I already sent him a check since he’s a fellow free thinking unorthodox evangelical Mormon, and not from the Utah-Idaho Nazi wing. I’m sure BKP feels otherwise, but win or lose, this guy is a good public face for us.
Ok I am confused… didn’t MItt used to say that he supported abortion and a woman’s right to choose and now he is staunchly pro-life? Also, he was all for homosexual marriage and now he is against it? What are we supposed to think of a guy that says one thing and then suddenly changes in order to run for the presidency? As a mormon you would think he wouldn’t have supported these things to begin with? Is he an active, faithful member of the church? I admit most of my info about Mitt has come from articles in the paper, and I know how well those can be trusted… can someone give me some unbiased info about Mitt?
He’s wrong on Iraq, he has changed his views to ride political waves, I wouldn’t vote for him. But then again, this ain’t my race. I hope he gets the Republican nomination — such exposure will be good for the church out here in the colonies — but I hope you guys vote for Meshiach Barack ben Obama in the end.
Dan, one might supported limited torture while opposing Bush’s particular policies with regards to torture. Personally I find Bush rather incompetent in everything he does looking only at short term expediency rather than long term ramifications. He’s definitely hurt our foreign policy immeasurably. Worse (in my view) is that the good ideas he espoused have now been damaged by his horribly mismanaged implementation of them.
For some reason I liked Obama a lot more before he announced his candidacy. I was in Illinois during his Senate campaign and really warmed to the guy, but now I’m not so sure he’s really any different. It should be a really interesting race in both parties.
even limited torture is still torture. and it is ineffective, yet does substantial damage to our standing and credibility. there is no justification. The United Nations Convention Against Torture (which because it was ratified by the Senate is Constitutionally the Law of the Land), states that “no exceptional circumstances, whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.†Of course, supporters will never claim that these “enhanced interrogation techniques” are indeed torture, but alas, they are.
For my support and for ending my efforts to ensure he loses Pennsylvania, all Romney has to do is disavow all his previous comments supporting Bush’s policies regarding the treatment of detainees.
I think Obama is the best candidate out there (though Romney is also very articulate–and a debate between these two candidates should be quite enjoyable). Anytime you get a foreign leader (in this case Mr. John Howard of Australia) criticizing your positions, you know you are in good shape, and a very serious threat to the current establishment.
To be fair on the abortion issue one should look to what he did as governor rather than just his changing rhetoric. While I do worry a lot about his rhetoric to be all things to all people, he’s nowhere near as bad as Clinton, McCain, or many others.
But I admit I wish there was a candidate who excited me more.
Hasn’t the Mormon aspect to the story gotten old yet?
It’s interesting that in most polls I’ve seen Romney doesn’t do as well as you’d suspect. That might partially be due to name recognition. I honestly don’t understand why McCain does as well as he does.
Hasn’t the Mormon aspect to the story gotten old yet?
Only for those of us that have been paying attention for the past six months. I have friends who emailed me after he announced asking what I thought of him and did I know he was Mormon. The LDS angle is going to be going for a while imho.
Comment by jjohnsen — February 13, 2007 @ 10:37 pm
Tim, McCain is in trouble even though he’s ahead in the polls. He’s alienated a lot of the conservative base. His attempt to blame Bush for not having enough troops is in trouble given both Bush’s surge and opposition to the surge. He’s been working to woo social conservatives but I just can’t see that it’s enough. (Although I may be wrong – I thought Clinton was in trouble but underestimated her power base and skills)
Giuliani is the dark horse. Yes this social liberalism is problematic. And he has a lot of dirty laundry in his closet. But he’s arguably competent and both he and Romney seem the only major figures with executive experience. (Well outside of the NM governor) Both are tough on terrorism in a fashion I simply don’t think others can manage.
We’ll see.
I think Romney actually will have trouble. Everyone will be talking about his Mormonism. There will be a lot of FUD next year on this.
I disagree though that if it ends up being Romney vs. Hilary that it would be a landslide. This is quite unlike say the ’96 election or the ’84 or ’88 elections. I think Hilary has the weight if it comes down to that. But she has her own scandals and problems. Romney is much more the outsider. Further Romney is wisely portraying himself as the outsider – something Clinton simply can’t do. A lot will depend both upon the Mormon issue and Romney’s political skills as well as the Clinton’s infamous dirty tricks. (At least the equal of anything Bush could do with Rove)
I honestly don’t understand why McCain does as well as he does.
