are liberal or conservative.

   What characterizes the centrist voter is not some peculiar set of policy positions, but rather ignorance of policy issues in general, coupled with vague impressions of the “goodness” or “badness” of the times. So-called centrist or moderate voters can’t even be counted on to vote.

   Consequently, they make a lousy starting point from which to frame a campaign platform. A campaign doesn’t move toward them, but instead attempts to inspire them to come in the candidate’s direction. The incoherent center moves to the left or to the right, inspired by the candidate’s enthusiasm and the enthusiasm of his supporters. It is foolish for the candidate to move to the center, because the center is never a fixed position to move toward.

   Moving centrists toward one’s candidacy is not a process that hinges on taking the right policy stands, either. Instead, it involves the enthusiasm and social contagion that builds around exciting candidates. We know from several volumes of political-science research that less-informed voters commonly substitute someone else’s judgment for their own. That someone else is often a spouse, workmate, or neighbor knowledgeable and enthusiastic about one of the candidates. Support for a candidate spreads through social influence processes.

   http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/226305/center-what-center/james-g-gimpel

   I’ve gone really long, and I appreciate everyone’s patience, and appreciate the opportunity afforded by this forum. Thank you.

9. gcotharn: I disagree with your assertion that the other candidates would beat Obama. I strongly think that none of them would. Nor do I think Palin would have.

   I think it may be that you dislike Romney so much that you see him as saying/implying what his supporters are actually saying. It would help me to evaluate this if I saw him doing what you describe, but I have not.

   But the real question is not whether anyone here would vote for Obama. It is that some people have said that if Romney is the nominee they will sit this election out. That is nearly the same as voting for Obama. To me, that is exceedingly short-sighted and a grave error.

10. There is little more difference between the Republicans and Democrats than the campaign rhetoric used to express their promises. When it comes to action they both take up the same position.

    To the hot issues and deep desires of the Left, Republicans, sensing the temptress’s signals, whether by murmurs and purrs (the language of compassion) or whips and biddings (attestations of apocalyptic doom), respond only by going slower; stopping or reversing is ultimately out of the question.

    As long as the Party has a stranglehold on the process there will never be an issue that rises above electability. As long as that is the case nothing will change. As long as nothing changes we will elect the same type; Bush the lesser Obama or Obama the greater Bush).

    The fault is not in our political stars but in ourselves, that we are underlings — with no greater ambition.

11. I take your position, Neo. Romney has criticized Obama for the uncertainty he has caused, making it impossible for businesses and ordinary people to plan and unwilling to take any risks. I think he is probably trying to show a direction to the changes he would make without making them feel even more uncertain. Paul Ryan’s budget and debt reduction proposals follow the same pattern. Many conservatives want radical change right now, but I’m not sure that a majority of of voters do. I also think he takes the Mitch Daniels approach to social issues, ie, back burner. It is a question of priorities, and Romney places our economy and national security at the top of his list.

    I also think Romney will find good people to work with and, unlike Obama, will try to form a coherent path from the advice he gets. He doesn’t seem to have an ego problem that keeps him from hearing others out. It is encouraging that Daniels likes him.

    Finally, I think Romney is pacing himself. I suspect as the other flavors of the month fade, he will become more concrete. I also think he knows that what he can do will have a lot to do with the makeup of congress. I would love to know who he would nominate for secretary of state. He has quite a list of foreign policy advisors. That’s important to me. And Bork will advise him on judicial appointments.

    OT, did you all see Hot Air’s link to a Fox report on our new bunker busters? I sure am glad Obama inherited Gates and picked up Panetta from the Clintons. Our side of this team of rivals seems to have won this issue.

    I don’t know who the perfect candidate would be, but I can live with Mitt.

12. If I thought Romney was the only electable Repub, then I would support his nomination.

    I certainly will vote for whichever Repub is nominated to run against Obama. I do not see the reasoning behind a conservative failing to do so. I was unaware that blog commenters, here, would fail to vote for a nominated Romney.

    I do think that a Romney nomination will result in some portion of conservative voters failing to find their way to voting booths. The reason: Romney does not inspire enthusiasm in anyone ————- excepting entrenched Washington Repubs, + Repub donors, insofar as these powerful Repubs agree with Romney that the proper election strategy includes pandering to “centrist voters”, and insofar as these powerful Repubs place a high value on glibness and smoothness (it takes everything I have to not include “breeding” in that list).

13. I will preface this by saying that if he is the party’s nominee, I will hold my nose and vote for Romney. Of course, I would vote for a potatoe (yes, complete with the ‘e’!) before I voted for Obama, so that’s not exactly a ringing endorsement.

    But I don’t like him at all, and I can’t quite tell you why. He’s accomplished a lot in business, has a good personal background from what I can see, and has done some good things in his life and politics. There’s just something about him I don’t truly trust. Kind of like Scott Brown. He was very vocal in his “I’ll be the 41st vote against Obamacare” stance, and looked good, seemed to give a good speech, but has been a pretty weak kneed conservative in many cases.

