Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Use my Amazon Portal
A friend of mine very quietly said something very was to me a couple of months ago."Mitt Romney would have been a very great President."That was it. No other polemics. Nothing about Obama. No prompting. No other response from me, other than a pause of some length while I thought about the statement in its simplicity and then said. "Yes. Yes, he would have."
So what we have here is the ideal relationship as presented to the American electorate by the candidate and helped along by the campaign propaganda by Mitt's underlings. I would probably be way under if I tried to guess the actual costs spent on advertising the family stuff about how Mitt and Ann met and how dedicated they are to each other and on and on until the public is about to toss their cookies. snarc But it also must be straight up stuff because son Josh said that it is./snarcAnd no, Chuck (I hope you are not the big Kahuna from LDS who banned me!), squishy RINOs do not make good Presidents. Remember RomneyCare?
And no, Chuck (I hope you are not the big Kahuna from LDS who banned me!), squishy RINOs do not make good Presidents. Remember RomneyCare?1/27/14, 6:34 PM"You're right they don't but Democrats are even worse presidents than squishy Republicans. Less bad beats terrible.
Remember RomneyCare?Sure. I also remember the Olympics and the state of Massachusetts. Whatever your quibbles with his policies and politics, (and I have mine too) his actions as an executive in crisis situations is outstanding. He is exactly the type of man the country needs right now.
gadfly is right, it's better to lose with Cruz. Then you can continue whinging non-stop.
Remember RomneyCare?Massachusetts has been run by an overwhelmingly Democratic and corrupt legislature (the last three MA speakers of the house are all convicted felons) for decades. Romney's vetoes can and were easily overridden. Given the context Romney assembled the best plan possible, despite his objections to it. And while it's easy to argue with the approach, you can't argue with the result- he plan was actually functional and sustainable. Now that Obamacare has been enacted, MA is in the same boat as everyone else..
Nice guys finish last.
It's because his wife is submissive to him.
I know lots of Mormons just like Mitt. Truly good guys. Took good upbringings, and made the most of them. Went to top schools. Very competent at business. Etc. Etc. Etc. But they got their flaws.I another Mormon who never went to college, but he can draw, He worked on a bunch of major motion picture animations (Horton Hears a Who, Ice Age, etc.) But he's got his flaws.I know of a Mormon husband who is a rock star. And he's got his flaws.And it should be abundantly clear in this forum that I got mine. (And I'm lucky that my wife doesn't compare me to Mitt.)But to build a society of perfect justice and mercy we need each of us and more. The hand cannot say to the eye, I have no need of you.
The problem with mitt was his constant flip-flopping, which truthfully was unlike any flip-flopping we have ever seen. It may have been a result of trying to appease the crazy wing of the party. If he had been more consistent and spoken up on what he believed in he might have had a shot. His temperment and record as a bipartisan problem solver was frowned on by the crazy wing but that is exactly what would have made him a great president. The failure of mitt was a failure of the crazy wing of the republican party that has taken control of the party. The Mitt of pre 2012 was a solid effective republican leader and was so unlike the Mitt of 2012 that voters frowned upon.
...and was so unlike the Mitt of 2012 that voters frowned upon.I think people are scared of Mormons for reasons I can't understand.Yeah...I'd vote for Romney again.
Cliff,You're right! The "crazy wing" has so totally taken over the Republican Party that they went and nominated... ... ... Mitt?
Kirk Parker, that's a valid point. In my view, they nominated a different Mitt than the Mitt pre-2012. The Mitt they nominated was one that had contorted himself to positions contrary to his pre 2012 self in order to squeek by the actual crazies like Rick Santorum. It might be me as I grow older becoming less conservative, but I think the opposite is true - that the party has become crazier as I've aged. Rick Santorum came close to winning even though he is not what I would call a fiscal conservative, and non-crazy fiscal conservatives like Jon Hunstman have been shunned by the party. I think Mitt was a good, non-crazy conservative who was forced to turn himself into a nutbag to get the nomination. I will continue to fight for fiscal conservatism and responsible government even as it leaves the republican party. The democratic party has the mantle of fiscal responsibility at the moment- and being how they are not very responsible that is a bad thing for our country. The social crazies, like the Santorums and Huckabees need to be expelled from the republican party IMO. Otherwise we concede the mantle of responsible government to the democrats and that is absolutely the wrong thing for our country.
