Ambinder notices that Pawlenty ‘12 seems to be treading water, and opines as to the possible reasons why:
Even Mitt Romney doesn’t like to be called “Romneyesque” these days. The word has a legacy albatross from the 2008 Republican primary, when Romney, a can-do pragmatic governor of a relatively liberal state, swerved to the right to prove himself acceptable to conservative primary voters. “Romneyesque,” as an epithet, conveys a willingness to abandon one’s core convictions — in Romney’s case, temperance and modesty on social issues — in order to pander. It was always kind of unfair in that Romney didn’t shift his positions much, just his tone. But the label stuck.
It’s no surprise that no potential 2012 aspirant wants the Romney-esque tag. Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-MN) is in danger of acquiring the label. Dan Balz, an influential and well-respected political journalist, pointed to Pawlenty’s flip-flop on climate change, his seeming eagerness to plunge into the tea party crowd’s daily obsessions — whether they be the president’s address to schoolkids or the notion that health care mandates violate the 10th amendment or the idea that Sen. Olympia Snowe isn’t sufficiently conservative to be a Republican.
No, no no no, say Pawlenty aides. No. No, and no again. Pawlenty is and has always been a conservative, they insist. He never liked being called a “moderate,” they insist. His Sam’s Club populism doesn’t require an expansive role for government. Unlike Romney, Pawlenty has A+ credentials with Christian conservatives, and so on.
But it’s not the issues. It’s the tone. It’s the symbol management. It’s the willingness to be comfortable in one’s skin — to be a conservative who doesn’t have to prove to the world that he is conservative. Effortless conservatism, in other words, does not require a temperate person like Tim Pawlenty to become a red meat rabble rouser. Absolutely, this is a standard that is imposed on the Republican presidential field by the media, but it’s a standard that derives its strength from the reality that conservative primary voters don’t want a phony and don’t need to be pandered to.
The real issue with both Romney ‘08 and Pawlenty ‘12 is not that the Republican base demands pandering or phoniness — heck, if anything, the race for 2008 proved that the GOP base will reject rump-kissing, even if it’s the rump of the base that’s being kissed. Instead, the reason that Romney (and to some extent, Rudy and Huckabee) failed in 2008 and the reason that Pawlenty doesn’t seem to be going anywhere this cycle has to do with the delicate balancing act intrinsic in the candidacy of a hyphenated conservative.
The political class loves to play up the chances of hyphenated conservatives due to the supposed contradictions that lie within these candidates. “Sam’s Club Republicanism” gives pundits something to write columns about. “Compassionate conservatism” does the same. Rudy’s hawkish, soft libertarianism made Beltway types scratch their heads and think for a moment. So did Huckabee’s populist conservatism and Ron Paul’s hard libertarian realism. Folks who think about politics for a living find little to get excited about in a run of the mill, down-the-line conservative. It’s the heterodox that are interesting.
But while the chattering classes benefit from presidential runs by hyphenated conservatives, the Republican Party doesn’t. That’s because the hyphenated conservative comes out of the gate as a candidate who is by definition unacceptable to at least one segment of the Republican coalition, forcing the candidate to either change his views on those issues, making him inauthentic, or requiring the candidate to spend months and months emphasizing all the ways in which he is a “true conservative,” resulting is so much red meat thrown in so many different directions that swing voters become convinced they’re being asked to vote for Glenn Beck. The result is that a once perfectly respectable candidate ends up being branded a phony or a lunatic in the American political psyche.
We saw this with Rudy in 2008. There was no way Rudy could run away from his views on social issues, so instead, he tried really, really hard to emphasize his views on economic and security issues. The solutions-oriented former mayor ran a campaign light on economic solutions and heavy on the abstract idea of economic conservatism, while the mayor’s toughness on law and order became translated into an uber-hawkishness on a war on terror that Americans were having doubts about. All of this made the center less favorable to the mayor, while the base still wanted answers on abortion and judges. By changing his emphasis and tone on the issues, Rudy made the folks who found him interesting because of his heterodoxies less inclined to vote for him, while making those who might consider voting for him in spite of his heterodoxies no more inclined to vote for him. That’s because no amount of red meat on terror or economics could cancel out Rudy’s support for abortion, and all of that red meat just made swing voters ask “where’s the beef?” when it came to actual solutions to economic and security problems.
Romney made similar missteps in 2008, though not only was Mitt ‘08 far too light on economic solutions, it also attempted to prove that Romney really was a social conservative by converting on abortion and by frequently mentioning things like adult pornography on the Internet, which no one really cares about. So not only did Romney’s campaign become too abstract and fail to focus on solving public problems, it also seemed phony with misplaced priorities.
Pawlenty is having similar problems in his quest for the 2012 nomination due to his introduction as a hyphenated conservative — a Sam’s Club Republican — which has forced T-Paw to prove his conservatism by going down the same road as past Republican candidates, one which will probably lead to a similar destination. Excessive red meat and an abrasive tone do not a winning candidate make, and as Ambinder notes, effortless conservatism and a comfort in one’s own skin are what’s needed. Governor-elect Bob McDonnell’s victory in Virginia provides an excellent example of such a candidate. McDonnell is a down-the-line conservative who is such a good conservative that he didn’t have to prove his conservatism to anyone, and that allowed him to run a campaign entirely focused on applying that conservatism to the issues that were important to voters, using his principles to find solutions to public problems. Not only did this sort of campaign get out the GOP vote, it won Independents by a large margin.
All of this makes me believe that the best candidate for the GOP in 2012 would be a down-the-line conservative whose conservative credentials no one questions, and who, like Fred Thompson in 2008, is so widely presumed a conservative that said candidate will never once be asked to defend his or her conservatism. This candidate would also presumably have a non-threatening demeanor and excellent communication skills and would have a record, probably as a governor, of using conservative principles to solve public problems, particularly economic problems. This candidate would then go on to run a campaign as a governing conservative based on the issues that voters care about, such as the economy, the budget, health care, education, and energy. It would be this formula that would allow the GOP to emulate the McDonnell campaign at the national level. The candidate who best fits the above description is probably Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, who has the added benefit of being Syrian-American and who is from the highly contested Great Lakes region. Unfortunately, Daniels has expressed little interest in running, and I still expect the race to come down to a Romney/Huckabee fight to the finish. Still, if Daniels or another candidate got into the race with the ability to run as an effortless conservative and thus focus on the issues without all of the distractions of past or present heterodoxies, Republicans may have to give their preference for nominating the guy next in line a second look, especially with the president looking vulnerable less than one year into his term.
November 16th, 2009 at 12:36 am
“Republicans may have to give their preference for nominating the guy next in line a second look”
Would you stop repeating this idiotic myth?
It’s one of those Conventional Wisdom things that looks embarrassing to anyone who has given this more than a cursory look.
November 16th, 2009 at 1:04 am
Romneyesque. Indeed. The name “Romney” has become eponymous with selling out ones core principles. What an apt and appropriate legacy.
