August 29, 2007
Fashioning Clubs or “When Straw Men Attack”
“People are people so why should it be, you and I should get along so awfully?” - Depeche Mode (correction)
In this intense and heated environment of tightening presidential primary politics, bloggers and pundits are meshing together any stray piece of information to fashion blunt instruments in their attacks on the opposing candidate. I should admit that I am hardly exempt from this pastime but I try hard to keep to the subject at hand and avoid the tempting lure of manufacturing issues where none exist.
Tommy has crafted just such a weapon in his post against Romney. Here are the problems I see in his argument:
- First, a flip-flop is where a candidate takes a political stance on one issue, changes his mind and changes his position back to the original. While the case can be made that Romney has changed his position on abortion — this is not a flip-flop (unless he were to change back). In the case of Senator Craig this is certainly not a flip-flop.
- Second, calling on the sensitivities of Craig’s spouse and children to condemn Romney’s criticism of Craig is silly and irrelevant. If Romney did anything less than point out Craig’s admitted failings he would run the risk of skirting the issue. Note here, if Craig had the courage to admit the incident in June, there would be no rush to condemnation. I suppose by extension Tommy would recommend that the GOP Senate avoid anything that might offend the already fragile psyche of Craig’s family. I empathize with their troubles but we can do nothing less than condemn Craig for this incident. (personally, I think Craig is flat out lying)
- Third, I should ask this question: Is there anything in Romney’s condemnation or broader examination of the trends and GOP failures that is untrue? What Tommy sees as “opportunism” I see and serious and frank admission of a terrible black eye for the conservative movement.
- Fourth. It’s too easy for Tommy (in hindsight) to accuse the Romney campaign of sloppiness by not seeing the shadowy foibles of Senator Craig. When the first leftist blogs accused Craig of these type of peccadillo’s last October, it was roundly laughed off. (see this entry on Hotair for example).
- Fifth. The Litchfields and Semblers. I personally know the Litchfields and have no problem in saying that these are totally honorable people. I’ve met numerous individuals who have been through their programs (tough love camps for troubled teens) and how it has changed their lives. These type of programs are routinely subjected to lawsuits due to the aggressive rehabilitation that occurs there. Final points here. Could there have been wrong doing at one of the dozens of camps that the Litchfields and Semblers own? Yes. Should that reflect badly on Gov. Romney without warrant or context. No.
- Sixth. Tommy accuses the larger “Team Romney” of this same seedy nature. I ask Tommy: have you personally ever met anyone on “Team Romney”? Have you traded emails or spoken with Stephen Smith, Mindy Finn, Peter Flaherty, Eric Ferhnstrom, Spencer Zwick, …? This is the real team Romney and I can’t think of a better crowd.
To sum up: Tommy accuses Hugh of bias but I believe that Tommy’s homemade anti-Romney Viewfinder is the real issue here.
http://race42008.com/2007/08/29/fashioning-clubs-or-when-straw-men-attack/trackback/
August 29th, 2007 at 8:41 am
“People Are People” was by Depeche Mode, Justin. Sorry man.
August 29th, 2007 at 8:51 am
imo, the fact that the media has been having a field day earlier this week and that this website largely ignored it (especially compared to today) goes to show a pro-romney bias.
August 29th, 2007 at 8:58 am
This news hit mainstream America yesterday morning. We were talking about it the night before it did, if not sooner.
August 29th, 2007 at 9:08 am
For those who are attacking Romney for throwing Craig “under the bus”, it should be noted that Ethics and Corruption are (in the latest Rasmussen poll) the top issues right now - more than the war on terror, immigration, or Iraq. So, while the anti-Romeny crowd may want to bite his head off, I doubt the American public is going to have any problem with his (Romney’s) actions.
August 29th, 2007 at 9:13 am
I agree with Justin’s analysis of Oliver’s piece. It is hard to understand where he is coming from.
This was a test for me watching Romney. If he would have skirted the issue or said, lets give him the benefit of the doubt, he would have lost my support.
it is idiots like craig that are ruining the chance of conservatives to implement princples that will make our country strong. craig is the worst form of hypocrit.