    And I completely disagree that he’s the most able to beat Obama, and it IS because of “RomneyCare”, although not in the way you would most likely think. Forget about the part that it was at the state level, and a very blue state at that. I understand that argument. But I maintain that Obama can, and will, essentially thank Romney and his advisors for laying the groundwork for “ObamaCare”. As soon as that happens, Romney better have a damn good ace up his sleeve, because that puts him on the defensive from the moment it happens. If it happens in a debate, Romney will be on the defensive the entire time, and that will look awful to everyone.

    The truth is, I would go for Rubio, maybe Paul Ryan, or possibly even Rand Paul (Not to be confused with Paul the Elder), but none of them are running.

    At this point, I think I’m in Newt’s camp. As a person, I don’t much care for him. And I’m not thrilled about some of his antics (AGW, individual mandate way back when, etc… It’s actually a rather long list when he decides to be the Maverick), but the truth as I see it is this: There is no one more capable of drawing a VERY clear distinction between Obama (read liberal) and Conservative values. He won’t beat around the bush with namby pamby gotcha questions, and in a debate, he will dismantle Obama on stage. Categorically.

    I don’t like Newt that much, but when he’s good, there’s no one better, at least not in the current field. And this is important. He has loads of baggage, and I understand that a lot of it (read all) will be thrown at him, regardless of accuracy. He’s establishment in many ways, which I don’t care for, but so is Romney.

    But here’s my biggest argument. Newt is beyond capable of defining what conservatism is. In a way that is simple to understand. People talk about the “independents” and how important they are. The problem is that the independents typically aren’t hugely informed. One of those independents works in the office here, and he bases his vote on the final debate, and that’s about it, because that’s all he watches. I think a lot of them are like that, and while certain things might stick from the media barrage, if I were to pick a single one of those candidates to sit in a single debate with Obama and give a compelling reason to vote republican, Newt is the one I would choose.

    Because of that, he has my vote at this point, even though I really want to like Cain.

    I think Newt’s surge in the polls recently reflects a lot of this sentiment. He started in the lead when he announced, and the Paul Ryan thing almost ruined him (good, I say! Lesson learned for him, I hope!). But at the end of the day, we know what his baggage and tendencies are. This surge of his isn’t the same as the Perry or Cain or even Bachmann surges. That was because they were shiny and new and said something we liked. Newt is neither shiny nor new. He’s the devil we know. And I think right now, he’s the best we have to offer.

    With Romney, like I said… There’s something I don’t quite trust. There’s a “slick” characteristic to him that is very similar to something I noticed long ago about Obama. At his (Obama’s) rallies, there would be times he would crack a half smile, like there was a joke he knew that no one else did. Emotions he would “display” rarely seemed to touch his eyes. It made my skin crawl to see it. I get a similar feeling when I look at Romney. That’s the root of my not liking him, I think.

14. This is what primaries are for, sorting out all the candidates and their differences and deficiencies. It’s a good thing. There will be more to come. Brace yourself.

    I probably won’t vote for Romney in the primary, but the difference between him and Obama is not the difference between a rino and a democrat. There is light years of difference between any republican and Obama. Obama is that far out.

    And don’t fool yourself into thinking there won’t be plenty of negative stuff about Romney. Remember what Kennedy did to him in 1994 — snivling workers who claimed to have been laid off by a business turned around by Bain. They followed him around for a few days in an RV. Their lives were ruined. At least that’s what they said. And there will be stuff about the car accident in France during his mission work. The Kennedy people talked about this but were never brave enough to mention it in public. If you never heard about it don’t worry — it was a car accident, a person was killed. It was a tragedy, but everyone in the car was LDS and it was the other driver’s fault. Not that Axelrod/Obama will tell it that way.

    If the answer to “anybody but Romney” is Obama you know what to do.

15. I disagree that Romney is the only candidate who can beat Obama. I think it’s incredibly short-sighted to say anything quite so definitive when we’re still eleven and a half months from an election. If I remember correctly, at this time in the 2008 election cycle, the race was between Clinton and Edwards, and Obama had no chance. (I might be wrong about exact dates and time, but the point is valid.) Elections are unpredictable, and events often overtake the process.

    I chuckle everytime someone who OBVIOUSLY is in the bag for Romney begins a sentence with some variation of “I hate this guy but…” and then proceeds to tell us how much they love the guy. It’s not about him being too liberal, it’s about him saying ANYTHING to get elected. I have a serious problem with someone like that, because it means that they really have no compass to guide them, and they will sail in any direction to meet their own selfish ends. For better of worse, Newt has always believed in smaller more effective government, and in the concept of liberty. Remember the Contract With America, and every congressperson carrying a copy of the constitution in their pocket? Newt has had some brain farts, but they stem from trying to find good solutions for the country. I think that he fundamentally believes in the constitution of the United States, and he believes in fighting for those principals. I also think he’s the most intelligent, articulate, and mentally agile candidate of the bunch. I’m gonna go with him, and perhaps he’ll fade like Perry and Cain. Then I might be forced to ponder supporting Paul. I would like to ask one favor of you Romeny supporters, stop saying you don’t like the guy, and then launching into some lengthy explanation as to why he should be the guy. If you TRULY don’t like him, then choose someone else and support them.