McDonnell had no problem with his social conservatism in VA. He just talked about jobs and the economy despite his opponent’s every effort to make McDonnell the issue. The same could probably hold for moderates who have not supported the bailouts, cap-and-trade, or any of the Democrat health care bills. Play up your fiscal conservatism and you will probably prosper.
Here is a compilation of images of heads of state saluting the Japanese Emperor. Note how the only groveler appears to be our own troubled president:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5U6fL7Y4BZA&feature=player_embedded
November 16th, 2009 at 1:45 am
DaveG. . .Regarding Daniels…I understand why being from the Great Lakes region is a plus, by why is his Syrian background considered an “added benefit”? Just curious.
November 16th, 2009 at 2:10 am
T/Paw is struggling big time.
Mitt was doing nothing but kicking goals this time 4 years ago.
T/Paw is not the new Mitt! Thune or Corker (or Daniels but he’s unlikely to run) are the only candidates for the new Mitt. But guess what we can get the real deal!
November 16th, 2009 at 2:12 am
DaveG, it’s great to hear that someone else thinks Daniels would be a great choice for the GOP. If he doesn’t run for the nomination, he should be very high on the list of potential VP candidates. With Daniels on the ticket, he take back Indiana, and it gives us a genuine shot in Ohio and some of the other Midwestern states. Plus, he would mop the floor with Biden in a debate.
November 16th, 2009 at 3:12 am
I agree totally with you Dave. Last year all the other candidates were losers for one reason or another – it should be no surprise looking back on it that McCain kicked their collective rear ends, though I think McCain suffered from trying to run too far to the right in the generals himself. And still he easily had the approval ratings to be President in a better year, that flaw notwithstanding. At this point there isn’t any major candidate too flawed that if he doesn’t focus his message correctly, he’d be unable to make a successful run.
I think it’s a big mistake to emphasize ones own conservatism usually. No one has ever succeeded by doing so, because voters don’t vote on conservatism, they vote on leadership. Those are the type of folks that inspire enthusiasm from the right, the center, and even a bit from the left who are honest enough to know a good thing when they see one. If T-Paw, Mitt, Huck, or anyone else tacks a common sense message of leadership, and not red meat, they’ll be a pretty irresistible candidate in the primaries and in the generals.
November 16th, 2009 at 5:46 am
I think Ron Paul is a lot more conservative than Thompson; obviously, you disagree, but for the life of me, based on their records, I can’t imagine why.
November 16th, 2009 at 6:22 am
dotan #2
You have been slamming Romney all day, without a break…Nate called you out today as running several anti-Romney sites, Blogs4huckabee.wordpress.com
November 16th, 2009 at 6:30 am
I noticed Palin was not mentioned on the list. Didn’t she run as McCain’s running mate. WAS SHE FORCED TO DO THIS? Did she put her Conservative Principals aside for personal goals to run with a RINO? No, not Sarah! Sarah’s above the fray!
ROMNEY / DeMINT in 2012!
You heard it here first.
November 16th, 2009 at 6:31 am
Axelrod slams Romney on CNN about his comments this Sunday at the YAF Conference about Obama and Afghanistan. Pretty Funny stuff, Axelrod looks totally flustered:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/11/15/axelrod-slams-romney/
Romney’s entire speech:
http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/2553262
ROMNEY 1
OBAMA/Axelrod 0
November 16th, 2009 at 6:34 am
I know Romneyesque is Ambinder’s word, but I’ve never heard Romney called this before and I’ve been supporting him since early ‘2007′
November 16th, 2009 at 7:02 am
#9 BOSMAN:
It seems that everyone but Palin is a RINO these days. But she was for “The Bridge To Nowhere” before she was against it, so would that make her a fl*p fl*pp**r…No, I hate those words..she just changed her mind.
November 16th, 2009 at 8:04 am
“It seems that everyone but Palin is a RINO these days.” Well, if the shoe fit. Actually, there are many people in the party who are not RINOs. Among them must be Mr. Pawlenty. Yesterday, my newspaper had a letter to ther editor written by some liberal Democrats where he accuse Mrs. Palin and a variety of Republicans of being a bunch of bigots and what not all. The extremist chap also named Mr. Pawlenty as one of the Republicans he named as destroying America. Mr. Pawlenty must be doing something right to hack off the liberal wackos.
November 16th, 2009 at 8:48 am
dotan,
Obama has to grovel because someone needs to be our Treasuries!
The Commander in Chief has become the Bond Salesman in Chief!!!
November 16th, 2009 at 8:52 am
This is about the only thing in this article I agree with.
There isn’t one candidate for 2012 who has changed positions. Its the nature of the beast.
For the so called Conservatives (and I call you so called conservatives, because I am beginning to
wonder if anyone really knows what that means any more. They want a purity that isn’t there
and each thinks their candidate is the pure conservative, while calling the rest RINO’s. Well,
I would like to know who makes anyone the judge who is conservative and who is not.
In the end, I expect, and will continue to expect unless some other evidence comes out that Romney will
get the nod. The only question is who will be the VP. Even though I loath, Huckabee, I expect he
will be given serious consideration in order to consolidate the Republican Base.
November 16th, 2009 at 8:54 am
Correction, that should read
There isn’t one candidate for 2012 who hasn’t changed positions.
November 16th, 2009 at 9:38 am
I have yet to see convincing evidence that Romney lost because he “changed” positions on abortion. Romney was never going to beat McCain among moderates – and he was never going to beat Huckabee among Evangelical Conservatives. You have to have one of those groups in your camp to win the GOP nomination – Romney didn’t in 2008, he should in 2012.
November 16th, 2009 at 9:47 am
Dave G “All of this makes me believe that the best candidate for the GOP in 2012 would be a down-the-line conservative”
By your paradigm we would have had no Reagand. He was not considered down the line conservative having been a Democrat and signing into law an abortion bill.
You wasted a whole lot of time writing this ignorant piece. You need a dramatic paradigm shift my friend.
November 16th, 2009 at 9:49 am
What if the candidate is already widely considered to be conservative, but is actively trying to moderate his or her image to the electorate? (Without sacrificing conservative principles, of course)
November 16th, 2009 at 9:51 am
“By your paradigm we would have had no Reagand. He was not considered down the line conservative having been a Democrat and signing into law an abortion bill.” OK, we must believe that Mr. Reagan is not sincere, but Mr. Romney is?
November 16th, 2009 at 9:55 am
16 – I think that’s part of the point, Romney is a muted candidate…his colors run together so much that they are no longer represented in the crayola box. That’s what some people think anyway. Is Romney a moderate…not quite. Is he so-con…maybe but probably not but he could be. Is he a ficon…most likely even though he did raise some taxes in his tenure as governor…I’m sorry surcharges and fees. Is he a defense and national security con…he is proving himself to be. My point is that Romney needs a better narrative because, as of now, a lot of people feel they already know his story and I’m not sure his story has the capability to propel him into the general election. IMO. Time will tell. I know I’ll get slammed for this opinion.
