There are many reasons, but over at Gene Expression I assert that Mitt Romney simply comes off as too wonky and brainy to do well in the Republican primaries in 2012. You don’t need to be dull to be nominated. Both John McCain and George W. Bush had IQs which were well above average based on standardized test scores, though both also underperformed their measured aptitudes in their higher educational careers (McCain more than Bush). But I think it is fair to say that since Richard Nixon all the Republican nominees for president have been intellectually modest in their presentation to the public (this does not mean that they were actually intellectually modest in their endowments. For example, I think that George H. W. Bush had both aptitude and realized academic achievement in his youth). The Democrats have struck a different profile. Both Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were smart (Carter has a degree in physics in engineering from the Naval Academy, class rank 59 out of 820, and was a nuclear engineer in the navy*), but balanced out their academic orientation with a folksy Southern charm (in Clinton’s case his personal morals seem to have been crassly base, making him “earthier”). Michael Dukakis was a nerd, with no balancing qualities. Barack Obama mixed the “wine-track” with the black segment of the Democratic primary.
In many ways I think Mitt Romney is like Michael Dukakis. Both governors of Massachusetts, and nerds. Romney is physically robust and handsome, but for some reason he seems to come off as a nerd on testosterone to many people. I think this is why he was so detested in the 2008 primaries by his rivals. He’s smart, rich and handsome. These should be traits which make him an object of admiration and envy, but instead he is perceived as a striving overachiever, and elicits resentment from his peers. And I think that’s partly because he can’t mask his management consultant affect (I now suspect his flip-flopping and Mormonism come into higher profile because people want to give him a wedgie).
Note: To be clear, I am positively predisposed toward Romney. But the more I think about it the more pessimistic I get about his prospects in the primaries. Once in the general I think Republicans put-off by his nerd sensibility would vote for anyone but the Democrat, just as they did for McCain despite previous antipathy. And Romney’s wonkish competence would probably start to draw in upwardly mobile professionals, former nerds themselves quite often, who aren’t part of the Republican primary voter base.
* Some readers were skeptical of Carter’s educational credentials. It looks like he has exaggerated his background in physics, he took an uncredited graduate level course at Union College. His undergraduate degree at the Naval Academy was engineering, the most common degree given in the service academies. His son does have a degree in nuclear physics from Georgia Tech.
Another reason that Romney doesn’t fit in on the right is his religion. He has been repeatedly attacked in the Bible Belt as something other than Christian. I recall a commentary on the radio in north Florida that did due demagoguery on the Mormon sacred texts, (paraphrasing the commentator)…asking how this guy Joe Smith could have carried those heavy tablets up that hill…” A real revelation, as it were, to hear the application of a logic based critique in such a venue.
Don, a woman interviewed at the Iowa caucuses said that she couldn’t vote for either Giuliani or Romney because she was a Christian, so apparently Roman Catholics are outside the pale for some as well.
Romney may also put people off because he’s “perfect”: doesn’t smoke, doesn’t drink, doesn’t eat fattening foods…People may not even consciously realize it, but they resent those who have absolutely no vices. They feel as if they’re being looked down on from the heights of flawlessness.
It is a truly sad commentary on the Republican party that someone like Romney (very smart, handsome, personally accomplished, charming)is now regarded as to “elite” in demeanor to win the party’s presidential nomination. For that matter, it is equally horrifying that Richard Nixon was the last GOP president who liked being perceived as cerebral.
Well, that’s the Palin effect. (“She’s real! She’s authentically American! She loves the Lord! She talks just like me!”)
Awful.
I think there are many among the religious right who, in the heady days of having an evangelical in office had a very strict (internal) “religious test” that a prospective candidate had to pass. Hence the scoffing at Romney for Mormonism’s more transparent fictions.
But…after only one year of the Madness of King Barack, I’m guessing that many of those same members of the RR find themselves less concerned with theology and more concerned with stopping the Onslaught of Socialism that Bambi, Reid, and Pelosi have championed
My guess is that in 2012, the Right will become very pragmatic about achieving a clear goal: Re-defeating Jimmy Carter. (Oops! I meant: unseating Obama.) Romney will be among the few viable, experienced candidates with good name-recognition and the necessary skill set, both for campaigning and governing.
Maybe it won’t end up being Romney. Who knows. But I sincerely doubt that minor negatives will derail a candidate, even in the GOP primaries, who looks like they might be able to slay the Dragon.
Romney will be among the few viable, experienced candidates with good name-recognition and the necessary skill set, both for campaigning and governing.
what’s his advantage over an orthodox christian non-nerd? i think it is probably viable to contend he’ll manifestly be the most competent potential executive, but beyond a particular point there might be diminishing returns.
i agree that repubs will have happy with anyone who gets out of the primaries. my point is that the primaries will be an issue. you don’t need someone as smart or competent as romney, i doubt you could produce that really. you just need someone “good enough” who people are more comfortable with.
unfortunately, we don’t seem to be as demanding of our presidents as management consulting or private equity firms are with their executives….