16. For the record, my answer is in fact anybody but Romney. I would rather see Obama get re-elected, and hope that he can be restrained by a strong Republican Congress and Senate, than see Romney as president.

17. nyght: Nice analysis. What we need is somebody who is ready for hand-to-hand combat, and I don’t see any indication that Romney has the inclination or ability to take on the Chicago axis. Newt’s not principled or pretty, but he does know how to fight hard and (probably) dirty.

    I do like Ann Coulter, though. I think she was right about Christie, and I pay attention to what she says about Romney. In particular, she reminds us that Romney may have demonstrated his electability by running a strong campaign against Teddy Kennedy in uber-liberal MA.

    That race could provide some clues to the shape of a Romney-Obama contest. It would be interesting to go back and see how aggressively he campaigned and if he really took it to Teddy. I also wonder if Teddy followed his brother’s example from 1960 to cement the race with some of Joe’s money; and, if so, if Romney attempted to do anything about it. My suspicion, though, is that Romney acted like a perfect gentleman throughout the race.

18. George Pal Says:
    >>There is little more difference between the Republicans and Democrats than the campaign rhetoric used to express their promises.<<

    Yep. I agree.

    Whenever we've given Democrats power, they implement massive social welfare programs. None ever have sunset provisions. None ever shrink. They constantly expand, often by many multiple beyond what they projected when the programs were first created. Those programs only get changed on the edges to make the sustainable — rarely if ever do they get repealed. They all require massive federal bureaucracies to administer the programs, which leaves little room for budget cutting. Someone once said that when he dies he wants to come back as a government program, because then he'll have eternal life.

    When Republicans get in power, ordinarily the best we can hope for is that they maintain the status quo and, hopefully, don't create new programs. That model was turned on its ear with Tom DeLay/George Bush's "compassionate conservatism". To win re-election in 2004, they decided to pretend to be Democrats and buy the votes of seniors when they created a brand spanking new major entitlement with Medicare Part D.

    The reason people like me want a party of "purists" in the Republican Party is not because I want to maintain the existing programs. I want to radically alter some and eliminate others. Because if Congress and the President won't voluntarily deal with these bloated programs soon, then eventually the bond market is going to riot and create a massive crisis that will make 2008 look like a picnic. And when that happens most of the citizenry will not be prepared for the cuts and it's going to create a lot of pain, suffering and social unrest.

    In summary, prior to GWB, the model has been to let Democrats create new social programs and then Republicans campaign about being the party of small government but almost never cut anything. Just look at the debt ceiling farce. All that anxiety and government spending is still on track to INCREASE 5% this year.

    If Romney is elected and repeals Obamacare it will be the first time a Republican has repealed a Democrat social program. We'll know how serious he is when we see how hard he runs on repeal in the general election campaign.

    I'd say the same thing about every other Republican candidate except Ron Paul. He really means it when he says he wants to cut government.

    I'll vote for whoever the Republican nominee is — but it's almost solely based on what I expect from them in their judicial nominations and foreign policy.

19. Entitlement reform is the major issue facing our country. Would Romney stand firm when dems and their lobbyists in the press start attacking him for cutting medicare and social security? Look at what the Senate Republicans are doing on the Super Committee. Would Romney do any better? He is a quintessential establishment figure. Pick someone who wants the best for the country and does not care about getting re-elected. Avoid career politicians like Gingrich and Romney. I think Romney left the private sector a long time ago.

20. My problem with what neo is saying is twofold.

    First, I do not believe Romney has much better chances in 2012 than Newt. I’ll concede at this point that his odds are better than Newt’s (even though I’m a Newt supporter), but in no way should having marginally better odds be confused with having odds above 50/50.

    Romney is far from as disciplined as is often supposed, and Rick Perry has already given Obama a blueprint for getting under his skin. Like I’ve said a zillion times before, Romney has not even begun to get assaulted in a meaningful way – to pronounce him the only winner when we have no clue about his grace under fire is laughable. And I use the term laughable because neo seems to think I’m a dreamer. All’s fair in love and polemic.

    I want to mark this locution in any case and ask neo to do us who have more doubts than she does a favor: If Romney loses to Obama, come out and admit the she (and Coulter et al.) were the dreamers, radically overestimating just how good a general election candidate he was. Naturally, I’ll commit to the same mea culpa if Romney coasts to victory.

    Anyway, Romney has been sold to us on exactly one point: electability. As a conservative, he does not stack up against others in the race, regardless of how un-liberal he actually was in Massachusetts, and as someone who can in any way connect with the base he scrapes the bottom of the barrel. Do Romney’s supporters realize that most conservatives feel about him pretty much the same way we feel about Arlen Specter?

    Hate it all you want; it’s a fact. So electability is all there is. And to act like Romney’s awesome electability is some sort of fait accompli so that others can be bashed over the head with it is not exactly fighting fair.

    There is already a poll – one poll, admittedly – that shows Newt doing better nationally against Obama than Romney. Can I just come back and say, “Hey, Romneybots, get with the program! It’s about electability!” Would neo accept that as a valid argument? Hell no, and she shouldn’t. So why are we supposed to accept it just because the subject is Romney?