November 16th, 2009 at 10:01 am
How about this for a crazy thought; all of our potential candidates are conservatives in their own way. Conservatism is not a narrow ideology, it encompasses a whole stream of thoughts and ideas. There will never be a candidate that everyone thinks is the perfect conservative, because different people have different definitions of what qualifies as conservative.
November 16th, 2009 at 10:02 am
#19
Wow! That’s what you drew from my statement?? What it means is that you cannot let a candidate’s, such as Romney, switch on a social position and the fact that he might not be perceived as the most “down the line conservative”, be the determining factor in your paradigm of what type of candidate can get the nominee.
I believe that Reagan was sincere and I believe that Mitt Romney is sincere. But that isn’t the point, as should be easy to see. The point is this -look at the record of accomplishment. Also, Reagan got the nomination, why can’t Romney? If Dave G’s view was applied back to the year Reagan won the nomination, and it probably was, then Reagan would not have won.
Simple as that.
November 16th, 2009 at 10:08 am
#20
I’m sorry, but how well Romney is doing is the polls is just not reflecting what you are projecting.
November 16th, 2009 at 10:10 am
“The point is this -look at the record of accomplishment. Also, Reagan got the nomination, why can’t Romney?” Mr. Romney is free to get the nomination if he gets enough people to support him.
“If Dave G’s view was applied back to the year Reagan won the nomination, and it probably was, then Reagan would not have won.” BUNK!
I for one do not have a problem with Mr. Romney flip flopping on abortion, but he needs to flip on a few others. On the one hand many Romneyites clain that Mr. Romney is the next Reagan, on the other, they claim Mr. Reagan was not all what he was cracked up to be. Which is it?
November 16th, 2009 at 10:14 am
#3: An Arab-American GOP nominee would end the notion that the GOP is the party of white people, and would especially drive a stake through the heart of the idea that because Republicans fought the GWOT, they’re somehow anti-Arab. Plus, an Arab-American POTUS would psychologically mess with the bad guys in the Middle East in so many ways it would just be fun to watch. I also think it would be easier for a candidate not of European descent to beat Obama in 2012 because there will always be a certain segment of guilt-wridden WASPs who feel obligated to vote for the candidate the least genetically similar to them.
November 16th, 2009 at 10:19 am
23 – with all due respect, if you’re counting on polls in 2009 to propel Romney to win the nomination in 2012 then how did you like Giuliani’s General Election campaign in 2008? AND, just as I am not happy with Palin’s placement in these polls, if I were a Romney supporter, I wouldn’t be too happy with his stagnant poll positions either.
November 16th, 2009 at 10:22 am
#24
If Reagan would still have won the nomination, regardless of whether or not he was a “down the line conservative”, then by the same token Mitt Romney should be able to as well. Fair enough?
“I for one do not have a problem with Mr. Romney flip flopping on abortion, but he needs to flip on a few others.”
Ohio, I wish you and some others would make up your freakin mind!!! Do you want Romney to “Flip Flop” or do you not?? You can’t have it both ways, but don’t accuse him of being a flip flopper if you want him to do so!
I think the “Romneyites” just want equity when you are speaking of Mitt. We want you to exercise your common sense in delivering a fair analysis of Mitt. I know Mitt isn’t perfect. I just don’t want falsified information from the ranks of ill tempered hypocritical punditry ad from the “riff raff” of the blogosphere.
November 16th, 2009 at 10:22 am
“Romney made similar missteps in 2008, … it also attempted to prove that Romney really was a social conservative by converting on abortion”
Ah yes, the old chestnut. There are some people who are desperate to cling to it no matter what the evidence. It is a matter of life and death to them that Romney MUST be insincere with his abortion position change. He just has to be. If he isn’t, then their whole caricature of him crumbles. They could not longer dismiss him so easily. They actually would have to deal with him on an honest, intellectual level.
And they just can’t have that, can they?
November 16th, 2009 at 10:24 am
#24
By the way, I think Reagan was “all he was cracked up to be”. All I am saying is that if Reagan, NOT being perceived as a “down the line conservative” could get the nomination, then so can Mitt Romney, especially given Romney’s polling numbers and his record of accomplishment.
November 16th, 2009 at 10:30 am
#26
I am not depending on the polls, just making a statement (don’t understand why it is so difficult for you to see this!) that the polls do count for something. And I am happy with where Mitt is in the polls. I don’t want him to be at the top because it takes away some of that anxiety of “too much exposure and being on top in the polls early on can be a bad thing” stigma.
I think you will see a ground swell that most people don’t recognize will come Mitt’s way when he announces he is running. All the campaigning he as and is doing for other candidates will bring out a ton of endorsements and favors that will propel Mitt in the polls when the time comes.
November 16th, 2009 at 10:34 am
#28 “If he isn’t, then their whole caricature of him crumbles. They could not longer dismiss him so easily.”
Mark, you just described the people that voted for Obama! Oh please, oh please tell me that Republicans have the power within their character to to dismiss their disdain for Mitt and at least say “I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt to at least believe that it is possible he could be sincere.”
November 16th, 2009 at 10:40 am
“Ohio, I wish you and some others would make up your freakin mind!!!” I am not going to deny that some anti-Romneyites call him a flipper. However, I for one do not recall calling him that. Then again, until recently, I have not been among those who are the most extreme in the anti-Romney camp.
As for Mr. Romney’s polling numbers, there are different ways to read polls, but in short he is in the top tier. Also, for the record, I do not think Mr. Romney is a RINO or at least a full fleged RINO. In fact, if some real RINO joker were to enter the top tier and Mr. Romney were the only one to stop such a person, I’d probably hold my nose and swallow hard and vote for Mr. Romney in the primary. However, I will say that Mr. Romney is my least favorite among the Big 4. In short, asking me to support Mr. Romney is like asking a Boston Bruins fan to cheer for Montreal, asking a 76ers fan to cheer for the Boston Celtics, a Red Sox fan to cheer for the Yankees or a Cowboy’s fan to cheer for Pittsburgh. Unless the crumbling of the cookie takes a drastically different turn, I for one shall remain opposed to Mr. Romney.
November 16th, 2009 at 10:42 am
“I am not depending on the polls, just making a statement (don’t understand why it is so difficult for you to see this!) that the polls do count for something. And I am happy with where Mitt is in the polls. I don’t want him to be at the top because it takes away some of that anxiety of “too much exposure and being on top in the polls early on can be a bad thing” stigma.”
Like it or not – he who leads early, wins. The idea that its better to be seen as something other than the frontrunner, in my mind, does not hold water. The faster the GOP picks a nominee, the more inevitable Romney (or, if you choose, another candidate) appears to be, the better our chances will be of beating Obama.
McCain was handed a HUGE advantage last year when he had the nomination won early in the spring. Rather than launching a massive general campaign in which he could have completely outclassed Obama, he took a long break, put his feet up, and held BBQ’s in AZ.
Republicans need a quick primary process, an early convention, and an immediate jump to the general election in 2012.
November 16th, 2009 at 11:37 am
#34
“Republicans need a quick primary process, an early convention, and an immediate jump to the general election in 2012.”