Keep in mind that for years McCain has been involved with non-partisan groups like The Concord Coalition and Straight Talk America. This has helped him to build a base of fans.
But not all of them can vote in a Republican primary, which is where it gets tricky, and you have to watch the polling data carefully.
As long as we’re still talking about Iraq in 2008 and the three main Republican candidates keep backing Bush’s policies in Iraq, it doesn’t matter who the Republican candidate will be. Democrats are not only going to win the White House, but, with 21 Republican Senate seats up for grabs in 2008, the Democrats will get a veto-proof majority in the Senate, along with the House still in Democratic control.
Don’t Republicans see how poisonous the war in Iraq has been to their party? Can anyone remember the last time one party failed to gain even one seat from the opposition? That’s what happened in 2006. Republicans lost six of their seats in the Senate and failed to grab even one Democratic seat. In the House, the same story. The reason? Iraq Iraq Iraq. Then of course, the Republicans didn’t help themselves either running the worst Congress ever!
If Mitt Romney wishes to win the 2008 election he needs to be critical of George Bush (in many aspects). He needs to stop the failed policy of fixing Iraq with the military when the real solution is a political one. The irony is that Condi Rice said it correctly back in 2000, as quoted by Andrew Sullivan:
“The president must remember that the military is a special instrument. It is lethal, and it is meant to be. It is not a civilian police force. It is not a political referee. And it is most certainly not designed to build a civilian society. Military force is best used to support clear political goals, whether limited, such as expelling Saddam from Kuwait, or comprehensive, such as demanding the unconditional surrender of Japan and Germany during World War II. It is one thing to have a limited political goal and to fight decisively for it; it is quite another to apply military force incrementally, hoping to find a political solution somewhere along the way. A president entering these situations must ask whether decisive force is possible and is likely to be effective and must know how and when to get out. These are difficult criteria to meet, so U.S. intervention in these ‘humanitarian’ crises should be, at best, exceedingly rare.”
Something happened on 9/11 and after that made these people who used to say smart things become the stupidest and dumbest of people. Nowadays Ms. Rice says stupid things like this:
“It’s bad policy to speculate on what you’ll do if a plan fails when you’re trying to make a plan work.â€
These are not the kinds of people Mr. Romney should be supporting if he wishes to win in 2008.
While I agree with you to a point, opposing Bush as a Republican can be tricky. Chuck Hagel (from my home state) is considering a run at the White House, but has no shot at winning a Republican primary because he is now viewed as a traitor.
Romney’s interview this morning with Matt Lauer basically says why he supports Bush and the war. Interestingly, like George W. Bush, it has to do with his father.
Romney is following in the footsteps of his father, George Romney, who ran for president in 1968 as governor of Michigan. That campaign was derailed when the elder Romney made comments about the war in Vietnam that eroded conservative voters’ confidence in his military commitment, a mistake his son does not intend to make.
Romney pointed Wednesday to his refusal to abandon an increasingly unpopular stance — support for the war in Iraq in general and specifically for President Bush’s decision to increase the U.S. troop commitment there — as proof of his conservative bona fides and of his ability to get up to speed on foreign affairs.
Yeah, hear me roar! I’m conservative because I refuse to back down even though I’m on the wrong side of the war!
Interestingly, this reminds me of Bush and the reasons he acted the way he has these past six years. He too wished to avoid the mistakes of his father, but in doing so made matters worse.
Seriously, which George Bush do you think will history remember more kindly? Is Romney falling down that same road? Romney’s father made the right call regarding troops in Vietnam. He paid the political price for it, but that’s the way it goes.
What’s more important to Romney? Getting to the White House, or getting things right?
Which makes me wonder why there hasn’t been a viable independent candidate (no Joe Lieberman, please remain seated) to come out of the woodwork. I think the timing is perfect and I think the people would support it if the candidate was right.
Hagel would be a good choice but he has so far resisted.
Dan, many people feel that Bush wasn’t wrong on the war but was incompetent on the implementation. However I agree that dealing with that nuance will be difficult for whatever Republican wins the nomination. If Iraq is (as most suspect) a mess come election time then I agree the Democrat will likely win easily.
