…the statute of limitations on affairs never runs out.
So, what would Romney do…
…if he were elected president?
I’ve read many comments (at this blog and other sites) like this one from “geran” on the subject:
“The worse habit of a ‘True Conservative’ is a certain disconnect with reality of any sort.”
I’m that “True Conservative” that does not like the reality. We have spent ourselves into oblivion. About 50% of the country does not know how many States there are, or any science, or history.
And, we are hoping a wishy-washy Massachusetts liberal, claiming to be a Conservative to get elected, can save us.
There’s some reality for you”¦.
I think I understand where that commenter’s coming from. As I’ve said many many times, Romney would not be my choice if I had my druthers. But I don’t, because my picks aren’t running.
I also don’t think Romney is merely claiming to be a conservative to get elected, and that he’s really a closet liberal. What do I think is so conservative about him? Well, his entire personal and private life, and his career right up to his tenure as governor of Massachusetts, a post he held for only four years. Take a look, especially at his private and personal life (a few choice excerpts follow), and tell me whether the following sounds like a liberal:
[Growing up,] Romney idolized his father, read automotive trade magazines, kept abreast of automotive developments, and aspired to be an executive in the industry himself one day…In March of his senior year [of high school], he began dating Ann Davies [who is still his wife], two years behind him, whom he had once known in elementary school…The two informally agreed to marriage around the time of his June 1965 graduation…
Romney attended Stanford University for a year. Although the campus was becoming radicalized with the beginnings of 1960s social and political movements, he kept a well-groomed appearance and enjoyed traditional campus events. In May 1966, he was part of a counter-protest against a group staging a sit-in in the university administration building in opposition to draft status tests. He worked as a security guard again in order to fund secret trips home to see Ann…
In July 1966, Romney left for 30 months in France as a Mormon missionary, a traditional duty that his father and other relatives had done. He arrived in Le Havre with ideas about how to change and promote the French Mission, while facing physical and economic deprivation in their cramped quarters. Rules against drinking, smoking, and dating were strictly enforced. Like most individual Mormon missionaries, he did not gain many converts, with the nominally Catholic but secular, wine-loving French people proving especially resistant to a religion that prohibits alcohol…In Nantes, Romney was bruised defending two female missionaries against a horde of local rugby players…He was promoted to zone leader in Bordeaux in early 1968, then in the spring of that year became assistant to the mission president in Paris, the highest position for a missionary…Romney’s support for the U.S. role in the Vietnam War was only reinforced when the French greeted him with hostility over the matter and he debated them in return.
I’ll rather arbitrarily stop there, but it just goes on and on and on. Romney was such a straight-arrow social conservative that he was almost a caricature. And after that, he had a career in business that contained no hint of liberalism.
It was only when he had settled in Massachusetts and started running for office (first time in 1994, against Ted Kennedy) that some moderation showed. He had to refute the Kennedy forces’ charge that he was like Reagan—which, in Massachusetts, would have been a death-blow to anyone’s political aspirations. It was during this campaign, against one of the most liberal members of Congress, and then again in 2002 when he ran for governor of Massachusetts and won, that he tacked to the left of a conservative line. That’s the way he governed as well, and it’s really probably the only way he could have governed in Massachusetts, with its highly Democratic legislature and electorate.
You may call him a hypocrite for that, and most definitely he had to compromise some of whatever conservative principles he might have had to hold that office. Perhaps a “real” conservative would not have even run for senator or governor from a state such as Massachusetts—or, if such a person did run, he/she would certainly not have expected to win, but merely to have a platform to voice some conservative ideas. Romney ran to win, and he did.
In short, he became a politician—although rather late in the game.
Now, you may not want a politician as president. I’d actually prefer something else myself. But I like to think of myself as a realist, and I think that’s what Romney is, too. The question is: which was the pose and which the real convictions of the man?
Some would say, “Convictions? He hasn’t got any.” But what if he compromised his inner conservative in order to be elected in Massachusetts, rather than compromising now?
I don’t pretend to know what the man would do as president. I don’t like the idea of electing another person who might say one thing and do another, or who would cave on important principles, either. This very much concerns me. But Obama’s personal background and his voting record screamed “left,” whereas Romney’s background screams “right,” and the only political record he has is in Massachusetts, an ultra-liberal state that he took more to the right than his predecessors. Isn’t it highly possible that, if Romney were to be elected president with the more conservative message he’s giving out now (and as champion of political change, I believe it’s probable he has become more politically conservative over the years), and if there were a Republican Congress as well, he would find it both pragmatic and ideologically congruent to govern as a conservative?
Tasting grapefruit juice
I’m with her:
RINOs for President?