I agree, but Republicans aren’t that smart. If the majority of them, say the Evangelical left keep voting by the concept of “identity politics”, we will stand divided until the battle over the nominee is won.
In the sense that people understand who they need to get behind, I totally agree with you that it is good to be in the lead. However, too much exposure can become dole and could take the focus off the “frontrunner” when fresh meat is placed in the waters.
A candidate does not want to become stale and boring by virtue of too frequent repetition. Hillary Clinton was the frontrunner but then came the fresh meat. McCain won the nomination because of the candidates who were battling it out in Iowa. McCain got lucky by banking on NH. If Romney would have focused a little more on NH, he would have been the nominee. That should be common knowledge.
As good as Romney did with no name recognition whatsoever when he jumped in the race, I expect the name recognition will give him that extra “umph”.
November 16th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
To paraphrase Ronald Reagan:
“Better to go with a candidate you agree with 80% of the time who CAN WIN than one you agree with 100% of the time who CAN”T”
November 16th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
I run blogs4huckabee.wordpress.com? I don’t support Huckabee. Never have. What do you mean “anti-Romney” site(s)? I’m not anti- anyone. Romney’s name is rightly and correctly eponymous with selling out your core principles–that’s what I oppose. I’m anti-stupidity. I’m anti-dishonesty. While this does put me at odds with Romney it does not follow that I’m anti-Romney unless you want to argue that the name ‘Romney’ is also eponymous with stupidity and dishonesty. Then in that case I am anti-Romney but only in the same sense that I’m anti-error in a more general sense.
November 16th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
marK,
“Ah yes, the old chestnut. There are some people who are desperate to cling to it no matter what the evidence. It is a matter of life and death to them that Romney MUST be insincere with his abortion position change.”
What evidence are you referring to, other than Mitt says so? Also, whether the President is sincerely pro-life IS amterr of life and death to millions of unborn babies.
November 16th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
CompCon.
“Oh please, oh please tell me that Republicans have the power within their character to to dismiss their disdain for Mitt and at least say “I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt to at least believe that it is possible he could be sincere.”
When dealing with the promises of politicians- whether Mitt Romney or not- it is usually more prudent to assume INsincerity and make them prove otherwise.
November 16th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
39. Remember that Governor Romney had a list of campaign promises that he took seriously, and fulfilled.
November 16th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
ROMNEY 2012, get rid of the corruption and fiscal irresponsibility.
November 16th, 2009 at 5:28 pm
#39.MWS:“When dealing with the promises of politicians- whether Mitt Romney or not- it is usually more prudent to assume INsincerity and make them prove otherwise.”
Okay, MWS, what does Romney (or any other convert to pro-life) have to do for him to prove his sincerity? He has leaned pro-life since at least 2002. That is seven years. By the time the 2012 elections roll around, that will be ten years. Still not long enough for you?
Have you really bought into the caricature that hard? Is it that important to you to maintain that he is insincere about it?
Why?
Okay, let’s try this angle. Assume for a second that you are right. Assume that deep down in his heart of hearts, Mitt Romney is lying about being pro-life. Well, one thing we do know for absolute certainty is that Willard Mitt Romney keeps his campaign promises. As Martha alluded to in #40, he had his staff search through all his campaign literature, speeches, and debates to make up a list of all the promises he made during his 2002 campaign. He kept that list with him at all times. (What other politician do you know has done just that?) He worked very hard to fulfill them. At the end of four years, he succeeded in keeping all of the ones that depended solely upon him, and he kept the vast majority of the ones that depended upon others.
So if Mitt Romney promises he is going to be pro-life, you can take it to the bank that he is going to do everything in his power to keep that promise.
Is that good enough for you? If it isn’t, then what more do you want?
Mitt Romney has been totally honest in all of his business deals. Nobody — and I do mean nobody — has come forward to smear his good name. This is after a lifetime in the business world. He has been 100% faithful to his wife and family. Not even the slightest hint of a wondering eye. And he has raised five sons to adulthood who all have become model citizens. How many politicians can say that? He has been 100% honest in his pursuit of his campaign promises. No hint of corruption has ever came from his tenure as Massachusetts Governor. Instead, he lost political capital fighting it (Re:getting rid of the Head of UofMass for an example.)
Think about this for a minute. He has been subjected to the most rigorous opo-research the Democrats could mount on him, and the worst they could come up with is he put his dog’s carrier on the car-roof during one family vacation. Oh, and the contractor he hired to maintain his yard hired illegal aliens. That’s it.
And yet you say I am the one that has to come up with proof of his sincerity? Go ahead. Pull the other one.
November 16th, 2009 at 5:56 pm
marK,
“Okay, MWS, what does Romney (or any other convert to pro-life) have to do for him to prove his sincerity? He has leaned pro-life since at least 2002. That is seven years. By the time the 2012 elections roll around, that will be ten years. Still not long enough for you? ”
To be honest with you, I don’t know that he can do anything, until he does something as an elected official. To put it bluntly, abortion is too important of an issue for me to trust to a “convert.” We’ve had too many charlatans already.
And it’s not just a question of what a politician would do if the issue were thrust into his lap and someone put a gun to his head. It’s also an issue a President can be proactive about, like any other. A President who simply checks the box isn’t going to put any effort into it, much less be proactive.
As to keeping past promises, that’s a neato’ story, but I’d need more than Mitt’s own accounting.
As to oppo research, if you think the Dems are done with Romney (assuming he gets the nomination) you’ve got another thing coming.
November 16th, 2009 at 6:19 pm
ROMNEY / DeMINT in 2012!
November 16th, 2009 at 6:19 pm
Well, did he veto every pro-choice bill that came across his desk. And he fought against harvesting fetal stem-cells. So he DID do something as an elected official. People seem to forget that in pro-choice Massachusetts, his status-quo campaign promise worked out that he was govern effectively pro-life.
Now I could see where pro-life people might have cause to complain if he had been forced by his promise to veto a bill that scaled back on abortion, but he never did. He always governed pro-life.
Most of the neutral pro-lifer I’ve seen or read seem to have no problem with it. The ones who complained were usually those with an axe to grind.
November 16th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
marK,
Well that throws a bit of a wrench into the “keeping promises” thing. Mitt left any objective observer with the impression that he was a strong supporter of abortion rights in that famous exchange running for governor. Now you might claim that he technically kept his promise, he certainly never gave the voters of MA the impression that he would do the things you said he did. In fact, he made it seem (and may have even explicitly said) that the only difference on abortion between him and his opponent was parental notification.
So if he wants to count promises by fulfilling the letter while he violates the spirit, I trust him even less.
We’ll have to parse all of his words and promises, dissecting them under a microscope, and still wonder about deception by ommission.
November 16th, 2009 at 6:43 pm
marK,
BTW, what do you think is my ax to grind?
November 16th, 2009 at 7:09 pm
#37
You are “anti-stupidity”? Hm.
November 16th, 2009 at 7:13 pm
#38
What evidence did we have the Reagan was sincere other than he said so?