The GOP likes to give the nod to last time’s runner-up. Dubya was the exception to that rule. Romney’s got that going for him. No one section of the GOP loathes him in the same way McCain was and is hated (and he still got the nod), and the GOP elite will want a winner who’ll look good next Prince Hopeychange. Unless Romney self-destructs, he’ll take the nomination.
I think Romney is almost a given for the nomination, which is kind of shame. Setting aside his religion, he’s kind of a huge phony, and performed rather terribly in the debates. Who could forget his “I’d have to consult with the lawyers” answer to one of the questions. Is there any doubt, that Mitt Romney would sell out conservatives even more than GWB? At least George W Bush had some convictions, though they were on all the wrong issues(amnesty, faith based initiatives, nation building etc.) I would like to see someone who isn’t the offspring of a famous politician/general/admiral. I don’t think Romney’s solutions of more outsourcing, globalization and mergers with Chinese companies are the answers to our country’s problems. The fact that he endorsed McCain on the basis of national security issues and the “war on terrorism” is reason enough for me not to vote him.
Well, that’s the Palin effect. (“She’s real! She’s authentically American! She loves the Lord! She talks just like me!”)
sure. but i think that this might understate the historical depth to this trend. palin, huckabee, etc., show the power and influence of this sort of middle american identity politics in the republican party today, but the nerds should admit that nixon helped poison the well here. he was arguably the smartest president on paper since hoover, and lost total control of common sense faculties. that being said, it seems like an unfortunate positive feedback loops has started to develop; i don’t think romney’s wonky sensibility would have been much of an issue in the 1980s. in many ways george h.w. bush seems to be a toned down prototype of romney.
“orthodox christian non-nerd”…like Huckabee? Or Palin? Both are punchlines and neither will get the nomination. Because they’re polarizing.
Think about this, when was the last time the GOP faced an incumbent Democratic President? Clinton in 96. Clinton prevailed (obviously). But remember that after 94’s electoral rebuke, Clinton tacked to the center. The GOP and the electorate weren’t in a full-blown rage against Clinton by 96, as Bubba had “learned his lesson” from 94, so to speak.
What I’m getting at is that when an opposition party has as it’s only goal the ouster of the incumbent – when the RAGE is at a boil – the opposition party will actually keep the general election in the forefront of their minds when going through the primary. Look at the Dems and their relationship with Bush. In 04, the hated Bush with a full-blown RAGE, and they nominated someone who they thought (mistakenly) would appeal to centrists. But in 08, without specter of another Bush term hanging over them, they nominated the candidate who lined up the most with the ideology of the base. (Obama’s rhetorical centrism was something liberal Dems correctly saw as a fig leaf).
Also, the GOP tends to have somewhat of a “next in line” mentality (Dole candidacy, McCain candidacy” that I think helps Romney here.
Executive Summary: GOP can’t afford ideological purity in 12 (lest they cede independents to the DEMS), knows it can’t, and will be pragmatic in it’s effort to oust Obama.
Another SR classic: Atheists for Romney…
Secularists, especially ones putatively dedicated to upholding rational/scientific thinking, would seemingly object to a candidate who affirms the mad visions of Joe Smith, not to say King Brigham’s theocratic wonderland….donde estan Golden Plates.
Ron Paul however quackish seems a bit more knowledgable in Constitutional principles than the Mittster
First off, I apologize for the “to” instead of “too” in my earlier comment (the same error twice in one day!).Moving on, the topic of Republican presidents and the affection of a “proletarian” demeanor is very interesting. Here are my ruminations on the “devolution” of GOP presidents. For simplicity’s sake, I limited myself to presidents since 1900, as it is harder to gauge the overall affect of presidents in the 19th.
1. Theodore Roosevelt: in terms of sheer learning and brainpower, probably the most “elite” president of the 20th, with Wilson, a professional academic, his only rival.The GOP starts out strong.
2.Taft: Although not in Teddy’s class, Taft was a Yale man with a law degree. Furthermore, he went on to serve as Chief Justice. Morbid obesity aside, there is little that is “proly” about Taft. A step down from Teddy (but who would’t be), but still fairly elite.
3.Harding: Definite signs of decline. In contrast to the Harvard and Yale pedigrees of Roosevelt and Taft, Harding was a graduate of Ohio Central College.Beyond this, there is a general sense that he was simply not that bright (Malcom Gladwell asserts that Harding coasted by on his presidential casting call looks). A sense of decline creeps in, but the overall tenor of the times makes Harding look like an Oxford don compared to what is to come.