Romney did the right thing by ending that relationship.
it was not romney who threw craig under the bus, it was craig who threw romney and conservatives under the bus with his arrogance.
he needs to resign. he plead guilty. we all know he is guilty nad he won’t simply admit it and move on. it is this arrogance that lost us power in 06.
kudos for romney for pointing it out and having zero tolerance for it.
August 29th, 2007 at 9:28 am
Justin, I never accused Romney of flip flopping in my piece. I pointed out that he was pandering, but I never accused him of an actual flip flop.
I said, “have been slow to publicly accuse him of pandering and flip-flopping in the past. Today, he went beyond the boundary, and crossed that line.â€?
And secondly, I will have a much more detailed response to you tonight when I have time to post, but since I have a job, I don’t have time to lay one out now.
August 29th, 2007 at 9:34 am
And justin, Senator Larry Craig has been accused of this since 1982, not October. Check the facts or history of the case.
August 29th, 2007 at 9:40 am
This whole situation, though, isn’t about Romney. It shouldn’t have been made about Romney. All this was about was some scumbag Senator who deserved to be outed for what he was, some scumbag. Frankly, if I had a friend who turned out to be slime I wouldn’t want others to view me as such just because of him.
Romney may have been a bit over the top in his reaction and if he knew about Craig’s behaviors beforehand, then it’s a bit hypocritical of him, but he publicly condemned a man who was a large part of his campaign because he did something this disgusting and admitted guilt to it (kind of). I don’t see the problem outside of the bad publicity of pointing out that Romney judged Craig’s character poorly…then again, so did the entire state of Idaho…
August 29th, 2007 at 10:16 am
What impresses me most about this website is the quality of the debate–on all sides. Emotions run deep in a presidential campaign, particularly among people like us who care deeply about the future of our nation. Emotions are going to be passionately expressed when an event like the Craig incident occur, but what’s great about race42008 is that the debate is governed by reason and relative civility. I believe in Mitt and his character, but if I was suspicious about the guy I can certainly see how I might view this issue differently. Kudos to all sides.
August 29th, 2007 at 10:17 am
Tommy, are you saying you would check out every single source, no matter how questionable they may be, and go as far in the past as you can go before voting for your state officials? Did you actually do it? True, the accusation, a weak one, against Craig had popped up in 1982, but since then, he was accused far and wide in between - not enough to gain any “foothold”. There was no constancy with those accusations, and a very few of them were from questionable sources. It is VERY difficult to judge the heart of the man even among those you associate with on a daily basis. Can you truly say who your co-workers are on the inside, when they are at home alone? We can only do the best in discerning the goodness in men and women, and then hope for the best from them and ourselves. True, Senator Craig is hypocrite, not because he went against what we believe. In that, he has always been on the right. He has always voted for what is in best interest for the families and the society. Where he is wrong is how he failed to acknowledge this problem to himself, and do something about it. He may have thought he can overcome it by ignoring and hiding it, an often occassion for all of us with our various problems and challenges. He failed because he was only a human, but he has never failed us social conservatives! Yes, the revelation from yesterday has reflected badly on our image, but do not forget who we are. We are those who hope for the best in each person.
August 29th, 2007 at 10:30 am
What we are seeing here is a phenomena that I first witnessed about fifteen years ago. The company I was working for decided that they would give each and everyone of their employees shares of stock worth about $100 at the time. I vividly remember sitting in the break room after this announcement had been given. Most people were very happy about it, except for one man. He proclaimed, “They’re not fooling me. All they want is to make people happy about working here.”
Since then, I have seen this time and time again. It can be stated in the following way, “Don’t bother me with facts. I’ve already made up my mind.” Or to put it another way, “Twist the facts to fit the theory.”
The Romney-haters have decided that Romney is an unprincipled political opportunist. No matter what he does, he is an unprincipled political opportunist. That is what he is. Period. End of story.
Romney supports the troops. This unprincipled political opportunist is cynically appealing to the conservative vote.
Romney honors and respects his wife. This unprincipled political opportunist is exploiting the personal tragedies in the lives of his opponents.
Romney does “….”. This unprincipled political opportunist is only “……”.