Tim, the reason there has not been a viable independent candidate is because an independent candidate simply doesn’t have the infrastructure to win. Parties help a lot especially in grass roots efforts. Further there is a percentage of Republicans and Democrats who will vote the party line for various reasons. So you automatically loose those.
The best you can hope for is someone from within the party who attempts to either reform the party or run as an outsider. (As both McCain and Guiliani are attempting to do – although McCain is the consummate insider so we’ll see how his media savvy works there)
I agree, Clark. Many Democrats also agreed with Bush. Obama’s lucky he wasn’t even a Senator when the Iraq war was put to vote–he has much less explaining to do than Hillary on the matter.
The American way of life is under assault. The reality of Peak Oil has fostered the desperate measures in Iraq, Afghanistan and now soon to be Iran. Dick Cheney has been quoted as saying, “the American way of life is not negotiable.” The challenge to our weak dollar as the reserve currency in the world is under attack. Most people can’t fathom the geo political realities facing this country.
This is why GW ingores U.S. and world wide pleas to pull out of Iraq and instead increases trooop build up. This is why the Congress won’t shut down the funding and why candidates like Romney and Hillary tow the party line. Most people don’t realize that we are building permanent bases in Iraq and Afghanistan. What for? Aren’t we there to liberate and then go home?
Welcome to world of smoke and mirrors forgein policy and our politician magicians who wield the deception on every front.
Comment by David L. — February 14, 2007 @ 12:18 pm
Clark,
Dan, many people feel that Bush wasn’t wrong on the war but was incompetent on the implementation.
If you read the latest polls, they show up to 60% of Americans now think the war itself was a mistake, from the start, and not just because of the incompetence of the Bush administration. But here’s a good question for Romney, if Bush has been so incompetent in Iraq, why does Romney still support Bush?
Dan, that poll isn’t nuanced enough to explain things. Hell, knowing what I know now I think the war was a mistake. But Romney isn’t saying that going in claiming WMDs was a good thing. Rather he advocates trying to stabilize Iraq in contrast to pulling out as fast as possible without regard to the consequences to Iraq.
Tim, to be fair I don’t think most Senators voting for the war thought they were voting for what they got.
I respect your opinion and have a serious question, what do you know now that you didn’t know then? Is your disapproval limited to post-invasion military managing or is there more that you simply weren’t aware of?
Am trying to wrap my mind around why so many informed Mormons were pro-invasion (even though the church teaches “proclaim peace, and denounce warâ€).
Rather he advocates trying to stabilize Iraq in contrast to pulling out as fast as possible without regard to the consequences to Iraq.
That’s a straw man and you know it.
Iraq is failing because of two reasons. The underlying assumptions behind reforming the Middle East were flawed, and as such, when applied, would not bring about desired results. They can’t if they’re flawed. Let me share with you a quote from a man named Mokhtar Trifi of Tunisia who said:
“If you wanted to support democracy in the Arab world, why did you begin with your enemies instead of your friends? Why Iraq and Iran? Why not us?â€
You cannot transform an autocracy into a democracy at the point of a gun. It is impossible.
Secondly, Iraq was a failure from the start because the executors of the plan were not true believers in nation-building, and as such never applied the principles of nation-building. It is no surprise that Iraq is now a civil war, and worse.
Why should you trust that the men who gave you this hell will somehow give you a victory? From their actions in their past, what evidence do you have that their plans will work where they’ve failed previously? Seriously!
To your Middle Eastern commentator I would ask, “does your country possess the 2nd largest know oil reserve of light sweet crude?” We’re not interested in Nation building. We’re interested in large scale oil grabs backed by large military armies. Nation building is a “ruse” and perpertuated fraud on the American people and the world.
We’ve been doing peaceful business with the Saudi’s for decades. Why havent we asked them to Democratize their governments and hold Thomas Jefferson like elections? Better yet, why haven’t we invaded them and used the same military might we’ve used on Iraq? Isn’t Bin Laden a Saudi national? Weren’t most of the 9/11 hijackers Saudi nationals?
