On Objectionably Unfit Mitt Romney, Peter Robinson Makes the Closing Argument
Of all the things about Mitt Romney’s candidacy, his assumption of the mantle of Ronald Reagan is perhaps the second most infuriating (the most infuriating involves why he is Objectively Unfit Mitt).
Peter Robinson at National Revew Online is among the infuriated (bolds are mine):
Everybody knew just where Reagan stood. And therefore everybody knew, again, when Reagan was advancing his program and when he was merely maneuvering, as best he could, through the politics of the day.
Which brings me to the current candidates.
The reason I find Romney so flawed is precisely that he is so utterly unlike Reagan in this critical regard. First Romney was pro-choice. Now—a scant two years later—he’s pro-life. First Romney was a social conservative. Now he’s some sort of managerial moderate. Until about a week ago, Romney was in favor of limited government. Then he began campaigning in Michigan, where he suddenly discovered that the American automotive industry required the close and intensive supervision of the federal government to recover—and federal handout of some $20 billion to engage in research that Toyota is already conducting. Over and over again, ceaselessly, with his inimitable chirpiness, Romney claims the Reagan mantle. Yet when Teddy Kennedy accused Romney of being a Reagan-Bush Republican during a 1994 debate, Romney appeared shocked. “Look, I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush,†Romney replied indignantly. “I’m not trying to return to Reagan-Bush.â€
People who know Romney well—people such as Dean Barnett, with whom, as it happens, I just had a cup of coffee—tell me that the true Romney, the inner Romney, really is a Reagan Republican. Maybe. But I’d sure like to be able to do more than take Dean’s word for it. (Not, come to think of it, that his knowledge of the inner Romney has enabled Dean himself to view Romney’s conduct with equanimity. As Dean wrote this very week in the New York Times, Romney has “mounted a campaign that was, at its most basic level, insincere.â€)
Robinson didn’t even get to how Romney has, to make his alleged prolife “epiphany” appear more credible, totally miscast Reagan as “adamantly” prolife. This research into what actually happened in California with abortion legislation shortly after Reagan became governor utterly debunks that claim.
As to the Reagan-Bush mantle, South Carolina voters would be well-advised to play this 4-second clip of the quote Robinson referred to above over, and over, and over, to their Romney-supporting friends (YouTube link here):
Young people growing up todoay are going to have to think long and hard about everything they say, even as candidates for student council rep. Because everything could be fodder for a future flip-flop attack ad on the Internet. This is good and bad. TJ Walker tjwalker.com
Comment by TJ Walker tjwalker.com — January 19, 2008 @ 9:36 am
I’ve been following the candidates and I have to say Hillary, McCain and Huckabee have more spin then a yo-yo. Your comment about Romney is just anti-Romney rhetoric and means nothing. The media spins comments to support their agenda as much as any body else.
I want the best and brightest we have in the White House. I want someone who I can trust that can’t be bought for political favors. I want someone who works hard and has sound judgment.
The way I’m evaluating candidates for my vote is based on the following items:
1. Have they been involved in any questionable unethical behavior? (If anything is unethical - they’re out. I can not trust them and they will not get my vote. There is no pass on this, because I never know when they will have another lapse in ethics.)
2. What is their education background? I want the best and brightest in the White House.
3. What is their leadership experience? There is NO substitute for experience. The ones that say there is; are the ones that don’t have the experience.
4. What is their voting and/or policy record? I look for policies that keep America strong both economic and foreign. I look for policies that give Americans a hand up, not a hand out. I look for policies that will support a strong work ethic and education. I look for policies that are consistent and well thought out in the effect that it will bring to our economy, culture and relationship with other countries.
5. How do they treat their spouses and children? This shows me how they will treat others and set their personal priorities. If they are true to their families, they will be true to Americans. If they are not supportive or loyal to the people they love the most, they won’t be supportive or loyal to the people they know the least. I also think this is important to ensure our candidate is above any personal risk extortion.
Don’t give me any more rhetoric, give me information on these items.