Just fill in the blanks. It really isn’t that hard.
It is a bit sad, though.
August 29th, 2007 at 10:30 am
[...] rebuttal attempts more to slime Tommy Oliver than to acquit Milton Romney. We answer each of Hart’s rebuttals, each in its [...]
August 29th, 2007 at 11:48 am
As we all know, any race is the perception of how a candidate is viewed by the voters, and who in the end will be the most believeable, authentic, and has the strongest conservative views. Does Romney give the perception that he has always been a true conservative? I wonder.
We may all rally behind “our” candidate, but I dare say, that in our heart of hearts, we all know the real score, and Romney’s score as a true conservative is flawed to say the least. With that said, Tommy Oliver has given facts to support his claims in his article against Romney, and his beliefs and convictions do ring true.
August 29th, 2007 at 11:57 am
Excellent rebuttal.
http://FamiliesForRomney.blogspot.com
August 29th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
Shelbysbest#13,
What is a “True Conservative”? A liberal friend of mine told me in all seriousness just last Saturday that “True Conservatives” don’t like Gilbert and Sullivan.
Any and every “fact” that Tommy used, I am not disputing. I am disputing his interpretation of them. Don’t forget he also left out a number of other facts the show Romney is a man of the highest character and has been for decades.
I’ve carefully studied the backgrounds of each of the four top GOP candidates. I have studied their speeches. I have watched what they have done versus what they have said. I have listened to the reasoned arguments against them. (Notice I said “reasoned”. I tend to dismiss rants, even against those I dislike.) I’ve looked into the backgrounds of those speaking for them, and those speaking against them. What slants were they giving? What sort of people do they surround themselves with?
Most important of all, I went in with the attitude that I could be wrong. I vigorously attacked my own preconceptions. I looked for the bad in people I liked. I looked for the good in people I disliked.
I have come out of that process a firm Romney man. He is by far the best candidate of either party in 2008. After Romney, I kinda like Huckabee.
I suggest you do the research yourself. See if the preception of Romney being an unprincipled political opportunist is truly warrented.
August 29th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
Mark, you make some valid points, both about the interpretation of the facts, and what defines a conservative. However, we may never be able to agree on either of them.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/11/rebuilding_a_conservative_repu.html
By the way, I do read and research the candidates for myself, and I never take the word of someone else as the basis for my opinion.
August 29th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
I agree completely Mark. I always find it utterly puzzling to see Republicans who are more concerned with promoting their candidate, then promoting conservatism. I don’t want Romney to win. I want conservatism to win. Next November, and beyond. And the fact that I’ve cooled to Romney slightly reflects that fact. It reflects a reassessment of the conditions necessary for the short-term and long-term triumph of conservatism. And I have no doubt that my opinion on Romney and other candidates will change as the season progresses.
I started out incredibly enthusiastic about Fred. I’m now extraordinarily opposed to him. I went from Rudy being a close second choice, to being unable to support him in any circumstances, back to him being my second choice. Things change and ought to. Candidates show themselves to be strong or weak. And it’s incredibly distressing that hardly anyone on this site seems to react with anything like the sort of open-mindedness towards various candidates, which is essential to the triumph of conservatism. Instead, they pick their horse, and relentlessly beat on the other horses, without once stopping to ask themselves “am I following the dictates of logic, and reacting to the evidence at hand fairly and impartially?”.
August 29th, 2007 at 5:20 pm
Mr. Hart,
In response to your post, I have chosen to address your points one at a time.
· First, a flip-flop is where a candidate takes a political stance on one issue, changes his mind and changes his position back to the original. While the case can be made that Romney has changed his position on abortion — this is not a flip-flop (unless he were to change back). In the case of Senator Craig this is certainly not a flip-flop.
You accuse me of calling former Governor Mitt Romney a flip flopper, which I never did. I accused him of pandering, and opportunism. I even mentioned that I had been slow to call out Romney on his perceived flip-flops. You obviously didn’t read close enough to understand my points in the first place which are A) I don’t trust Mitt Romney as a judge of character at this point, B) I think he’s an opportunist, and C) I am not a fan of the CEO mentality.