We’re asking the wrong questions here with regard to the present Middle East debacle. I know we all want to sound like arm chair political scientist and pretend we have some divine moral agenda for why we’re over in Iraq but we’ve seen the outcome and the fruits of our labor and its embarrassment to whatever ideals we still stand for and hold true.
I know there were no WMDs which was a deciding factor in being for the war. I trusted the administration on their intelligence for WMDs and felt quite betrayed by them on that. I also thought that there was a plan from the early days to rebuild Iraq ala the Marshall Plan. There was none. Had I known prior to the invasion those two things I would have been firmly against it.
Iraq is failing because of two reasons. The underlying assumptions behind reforming the Middle East were flawed, and as such, when applied, would not bring about desired results.
That’s not a strawman and while there were some underlying assumptions that were flawed (i.e. the animosity between the Sunnis and the Shites) I don’t think most of the assumptions were flawed. (Well, ignoring some of Cheney’s more idiotic comments.)
You cannot transform an autocracy into a democracy at the point of a gun. It is impossible.
Don’t tell the Germans or Austrians.
Secondly, Iraq was a failure from the start because the executors of the plan were not true believers in nation-building, and as such never applied the principles of nation-building.
That I’ll completely agree with. It was disgraceful how the Pentagon rather than the State Department was in charge of rebuilding and none of the expertise that was out there was consulted.
Why should you trust that the men who gave you this hell will somehow give you a victory?
I don’t. At this stage I merely hope to restore security. I think victory as it was conceived in 2003 is now a lost cause.
But in any case we’re not talking about the men who gave us this hell. We’re talking about Romney.
If our true objectives in the Middle East right now are the democratization of the Arab world, the question is a very valid one. Why don’t we start with our allies? To force our enemies to “convert” seems rather, well, vain and foolish. If our true objectives are not the democratization of the Middle East and instead the control of oil, then we lie when we say otherwise, and people in the Middle East see those lies exactly what they are for, and as such, we lose more and more standing and credibility, even among our allies. It doesn’t sound like a very sound foreign policy.
What does Romney say? Does he advocate continuing this very poor and self-destructive foreign policy? At what point, after how many losses will we finally admit the truth that our policies in the Middle East are the worst America has ever had?
Mr. Goble,
Since the reasons this administration gave for going into Iraq were completely bogus, and since the prosecution of this war was monumentally incompetent, I predict, without much fear of eventual contradiction, that we will fail spectacularly in Iraq.
Were it not for the deaths of so many good young men and women, it would serve this administration right for the failure of their macho plans for the mid-east.
Since this is no joking matter for the troops, I will predict that Dicky Cheney and maybe even George W. Bush will be, eventually hauled before the courts, or at least, Congress, to explain their great adventures in spreading “democracy” into the bronze age middle east.
I know Mormons are secretly hoping this might be “armageddon” shaping up in the middle east, but let me remind you how much Mormons enthused about the original 1993 Gulf war as the impending armageddon. (Dare I mention, Cleon Skausen?)
It seems to me, that that kind of thinking is a perfect example of the kind of danger represented by ridiculous, fundamentalist muslims and christians described by Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris in their recent best sellers.
Oh, I’m sorry, I know the folks who contribute to this blog are not those kinds of un-sophisticated religionists. None of you would opine that this might be a lead in to the second coming. But, just maybe, Romney is the predicted, prophesied, priesthood bearer who will save the nation and the Constitution.
Does anybody talk about that prophesy anymore?
So. At the risk of being accused of a diatribe, could we assume that Romney, who is a member of Christ’s Church, will have the help of Christ in his campaign? ( Kind of like those football players who point to the sky when they score a touchdown). And if Jesus is in fact in Romney’s corner, how could he possibly not win???? And if he doesn’t win (and I predict, confidently, that he will NOT win) how shall we interpret that?
Come on, go out on a limb and state your feelings about the possibility of a Romney win. Either God is for him or not. Or not?
Rather he advocates trying to stabilize Iraq in contrast to pulling out as fast as possible without regard to the consequences to Iraq.
Tell me who advocates “pulling out as fast as possible without regard to the consequences to Iraq?” You may think some do, but that’s a straw man.
That’s not a strawman and while there were some underlying assumptions that were flawed (i.e. the animosity between the Sunnis and the Shites) I don’t think most of the assumptions were flawed. (Well, ignoring some of Cheney’s more idiotic comments.)