4. Coolidge: Silent Cal may be the first case of a president who posed as a philistine. A graduate of Amerherst, Coolidge translated Dante for his own amusement. A mixed verdict, personably cultured, yet projected a somewhat downhome aura.As with Harding, however, he looks like a philospher-king compared to the dross that surrounds us.
5.Hoover:The technocrat in the White House. Member of first Stanford class (degree in geology).Was a highly successful mining engineer.Conducted business all over the world (North America, Australia, China,etc.).Spoke Mandarin.Was touted throughout his career for his brainpower.
6.Eisenhower:Definitely a step down. Despite his obvious brainpower (Kennen noted his penetrating insights and Nixon praised his complexity and deviousness), Eisenhower was a very uncultivated man (his idea of literature was Zane Gray).Spoke with an uncouth mid-western twang (“nukler,”etc.).Although not truly prole, had a lower-middle class quality.As a sidenote, the punitive intellectual contrast between Eisenhower and Stevenson seems to presage the smart Democrat/stupid Republican image that we take for granted today.
7.Nixon: Very bright.Although from an undistinguished background, was accepted by both Harvard and Yale, but had to decline on financial grounds.Steve Sailor describes him as having the highest tested i.q. of any president. Although somewhat unrefined in demeanor, projected intellectual power. Possible the last GOP president who wanted to be seen as intelligent.
8. Ford:Tough to gauge.Had degrees from U. of Michegan and Yale, but was usually seen as stupid. Overall aura of lower middle class dom.Somewhat like Eisenhower,except that there is less testimony to his private brilliance.
9.Reagan: Tough call. He was obviously not as stupid as the Democrats wanted him to be, but he was not nearly as bright as his intellectual admirers would have us believe.Taken as a whole, he furthered the GOP as party of dunces image.
Bush 1: As Razib has noted, Bush was a lot smarter than the SNL Dana Carvey caricature would have us believe (teenage fighter pilot in WW2, graduate of Yale in three years while playing baseball and fathering children, degree in economics,etc).On the other hand, his clumsy syntax allowed people to think that he was an idiot. Even worse, Yale man Bush decided to deride Harvard man Dukakis as an elitest snob.
Bush2: The son as the father, only more so. Seemed to have an amplified version of his father’s aphasia. Coupled that with Texas “Backcountry” mannerisms (see David Hackett Fischer’s Albion’s Seed for details).Although not as stupid as he seemed (see Steve Sailor’s aricles comparing Bush’s i.q. with those of Gore and Kerry), he pounded the anti-intellectual drum. Based his campaign on the notion that he was more proletarian than his rivals. Unless the GOP nominates Palin, we cannot slip any lower.Except, of course, that Palin, unlike Bush 2, is really dumb.
Conclusion: Do I need to spell it out?Henry Adams liked to speak of the devolution in US presidents, as evidenced by the “progression” (“retrogression”?)of US presidents from Washington to Grant. Just compare Theodore Roosevelt to George W Bush, truly an “Hyperion to a Satyr.”
Looking over my post, I am strongly impressed by the importance of culture in shaping presidential affect. Harding was probably stupider than Bush 2, but the cultural climate of the 1920s meant that he had to maintain a certain level of decorum. Perhaps Bush 2 can best be described as Harding in a wifebeater?
“orthodox christian non-nerd”…like Huckabee? Or Palin? Both are punchlines and neither will get the nomination. Because they’re polarizing.
come now. how could you read my post and assume that i was offering huck or palin as the *only* alternatives. anyway, i’ve said it before, and said i’ll say it again: this long before the election we probably have only a sketchy outline of many of the possibilities. as an alternative to romney, what about john thune? he seems like an empty suit actually, but he’s reportedly as not nakedly unpolished as palin or huckabee (though i wouldn’t be surprised if he turns out to be totally transparent in his lack of intelligence or knowledge).
good point about the repubs picking “the next in line.” but
1) the sample size for these things is really small
2) john mccain is only a technical case of this in 2008. he really lucked out in a variety of ways to get the nomination, and was more an insurgent than a favorite.
Executive Summary: GOP can’t afford ideological purity in 12 (lest they cede independents to the DEMS), knows it can’t, and will be pragmatic in it’s effort to oust Obama.
i’m not talking about ideological purity, i’m talking about affect & identity. totally superficial, but that’s most people (barack obama looks black, and adopted a black identity, but his upbringing and beliefs are substantively at variance with most blacks).
anyway, i’d be happy to be wrong. you’re making me more optimistic.
Secularists, especially ones putatively dedicated to upholding rational/scientific thinking, would seemingly object to a candidate who affirms the mad visions of Joe Smith, not to say King Brigham’s theocratic wonderland….donde estan Golden Plates.
Ron Paul however quackish seems a bit more knowledgable in Constitutional principles than the Mittster
1) no president in the united states in the near future will *not* avow supernatural beliefs.