I’ve read a lot of objections to Romney that go like this, “He’s another RINO, just like McCain. Look how well that worked out in 2008. McCain lost because he’s a RINO.”
You can hate McCain (and many do), and/or hate Romney (likewise). You can dislike either or both of them for a host of reasons. Ditto, you can think they’re not conservative enough to suit you, and if you think that you’re probably correct.
Just remember, though, all of the reasons that McCain lost. I submit that one of them was not because he was a RINO. There were plenty of other, more obvious ones:
(1) He was a horrible debater. While watching debate #2 I knew he was probably toast.
(2) He not only was old, he seemed old: energyless and dispirited. He’d had a major life-threatening health problem, as well.
(3) His strength was foreign policy, and by the time election day came round that seemed a far less important issue than it had been before.
(4) His (self-admitted) weakness was economics, and by the time election day came round that seemed a far more important issue than it had been before.
None of these is true of Romney, although he’s certainly got other problems.
However, McCain’s RINO status may have caused some Republicans to sit out the election (Republican turnout declined by 1.3% in 2008 as compared to 2004). But even if those 1.3% had gone to the polls and voted for McCain, it wouldn’t have been enough to swing the election to him.
Independents, on the other hand (and there are a lot of them), have nothing special against RINOs, although in 2008 they voted in droves for Obama. Here’s how Romney stacks up against Obama among Independents in a poll taken in November 2011:
But when it comes to the ever crucial bloc of independent voters, Romney trumps Obama by a 12-point margin ”“ 53 percent to 41 percent. Independents in 2012 could be especially critical in tipping the scales in such battleground states as Florida, Ohio, and Virginia, all of which went for Obama last time around but have since been deemed toss-ups. When matched up with the other top GOP candidates, Obama leads among independents by at least slight margins.
Again, you may not like Romney. You may not want to see him nominated. If he’s nominated, you may hold your nose and vote for him or you may stay home or you may write in your favorite instead. But if Romney’s a RINO, the only people that fact is turning off are conservative Republicans. And if he’s the nominee and he loses the election, it will probably be because conservative Republicans didn’t vote for him.
Tempus fugit: when you’re a Jet you stay a Jet
Indulging in one of my favorite pastimes, surfing on YouTube, recently led me to a clip of a 2007 rehearsal of a new production of the musical “West Side Story.” The sequence begins with the cast of the 2007 revival, who are later joined by 22 members of the original 1957 production.
That’s a passage of 50 years. Most of the originals would have to have been at least 70 years old when the video was made. Carol Lawrence, the original Maria, would have been about 75 years old in the clip, and Chita Rivera, the original Anita, nearly the same age. The guys who were in the chorus of Jets—including the original Riff, who’s the first older person to appear—are there, as well as a great many of the female dancers/singers of the original chorus, who join in performing “Tonight” at the end of the segment.
There’s something about this video that makes tears well up in my eyes—something about the passage of time and the coming of old age, and the contrast between the extraordinarily agile young people who sail through the choreography with flair, and the old people who used to be just like them but move so differently now.
Because dancers’ bodies are their instruments (and finely honed, athletic instruments at that), they experience physical decline much earlier than most people. What’s more, they can easily measure it. Even as soon as the 30s and 40s, the jump gets tamer, the leg can’t kick quite as high, and it becomes apparent that it’s time to stop, often long before the performer is mentally ready to do so. The same is true at a slower pace for singers—for most, it happens at some point well before extreme old age. The high notes go and the tone changes, and the power diminishes.
But despite all that’s been lost, here they are, gamely strutting their stuff once more. The setting is casual, a rehearsal hall. They’re mere shadows of their former performing selves—and yet, and yet…something indomitable and quite wonderful remains. Carol Lawrence (red hair, black sweater, long red and black skirt) is still extraordinarily beautiful, although her famous pellucid soprano is faded and quavery. Chita Rivera (all in black, with coal black hair) remains a firecracker:
We can’t really travel back in time. But we can do the next best thing, and watch a clip of Carol Lawrence and her original Tony (Larry Kert, who died in 1991), eternally young and singing “Tonight:”
And just in case your appetite for the 1957 production isn’t yet sated, here are a bunch of still photos accompanied by some of the songs. You may find that you recognize quite a few of these people from their more ancient manifestations in that 2007 clip:
…Overhead, overhead
Rushes life in a race,
As the clouds the clouds chase;
And we go,
And we drop like the fruits of the tree,
Even we,
Even so.
Cheetah dead
The real Cheetah always liked a good joke:
Spambot of the day
I’m not sure whether this bot is complimenting me or not:
The site loading velocity is amazing. It kind of feels that you are doing any distinctive trick.