The flawed assumptions were that you could forcibly change a Middle East country into a flourishing democracy. And you cannot ignore some of Cheney’s most idiotic comments. That’s what he really believes and he is the puppeteer of this government.
Don’t tell the Germans or Austrians.
From my recollection of history, I don’t recall our purpose in attacking Germany or Austria being to set up democracies in their countries. Please don’t revise history.
But in any case we’re not talking about the men who gave us this hell. We’re talking about Romney.
Yes we are talking about Romney. He supports this man (George Bush) and his plan in Iraq, so asking these questions about Bush relates and are highly important to understanding what Romney will do if (not when) he becomes president. Will he follow the foolish foreign policy of the previous administration? Will he start wars with nations based on faulty intel and then dance around the accountability?
We’re talking about Romney when I ask how you can trust the same men who gave you hell to somehow solve the problem, because Romney backs them. If Romney backs them, what does that say about his views about foreign policy?
It tells me one of two things. Either Romney believes these are the best policies (if this is the case, and if Romney becomes president, then we’re in trouble from 2008 to 2012), or the Republican base believes in these foolish foreign policies, and will (if they keep power) regretably further erode our nation. In either case, the more we continue to support Bush and his foreign policy, the more America loses.
Tell me who advocates “pulling out as fast as possible without regard to the consequences to Iraq?†You may think some do, but that’s a straw man.
There are two different answers.
There’s the one group who advocate pull outs and say, “it can’t get any worse.” Now one could argue that this group don’t think the consequences don’t matter, they merely think that the consequences won’t be bad. However this just seems at best naive and worse just as irresponsible and Bush’s rose colored glasses. Now not everyone does this. I think figures like Murtha sometimes do this. But certainly I’ve encountered many that do.
The other group are those who honestly don’t care. They feel that it is immoral for us to be there and that we need to leave. The Iraqis don’t want us there and so forth . . . The cost of our staying to us isn’t worth whatever consequences follow. I’ve met lots of people in this camp. If Iraq becomes a nasty genocidal civil war, well that’s Bush’s fault for starting the war but we shouldn’t be there.
Of course note that I’m not putting all critics into these two camps. Far from it. There are responsible folks. While I disagree with him, Murtha sometimes speaks like he is responsible, for instance. The responsible viewpoint is that that only solution for peace in Iraq is a political one. The culture and political realities mean that the longer we are there the more they can avoid making the real compromises needed for peace. If we leave not only will political progress be made but we won’t be drawing the ire of Iraqis. That’s a very defensible position.
That’s what he [Cheney] really believes and he is the puppeteer of this government.
Don’t get me wrong, Cheney deserves a lot of blame for what happened. It’s interesting since in the 2000 Presidential debates both Cheney and Leiberman came off as far more trustworthy and competent than either Gore or Bush. But Cheney certainly hasn’t lived up to his advertising.
However I just don’t buy the idea of either Cheney or Rove as puppeteers. It’s a nice convenient story for some. However ultimately Bush decides what happens.
But the reason I discounted some of Cheney’s idiotic comments to the press such as the idea we’d be greeted analogous to our retaking France in WWII is simply because I don’t think these comments really reflected the underlying assumptions in the policies. I think they were Cheney trying to justify through rhetoric tricks his actions.
From my recollection of history, I don’t recall our purpose in attacking Germany or Austria being to set up democracies in their countries. Please don’t revise history.
Our purpose in Iraq wasn’t purely to set up a democracy either. However you said, “you cannot transform an autocracy into a democracy at the point of a gun.” So obviously Austria and Germany offer compelling examples where at the point of a gun democracies were set up.
Now perhaps “the point of the gun” in Iraq doesn’t function as well because we don’t have that currency to do what we want. Had Iraq turned out to have WMDs perhaps the world community and Iraqis would have allowed us more latitude in our actions there. Perhaps had we done this back in the early 90′s when the world considered Sadaam as more of a threat we could have installed democracy easier. But it seems those are issues in addition to the forcing democracy.
So the fact is your claim was simply wrong.
He supports this man (George Bush) and his plan in Iraq, so asking these questions about Bush relates and are highly important to understanding what Romney will do if (not when) he becomes president. Will he follow the foolish foreign policy of the previous administration? Will he start wars with nations based on faulty intel and then dance around the accountability?