America was offered the most incredibly qualified man to be president, and we turned the opportunity down. I don't have a lot of faith we know how to choose real presidents anymore.
Cliff,I'm not really a conservative, I'm more of a not-quite-libertarian... but if you think Jon Huntsman is an acceptable candidate then really, there is no tent big enough to hold both of us.I just want government reduced down to (a) its constitutional scope, 'cause that what we-all agreed on (or rather our forebears did), and (b) in practical terms, reduce to a scope in which it can actually manage to be more effective than not. (Go [re]read Hayek if that latter is not clear.)
MayBee,"America was offered the most incredibly qualified man to be a caretaker president"FIFY.Of course I vote for Romney, he could lose the use of both arms and 75% of his brain cells and still be far preferable to either Obama or Hillary!But still, a go-slow, caretaker guy wasn't really what we needed. Instead, we needed--and still do need--someone who has the vision as to where we need to go, as a country, and whose only caution/limiting factor is "do not kill the patient".
@Cliff - What you saw as flip-flopping (as did most of the country), I viewed differently. While Mitt's parents were politically active, I don't believe the young Mitt Romney thought deeply about the issues. He had not formed a consistent theory of governing -- what is the proper role of government, how should competing values (such as individual liberty and the protection of life) be balanced, etc. Like most Americans, Mitt was focused on living his life. When he first entered politics, he took positions based on what he believed were good policies -- not based on a personal conviction born of personal study, but based on what he'd heard said by others he trusted (such as his parents). It wasn't until he had to grapple with those issues as governor that he came to a personal conviction of what was the right policy. And it wasn't until he ran for President the second time that he developed a theory of governing.In some ways, my view is a more serious indictment than the common view that he flipped positions on many issues. Why should we take seriously anyone who doesn't have a fully developed theory of governing? In fairness, most politicians don't. (That's the reason McCain it is so difficult to predict. He judges each situation based on his gut instinct.) Romney thought his management skills would be all that were required. It's to his credit that he learned differently and developed a governing philosophy through personal thought and study.
Mitt always struck me as a fiscal conservative, but a social libertarian. This was unacceptable to the Republican right and is why they will continue to throw elections away.Much of Mitt's "flip-flopping" was about issues Republicans find dear, but Mitt clearly didn't give a damn about. Like with many, if not most, of us fiscal conservatives, Mitt realized that getting America's fiscal house in order trumps everything. Again, many, if not most, Republicans don't see it that way.
"Of course I vote for Romney, he could lose the use of both arms and 75% of his brain cells and still be far preferable to either Obama or Hillary!"Yes absolutely. I keep hearing libertarians in particular saupying there is no difference between an Obama and a Romney. Or that Romney would do the same thing just at a slower pace. Both arguments are poppycock and are simply rationalizations for why you would vote for a Gary Johnson.Big govt is still smaller than Biggest govt. And if you are going to grow govt, but at a slower rate, well then, that's a cut in projected govt spending. And I'll take cuts where I can get them. I think he would have cut govt more than what the libertarians argued, especially if he had the House demanding govt cuts. But even if they were totally right, its still better than the Keynesian economic non recovery and rampant spending going on now.
Good comments from kirk, dk and joe. Dk, I do wish that Romney had been able to play up his management skills more. Kirk, I have always viewed Huntsman as a more fiscally conservative - even libertarian leaning - politician than Romney. His record in Utah was certainly far more so than Romney's in Mass even though there are a multitude of other reasons why this could be the case. I've never understood the lack of traction that Huntsman has had in the party.
Cliff,"His record in Utah was certainly far more so than Romney's in Mass even though there are a multitude of other reasons why this could be the case."COULD be??? You mean like the basic underlying political environment in the state?
Post a Comment