#36 quoted Ronald Reagan who was correct when he said ““Better to go with a candidate you agree with 80% of the time who CAN WIN than one you agree with 100% of the time who CAN”T”
Why can’t we see things the way Reagan did MWS?
November 16th, 2009 at 7:15 pm
#39
Awe, the good old liberal concept of “guilty until proven innocent.” You got it backwards bud.
November 16th, 2009 at 7:20 pm
#42
“Okay, MWS, what does Romney (or any other convert to pro-life) have to do for him to prove his sincerity?
Exactly! This holier than thou pharisaical attitude needs to stop. Hypocrites “strain at a gnat” while “swallowing a camel”.
Romney doesn’t need to prove anything to anyone but himself when it comes to his deeply held personal beliefs. I am grateful to know he is a convert to the pro-life cause, as was Ronald Reagan. I don’t think we should play the pharasee card of rejection, but the true moral card of welcoming new converts to the cause. We sure got it backward in this party.
November 16th, 2009 at 7:26 pm
ComCon,
“Romney doesn’t need to prove anything to anyone but himself when it comes to his deeply held personal beliefs.”
Ummmm….. he does if he wants to be President.
November 16th, 2009 at 7:27 pm
#43
MWS “To be honest with you, I don’t know that he can do anything, until he does something as an elected official.”
I understand your concerns, I really do. It is difficult to know who in politics can be trusted these days that we live in. But I think that Mark did a pretty good job of laying the case for trusting Mitt on this position.
Did you vote for Reagan or would you have if you were old enough at the time? If so, Reagan was one of those candidates that was trustworthy, but it wasn’t until he got into office when people began to really see. Do you believe what Reagan said to be right when he said:
“Better to go with a candidate you agree with 80% of the time who CAN WIN than one you agree with 100% of the time who CAN”T”?
November 16th, 2009 at 7:27 pm
ComCon,
“Awe, the good old liberal concept of “guilty until proven innocent.” You got it backwards bud.”
This isn’t a trial, this is choosing a President. Do you believe everything every candidate says?
November 16th, 2009 at 7:29 pm
ComCon,
“What evidence did we have the Reagan was sincere other than he said so?”
Bad logic. Even if Reagan was sincere, it doesn’t mean Romney is, and that is the whole question.
If there is any doubt in my mind, I’ll pass in the Primary. And Mitt swearing fealty to Big Abortion when it suited him is grounds for doubt for me.
November 16th, 2009 at 7:35 pm
#52
No, he doesn’t MWS! He needs to be himself. The last thing we need Mitt doing is running around trying to pander to folks like you to convince them of who he is. Mitt just needs to be himself by being consistent with his positions which I know he will, and if you don’t believe him, so be it.
There are very many Evangelicals who support Mitt and who know he is a sincere convert to the pro-life movement. Take Jim Demint for example, the most conservative Senator in the US Senate. He knows Mitt personally and would have never encouraged him to run and endorse him if he were not sincere and had convictions.
Dotan is just a pud who thinks like the drive by media when he speaks of Mitt. In fact, I kept thinking to myself, while reading his comments, “this dude reminds me of Chris Matthews.”
We are Republicans. Can we act like it and stop acting like liberals attacking Romney?
November 16th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
#46
Oh, for crying out loud man! You are dishonestly splitting hairs man. I’d like to take a look at your private life and give you a taste of your own medicine dude. Get off your freaking high horse!
It’s this simple. The whole life position Mitt held was all based around the debate of when life actually began. Mitt believed it was a woman’s right to choose because he did not understand at the time that life begins at conceptions, which some people will still debate. When Mitt came to the the understanding that life did indeed begin at conception, his whole paradigm shifted.
It’s that freaking simple bro!
November 16th, 2009 at 7:47 pm
#55
It is not bad logic MWS. You just want it to be. It’s this simple to understand. Would you have passed up a Reagan because you had a hard time overcoming your pharisee like paradigm when it came to Reagan’s past positions?
Just answer that simple question and quit avoiding to answer the Reagan abortions issue. It as not different than Mitt’s, no wait, it is. Reagan signed into law one of the largest abortion bills, Mitt didn’t.
I am not taking a shot at Reagan, as you might want to suggest, I am making a case for Mitt based on Reagan’s past.
Basically I am asking, if we can accept and dismiss Reagan on those horrible crimes against life, then why can’t we accept Mitt’s change from a pro-choice position when thats all it was -a position?
He did not sign into law one of the largest abortion bills or anything like it.
November 16th, 2009 at 8:04 pm
“Mitt believed it was a woman’s right to choose because he did not understand at the time that life begins at conceptions, which some people will still debate.”
But doesn’t that shoot the whole “Romney is omniscient!” narrative? Just playing a little devil’s advocate here
I do find it funny that Romney defenders and even Romney himself sometimes tie themselves in knots trying to come to terms with his abortion record. All Romney needs to do to set that straight is say something along the lines of “my wife and I don’t like people dying because of an unsafe illegal abortion like happened in my family, that was real hard for all of us, but most importantly we are convinced there are better options than an abortion, period. My views are solidly pro-life.”
He just needs to come down decisive on where he stands and the circumstances he faced then.
November 16th, 2009 at 8:11 pm
#59 MPC, “But doesn’t that shoot the whole “Romney is omniscient!”
Are you indicating that Romney pepes believe he is God? I’m not following you. What I said about Romney’s switch based on when life actually begins is true. Trust me, I’ve read everything Mitt has every said about his switch.
He believes it is no longer a woman’s right to choose when her decision affects a life other than her own.
That’s pretty simple to understand, isn’t it? I really don’t know how much simply I can put it. Let me know if that was over your head and I’ll if I can indeed put it in more simple terms.
November 16th, 2009 at 8:19 pm
CompCon,
“Mitt believed it was a woman’s right to choose because he did not understand at the time that life begins at conceptions”
I don’t think Mitt’s that stupid.
But it is hilarious how many conflicting gospel accounts there are among the Rombots concerning Mitt’s Road to Damascus, Some of your Rombot comrades jumped me when I sarcastically offered that maybe Mitt was just ignorant- your position- after spending so many years in a pro-life church and being stake president and all that. They claim he knew all along. Some say he effectively governed pro-choice. Others say he governed 100% pro life. Some acknowledge that he ran as a pro-choice candidate, others say he carefully parsed his words and never made such a claim, and has always been pro-life. Some say he has always been pro-life but was politically pro-choice, and then decided to come out of the closet. And on and on it goes…….
November 16th, 2009 at 8:23 pm
Comcon,
“It is not bad logic MWS.”
Yes it is. Consider this little thought experiment, with me applying your logic.
Barrack Obama, running for reelection: “I have learned the errors of ways. I now believe in cutting taxes, dismantling the government, and bombing the crap out of Iran.”
ComCon: “No he doesn’t. Look at all the things he’s said and done in the past.”
MWS: “You can’t doubt his conversion. Reagan wasn’t pure either, and if Reagan was sincere, then Obama must be! Would you have rejected Reagan’s conversion?”