To say Romney supports the Bush plans for 2007 does not entail that he supports the Bush ideas from 2002 – 3. Indeed in my listening to interviews I get the distinct impression he’d take a different approach. I think it erroneous to equate the two. Although I’ll admit that I’d love to hear Romney discuss the Bush doctrine of 2002 and whether he thinks it still applies given the realities of Iraq.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m still skeptical about Romney. I just think everyone else I’ve seen thus far are worse. But there’s not a lot in the field on either side that makes me particularly excited.
So obviously Austria and Germany offer compelling examples where at the point of a gun democracies were set up.
Germany and Austria were democracies before World War II. The institutions were in place, the people knew what needed to be done. We didn’t set up a democracy in those two countries, we merely took out those who took advantage of the democracies and created a totalitarian state.
So, sorry, but I am not wrong, Clark. You cannot create a democracy at the point of the gun. That is an inherently contradictory stance, because democracies are about the people deciding. If there’s a foreign force with guns pointing at the people, how can the people choose for themselves what they want without angering the foreign presence? It is not a democracy at that point.
You cannot create a democracy at the point of the gun. That is an inherently contradictory stance, because democracies are about the people deciding. If there’s a foreign force with guns pointing at the people, how can the people choose for themselves what they want without angering the foreign presence?
a) You’ve not established your point. You’ve asserted it but don’t offer any arguments except for:
b) The idea that a foreign power who drives off a totalitarian government denies the ability to choose for themselves.
However (b), as I noted, was true of Austria, Germany, and Japan. Now you assert these are different due to there being elements of democracy in them prior to the American occupation. Be that as it may they still establish that your (b) is a false argument since all these groups were able to be Democratic despite an occupying army.
Sorry Clark, but this is Romney’s epitaph and an embarrassment on Mormondom. It’s not Romney’s vote for Tsongas, a pro business Dem. That’s quite understandable. Tsongas was on the money, btw, with his pro business “No goose, no golden eggs” quip. The problem here is Romney’s conflicting, implausible and intellectually dishonest stated reason for voting in a Dem Primary. In a nutshell, he’s a poor liar (something he shares with Bush), and presidents have to be good liars (as do all effective negotiators). When people say they want an “honest politician”, they want to be lied to without knowing it. That takes a good liar.
Regarding Reagan, he evolved politically from a New Deal Dem to a Conservative, as did many in his generation, in a very understandable transition for anyone who understands that era. It can be summed up with FDR and Reagan being bookend great presidents: FDR saved capitalism and Reagan saved FDR’s welfare state from collapse under it’s own weight. The legacy from that era is two parties of big government, albeit of differing priorities.
Romney, on the other hand, is now exposed as a bad liar, plain and simple. There’s no recovery from this gaffe in this election cycle. He’ll die in a whimper like his daddy, and that’s sad him and embarrassing for us.
Watch this video on Romney’s quite strong pro-choice views in the 2002 gubernatorial race. Very convenient that he “converted” in 2003 to pro-life, ain’t it……
Dan, there’s no doubt that his abrupt change of position is his biggest weakness — especially in the primaries. As is his voting for Tsongas. (Although truth be told, I was kind of pro-Tsongas that year as well as I wasn’t at all happy with Bush I. I have to admit my biggest regret was actually voting for Clinton that year over Bush I. Although it did shake up the Republicans for a bit and brought in the contract with America. It’s just that as soon as the Republicans had been in power they forgot why they were in power.)
One thing I think that the Republicans could use to their favor if Romney gets the nomination (which I don’t think he will) is to market him as a squeaky clean kind of guy (complete with lemon scent!). Giuliani has too much of a past as has been said up above. I’m not sure about McCain (except for that he vacillates between the two sides in Congress). Does anyone know if he has any dirty secrets in his past? After the Mark Foley Scandal, the nonsense with Tom Delay, and the whole Enron thing (which had ties to the “El-Shrubo” administration), I think the GOP needs someone good.
I could be wrong about the whole thing, though. Besides this thing with Tsongas, does Mitt have any skeletons?
In reality, though, I think that this election is the Democrats’ to lose. Which may be the case if they don’t get themselves in gear and figure out what to do about the current situation we find ourselves in, or put someone in who is too polarizing.