    There’s only so many ways for us to say this. Getting tricked by the phrase “Romney is the most electable” into believing that that is equivalent to “Romney has very good odds” is…what’s the word?… ah, yes: “dreaming.”

    Second, I really don’t like the way that Romney supporters support their candidate – it’s kind of the way that Romney supports himself.

    They tell us that all of Romney’s flaws are IN FACT mostly mirages – full stop.

    Fine.

    But then, when they criticize other candidates they say that whether or not their flaws are mostly mirages as well, gosh darn it, they are just too ingrained in adverse narratives for them to overcome. Truth, lies, doesn’t matter: the mud is permanent and cannot be removed.

    How convenient.

    Maybe that is true for other candidates, maybe not – but there is no reason at all to suppose that Romney doesn’t have the same problem. And the biggest howler is to suppose that he doesn’t when he hasn’t even been attacked Cujo-style yet. It’s a bit presumptuous to suppose that a candidate who has barely been hit with mud is invulnerable to it.

    So even if the knocks on Gingrich can be explained away – and most of them can be (for instance, the same excuse used to exonerate Romney on Romneycare could be extended to any conservative who supported a mandate at the time of Hillarycare, as a tactical move) – we are told that, nonetheless, he is fatally compromised image-wise.

    See how this works? Somehow, Romney is the only candidate who the truth matters for; somehow he has this magic quality where once people get to know his “true record” people will just say, “Oh, damn, how wrong I was! Guess my previous impression of him as a liar and an unprincipled megalomaniac was totally based on misinformation! Glad that’s cleared up!”

    Absurd.

    If the truth doesn’t matter for the electorate’s view of, say, Newt, why would it matter for their view of Romney? My view has simply been that in that respect the two are a effectively a wash, and all things considered Newt is the better candidate. They both are going to get mauled by the media and Axelrod. Who can better defend themselves and at the same time go on offense? To use a word invoked above, those who think it is Romney are “dreaming.”

    I’m already committed to voting for Romney if he’s the nominee, so this is all inside baseball. Nonetheless, if Romney supporters want more of us to resign ourselves in the general as I have, then my advice is to play fair. To use their logic, I’d put it like this: You Romney people may not like it that Romney is “perceived” as a liar and a fraud, but that’s the way it is; so if you are going to persuade skeptics to get on board you have to meet a higher standard in your arguments on behalf of your candidate. This means that applying illicit double-standards won’t work, because everyone is looking for them, being that we assume Romney’s orbit is one of dissimulation and, frankly, bullying.

    Treating people who do not like or support Romney like dolts is also not going to do the trick, I’m afraid.

    This should matter to neo at least because she has expressed grave concern on numerous occasions about conservative purists sitting on their hands. It follows that she should think it’s important to make an honest case to them and their fellow-travelers about why they shouldn’t do so. I don’t think it’s as much of a problem as she does, but still, granting the premise entails that making the case for Romney is very important. And what I’m saying is that no Romney supporter has even begun to make that case in a way that can make a doubter say, “Well, alright, I still hate Romney but here’s an honest case for why I should reconcile myself to him anyway.”

    Calling us “dreamers,” for example, is a guaranteed ear-closer.

    I honestly don’t understand why Romney supporters have to resort to invective so often. If the guy is such an amazing candidate, then, as we’re assured, he’ll coast to victory. What the heck do you need us for? We’re by and large going to vote for him if he’s the nominee. His supporters know that. So what’s the problem? Why spend so much time name-calling and putting others down? What exactly are you supporters so worried about? The race is over: Romney wins in 2012.

    The only answer is that that rosy scenario is nowhere near as certain as it’s often presented as being, and they know it. Which only increases the feeling that we’re being snookered.

    To neo: I’m not an idiot, and neither is, say, William Jacobson. We know the electorate is not a conservative echo-chamber. We also know it is not a echo-chamber for pandering centrist mush. And we still don’t support Romney. Time to admit that maybe, just maybe, there is politically and intellectually respectable case for that position? I think so.

21. Scott says, “The reason people like me want a party of “purists” in the Republican Party is not because I want to maintain the existing programs. I want to radically alter some and eliminate others. Because if Congress and the President won’t voluntarily deal with these bloated programs soon, then eventually the bond market is going to riot and create a massive crisis that will make 2008 look like a picnic. And when that happens most of the citizenry will not be prepared for the cuts and it’s going to create a lot of pain, suffering and social unrest.”

    IMO this election may be the last chance to avoid exactly what you describe. We don’t need another can kicker who looks smart in a suit while reading from a teleprompter with a plastic smile on his/her face. We need a leader who is not afraid to explain to the public that the math is irrefutable. Austerity is inevitable. We have a choice; either we adopt austerity through the political process or we do nothing meaningful and the markets will force austerity upon us.

22. I’m another one who fully agrees with Neo’s position on this point. In fact, I have used some of these same points in discussing the matter with people who were complaining about Romney being too much of a flip-flopper and “not conservative enough” and so on.