2) perhaps romney accepts the nakedly amusing aspects of mormonism as much as obama accepts christianity in private? romney’s folk are the mormons, so a repudiation of the religion would be a repudiation of his family and his lineage (it seems likely obama is a convert to a cultural/black nationalist christianity, and doesn’t really have much deep faith in the supernatural)
3) unlike paul romney accepts evolution. unlike most republicans, romney does not shy away from dismissing creationism and intelligent design as belong in a religion class.
Most material online suggests that Romney sides with creationists and fundamentalists.
Ron Paul said in 2008 or so that he accepted evolution being taught in public schools. He seems to accept the First Amendment (unlike most demopublicans). Unfortunately he did at one point claim the IDT merited equal time or something.
Most material online suggests that Romney sides with creationists and fundamentalists.
you do know not to believe everything you read online?
In regard to Romney’s Mormon beliefs,please note that Taft, elected to the presidency in 1908, was a Unitarian. Can anyone imagine the current GOP, dominated by lower middle class Evangelicals, nominating a candidate who does not believe in the divinity of Christ?While we are on the subject, please note the I.Q. differential between Unitarians and Biblical literalists.
Can anyone imagine the current GOP, dominated by lower middle class Evangelicals, nominating a candidate who does not believe in the divinity of Christ?
if romney gets nominated then notionally they’ll have elected a guy who isn’t really a monotheist by traditional christian definitions (kind of rich, as jews and muslims, and yes, unitarians, have often cast aspersions as to the monotheistic credentials of trinitarian christians). mormon theology is just as far from trinitarian christianity as unitarian christianity, just in the other direction.
Why do we always denigrate the republicans and exaggerate the democrats?
Carter did not have a degree in physics and was not a nuclear engineer. He probably took some physics classes and was a nuclear technologist. In other words, he was taught enough about nuclear energy to be aboard a nuclear vessel and pull levers and turn knobs. If he was an engineer he would have been able to get involved in the design of the nuclear vessel.
Likewise, Obama was not a professor. He was an adjunct instructor. To become a professor, he would have had to have a long distinguished publishing career with original materials. He has published nothing. He susposedly specialized in constitutional law, but doesn’t seem to know the basic concepts of the constitution.
I don’t think his problem is his “wonkishness”. I think his problem is his sincerity. Moderate liberal governor the one minute, ultra-conservative presidential candidate the next, followed by a more moderate tack this time around, etc. I don’t think there’s a solid political core there. He does whatever he thinks is fashionable at any moment. That’s what I think will sink him with conservatives. He’ll never earn their trust.
We are a really stupid civilization if we can’t vote for someone because we resent that they behave better and achieve more than us.
We deserve our collective fates if that is the case.
p.s. I don’t believe it is.
Actually, I’m a conservative who is NOT predisposed to vote for anyone the Republicans nominate. If it’s Romney or Huckabee, I will vote third party.
Leaving Huckabee aside for the moment, Romney comes off as a shyster who will say anything to get votes. If he is running for office in MA, he’s a moderate, New England Republican. When he ran for the GOP presidential nomination, he flip-flopped to pass himself off as a social conservative.
Frankly, I don’t really care about the social issues too much, but can’t bear dishonesty – and I hate it even more when someone insults my intelligence.
Say what you want about Sarah Palin, at least she’s no flip-flopper. I hope a fiscal conservative with a little more experience gets into the race (Rick Perry, maybe?), but I’ll take a lack of experience over an establishment blue-blood who lies to my face.
Romney is a loser, and if he gets the nomination, we’re stuck with another four years of Obama.
Uh…
Mitt Romney will not win the nomination because he is not Sarah Palin. Period.
In fact, no one who is not named Sarah Palin has a shot at the primary or the presidency in 2012.
Mitt Romney is a bit of a phony. He’s a squish. He flip flops on absolutely everything. He simply tells people what ever they want to hear at that particular moment.
On the other hand, Sarah Palin is a rock solid Conservative. She talks the talk and walks the walk. She is the real deal.
Sarah is a REAL fiscal conservative and a REAL constitutionalist.
Sarah left Alaska better than she found it. The same can’t be said of Romney.
Another thing about Palin…she is absolutely fearless. While she was out there kicking Obama’s ass, Willard was hiding under his desk hoping no one would realize RomneyCare was his mess.
Romney is just another in a long line of establishment Republicans who have helped screw the country up. Oh, he, and they, aren’t as bad as the communists in the democrat party, but they are enablers.
Sarah Palin, not so much. This is a woman who took down most of the Alaskan Republican party over corruption. (and lived to tell about it)
In short…Sarah Palin is a LEADER. Mitt Romney is middle management, at best.
The problem with Atheists, such as yourselves isn’t that you don’t believe in God, it’s that you look down on those of us that do.