Comment by tk — January 19, 2008 @ 1:19 pm
Tom, I’ll have to disagree with you on this topic.
1) Rudy Giuliani is qualified, able and possesses enough questionable ties to suspect people and activities that the Clinton campaign could destroy him in the general without even breathing hard.
2) If Fred Thompson had more money and a better organization, he might stand a chance in the general. As it stands today, while I really like him, he appears to have neither. And his lack of preparation on some issues really shows. That won’t work against Hillary or Obama.
3) John McCain is a patriot and a crusty Beltway veteran who clearly favors amnesty for illegal immigrants, deplores energy exploration in ANWR, created the most egregious campaign finance laws in recent history and, in general, is more of a Democrat than a Republican. If the choice is between Hillary/Obama and McCain, most folks will vote for the genuine Democrat.
4) Huckabee is a disaster for the GOP. Consider his 1,033 pardons and commutations; his constant harping upon religion; the “nuanced” stands on immigration, higher taxes and other conservative principles, and lack of name appeal in the U.S. and you get a simple answer to the formula. Defeat in the general.
Romney, on the other hand, has proven he can “fool liberals” (Ann Coulter’s words); remember, he won Massachusetts (think about that)! Consider what a Republican would have to say to pull that off, then replay his offending remarks in context. Furthermore, Romney appears to be scrupulously honest (even done business with a Mormon? I have. They are fantastic people) and apparently is too rich to be bribed by anyone. Unlike, say, the Clintons (John Huang ring a bell?). And, as it pertains to the most important issue of our time, Romney has no issue calling out the enemy by his name: Islamofascists who wouldn’t hesitate to nuke our major cities if given an opportunity.
I don’t know if civilization really hangs in the balance, but it certainly appears that way to me. Thus, it’s about winning the general election. Mitt Romney appears to be the only candidate who has any hope of doing so.
Comment by Doug Ross — January 19, 2008 @ 5:46 pm
#3, I have to assume you’re late to this.
Follow the link to why he’s Objectively Unfit.
If constitutions mean anything to you, I do not see how you can treat Romney’s unilateral imposition of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts — a blatant violation of that state’s constitution and his oath of office — as anything short of a Dealbreaker.
Comment by TBlumer — January 20, 2008 @ 6:26 am
In my personal decision analysis matrix, the weightings go something like this:
1) Preventing the detonation of nuclear weapons in our cities: 100 points
2) Preventing same-sex marriage: 0.000001 points
Put it this way: if dirty bombs went off in, say, NYC, LA and DC on the same day, I don’t think same-sex marriage would make the headlines for quite some time.
Comment by Doug Ross — January 20, 2008 @ 10:16 am
#5, the problem is that you have no idea what a person who so recklessly disregards constitutional constraints would do once in power in ANY area, including overreaction in the WOT (he has advocated doubling the size of Guantanamo in a flourish of rhetorical excess not justified by conditions he would know anything about).
Comment by TBlumer — January 20, 2008 @ 1:43 pm
If there were a more substantial case that exhibited this behavior, I would tend to agree with that assessment. However: Romney has displayed such a spectacular managerial acumen — with high levels of honesty and ethical standards — in a variety of difficult (and some would say impossible) situations, that I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on this particular issue.
And - a question. If Romney faced Clinton in the general, for whom would you recommend I cast my vote?
Comment by Doug Ross — January 20, 2008 @ 9:20 pm
#7, First the issue was about as substantial as you can get: Do you acquiesce to a court that ILLEGALLY and unconstitutionally took a case, and then issued an unconstitutional “ruling” on an issue that goes to the heart and soul of a civilization? Or do you, as Hugh Hewitt himself suggested after the Goodridge ruling in 2003, ignore it and thereby stick to your constitutional duties?
Even if you don’t think Same-Sex marriage is a “big” issue, you have to admit that allowing a court to assert itself over something either the people should have voted on, or in absence of that, that the legislature was REQUIRED to pass before it would take effect is breathtakingly dangerous.