    Is Romney the perfect candidate from my perspective? No, far from it, but no one who would fit that description is running. Gingrich is more astute and articulate in debates, but his record on today’s conservative priorities is a little checkered. Cain seemed appealing, but while I thought he could have handled the sexual harassment allegations better, he lost me completely after the interview the other day when he couldn’t articulate a position on Libya and endorsed collective bargaining rights for public-sector unions. I had high hopes for Perry when he entered the race, but I just wish he’d go back to Texas now. Santorum and Bachman have never appealed to me much for various reasons. I think Huntsman is irrelevant. And Ron Paul is great on matters of limited, constitutional government, but terrible on foreign policy.

    Paul Ryan isn’t running, Sarah Palin isn’t running, and various other folks who may have shown potential either aren’t running or dropped out already.

23. It seems the Romney is qualified based on managing a large state. He has business experience, and he has experience getting bi-partisan support, which is something that Obama was elected to do, but didn’t.

    As far as Romneycare, well, the people in Mass wanted it. I’m not so sure his flip-flopping is such a bad thing since he seems to listen, which is something the current administration is not doing. It is what made Clinton successful.

    As far as Newt, I’m not sure. He is a pit bull like Hillary, and that can really turn people off. They usually are better at being the people aroung the president than the president.

    It’s tough because the Media and the press give the democrats about a 5% advantage so it will be hard to get someone very conservative, especially if they do not have experience in politics and experience communicating. Perry, Cain, etc.

24. Steve: You write “I think Romney left the private sector a long time ago.”

    Only if you think 2002 is “a long time ago.” I certainly don’t define it that way.

    I am very puzzled by people who call Romney a career politician. Perhaps they are confusing him with his father? Romney is 64 years old, and his entire political career goes like this: he ran for the Senate from Massachusetts against Ted Kennedy in 1994 and lost, although he did better against Kennedy than anyone else had until then. Right up until that 1994 campaign he had worked in the private sector, and he went right back to the private sector afterward. In 1999 he became president and CEO of the Winter Olympics in Utah (I believe that’s the private sector, also, although I’m not 100% certain—at any rate it involved money and business rather than elective office) and he was very successful at that, too. In 2002 he ran for and was elected governor of Massachusetts, and served one term. Then he campaigned for the Republican nomination for president in 2008 and lost. And now he’s campaigning for the 2012 nomination.

    And that’s it, as far as I can see.

25. Robert –

    That’s more like what I’m talking about. You wrote a dispassionate, non-bullying, non-name calling case for Romney. And you make some very good points.

    My replies are as follows:

    1) Romney didn’t “get bipartisan support.” He was forced to work with supermajorities of very leftish legislators. In a way, that should make us ease up on him even more, but the fact that he refuses to back off from his compromises as anything but pure policy triumphs prevents that argument.

    Romney, according to himself, was not, by and large, compromising. According to his reasoning, if the state he was governing had been Texas he still would have thought Romneycare was the way to go, and probably his environmental policies too. Details here and there may have been different, but he’s clear as day: Romneycare is frickin’ awesome. Awesome.

    2) The positive side of flip-flopping is, as you said, that it demonstrates a certain responsiveness. The negative, however, is that responsiveness is a double-edged blade: If the majority turn against an important conservative policy goal, then we can, by this logic, expect Romney to be responsive to it. Which is precisely the problem.

    3) Your observation about Newt is fair. You may turn out to be correct, and we’ll know shortly. Newt will have to comport himself in a non-pit-bullish way in the coming weeks in response to scrutiny of his past. If he doesn’t, Romney will probably win easily. And that will be as it should be.

    4) Your final observations are also on point.

    I never in my wildest dreams thought that I would be choosing between, as South Park put it, a douche and a turd-sandwich in this primary. I have no love for either Romney or Newt, but Newt is earning my grudging support, while Romney is thumbing my eye. I could take some of that if it wasn’t about Romneycare. It is, so I can’t take it.

    Finally, we can rationalize Romney’s flip-flops to each other all we want – we may even be right. What’s surprising is that for a group of people so tuned-in to the deepest soul of the electorate as Romney supporters are, they persistently confuse rationalization with persuasion. Romney’s people may have persuaded themselves that Romney is in fact a principled guy, and that’s very nice for them. Unfortunately, it is not the same thing as persuading the electorate of same.

    Let me put it like this. There’s a small group of conservatives who are happy with Romney’s retorts thus far. The vast majority (myself included) find them weak and unpersuasive. And he has not even really been pressed as of yet.

    Now, put yourself in the mind of the average inattentive voter. You begin to hear of Romney’s vapidity and his solidarity with the 1%. You begin to hear that he’ll support socialistic policies when it’s good for him, and other policies when it’s good for him, up to and including abortion. And then you await his explanation, on TV or in a debate. Then you hear what he’s said so far. Convinced? I wouldn’t be. That’s a big problem.

    Furthermore, it has not escaped the notice of non-Romney people that the man has a prickliness and nastiness that stays mostly dormant in the debates, but flares up whenever he’s really challenged. He gets sarcastic and testy, and manages to sound smug and insecure at the same time (whereas Newt just sounds smug). This will come out more in the general, and I continue to be amazed that Romney’s supporters just assume that no one will care (at the same time as they pronounce Newt doomed for the same reason).