That’s called arrogance or bigotry, take your pick.
Mitt isn’t “brainy” he’s wishy-washy. More nuanced, whatever works in the given moment, phoniness. And yes the elite love the guy but that’s not the worst thing about him. The phoniness and the socialized health-care are his biggest problems… As far as the elite pushing his candidacy, I’ll remind you that the elite got us to our current state of affairs, didn’t they.
Look down on Sarah Palin with the leftists all you want, it doesn’t change the fact that she has a proven record of reform and constitutional standards. You may not like her religion but she has NEVER allowed her beliefs to interfere with her governance.. Look up her decision on same-sex benefits if you don’t believe me.
Don’t buy the media hype, Sarah Palin is a good leader and is probably the only person that can clean up Obama’s mess. Considering she doesn’t have any special interests to interfere with the job she’ll need to do.
just a heads up to regular readers of SR, we got a link from *hot air*, explaining the new contributors to the discussion 🙂
The problem with Atheists, such as yourselves isn’t that you don’t believe in God, it’s that you look down on those of us that do.
i know technically christians are enjoined to be humble, but that has’t been my personal experience with the self-annointed “saved.” so all i have to say is john 8:7.
I agree with your assessment but your reasons are totally vacuous. Nothing you said will have any bearing on the decisions of reasonable people. It’s odd that a “secular” blogger would analyze Romney’s chances based purely on shallow perception.
Religion was used as a wedge issue against Romney and it hurt him in the Bible Belt. However, there is hope. Romney won West Virginia but McCain threw his delegates over to Huck to thwart Romney. Romney should kick off his campaign in West Virginia, and hammer hard on coal, natural gas and other energy and industrial issues. This would resonate strongly in Pennsylvania, WestVA, VA, KY, and it could have a bleed over effect into the rest of the South. Romney should be strong all over the North, and he should win California. Romney can definitely win this race and he is the front runner.
The problem with Atheists, such as yourselves isn’t that you don’t believe in God, it’s that you look down on those of us that do.
________________________________________
i know technically christians are enjoined to be humble, but that has’t been my personal experience with the self-annointed “saved.” so all i have to say is john 8:7.
So then you take it upon yourself to humble people, do you? That’s what your “reason” tells you do to, is it?
How about this one: Matthew 7:5
Thanks for the heads up, Razib. I was wondering where the Sarah Palin supporters were coming from. Incidentally, despite the prole/evangelical/lower middle class enthusiasm for Palin, I just can’t see what remains of the elite in the Republican Party allowing her to be nominated. She would be, after all, by far the stupidest major party candidate in living memory. I mean, she actually made pseudo intellectual Joe Biden look fairly smart.
On second thought, a few members of the Right Intelligentsia (Bill Kristol, Steve Sailer, etc.) have fallen to her siren song. Perhaps there are a few members of the elite who feel like committing mass political suicide.
trajan, i think that the elite will probably succeed in blocking her. but i don’t think she really wants to be president that badly, but a run might do her career some good (being a celebrity-politician-commentator).
Seriously, Palin IS dumb or at least not intelligent enough to warrant holding a position of high visibility within the party. She’s an unimaginative, intellectually vapid person who is more of a sad example of the state of leadership in the modern day conservative camp than someone we should be rallying around. Her phony outrage over the “retarded” comment was a perfect illustration of how mainstream conservatives will morph into PC pussies to score cheap political points in a heartbeat. Honestly, does she ever say anything even remotely interesting or that’s not spoken at 3rd grade level. Maybe that does resonate with a lot of people…but that’s more of a poor reflection of what our society has become rather than a testament to her abilities.
Go back and re-read the transcripts from the Nixon interviews with David Frost, particularly the foreign policy related ones and ask yourself if you think Palin could respond to questions on the same level. I’d just love to know what Palin thinks about the Greek civil war and or what her defense would be of the U.S. involvement in Chile with regard to Allende.
We seriously need to get intelligent, heavy hitters back at the forefront of our party. Say what one will about them, but Nixon and Reagan were people you knew were prepared to handle any question, from any reporter, in any debate, on any stage. With Palin every time she is asked a question you have to pray that she has at least some token knowledge on the subject and won’t come off like a total retard. Though lucky for us, not only have politicians dumbed down but so it seems have the reporters asking the questions. Though journalists are not so stupid as to not recognize they can caricature the entire GOP as a bunch of dimwits by giving Palin as much air time as possible to showcase her as some sort of archetype of conservative philosophy.
Mitt Romney is not a good Republican nominee not because he’s a Mormon but because his principles are looser than a New Orleans Prostitute’s! You want the “moderate” Mitt? Or do you like the “conservative” Mitt? Maybe you like the liberal Republican Mitt? Well, he’s been all three and will be again, likely. The man has no principles that he’ll stand by and simply bends like a reed in the wind… cynically doing so merely to get elected, mind you. He takes “re-invention” seriously, that’s for sure.