*hmmm…briefly has images of Hillary vs. Romney… who would win that one?
Matt, this is one of the reasons I get excited about Romney. I like social conservative candidates, but I’m tired of politicians whose personal lives are out of whack with their political ones. It’ll be nice to have someone with a “boring” past.
I already sent him a check since he’s a fellow free thinking unorthodox evangelical Mormon, and not from the Utah-Idaho Nazi wing. I’m sure BKP feels otherwise, but win or lose, this guy is a good public face for us.
Comment by Steve EM — February 13, 2007 @ 1:13 pm
Go Mitt!
Comment by Jordan Fowles — February 13, 2007 @ 1:22 pm
I won’t vote for him, but I think Mitt will be a formidable candidate.
Comment by Chris Williams — February 13, 2007 @ 1:59 pm
Ok I am confused… didn’t MItt used to say that he supported abortion and a woman’s right to choose and now he is staunchly pro-life? Also, he was all for homosexual marriage and now he is against it? What are we supposed to think of a guy that says one thing and then suddenly changes in order to run for the presidency? As a mormon you would think he wouldn’t have supported these things to begin with? Is he an active, faithful member of the church? I admit most of my info about Mitt has come from articles in the paper, and I know how well those can be trusted… can someone give me some unbiased info about Mitt?
Thanks.
Comment by Stephanie — February 13, 2007 @ 2:13 pm
He’s wrong on Iraq, he has changed his views to ride political waves, I wouldn’t vote for him. But then again, this ain’t my race. I hope he gets the Republican nomination — such exposure will be good for the church out here in the colonies — but I hope you guys vote for Meshiach Barack ben Obama in the end.
Comment by Ronan — February 13, 2007 @ 2:53 pm
As long as he supports Bush’s torture policies, I will be fighting against him here in Pennsylvania.
Comment by Dan — February 13, 2007 @ 2:55 pm
An other reason to pick Romney over McCain. McCain wants ID taught in school while Romney doesn’t.
Comment by Clark Goble — February 13, 2007 @ 3:12 pm
Dan, one might supported limited torture while opposing Bush’s particular policies with regards to torture. Personally I find Bush rather incompetent in everything he does looking only at short term expediency rather than long term ramifications. He’s definitely hurt our foreign policy immeasurably. Worse (in my view) is that the good ideas he espoused have now been damaged by his horribly mismanaged implementation of them.
Comment by Clark Goble — February 13, 2007 @ 3:13 pm
For some reason I liked Obama a lot more before he announced his candidacy. I was in Illinois during his Senate campaign and really warmed to the guy, but now I’m not so sure he’s really any different. It should be a really interesting race in both parties.
Comment by Tim J. — February 13, 2007 @ 3:16 pm
Clark,
even limited torture is still torture. and it is ineffective, yet does substantial damage to our standing and credibility. there is no justification. The United Nations Convention Against Torture (which because it was ratified by the Senate is Constitutionally the Law of the Land), states that “no exceptional circumstances, whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.†Of course, supporters will never claim that these “enhanced interrogation techniques” are indeed torture, but alas, they are.
For my support and for ending my efforts to ensure he loses Pennsylvania, all Romney has to do is disavow all his previous comments supporting Bush’s policies regarding the treatment of detainees.
Comment by Dan — February 13, 2007 @ 3:18 pm
I think Obama is the best candidate out there (though Romney is also very articulate–and a debate between these two candidates should be quite enjoyable). Anytime you get a foreign leader (in this case Mr. John Howard of Australia) criticizing your positions, you know you are in good shape, and a very serious threat to the current establishment.
Comment by Dan — February 13, 2007 @ 3:21 pm
Stephanie,
Romney has never supported Same Sex Marriage. I’m not sure about Civil Unions.
He did change his position on abortion somewhat though. But he changed it in my direction so I’m not complaining.
Comment by Aluwid — February 13, 2007 @ 4:04 pm
Dan,
Howard is a twit of the first order. Can’t stand the bloke.
Comment by Ronan — February 13, 2007 @ 4:06 pm
To be fair on the abortion issue one should look to what he did as governor rather than just his changing rhetoric. While I do worry a lot about his rhetoric to be all things to all people, he’s nowhere near as bad as Clinton, McCain, or many others.