· Second, calling on the sensitivities of Craig’s spouse and children to condemn Romney’s criticism of Craig is silly and irrelevant. If Romney did anything less than point out Craig’s admitted failings he would run the risk of skirting the issue. Note here, if Craig had the courage to admit the incident in June, there would be no rush to condemnation. I suppose by extension Tommy would recommend that the GOP Senate avoid anything that might offend the already fragile psyche of Craig’s family. I empathize with their troubles but we can do nothing less than condemn Craig for this incident. (personally, I think Craig is flat out lying)
Wrong again, Mitt Romney named be one of his representative liaisons in the senate. That is a position that is not of little importance. You obviously didn’t read my prior post about Senator Craig, in which I did basically call out the entire GOP leadership in the senate.
You say, “If Craig had admitted in June about this. Justin, the bottom line is that Craig’s behavior has been public knowledge since 1982, when he was accused of providing cocaine to congressional pages and having sex with them. You obviously didn’t check the source I provided which the link to a broadcast from NBC news tonight report that same year. Justin, that’s not a local broadcast, but NBC news. Like I said originally, if Romney wasn’t aware of this behavior, then he is not the CEO I thought him to be.
· Third, I should ask this question: Is there anything in Romney’s condemnation or broader examination of the trends and GOP failures that is untrue? What Tommy sees as “opportunism� I see and serious and frank admission of a terrible black eye for the conservative movement.
Justin, yes there is. As I updated my post with earlier, after a similar scandal, Barry Goldwater wrote:
“It was a sad time for Jenkins’ wife and children, and I was not about to add to their private sorrow. Winning isn’t everything. Some things, like loyalty to friends or lasting principle, are more important.�
It’s a black eye for the conservative movement? I find what he did wrong, but no worse than what David Vitter did. Romney’s comments were irresponsible and over the top. What Romney and some of his supporters still don’t understand is that here in the deep south, where the GOP must retain some support or the election will end up miserably, people don’t want anybody else to tell them the right and wrong of their personal decisions. They have their opinions and disapprove, but a large majority of them don’t want to be preached to about virtues. What belongs in a bedroom should stay in a bedroom. Do I personally agree with it? No, but I am in no position to lay moral judgement upon others. Romney could’ve stayed on the right side of the issue by stopping at the issue of breaking the law, but he didn’t. David Vitter broke the law, and of course, neither Mitt Romney nor Hugh Hewitt called out Mr. Vitter when it became known that he solicited a prostitute. That is against the law too, and definitely no worse of a person convicted of pleading guilty “disorderly conduct,� but you and Mr. Hewitt both seem unable to come to grips with the fact that not only did this man possibly cheat on his wife, but allegedly with another man. The fact is that, for better or worse, we live in a free society governed by laws that separate the church and the state. Finding something morally repugnant is not sufficient grounds for removal. Breaking the law is, but politicians have broken minor laws over the years, and many were a lot more serious than “disorderly conduct.� Let me be perfectly clear, I am a federalist in principle, not a moralist. I find Mr. Craig’s alleged actions to be disgusting and also agree that he needs to go, but so does Vitter.