    Romney is an unknown quantity for most of the electorate, unlike Gingrich. Unknown quantities tend to get a pass in favorability (innocent until proven guilty). So, of course Romney looks beautiful right now.

    Gingrich, on the other hand, begins from a baseline of soil and mud – that he can compare at all to Romney in some national polls is almost unbelievable. The point is that Romney has nowhere to go but down; and Gingrich nowhere but up. The electoral question is not whether, but how far, Romney will fall. For Newt-bots like myself, the question is how far he can rise.

    All I keep asking is that the Romney people not be so cocksure about what they think Romney’s prospects are. Romney will fall once people start to get to know him. Gingrich may or may not rise much higher, but he won’t sink any lower. Is it possible for a Gingrich rise to top a Romney fall? Of course it is! Is it likely? The only honest answer is we just don’t know. We can state our best guesses, but then we better state that they are GUESSES.

    I’m a partisan of Gingrich, but what I would be advising had I my own perch would be to simply wait and see. Let Newt and Romney duke it out for the next month or so, observe their comportment, their styles, their mannerisms. Wait for some more polling to come in to get a better feel for what the electorate is inclined to indulge.

    Yes, this means that if the next month goes badly for Newt, I could finally get on board with Romney. But it’s still too early to be making the kinds of claims the Romney people are making, and in my view they should just stop. It only makes people like me loathe Romney even more.

    Romney could, it seems to me, use a lot more advocates like Robert.

26. The problem comes down to this bit from Rasmussen on 11/01/2011:
    “During the month of October, 34.3% of Americans considered themselves to be Republicans, up from 33.9% in September. The number of Democrats fell to 33.1% from 33.7% the month before. September marked the smallest gap between the parties in nearly nine years of monthly tracking.”

    Obama is driving more people to identify as Republicans. However, the math shows that 32% of the voters are in that undecided, “independent” group. I know these people. Many of them live in my neighborhood. What they seem to react to is:
    1. MSM news.
    2. Against any “extreme” positions.
    3. They have no core philosophy and seldom think about politics or how the government is affecting their lives until the MSM tells them what to think.
    4. They generally agree with many of the consensus truths that progressives hold to be true. Such as government does good things like entitlements, education, energy policy, etc. They are baffled by AGW but think it must be a problem because “the scientists” say so.

    By and large these are decent people, but they have not spent any time thinking about economics, politics, or how the world works. They just want to live their lives with as little disruption as possible. Most are/were competent at their work and are reasonably well off financially. Fortunately, many of them are uneasy about the economy, but they aren’t sure things are bad because of Obama’s policies.

    My experience talking with them is that they are loathe to take a position until it gets very close to election time. Unfortunately, they will be rather heavily swayed by 30 second TV sound bites within two months of the election. Few will watch even one debate between Obama and his challenger.

    The awful truth is that these are the people that must be convinced to vote for the Republican candidate because the math works out that way. They will elect the next president. With the MSM in the tank for Obama that is going to be a steep hill to climb.

    I will probably support Newt in the primary, but I realize why many who look at this math (I think Coulter has talked about it) tend to believe that Romney is the candidate who can get enough of those independent votes to win. He does not seem extreme, he speaks as well as Obama, and he looks the part. I know those are all superficial things. I wish the independents were better informed. They’re not.

27. J.J.,
    I think your analysis of the electorate is good. They are the parents who want a better education for their kids but only get excited about building new gymnasiums. The quality of the basic math curriculum is just under their radar screen, and that screen is set by the MSM.

    Ryan understands this and can state his arguments in a compelling way. I am so glad that we have him just where he is now: a sensible counterweight to all the hyperboles of the campaign and a compelling influence on whoever wins the nomination. He is a great reminder of why we have co-equal branches of government.

28. Did you see Jen Rubin on Newt? This is not an endorsement of her position, only a heads up on what is out there.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/gingrich-the-phony-intellectual/2011/11/17/gIQA5VCGUN_blog.html

29. I agree with Neo (and Ann Coulter on this subject) in everything she has said in this post and in its comments section.

    Romney is extremely competent and articulate. He will tear Obama apart if he is the nominee, especially in the debates. His separation of the needs in MA versus needs in the rest of the country concerning health care encourages me that he understands states rights.

    His Mormonism doesn’t bother me. Yes, Mormons believe some strange things, but so do other religions’ adherents. Every Mormon I ever met personally was hard working, capable, and led an exemplary life.

    This business about laying off people when he ran Bain is silly. That’s what you often have to do to save a company so the other employees get to keep THEIR jobs.

    Almost anyone is more conservative than Obama. Therefore I will vote for almost anyone vs. Obama.

    Period.

30. “”However, the math shows that 32% of the voters are in that undecided, “independent” group.””
    J.J.

    At what point do we recognise there’s a fundamental flaw in treating followers as leaders? These are exactly the people for whom the bold sentiment of “build it and they will come” was first imagined. But we’re afraid to build a decent and prosperous society because they may not accept it? O ye of little faith.

31. I think Romney is robotic, and value malleable. Funny how he us suddenly sounding so conservative now that he is out of Mass.