November 16th, 2009 at 8:24 pm
ComCon,
“I’m not following you. What I said about Romney’s switch based on when life actually begins is true. Trust me, I’ve read everything Mitt has every said about his switch.”
See #61, where I basically make the same point as MPC on the contradictions in the Rombots’ conversion narratives.
November 16th, 2009 at 8:32 pm
ComCon,
“I am not taking a shot at Reagan, as you might want to suggest”
I wasn’t suggesting you were taking a shot at Reagan, I was suggesting you were applying absurd logic, namely that we must believe in Romney’s sincerity because Reagan was sincere.
November 16th, 2009 at 8:36 pm
#62 “Barrack Obama, running for reelection: “I have learned the errors of ways. I now believe in cutting taxes, dismantling the government, and bombing the crap out of Iran.”
That is ludicrous bro! Not even close to an honest comparison. Give it another try.
November 16th, 2009 at 8:43 pm
ComCon,
What’s wrong with the comparison? Both are men professing a sincere conversion that belies their past actions and statements.
November 16th, 2009 at 8:45 pm
Had you Romney haters pull your head out last year the economy would be roaring back and your liberties would not be under attack. Romney was the only Republican running that had a clue how to fix the economy, not sure the others could balance their own check book.
November 16th, 2009 at 8:48 pm
#61 “But it is hilarious how many conflicting gospel accounts there are among the Rombots concerning Mitt’s Road to Damascus”
What you are saying is that some Rombots don’t believe Mitt was ever truly personally pro-choice because he was a Stake Leader and the LDS church doesn’t believe in abortion? Well, there are many LDS I know of that are liberals that have Obamaview on virtually every issue.
The LDS church is not against abortion in ALL cases. “Accept in cases of incest, rape and the life of the mother”
It may be true that Mitt has held, because of his religious views, as I do because of mine, a firm pro-life belief in his heart, but did some pandering to unseat Ted Kennedy. If so, well, it was Ted Freaking Kennedy he was up against! So freaking what! If one of our Republican candidates has to swing a little to the center to unseat a political monster, who would do great harm to society, I am fine with it.
It that is the case, then Mitt has sure taken one for the team hasn’t he?
November 16th, 2009 at 8:49 pm
MWS – I haven’t been on this site for 10 months and your still on here PUCKING the same garbage you did before the election. Obama loves you and your thought process.
November 16th, 2009 at 8:57 pm
THE TRUTH,
Put down the Kool Aid. While Romney would undoubtedly have done a better job than Obama, we have problems bigger, deeper, and older than any President can “fix.”
No matter who we elected last year, we’d still be in a world of hurt right now.
November 16th, 2009 at 9:00 pm
ComCon,
“It may be true that Mitt has held, because of his religious views, as I do because of mine, a firm pro-life belief in his heart, but did some pandering to unseat Ted Kennedy. If so, well, it was Ted Freaking Kennedy he was up against! So freaking what! If one of our Republican candidates has to swing a little to the center to unseat a political monster”
So if he panders or deceives for the “greater good” however he secretly defines it, that would kinda’ undermine the we-can-absolutely-trust-his-sincerity argument, now, wouldn’t it?
November 16th, 2009 at 9:01 pm
#69.
What a truly profound, coherent, and insightful thought.
November 16th, 2009 at 9:03 pm
Truth,
BTW, if you haven’t been here for 10 months, how do you know what garbage I was PUKING before the election that was held twelve months ago?
Hmmmmmm…… methinks you either don’t know elementary math, or you are a sock puppet.
November 16th, 2009 at 9:04 pm
#64
Oh my gosh, seriously! Are you trying to make me insane?? Why you can’t understand what I am getting at when I use the Reagan comparison is completely beyond me. I don’t believe you would be posting on this site if you were that stupid. I think you are eluding that point, which is, “how did people know Reagan was sincere before they elected him and why?
Was it one of those things that he just got enough votes, and the pro-lifers were like “oh, he really is a good sincere pro-lifer after all” after the election?
You tell me…what makes Mitt’s case so different that Reagans? It’s a simple question MWS.
November 16th, 2009 at 9:07 pm
#71
No, not just by taking a position against your opponent. Mitt said repeatedly that he was personally pro-life, but that he believed in a womans right to choose, and he did because his beliefs state that a woman has the right to choose in the case of incest, rape and the life of the mother. He wasn’t specific when she can choose.
November 16th, 2009 at 9:12 pm
#71
Ann said “heck, he tricked liberals into voting for him” and I am with her. Liberals are the worse thing that has happened to this country. He wasn’t trying to trick you and I. We are not the ones he needs to trick into voting for him, unless we are liberals, right? I mean, according to Ann Coulter’s perception of Mitt.
She understand so keenly the danger of liberal voting.
November 16th, 2009 at 9:14 pm
#72 “What a truly profound, coherent, and insightful thought.”
I agree with you MWS. There is nothing insightful when overstating the obvious.
November 16th, 2009 at 9:18 pm
Competent,
“what makes Mitt’s case so different that Reagans?”
1. Reagan didn’t “convert” at the dawn of his Presidential aspirations.
2. The Republican Party then was not nearly as pro-life as today (and the Democrats not nearly so pro-choice), meaning there wasn’t as much to gain within the primaries from a conversion, as there would be today. The parties are far more divided on the issue than they were 7 years after Roe v. Wade (Gerald Ford was pro-choice, for example).
3. I still don’t how much Reagan’s heart was in it. He did, after all, give us O’Conner and Kennedy. I don’t think he pushed much pro-life legislation, if any. He made occasional references in speeches, but that was about it. If President Romney never pushed for pro-life legislation, nominated two pro-choicers to the bench, and only occasionally mentioned the issue in speeches, I’d doubt his sincerity too.
I was only 5 in 1980, but if I were voting, and I doubted Reagan’s sincerity on the issue, I’d take another qualified candidate whose sincerity I did not doubt over him.
November 16th, 2009 at 9:20 pm
ComCon,
“He wasn’t specific when she can choose.”
How very clever of him.
November 16th, 2009 at 9:24 pm
ComCon,
BTW, why was Mitt “personally pro-life” if he didn’t believe life begins at conception?
November 16th, 2009 at 9:28 pm
Oh brother.
Romney was pro-choice, as was Reagan.
Romney changed to pro-life, as did Reagan.
Reagan actually signed abortion into, Romney didn’t.
End of story.
I just don’t lose much sleep at night worrying about why when or how Romney switched. I’m just glad he did. It did bother me at first. But as I’ve said many times, when you measure weaknesses against strengths, Romney’s abortion flip is insignificant for sincere people. For others who will hate Romney no matter what, it becomes a larger than life issue that has no relationship with reality.
November 16th, 2009 at 9:38 pm
Martha,
“Romney’s abortion flip is insignificant for sincere people.”
That’s quite a statement. I would say the sincerity of a President’s pro-life views are profoundly significant to those who are sincerely pro-life.