And therein lies Mitt’s major problem. When Americans vote for a president they like to feel they know what they are getting. Conservative, liberal, moderate, they’ll vote for ONE of these things, but they won’t vote for someone that is ALL of these things.
Mitt is a flip-flopper extraordinary. He cannot be trusted from one re-invention to the next. This sort of “whatever it takes” mien might work in the business community. But it does not work for the leadership of our nation. And this singular deficiency is precisely what the Democrats would pounce on. He is easily portrayed as a hallow man, a vacillating, a person unmoored from any identifiable principles.
Mitt Romney is a bad, bad idea. All Republicans should be avoiding him like the plague.
So the problem isn’t his conservative credentials?
*quotes from http://klsouth.wordpress.com/top-posts-essays/the-romney-rino-scorecard/
I know of two “named” comprehensive health care plans mandating coverage and expecting cost overruns and issue… Obamacare is one, isn’t the other known as RomneyCare? Isn’t that one of the things he’s proud of?
Well that doesn’t matter, one miss. He supported the Brady bill, because banning guns is… wait, is that Conservative? Well that and signing a Gun Control bill seems questionable on that count.
In his 1994 debate with Kennedy, Romney refused to endorse the “Contract With America,”… But hey, that wasn’t a very Conservative list at all. Right?
In his 1994 debate with Kennedy, Romney refused to endorse the “Contract With America,” which House Republicans had proudly presented as their campaign manifesto, and he balked when Kennedy tried to link him to the Reagan administration. “I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush,” Romney retorted.
“He does not appear to be credible in his deathbed conversions — pro-life, anti-homosexual agenda and so on,” says Paul Weyrich, a founder of the Heritage Foundation and the Moral Majority, the intellectual and religious bulwarks of what was once known as the New Right. “People simply do not believe him.”
Critics say his four years in office produced very little. “There’s two ways to look at this guy. One is that the glass is half empty. The other is that the glass is totally empty,” says Stephen Crosby, a Republican who served in the Swift administration and is now dean of the graduate school of policy studies at the University of Massachusetts, Boston.
McRomney-3 Mitt Romney represents everything that is wrong with our party and everything that has left us dying in a ditch after this last election. Romney is a pretend conservative. A RINO. Pretend conservatives are what got us to where we are and are what will completely destroy us if allowed. His support of the socialist bailout bill should be the killer for all thinking conservatives. We need to find good candidates by their current deeds and their record. Romney, now 61, will be an exact repeat of McCain.
ALL politicians play to their extremist base to get the nomination. WINNING politicians then play to the moderates in the general election. That is simple campaign 101 stuff. Walk to the extreme during the primary to win over the base and then run to the middle as party nominee. But who is Romney’s extremist base? It’s not conservatives. And, isn’t that exactly the type of RINO politician that Tea Party members and conservatives rally against? We need candidates who put their votes where their mouths is.
For starters, as Governor, Romney pledged to build the Massachusetts Republican Party, but in fact he did nothing. During his tenure there were two elections for the entire Legislature (2004 and 2006). In each election the Republicans lost seats. Republicans now hold the fewest seats in the Legislature since the Civil War. According to the Boston Globe (11/2/2006), during the four years of Romney’s tenure, the number of registered Republicans in Massachusetts fell by 31,000. During that same period, the Massachusetts Democratic Party gained 30,000.
Despite recent statements across the country by Mitt Romney claiming he’s pro-life, pro-family and a committed conservative, if you investigate his actual statements, actions, and public positions over the years one will learn that he has spent his entire career speaking and governing as a moderate – and that his new found conversion to conservatism very likely coincides with his candidacy for the presidency.
But, where is there anything in Mitt Romney’s record that indicates that he is anything but a moderate or tax and spender, once again, masquerading as a conservative. Didn’t we learn from 2008? When are the Republicans going to wake up and support someone who truly believes and acts conservative? This man was Governor from Massachusetts. Those Massachusetts liberals: Frank, Dukakis, Kennedy, Kerry and Mitt Romney. I suppose I could go on. Whoever heard of nominating a Republican leader from the state of MA?
Mitt Romney is no Reagan mitt_romney_for_presidentconservative… He is another two-faced politician saying whatever is necessary to get elected. It is obvious from media reports and heard from his own mouth he’s no constitutionalists and is a later day convert to the Pro-life cause. Aren’t we smart enough to see that we are being used by this Republican Bill Clinton?
The former CEO and Governor of Massachusetts tried to emerge as the Barack Obama of the GOP in the 2008 primary. And the analogy is apt. He has the resonant voice, the good looks, forceful speaker, the statesman-like bearing and, going Obama two better, great hair and unobtrusive ears. But Romney shares another commonality with Obama: He’s a liberal in his party-thinking masquerading as something more palatable. At this point, another politico he can be compared to is Al Gore. Like Gore, Romney has flip-flopped on abortion, only in the other direction.