On another, completely unrelated topic: I can’t wait till the holidays are over. I’ve even started my New Years diet a few days early. I’m just all holidayed out. And you?
About that fire
Officials think they’ve found the cause of that horrific Christmas house fire I wrote about a few days ago:
A Christmas morning fire that killed a couple and three of their grandchildren was accidentally started by fireplace embers that had been discarded near a first-floor entryway, officials said Tuesday.
The officials also said it wasn’t clear if the home had working smoke detectors. Stamford Mayor Michael Pavia called the fire a “tragic accident,” not the result of foul play.
Sometime between 3 a.m. and 3:30 a.m., a friend staying in the home put fireplace ashes in a bag and left it either in or outside a mudroom and trash enclosure attached to the rear of the house, said Barry Callahan, Stamford’s fire marshal. The fire was reported just after 4:40 a.m.
“The fire entered the house quickly and spread throughout the first floor and up two interior vertical openings, trapping the occupants on the upper floors,” Callahan said.
There are other heartbreaking details in the story, if you go to the link.
[ADDENDUM: See also this for a more complete story.]
Romney endorsements, yea and nay and just okay
John Hinderaker of Powerline has endorsed Mitt Romney, and John Hawkins of RightWingNews has said why he won’t be doing the same.
Tigerhawk has summarized and compared the positions of both men, so I don’t have to do it. But I’ll add—as I think I’ve been saying right along—that if in fact current front runner Romney is nominated, I plan to vote for him—and in doing so I won’t be having an experience that’s all that different from my vote in all the elections I’ve ever participated in, which is to compromise and vote for an imperfect candidate.
I’ve never been all that pleased with the offerings of either party for president. I think I’ve mentioned before that my most favored candidate ever was Paul Tsongas in 1992—and he didn’t even win the nomination, and then it turned out he would have become gravely ill in office.
I’ve been even less pleased with third party offerings, and even if I’d liked someone like Ross Perot (which I did not), I am a practical sort who wants to make my vote count. The fact that it tends to count as a vote for the lesser of two evils is something I’ve grown accustomed to, and although I haven’t given up hope of someone I can truly admire, trust, like, and even agree with being nominated, I’m practical enough to realize that in politics that’s a longshot.
Sometimes I think that in that I differ from those who voted for Reagan during the 80s. It should come to no surprise to readers of this blog that I voted for Carter twice but that I also was never keen on him, and never hated Reagan either (in fact, I seem to recall having a sneaking admiration for much of Reagan’s foreign policy, although in those days I tended to keep mum about that in polite company). But to conservatives at the time, the emergence of Reagan as a national figure and then president must have seemed nearly miraculous. Voting for him might even have been a pleasure. No wonder so many of those who remember doing so would like to have that sort of feeling again, and those too young to have had the experience would like a similar one.
Well, it’s almost certainly not going to happen this year, unless you don’t mind writing in the name of the person who’s your particular champion and thereby wasting your vote. Of course, you may think that voting for Romney or Gingrich (or whomever is nominated; I think it will almost certainly be one of those two, and probably Romney) is already wasting your vote.
I do not. I think either represents a choice, not an echo (a phrase popularized in Goldwater’s 1964 bid) compared to Obama, although I prefer Romney over Gingrich because of Romney’s far more stable personal life and his lengthy and successful record in the private sector. I like the fact that each man is smart and a good debater, because these skills will be needed to face Obama.
As for Romney’s history with the Massachusetts health care program that’s come to be known as Romneycare, I keep promising a larger post on it. But that post would be so large that I haven’t yet had time to tackle it. Here’s the short version:
Many people consider it specious sophistry when Romney claims that an individual mandate in Massachusetts was okay whereas it’s not okay for the federal government to impose the same thing. But that argument makes sense to me. There are many powers forbidden to the federal government by the constitution that are allowed the states. That is one of the bases of federalism, which is certainly a conservative principle to uphold.
Whether or not you think an individual mandate is a good idea, even for a state, is another question entirely. You may think it’s a bad one. But it almost certainly is not unconstitutional for states.
When so-called Romneycare was enacted in the very liberal state of Massachusetts, the individual mandate was considered (even by conservative think tanks at the time) to be a conservative solution to the problem of extending coverage—a substitute for a government-operated single-payer type system which Massachusetts might have otherwise enacted, and a way to provide a private sector alternative to the then-current practice of treating the indigent for free and passing the bill to the rest of the population via increased hospital bills for those who could pay. Romney also wanted to impose some limits on the bill that the liberal Massachusetts legislature would not countenance, overriding his vetoes.