Romney also decided to compare Larry Craig to Bill Clinton and Mark Foley. This makes me seriously wonder about his judgment. First of all, according to the case, Mark Foley was directly linked to congressional pages. That alone should be cause for removal, as he is somewhat responsible for their care. Unless Romney was well aware of the 1982 accusations against Craig beforehand, then why compare him to Foley? If Craig’s actions were only based on what has been leaked, then there is no reason to compare him to Foley, other than his sexuality. Secondly, what in the world does Clinton have to do with Foley and Craig? I hate defending the former president, but by using the most obvious democrat example of immorality, it looks like nothing more than a cheap shot across the aisle at someone the party is going to have to deal with in the general election. Bill Clinton cheated on his wife with a consenting adult. Bill Clinton was never involved with young boys, and Bill Clinton did solicit sex from an undercover cop or a prostitute. Just because he has proven to be a less than ideal model for how a husband should behave, it does not put him in the same class as having illicit, illegal sex. Lying under oath does not have anything to do with sexual crimes, even if that is what Clinton was lying about. His grounds for impeachment were not because he had sex with Monica Lewinsky, but because he lied under oath. The Constitution does not judge a person for their moral failures, and no law making it illegal to commit adultery would ever pass, as it would shot down by the Supreme Court. You see, some are misguided in what nominating originalists, such as Scalia or Thomas, would mean for the conservative movement. They would not pass any of the “dream laws� for those who claim to want to clean up the morality in this country. This is not the case. These judges, as proponents of originalist theory, are in favor of returning power to the states, not passing federal bans on marriage, abortion (at least not until the debate of when life begins is over), or any other wide reaching federal mandate that prohibits morally indecent acts. One would have better luck getting Ruth Bader Ginsberg to vote for it, as she is in favor of passing legislation that will be implemented on a federal level (of course, first they’d have to convert her to the pro-life cause, which might be just as difficult). It’s what all the “Johnny Come Lately’s� to federalist principle do not understand. Federalism is not a codeword for compassionate conservatism, or moral majorities. It is the separation of power by ceding authority to the states. That includes moral and legal authority. It is not as extreme as isolationism, and holds firm in the belief that the federal government should provide only when necessary.
· Fourth. It’s too easy for Tommy (in hindsight) to accuse the Romney campaign of sloppiness by not seeing the shadowy foibles of Senator Craig. When the first leftist blogs accused Craig of these type of peccadillo’s last October, it was roundly laughed off. (see this entry on Hotair for example).
· Fifth. The Litchfields and Semblers. I personally know the Litchfields and have no problem in saying that these are totally honorable people. I’ve met numerous individuals who have been through their programs (tough love camps for troubled teens) and how it has changed their lives. These type of programs are routinely subjected to lawsuits due to the aggressive rehabilitation that occurs there. Final points here. Could there have been wrong doing at one of the dozens of camps that the Litchfields and Semblers own? Yes. Should that reflect badly on Gov. Romney without warrant or context? No.
· Sixth. Tommy accuses the larger “Team Romney� of this same seedy nature. I ask Tommy: have you personally ever met anyone on “Team Romney�? Have you traded emails or spoken with Stephen Smith, Mindy Finn, Peter Flaherty, Eric Ferhnstrom, Spencer Zwick, …? This is the real team Romney and I can’t think of a better crowd.
Justin, as I explained above, this was not something that came out in October. There were federal investigations into Craig’s behavior as early as 1982. While this did not prove that he was guilty, it should not have come as a big surprise when rumors began to swirl again. If Romney was willing to take a chance by having Craig publicly represent his candidacy, he should not be so quick to cast judgment on others. We are taught to forgive those of their transgressions. For example, do I find what Ted Haggard did to be disgusting morally? Yes. However, if I were a personal friend of the man, I would admit to being disappointed in his behavior, but well aware of how my comments would be taken by those who he has hurt. Look again at the example set by Rudy Giuliani. When Vitter and his South Carolina campaign official both caused scandal, he expressed disappointment in their actions, and publicly said that he hoped that they would seek help. That is how I would expect a person who is running for president to respond. I hope that the person I vote for is a leader who is moral and fair. I’m sure that Giuliani was let down, and hurt by their actions, but he had the decency to not make the situation even worse for them or their party, and their problems ultimately did not come back to haunt him or the party, only the candidate. By inserting himself into the debate, Romney has now made this a campaign issue for which he is to be held accountable. My examples of Sembler and Litchfield are there to reinforce my point. Litchfield is currently under investigation for teenage programs that he is ultimately accountable for. Is he guilty? That is not the point. The point is that Romney is able to overlook their alleged transgressions and ultimately he made that judgment call. I have also been in contact with a couple of families who came from the program, but did not fare as well as those whom you are familiar with. What I posted originally was not an opinion of Mr. Litchfield’s guilt or innocence. If that were the purpose, then I would’ve hit a lot harder than I did, but since I didn’t, you seem to think I am just grasping at straws. Justin, I have researched the case extensively, and if I was intent on proving the guilt or innocence of Robert Litchfield, his brother, or anyone else involved with the case, I could’ve made accusations that are much tougher than the ones listed. I listed the two recent media articles because as I said before, I am not casting guilt upon them. I am questioning Mitt Romney’s judgment. If a court finds Litchfield guilty, then Romney will have found himself in the same position. Naming people under investigation or with questionable ties to represent you is your own fault. Their fault lies in their actions, and the Romney’s fault lies in the fact that he seems willing to appoint some people with shady ties to help him win. The bottom line is that he shouldn’t act shocked when it comes back to haunt him, and to feign ignorance and use it as a way to attack Bill Clinton is questionable. The GOP has enough problems than bringing him into this mess.