Also note that what Romney did was to keep a campaign promise to, in effect, govern unconstitutionally and to promise to violate his oath of office.
What if the Supremes say there is no individual right to gun ownership? Do we just hand over our guns, or does a President say “horse manure. That’s your opinion, I have mine, and I’m the executive.” (That’s how the US Constitution is SUPPOSED to work) A President Romney will cave. In fact with the SSM precedent, he’ll set up procedures for taking away guns without even asking Congress.
As to your hypothetical, it’s not happening, so I’m not answering.
As to Romney’s high ethical standards and business acumen (RomneyCare?), I would suggest that you don’t know Mitt. Take your pick from this list.
Comment by TBlumer — January 20, 2008 @ 10:54 pm
Well, the first of those links I visited was the Medved column about CNN’s claim that Romney is the weakest GOP candidate. The comments echoed my feelings, including:
“To be a phony and make millions of dollars and turn around the olympics that was millions in debt. Sure he’s a phony Christian also even though there’s no hint of scandal throughout his life. He’s a phony husband also even though he’s raised 5 fine sons and never cheated on his wife. He’s a phony business leader also despite the success of Dominos and Staples. He’s a phony pro-lifer even though he has the support of Jay Sekulow and Judge Bork,two staunch pro lifers. He’s phony on the border also even though he has the support of the toughest sheriff on the border.
I’m not voting for someone based on electibility if I don’t agree with him on issues.I’d rather lose with someone that defends conservative principles across the board. These early polls are popularity contests.At some point people will be watching debates between the two candidates on the stage. With Romney being the nom there will be a clear difference on illegal immigration with the dem candidate.A clear difference on taxes and so on. McCain would give the dem candidate political cover on immigration because he agrees with them.”
My aim in the general is to defeat the Democrats. As far as I can tell, Romney is the only person who can do that. Or… who would be your recommendation?
Comment by Doug Ross — January 21, 2008 @ 8:12 pm
Doug, you’ve bought a lot of stuff without inspecting the goods:
- Romney was the last of a string of GOP governors going back to Michael Dukakis’s successor. Note: the last. The Dems have the Gov’s mansion in MA for the first time in 16 years. Even Dem voters knew that they shouldn’t trust their own with executive power — until Romney. He left the GOP in serious disarray in MA. No one in MA will argue that he helped the GOP improve its standing in the state.
- You say that “Rudy Giuliani is qualified, able and possesses enough questionable ties to suspect people and activities that the Clinton campaign could destroy him in the general without even breathing hard.” Romney has at least three times the skeletons:
– here (about one of the companies that Bain raped, pillaged, and plundered)
– here (investments by Romney and Bain in Soviet and Red Chinese oil companies doing billions of dollars in business with Iran, while he browbeats pension funds over their Iranian investments)
– here (at the end of the post and in the comments, esp #9 - potential scandals that will nip at his heels over some very unsavory things).
This is just what I’m aware of.
- Other issues:
– Romney did nothing about sanctuary cities in MA, and as on almost everything else, is an alleged late “convert” to a conservative position.
– On abortion and gay marriage, you must read “The Mitt Romney Deception.” You can say you don’t care in the grand scheme of things, but you’ll also have to admit that, based on what Mitt Romney ACTUALLY DID, Bork and Sekulow and others are either ignorant or have been co-opted.
As to a general election contest, even if by some miracle none of the skeletons referred to above come out, the fact is that RomneyCare in MA is blowing up, and its blowup will dominate discussion of his record. Deval Patrick will surely blame it all on poor Romney design (mostly correct), and Hillary or Obama will say, “See, it’s not enough for just one state to do it, government-run health care has to be nationalized or it won’t work.” What possible defense will he have? He’ll be in the same situation Dukakis was in as the “Massachusetts Miracle” was blowing up in his face — Except Old Media will make sure RomneyCare’s problems will be more visible.
Finally, with Rudy, at least you know that what you see is what you get. With Romney, we have no idea — None.
Comment by TBlumer — January 22, 2008 @ 12:15 am