November 16th, 2009 at 9:46 pm
#78
“I was only 5 in 1980, but if I were voting, and I doubted Reagan’s sincerity on the issue, I’d take another qualified candidate whose sincerity I did not doubt over him.”
Enough said.
November 16th, 2009 at 9:48 pm
#79 “How very clever of him.”
Yep, we could use more wise men who know how to trick liberals. “Wise as a serpent, harmless as a dove”
November 16th, 2009 at 9:51 pm
ComCon,
Well you’d better pray that liberals are the only ones Mitt is out to trick.
“Trickery and treachery are the practices of fools that have not the wits enought to be honest”
-Ben Franklin
November 16th, 2009 at 10:02 pm
#80
“BTW, why was Mitt “personally pro-life” if he didn’t believe life begins at conception?”
I give you a very obvious answer with 2 questions: If life didn’t begin at conception, would there be a life to be “pro” about? Being “Pro-Life” then would mean being “pro” about a life that exists, wouldn’t it?
If you are not following me, here it is: If someone believed that life begins 3 months after conception, and does not believe in aborting that 3 month old fetus, then they are pro-life by THE definition of life and when it began.
So, someone can be pro-life by definition of when life actually begins. For many “life begins at conception” converts, the conversion to life beginning at conception is a deeper step toward their pro-life beliefs.
Do I know for sure if that was the case with Mitt? Nope. And I am not going to make it more difficult than it needs to be. But I will tell you that I am passionately pro-life and completely anti “pro-choice”.
If I had any doubt that Mitt’s position on this was not a true position, by my conscience, I would have to pass him up. I believe in a human’s ability to exercise his/her powers of discernment in learning more than what their natural abilities can give them. So it was with my support of Mitt Romney.
November 16th, 2009 at 10:09 pm
82. What I meant, which didn’t come across very well in that comment, is that most reasonable people can put Romney’s change on life into proper context. That is what I meant by sincere, but it was a poor choice of words.
Those who fain outrage over it 24-7 are usually people who just aren’t ever going to like Romney no matter what he does – even if he had been pro-life his whole life. It’s also a convenient excuse for the people who don’t support him based on his faith.
November 16th, 2009 at 10:10 pm
#82 “That’s quite a statement. I would say the sincerity of a President’s pro-life views are profoundly significant to those who are sincerely pro-life.”
But with this “letter of the law” Pharisee like attitude you have, it’s hard for one sincere to see how you could be doing so out of sincerity.
You almost sound like one of those judgmental Christians that people complain about being judged by all the time cause people aren’t living up their their “letter of the law” type standards. We are told that we will be judged the way we judge. We are taught that it is the judgmental pharisees that needed the rebuking, not the sincere convert seeking to do the right thing and make the right choices in their life.
It is voters like yourself who will ruin and divide this party because you “stain at a gnat and swallow a camel.” I know this is hard for you to see, and I have a feeling it won’t change, but I just hope you can honestly acknowledge (doesn’t need to be in front of all of us) that there is an underlying personal grudge you have with Romney and seek to put it aside. I think that only then will you begin to see a brighter side of Mitt, the side you have been hiding yourself from.
November 16th, 2009 at 10:11 pm
MWS,
The Reagan comparison is lost on Romney-haters. They are perfectly happy to accept what Reagan did in CA – forgive/forget and love Reagan anyway. But they cannot allow the same latitude on Romney. It really makes it obvious that it’s more than just abortion they are worried about.
November 16th, 2009 at 10:13 pm
#81 “when you measure weaknesses against strengths, Romney’s abortion flip is insignificant for sincere people.”
You are not a person who “strains at a gnat while swallowing a camel”. You are not a petty individual.
November 16th, 2009 at 10:16 pm
#85 ““Trickery and treachery are the practices of fools that have not the wits enought to be honest””
I’ve never thought it a good thing to take moral council from an adulterous and dishonest man such as Ben Franklin was. True, he had some great ideas, but adultery is at the hight of dishonesty.
“There was never a fornicator who did not at first lie.” Bruce R. McKonkie
November 16th, 2009 at 10:17 pm
#89
Very obvious Martha. It’s out of the abundance of the mouth that the heart speaks.
November 16th, 2009 at 10:23 pm
#87
Yes, I think these are the people who would settle for someone who “reminds them of themselves”, such as Palin might, rather than someone who is truly great.
It’s almost as if they envy Mitt because of his goodness and don’t like how good he really is. Five sons who all served honerable mission, who paid for their own missions, then who all returned and found beautiful faithful wifes and are all raising children and who all honer and love one another.
Then of course Mitt’s success in business, the Olympics and getting MA out of debt. His high school sweetheart who he is endeared to. Hew Hewitt put it this way: “If Mitt Romney doesn’t get elected President of the United States, something is seriously wrong with this country.”
MWS, something is seriously wrong with you.
November 16th, 2009 at 10:32 pm
ComCon,
“You almost sound like one of those judgmental Christians that people complain about being judged by all the time cause people aren’t living up their their “letter of the law” type standards”
Oh, give it a rest. I’m not judging Citizen Mitt. I’m not presuming to know the man’s soul. I am assessing a Presidential candidate, which requires me to make a judgement. So give the Pharisaic references a rest. If he wasn’t running for the most important post in the world, I wouldn’t be busting his chops or doubting his sincerity. But his sincerity in this case could have profound consequences, thus it requires a judgement.
November 16th, 2009 at 10:33 pm
Martha,
Actually, I am profoundly disappointed with Reagan when it comes to abortion. Had he nominated better justices than O’ Connor and Kennedy, Roe v. Wade would be overturned already.
November 16th, 2009 at 10:35 pm
ComCon,
Caring about the slaughter of millions of unborn babies is not “straining at a gnat.”
Shame on you, who professes to care deeply about abortion. You should know better.
November 16th, 2009 at 10:39 pm
Fr. ComCon,
“there is an underlying personal grudge you have with Romney and seek to put it aside.”
Yes, father, I have sinned. You see right though me.
Not.
Can we stop with the pop-psychology and armchair exegesis?
I don’t trust the man. It’s nothing personal. I don’t even know him. Do you think I have a personal grudge against everyone I don’t trust? You yourself said he deceived liberals. Why would I trust a politician who intentionally deceives his constituents?
November 16th, 2009 at 10:43 pm
ComCom,
“I’ve never thought it a good thing to take moral council from an adulterous and dishonest man such as Ben Franklin was. True, he had some great ideas, but adultery is at the hight of dishonesty.”
Lamo’ comeback. But if you want to dismiss even an obvious truth from Ben, here’s Homer:
“Hateful to me as are the gates of hell, Is he who, hiding one thing in his heart, Utters another.”
November 16th, 2009 at 10:46 pm
ComCon,
“It’s almost as if they envy Mitt because of his goodness and don’t like how good he really is.”
LOL!!!!!!!!!!! That one almost brought a tear to my eye.
Damn, you elevate hero worship to a whole new level. Do you realize how incredibly naive you sound?
November 16th, 2009 at 10:55 pm
I don’t know if “Rombot” even does justice to the level of devotion and reverential awe given to Romney on this thread. Kings and Pharaohs would kill for the sort of unconditional love and deference that Mitt is given here.