And Hawkins criticizes Romney for, among other things, not having been a popular governor in Massachusetts. But I’m puzzled as to why that would be a drawback; isn’t it instead a possible testament to his conservatism rather than his unelectability? After all, Massachusetts is hardly representative of the US electorate as a whole—fortunately.
Singing a good song: from Empty Chairs to Killing to Grammys and back
Here’s the story of the life of a song that most of you know, or think you know:
A minor fact: I met Lori Lieberman briefly around the time the song first became popular or even before that. She was very young, and seemed extremely shy. But I never forgot her softer, gentler rendition of “Killing Me Softly,” nor the lovely quality of her introspectively melodic delivery.
Here’s the Roberta Flack version that made the song famous, and which most people think is the original:
And here’s Lieberman again with “Killing Me Softly,” singing it softly (but in 2011). My how time does fly—softly (and I have no idea what’s up with pumpkinman in the background):
Kindle bestsellers
[Hat tip: Althouse.]
Here’s a list of the one hundred top Kindle books. Actually, you get two, two, two lists in one: the books for sale, and the books available for free.
The Bible does well in both categories. And I’m pleased to note that Alice in Wonderland is 7th right now in the free book ranks. Sisters Charlotte and Emily Bronte are running neck and neck for honors with each other, but older sis Charlotte’s Jane Eyre wins out by a well-groomed hair over Emily’s wilder Wuthering Heights (#25 vs. #32). In the paid category, a book I’ve already written about, Stephen King’s 9/11/2001, takes eighth place.
Suzanne Collins’ and her mockingjay trilogy are dominant in the paid category. I happen to have read all of them for my book group, and although I can see why they’re popular among teenagers and are going to be made into movies (in fact, their cinematic plots, combining violence and fashion in equal measure, appear to have been written expressly with the movies in mind), they are pretty much claptrap.
I’d be curious to know how the Kindle freebies stack up in absolute numbers against the Kindle paids. But Amazon’s not telling.
[NOTE: Oh, and if you want to order anything from Amazon, please use your friendly neighborhood neoneo portal, on the right sidebar or here (I included the extra link because one reader wrote in to say that the Amazon widgets on my blog weren’t showing up on his computer).]
The California Bar tries to bar Glass
Stephen Glass, notorious liar of “Shattered Glass” and TNR journalistic fame, is a Georgetown Law School graduate and paralegal who is currently fighting to be admitted to the California Bar. He passed the Bar Exam there a few years ago, but the Committee of Bar Examiners “judged him morally unfit for his new profession.”
If you look at the comments section of the article about Glass’s efforts (910 comments and counting as of this writing), the jokes are coming a mile a minute. The gist of the humor goes like this: Lawyer, liar? He’d be perfect!
And several commenters have highlighted the following highly ironic sentence in the article, a statement by California Bar spokesperson Rachel Grunber that gets a lot of laughs:
Law and journalism “share common core values ”” trust, candor, veracity, honor, respect for others…He violated every one of them.”
As for Glass—I would not now, nor ever, believe a word the man says. His m.o. was not just to lie, but to lie egregiously, blatantly, and repeatedly; to create an entire world of lies to back up his other lies though “research” to fool the magazine’s fact-checkers; to involve his brother in his lies; and to get everyone else around him to defend and feel sorry for him when he was accused.
Remorse was really not in this guy’s vocabulary, but lying about having remorse was. In other words, a sociopath.
But don’t take my word for it. Charles Lane, TNR‘s head editor who finally figured out what Glass was doing and blew the whistle on him, had this to say afterward about Glass’s personality:
We [at TNR] extended normal human trust to someone who basically lacked a conscience… We busy, friendly folks, were no match for such a willful deceiver… We thought Glass was interested in our personal lives, or our struggles with work, and we thought it was because he cared. Actually, it was all about sizing us up and searching for vulnerabilities. What we saw as concern was actually contempt.
Not everyone agrees with Lane’s observations, at least not any more. Glass has amassed a great many character witnesses to vouch for his change of heart:
His appeal [against the Bar ruling] included character references from 22 witnesses, including two judges who had employed him, two psychiatrists, and Martin Peretz, who owned The New Republic when Glass’ deception occurred.
In his own statement to the bar, Glass said he was “greatly ashamed and remorseful about my lying” but “forthright and candid about my years of misconduct.”
It’s not that I don’t believe people can reform. They can; it’s not “once a liar, always a liar.” But Glass was—and probably still is—in a particular category of liars who seem conscienceless, although they can fake consciences when it suits them (and always after they are caught). Beware.