Now, do I question the integrity of everyone who is a member of Romney’s campaign? No, of course not. I’m sure there are fine people working for him who only want what they believe is best for their country. However, do I question the judgment of Mitt Romney, the candidate for the republican nomination? Yes.
Before I posted yesterday’s article, I sent my article out to more than one person to make sure I was not out of bounds. Not every one of them agreed with my conclusions, but none thought that my concerns were out of bounds. Did some debate me and disagree with me? Yes, including some fairly famous media names, who’ve interviewed the candidate, or have actually been in contact with you personally. However, nobody said that I crossed the line in my reasoning; they just had their own conclusions on the matter.
Tommy
August 29th, 2007 at 6:32 pm
[...] is my response to Mr. Justin Hart, a prominent Romney supporter who takes issue with my article- a Conservative Superiority [...]
August 29th, 2007 at 10:14 pm
Matt,
Opening disclosure: I am not that that interested in policies, per se. Those can change in a heartbeat. What I am looking for is character more than anything.
My assessment of the top tier has not changed that much over the last six months. Of the four, I am most scared of McCain. Why? Because he has a mean, nasty, petty streak that truly frightens me. He tends to viscously attack anyone who gets in his way. Then there is that famous quote of his, “I would rather have clean government than so-called freedom of speech”. YOUCH!!! I don’t want anyone like that anywhere near the Oval Office. Nor does he have any executive experience to speak of. He can run a Senate office. With the difficulty he has been having running his campaign, that seem about it. We want to give the reins of the largest organization on the planet to that man?
The fact that Giuliani has been divorced twice does not bother me. The fact that his kids don’t adore the ground he walks on doesn’t bother me. The fact that he went out of his way to humiliate his wife in the most public possible way does. Then there is the fact that he has changed his mind on several topics, yet insists he hasn’t. That really bugs me. It reminds me of my son when he was about ten years old. He would trip his siblings right in front of me as I was watching, and then claim that he never did it. I do hope to see better behavior in my President than that of ten-year-old. On the positive side, Giuliani has a great deal of executive experience, and he performed well under a crisis. I would not cry too hard if he got the nomination, though I would worry about putting a decidedly pro-abortion man in the White House when so many Supreme Court seats will be opening up shortly.
Then there is Thompson. My opinion of him has changed least of all. When I studied his record — thank-you, Tommy — I found he served a little more than a single term as Senator. He never put his name on any major piece of legislation. He served on a number of committees without distinction. He essentially got bored and left. He seems to relish acting where other people decide what you are going to do and say. He just seems to be coasting through life, completely satisfied with his mediocrity. He has next to no executive experience beyond running a Senate office and a small law firm. His campaign so far has been a series of miscues. Do we really want such a man as President? Beyond a nice comfortable folksy demeanor, what exactly does he bring to the table?
Of the lower tier, I kind of liked Brownback until he went nuclear before Ames. He attacked and smeared everybody. I have no problem with criticizing your opponents. You do have to separate yourself from them, after all. But I do draw the line at ranting and raving.
Huckabee shows definite promise after Ames. I hope he gets some well-deserved money and some real momentum behind him. But his opportunity for that is closing, I’m afraid.
Tancredo is a one-trick pony. No matter how hard he tries, he can’t justify his candidacy beyond his single issue. You don’t elect a man President for one reason and one reason only.
Paul pushes isolationism. No thanks. That hasn’t worked since the Monroe administration.
Hunter doesn’t even register.