As for me, I know he is just a man, and like any other man, he can be doubted and questioned. His faith is neither a source of hostility for me, nor a cause for blind trust, despite the continual efforts of some to impugn my motives (even as they compare me to Pharisees- without a hint of irony).
G’night Rombots, until I come up with a more descriptive term.
November 16th, 2009 at 10:55 pm
#84
I understand, but when it is obvious to most folks who know Romney, and I would even reference the fervently pro-life folks over at http://evangelicalsformitt.com as well as the prominent Evangelical pro-life folks who endorsed Mitt’s candidacy, it is obvious to us that there is something deeper than you simply assessing a presidential candidate.
It’s actually quite hard for us to figure you out because your disdain (what you call assessing) for Mitt and your perpetual and relentless opposition to him is just not in alignment with merely “assessing a presidential candidate”.
What makes you any different than the folks at Evangelicals for Mitt or the prominent Evangelicals who endorsed him? Are you better than them in assessing presidential candidates? What is it?
November 16th, 2009 at 11:00 pm
#100 “Kings and Pharaohs would kill for the sort of unconditional love and deference that Mitt is given here.”
It’s not that Mitt is the best this Earth has (I know that would be false) but rather the best that politics has.
November 16th, 2009 at 11:10 pm
ComCon,
First off, I’m Catholic, so I’m not particularly swayed by the notion of “evangelicals for Mitt.”
Secondly, even if I were evangelical, why should I listen to those evangelicals as opposed to the ones who endorsed, say, Huckabee, if I’m only going to blindly follow?
Finally, it’s not a question of being “better than those who endorsed Mitt.” There are all kinds of people who endorse all kinds of people. Were I to support Mitt, one could ask, “Are you better than the evangelicals who supported Huck at assessing candidates?” We each have to make up our own mind.
Finally- and read this carefully- the volume of disdain I show for Mitt on this site has probably 20% to do with Mitt and 80% to do with his cult-like followers here. It’s sport often times, when I see some of the most convoluted logic, the most nonsensical declamations, the unadulterated hero-worship, the hostility to supporters of any other candidate, the smug self-righteousness, the impugning of other voters’ motives, and the intellectual dishonesty of some , not all, of the Rombots here. It’s like waving a cape in front of a bull.
Honestly, and I know I’m not the first (nor the last) to say it, some of the Rombots here are Mitt’s worst enemies…….
November 16th, 2009 at 11:11 pm
Alright. Off for good this time……..
November 17th, 2009 at 12:21 am
Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee for President? You people have got to be kidding? Should you vote for these guys your going to get the same old waltz and tune again! Haven’t you figured out what is going on by now? Do you like what Puppet Pres. Obama is giving you? Did you like what Puppet Pres. Bush gave you? It is two sides of the same dollar – only ones on the left and the others on the right with the Federal Reserve calling the shots! That particular dollar is looking pretty sick right now! Who did that? Off-Shore foreign bankers! And what are they? Global Elitists’, which ones in particular have a bank? How about the Rothschilds and there Central Banks or The uncredible, International Monetary Fund? We have two parties run by the same organization of Elite Globalists Bilderberg Group, Trilateral Commission and Council on Foreign Relations and like the ones over at the United Nations pushing the Carbon Treaty Bill at Copenhagen right now!
Take a look at reality folks, Everyone needs to sit down and see this video that shows just how corrupt our American and British Government and Governments around the world have become, if only in order to prepare for the damage they are doing to our country’s monetary and resource systems, that will affect you, your family and all of us and our lifestyles! Give yourself the chance to be prepared by looking ahead! Here is the link:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VebOTc-7shU
November 17th, 2009 at 12:34 am
#103
“Finally- and read this carefully- the volume of disdain I show for Mitt on this site has probably 20% to do with Mitt and 80% to do with his cult-like followers here.”
Very scary. Please stop voting in America. An individual who would allow a few of a candidate’s supporters to control his emotions, thereby controlling his views on how he would vote for any given candidate, is not fit for mature decisions, although, like Obama’s idiodic supporters, you are allowed to cast your vote anyway. What a shame.
And did you ever think MWS that the reason you see the Rombots as “cult like followers” is because he are constantly having to defend the man’s character from full frontal assaults by the likes of you and your kind?
You attract it.
November 17th, 2009 at 12:40 am
#103
Interesting. Everything you said in the last paragraph I was thinking about you. If you didnt attack Mitt so harshly, I wouldn’t defend him so strongly thereby provoking you to accuse the Rombots of, well, everything you said above.
Give Mitt a break and I’ll give you a break. Don’t expect you can dish it out and cry when it is given back to you. “Whatsoever send out shall return and be restored unto you again.”
You are the creator of this environment you find yourself in.
November 17th, 2009 at 6:28 am
ComCon,
Spare me. I didn’t say it affects how I vote, rather how I post.
And most of the time, I’m in a pretty good environment here at Race. I discuss philosophy, strategy, policy, history, etc… with all kinds of people who support a variety of candidates (including Romney). I’ve had great discussions with dozens of people here, including Rombots. It really about a half-dozon Rombots who push the “Romney is god and all others are evil” sort of motif- the sorts of people who tend to treat most anyone who supports anyone else as either stupid or wicked.
November 17th, 2009 at 6:30 am
BTW,
Saying I don’t trust a politician is not “a full frontal assault on a man’s character.”
Damn, you guys are so brittle.
November 17th, 2009 at 7:54 am
“It really about a half-dozon Rombots who push the “Romney is god and all others are evil” sort of motif- the sorts of people who tend to treat most anyone who supports anyone else as either stupid or wicked.”
That’s just so much BS, MWS.
November 17th, 2009 at 9:12 am
MWS is a waste of time, he lies and spins the truth more than most politicans!
November 17th, 2009 at 11:03 am
PRINCIPLE OR POPULARITY
How should we pick a proper candidate, let’s say, for President? Should it be one most principled or most popular? Should it be one reflecting the principles of America’s founding, or the most popular? Would a Sarah Palin be the most principled while a Hannah Montana the most popular? If so, which would be best? Following the Civil War, the most principled candidates were the Democrats, in that they stood for the founding principles of America. The Republicans, in order to win, picked popular military heroes, but were not of the same principled class as Democrats. At the start of the 20th century, founding principles defining Democrats began to vanish, leaving new principles reflecting Old World policies once tossed out of America. Today, we have Republicans wanting win by avoiding principle, and Democrats wanting to change America, back to an Old World two-class dictatorship model, where the few elite rule the many. Obama was elected on popularity, not that McCain was principled, and has led America, like the pied piper, toward a Marxist Paradise like Cuba and North Korea. It just goes to prove, today, that an Obama or Hannah Montana would be the preferred choice of non-thinking Americans and a new Royalty for their admiration. In the meantime, the unique principles upon which America was founded are allowed to vanish forever. claysamerica.com
November 17th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
a nice post and thanks for visiting my blog, like to hear more from you