    He’s a finger in the air guy.

    Having said that, I’d crawl over broken glass to place my vote for him over Barry.

32. Anyone who thinks that Newt is somehow more conservative than Romney is deluding themselves. Newt is not your shining silver savior folks. He’s a global warming believer, he supported Scozzafava (ruining our chances for electing an actual conservative by splitting the electorate) and he’s called Paul Ryan “too” right wing. He is establishment Rino. If that is what you actually want in a candidate, then fine, vote for him.

    But don’t kid yourself into thinking he’s some how more right-wing than Romney.

33. expat: yes, I’ve been noticing that in general, now that Rubin has her WaPo gig, she seems to be acting a lot more like a regular journalist.

    That’s not a compliment, by the way.

34. I’m wondering if Romney suffers with guys for just appearing too darn together and good looking. Almost a version of women and their strong views on Palin’s beauty.

35. SteveH: I believe you have hit the nail on the head.

    It’s certainly not the only reason—some of the objections are valid—but I’ve noticed a soupcon of Romney Derangement Syndrome that I think can be at least partly explained by his extreme smoothness and almost preternatural good looks.

36. Surely we can all agree that even a RINO is an improvement upon Obama.

    I suppose that going over the debt cliff at 300 MPH instead of 600 MPH is an improvement. Right until we slam into bottom of the canyon, in which case it won’t matter.

    Hard choices are coming. Sooner is better than later, and voluntarily is better than involuntarily, but they will be made. Just ask the Greeks.

37. Actually, if OromneyCare isn’t repealed, I don’t think it’ll matter much. Unemployment will remain high even if Romney is President, as no one will hire until they know how much it’ll cost them per employee.

38. “Romney Derangement Syndrome” is not correct. It is only fair to acknowledge that we have many political reasons for believing Romney is neither the best candidate for America, nor is the most likely Repub candidate to defeat Barack.

    “Too darn … good looking” is laughable, unless you are strictly referencing gay men, and then it might be a plus.

    Lets look at male American culture + “too darn together”.

    Stipulate: Romney’s private life and business achievements constitute important and admirable manly accomplishments. Kudos.

    First note re male culture + “too darn together”:

    In his political persona, Romney is not “together”. He is a finger-in-the-wind person. Such does not denote being “together”. It denotes the exact opposite. A finger-in-the-wind person is unstable and is searching for what he believes. Nothing could be less manly.

    Worse, nothing could be worse political strategy than sticking a finger into the wind in a pander to moderate voters. I explain why at 4:06 PM on 11/17/11.

    Romney is not “together”. He is the opposite of “together”: he is a politician who is following the exact wrong strategy, and who does not know what he believes. In truth, Romney is awful. This is why Romney has never caught fire; has created zero excitement.

    Second, re “too darn together”

    Romney has barely been challenged on his weaknesses. When he has been challenged: the truth is that he has been a frightened rabbit. Watch him. You will see it.

    It is okay with me that Romney responds to challenge with knifing counterattack. However, Romney ought also respond to challenge by using principle and attempting to get at truth. That is how any forthright and decent human being responds. To do less is deceptive.

    The problem is not that Romney is “too darn together”. No way. Romney is not together. If Romney were together, he would understand that principled conservatism is a winner; he would understand that truth-telling, about his past, is the best way for him to win.

    Instead, Romney defaults to deceptive supercilious glibness. Instinctively defaulting to glibness is an indication of deceptiveness. Automatic default to glibness is also bad strategy: it can bite you. Principled search for truth is a superior strategy. Knifing counterattack is okay: just, also, throw in some principled search for truth. And back off on the superciliousness. You really are not that smart. If you were, you would understand that conservatism and truth are winners.

39. Addendum:

    Glibness is okay, even necessary. It can even be good, i.e. in instances where it is humorous.

    Yet, glibness is not okay when it is consistently used as a shield of deceptiveness. Such is unattractive. We are not running a contest for the most glib candidate.

    Romney, when challenged, too often uses glibness to disguise that he is a frightened rabbit. This predilection is part of the reason the electorate has not warmed up to Romney.

40. gcothcarn: did you actually read what I wrote?

    It’s certainly not the only reason–some of the objections are valid–but I’ve noticed a soupcon of Romney Derangement Syndrome that I think can be at least partly explained by his extreme smoothness and almost preternatural good looks.

    “Some of the objections are valid” is the acknowledgment that some of the objections to Romney are NOT due to RDS. Also, there’s the qualifier, “soupcon” which means a little bit.

    And it’s not that he’s good-looking. It’s that he’s smoothly and almost unnaturally good-looking. And some of the dislike for him is indeed about that, IMHO, because it’s not considered a good or trustworthy trait especially in a man.

41. Okay, the problem, here, is mine: I did not understand the definition of “soupcon”, and did not look up the word. My apology. I could have been more fastidious; or, possibly, a student of either French or Latin, and was none of those things.

    Separately, speaking only for myself:

    I will grant that there might be a manly prejudice against good looking men. However, if such prejudice exists: in my own life, I have not noticed that other men have this prejudice against good looking men.