Romney helped raise money for Planned Parenthood and supported gay rights until it was time to run for president. He supported a bail-out bill in Michigan during the primaries before it was popular. And, while he now claims to be pro-life, he supported legalization of the “morning-after” abortion pill, RU-486.
Yep, the problem is his intelligence… nothing at all to do with the fact that he’s been an extremely liberal “Republican” for years and has recently “reawakened” as a Conservative, without any history of doing anything like his current promises.
“the Boston Globe wrote in 2005, “Governor Mitt Romney, who touts his conservative credentials to out-of-state Republicans, has passed over GOP lawyers for three-quarters (75%) of the 36 judicial vacancies he has faced, instead tapping registered Democrats or independents” Awesome, who wants Republicans in places of power when you can have Democrats? Conservatives love giving high ranking jobs to Democrats… right?
You’ve totally got it pegged there. That’s why people hate Obama too, its because he’s such a smart guy; nothing to do with his policies and actions.
two points
1) interesting how it’s coming back to palin, though that was left implicit in the post. though actually as i said i don’t think palin has a chance in 2012 anyhow.
2) the flip-flopping charge is a valid one because mitt engaged in it so unartfully. but, a lot of politicians flip-flop, i think people can usually accept it. why not in mitt’s case? (george hw bush famously had a conversion from being pro-choice to pro-life in 1980 before being tapped as VP).
Romney is my pick for 2012. I will NEVER vote for Palin. People say how “real” Palin is. Well, the gal who works at the local C-store is “real” too. She probably has a higher IQ also.
David Hume said,
“as an alternative to romney, what about john thune? he seems like an empty suit actually, but he’s reportedly as not nakedly unpolished as palin or huckabee.”
1.) Razib, I don’t understand why you chose the word “unpolished” to describe Huckabee, why you put him in the same sentence with Palin. He might be a Baptist preacher, might be an Arkansan, but he is not an ignorant, uneducated, provincial man.
2.)I am rather interested in the latest leaks that Indiana guv Mitch Daniel is being urged to run, but as it stands now, I’d have to go w/ Romney, flips and all. He DOES understand economics, business, and I’d trust him to put together a good team over all others so far.
Ertdfg – sounds like from your post that Romney will get the Libertarian vote which has gotten a lot stronger in recent years.
Honestly, lately I have gotten very disillusioned with ideology, simply because the promoters didn’t follow through and never will. They had their chance. Now, I want the smartest, most competent guy who can come the closest to balancing the budget and still get the most conservative government possible in a 2 party run govt. The neo-con mindset cares more about great adventures and less about running the government properly, but this is leading us quickly to bankruptcy. We have had neo-con presidents; now we need someone who knows how to run the government, which will allow the Country to rebound from this recession.
carl, you’re right about the term i used in regards to huckabee. i thought about not doing so, but went ahead and did so anyway because i didn’t want to elaborate too much on the differences between palin and huckabee despite their commonalities. my bad.
David,
I think the thing with Romney is that we just want something better. Maybe Romney is almost in the league of George HW Bush or Dole…but even that’s just not quite good enough anymore. Republicans are tired of settling for a mediocre candidate and we’re not looking forward to having to defend a leader that constantly enacts policies we don’t even agree with half the time. I remember when Rush Limbaugh said after the 2006 elections that he felt liberated, that he no longer had to carry water for all these politicians that couldn’t explain their own positions.
I don’t know who the better alternative to Romney would be right now, but the fact that so many are “praying” for one to emerge is a sure sign that he’s not the right guy.
To those who feel Romney comes off as too handsome, too polished, too perfect to get votes, I’ve thought about that too, particularly in Midwestern/Southern primary states. In fact, the other day I told someone that were I his advisor, I’d mess up his hair a bit, tell him to lose the tie and dress down at least part of the time, and especially, tell him to slow down his delivery a bit. While he has no Northeastern accent, his delivery is rapid-fire Massachusetts at times.
So today, what happens? I saw him twice: saw a link to his interview with uber-lib Joy Behar and the gals of The View and later on Hannity’s show. (The pretext for the interviews is promotion of his book and his book, of course, is the prelude to his run.)
Big improvement over his primary appearances. First, on The View, he was relaxed, tieless, and Behar was actually flirty with him, won over, I’d say. He did his share of charming her, but not unctuously. On Hannity, he did wear the tie, but I noticed that his delivery was much slower than last time around, and he was relaxed, very good at listening, not interrupting.
I was less worried.