    Also, I guess it is just me, but it had not occurred to me that Romney is “almost unnaturally good-looking”. I take your word for it. I just look past that stuff. I notice, of course, that Romney is attractive and is clean cut and is virile; I even notice he has a Hollywood strong jaw. But, I must admit that I never know what women will like in any particular man’s looks. Unless a man is widely acclaimed as handsome, such as George Clooney, then I never really know which men are considered handsome. You probably find this difficult to believe. But, I have, many times, assumed that certain men were either attractive or unattractive, only to be informed that I was completely misguided.

    Thank you for allowing all the dissenting comment opinions on your blog. It is part of what I love about this blog. Not all bloggers will allow it to the extent which you allow it.

42. gcotharn: I like dissent—as long as it’s well-reasoned, relatively polite dissent.

    But I have to say I don’t think George Clooney is all that handsome. So go figure. On the other hand, Paul Newman was handsome, in a really good way. But some of my favorite actors are not conventionally handsome at all. For instance, my first crush on an actor was on, of all people, Robert Preston, after I saw him in the stage version of “The Music Man” when I was a little girl. As I said, go figure.

    I think it was his energy that drew me. Then again, as a little girl I also adored Henry Fonda in “Drums Along the Mohawk,” and he was a trifle wistful, and low-key in a sort of intense way.

    And speaking of Henry Fonda and “Drums,” I can’t resist (these are scenes from the trailer):

43. I recall sitting at the bar in a pub not long ago and a couple walked in that looked like they stepped out of a GQ magazine. They were beautiful to the point of unusually so. You could feel the uneasiness it caused patrons and waitresses alike. Most people really do decide what a person is like on the inside just from outward appearance.

44. “he was a trifle wistful, and low-key in a sort of intense way”

    This seems, to me, an excellent descrip of of a moment in human development in which a little girl has built in and intense feelings of love – feelings which are bursting for expression – yet does not yet have built in feelings of lust. Thus: a wistful and low key intense Henry Fonda!

    re Steve H’s beautiful people:

    I have had this experience. In a room full of beautiful people, entered a mid 20s couple who were as Greek Gods: they were so far beyond a normal scale of beauty, it was incredible. The woman was 5’10″+. The beauty of the couple stunned the room. I could only look away with greatest exhibit of personal discipline. When I looked away, everything inside me was compelling me to look back at them. Even the man: even him, I could barely take my eyes off of him. He was like a great and giant stallion. It was stunning.

45. kolnai spots the flaw I see in Romney. He’s a 1%-er. A finance guy. He business credentials were made at Bain Capital.

    That’s what makes him a member of the bi-factional ruling party. He has a ruling-class pedigree.OWS may have collapsed, but at the beginning they were tapping into a very popular sentiment.

    Please don’t read this me supporting OWS or being against capitalism. The problem is crony capitalism.

    The case Romney hasn’t made–and will need to make–is that he is not owned by the banksters. How many ex-Goldmanites will be in his inner circle?

    Romney separates himself from the field by accepting the current crappy tax system. All he wants to do is jigger with it. Which in context of comments above, is pandering to the squishy middle. They’re the cheapest votes to buy (good business sense!), and they always seem to fall for it.

    Obama ran on Hope and Change. Romney is offering the Soothing Status Quo. A relief to those who hated the changes, but a disappointed who want more than just a pause in the statist ratchet.

    Can the facts of Romneycare be spun to paint Mitt as a tool of Big Pharma or Big Insurance?

    And on the healthcare topic, He may indeed follow through on his promised 50-State waiver. But what will he end up signing as a replacement for Obamacare? Because Congress will not just let it become void. They are the bi-factional ruling party, and they all think the people expect them to do something.

46. Both political parties will represent the will of the American people. Let’s examine that will.

    Do the American people teach in their schools and colleges their proud history of liberty, of self-reliance, of independence? No they do not. Instead children are taught that America is a racist, sexist, homophobic nation founded by slavers; that it is the worst of all countries.

    Do the American politicians admire Washington, Jefferson, or Paine? No they do not. Gore couldn’t recognize the busts of the founding fathers. Obama hangs Mao ornaments on the White House Christmas tree and kisses Chavez.

    Do the American intelligentsia admire America? No. Spielberg, creator of the most widely seen movies in America, admires Castro. Ayers, the presidential advisor admires Mao.

    In my town, the people organizing to vote for Obama flew the Cuban flag at the Democratic party HQ. Several other countries flags also put in appearances.

    It has been decades since I have met anyone personally who has more than a passing familiarity with American history. Nearly all of them admire and to emulate Lenin, Castro, Ortega, Chavez, etc. to achieve social justice, end capitalism, and bring about a green future.

    Both Republican and Democrat parties will express the will of the people. And the people admire, whether they recognize it or not, fascism, nazism, socialism, and communism. They do not wish to be free.

47. ErisGuy: see this.

48. “I think there’s another very basic need, one that perhaps can only really be appreciated when it is lost: liberty.”

    Very nice. And how many generations will pass until one of my or one of your descendants reading about the end of modernity and collapse of the country formerly know as America, reads the Federalist Papers or Paine, has liberty born in his heart?

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>