I cannot stand Mitt Romney. I pray he does not get the nomination. He is a PHONY! There is just something I can’t put my finger on about him. The author claims he is a nerd and that may be true but there is something else, something Stepford Wife-ish about him. He will not galvanize the base. There would not be enthusiasm about him, hence Republican/conservative turnout at the polls would be low. He would be a disaster. Do not let him in!
The real reason Mitt is a NO-GO is he’s just too socialist. You might call him a compassionate socialist conservative. Where ever you peg him, he’s still the Romneycare guy and would be an even worse disaster for the country than the Bushes and Obama.
His time has past. He would have been, maybe, ok as an FDR during the 1930s. And if he wants to replace Buckley, that’s OK with me. Never as President. Never as Vice-President. The page has turned and he’s simply just not on it.
It is sad how many “conservatives” have fallen for the liberal talking points and slanders against Sarah Palin. Reagan was dumb, Bush was dumb, and now Palin is dumb.
Funny how all those “conservatives” always support the kind establishment moderate Republican who inevitably goes down in flames. Most of them are also busy convincing themselves that Palin isn’t serious about running. I guess they can always hope, but I’m pretty sure she will run.
Honestly, if Romney wants to portray Palin supporters and Tea Party activists as dumb, middle-class redneck yokels who are too intellectually vapid to understand the nuances of his policy positions, he should go for it. We’ll just see how that works out.
She may not be my ideal candidate, but experience is overrated when compared to consistency and principle. “Nuance” is what got us where we are – staring into a fiscal abyss of debt.
It’s too early in my mind to speak with clarity about primary chances. You’ve got to wait until after the mid-terms and at least a bit through ’11 to get a decent view of the field.
In the past, we’ve seen plenty of examples of the truly realistic candidates not appearing obvious until shortly before the primaries or even only after the N.H. and Iowa circuses were over. In early 2006 Hillary was still the frontrunner and Obama hadn’t even decided yet if he was to run. McCain was considered dead meat well into the primaries yet people rallied to him as no other serious option emerged. In the 2004 race we all know the Howard Dean story but of course there was a time people thought Wesley Clark would be the ideal candidate as well.
I think Romney does have a chance simply because he’s a known, safe name and there will be so much populist yahoo talk around the campaign a lot of the ordinary voters will look for a reliably “presidential” safe choice. Romney seems like he could take that role at this point in time. Of course, someone else could emerge to take that role, one of the governors for example, but that remains to be seen.
If so…then do something besides wring your hands.
Spend the time now educating fiscal conservatives (both secular and religious) that Romney is the MAN!
Mix in a lil Paul Ryan and Scott Brown as cheerleaders (is it too much to hope that Sarah Palin could get behind him for the good of the country? She’s a patriot, right? so i don’t think so)
I spring from your basic fundamental religious right and I know that in their hearts as long as the country is safe they can still “just keep praying” for a change in all the rest.
If Romney nails down a way out of this mess they’ll vote for him. They may love and recognize Sarah but, they’ll vote for him.
If I can’t have Huntsman I want Romney in 12.
I can’t think of one GOP candidate who is better qualified to put our country on the right fiscal track.
This faux bickering about Romney is absurd!
soon this could be another GOPers for Hillary site! Hillary’s probably a bit more capable, courageous, and conservative than….the Mittster. And also at times sounds fairly secularist as well
Trajan23, Hume: I agree with you guys that the GOP grey-beards will never allow Palin to get the nomination. And I think that Razib is probably right that she doesn’t even really want it.
To all the fervent Palin-supporters out there: Do you really think it was good politics for a person with presidential ambitions to quit the most serious and consequential office she’d been elected to? She quit as Governor before her term ended. Let that sink in…she QUIT. When the going got tough, she quit. When the storm picked up, she bailed.
To any and every argument or point advanced in Palin’s favor, the devastating and unanswerable reply is: yeah, well, she quit. Therefore, she’s unserious. Therefore she’s unqualified. Q.E.D.
(Also, go back and watch the VP debate. Joe Biden – who’s without a doubt the dumbest, most incompetent figure in the White House, absolutely owned her. He wiped the floor with her. She was inarticulate, incoherent, vapid, and clearly out of her depth. She made Biden look dignified, sober, and capable. Seriously.)
I think Palin’s admission of executive failure, i.e. her resignation, is a signal that she’s not serious about high office, and that she won’t even really try that hard. I think she’s much more comfortable, and effective, as a rally-er, as a fund-raiser, and as a quasi-kingmaker. GOP presidential hopefuls would do well to stay on her good side (as Romney did on Letterman, praising her “spirit” and “gusto” while demurring from the pointed question about her qualifications for President).
Maybe Romney’s not the guy. Who knows. I’d vote for him over Obama though. Or Thune. Or (say) Boehner, Cantor, or even Paul Ryan. The only GOPers I won’t vote for at the point is either Huck or Palin!
Peace.