But I admit I wish there was a candidate who excited me more.
Comment by Clark Goble — February 13, 2007 @ 4:24 pm
I still don’t know why Romney thinks that “look! I’m just like George Bush!” is a winning campaign strategy.
I thought the guy was smart, but now I’m starting to wonder…
Comment by Seth R. — February 13, 2007 @ 4:49 pm
Not sure if anybody saw this, but Romney was on the front page of today’s USAToday.
Will Mormon Faith Hurt Bid for White House?
Comment by Tim J. — February 13, 2007 @ 5:09 pm
Hasn’t the Mormon aspect to the story gotten old yet?
It’s interesting that in most polls I’ve seen Romney doesn’t do as well as you’d suspect. That might partially be due to name recognition. I honestly don’t understand why McCain does as well as he does.
Comment by Clark Goble — February 13, 2007 @ 5:38 pm
“I still don’t know why Romney thinks that “look! I’m just like George Bush!†is a winning campaign strategy.”
I don’t think McCain or Giuliani have exactly differentiated themselves from Bush either–and they’re the favorites.
Comment by Tim J. — February 13, 2007 @ 5:49 pm
A Romeny ticket in 08′ would ensure a Democratic landslide victory and make either Billary or Obama the next President of the United States.
Comment by David L. — February 13, 2007 @ 9:18 pm
Only for those of us that have been paying attention for the past six months. I have friends who emailed me after he announced asking what I thought of him and did I know he was Mormon. The LDS angle is going to be going for a while imho.
Comment by jjohnsen — February 13, 2007 @ 10:37 pm
Tim, McCain is in trouble even though he’s ahead in the polls. He’s alienated a lot of the conservative base. His attempt to blame Bush for not having enough troops is in trouble given both Bush’s surge and opposition to the surge. He’s been working to woo social conservatives but I just can’t see that it’s enough. (Although I may be wrong – I thought Clinton was in trouble but underestimated her power base and skills)
Giuliani is the dark horse. Yes this social liberalism is problematic. And he has a lot of dirty laundry in his closet. But he’s arguably competent and both he and Romney seem the only major figures with executive experience. (Well outside of the NM governor) Both are tough on terrorism in a fashion I simply don’t think others can manage.
We’ll see.
I think Romney actually will have trouble. Everyone will be talking about his Mormonism. There will be a lot of FUD next year on this.
I disagree though that if it ends up being Romney vs. Hilary that it would be a landslide. This is quite unlike say the ’96 election or the ’84 or ’88 elections. I think Hilary has the weight if it comes down to that. But she has her own scandals and problems. Romney is much more the outsider. Further Romney is wisely portraying himself as the outsider – something Clinton simply can’t do. A lot will depend both upon the Mormon issue and Romney’s political skills as well as the Clinton’s infamous dirty tricks. (At least the equal of anything Bush could do with Rove)
Comment by Clark Goble — February 14, 2007 @ 1:43 am
Keep in mind that for years McCain has been involved with non-partisan groups like The Concord Coalition and Straight Talk America. This has helped him to build a base of fans.
But not all of them can vote in a Republican primary, which is where it gets tricky, and you have to watch the polling data carefully.
Comment by Naismith — February 14, 2007 @ 8:08 am
As long as we’re still talking about Iraq in 2008 and the three main Republican candidates keep backing Bush’s policies in Iraq, it doesn’t matter who the Republican candidate will be. Democrats are not only going to win the White House, but, with 21 Republican Senate seats up for grabs in 2008, the Democrats will get a veto-proof majority in the Senate, along with the House still in Democratic control.
Don’t Republicans see how poisonous the war in Iraq has been to their party? Can anyone remember the last time one party failed to gain even one seat from the opposition? That’s what happened in 2006. Republicans lost six of their seats in the Senate and failed to grab even one Democratic seat. In the House, the same story. The reason? Iraq Iraq Iraq. Then of course, the Republicans didn’t help themselves either running the worst Congress ever!
If Mitt Romney wishes to win the 2008 election he needs to be critical of George Bush (in many aspects). He needs to stop the failed policy of fixing Iraq with the military when the real solution is a political one. The irony is that Condi Rice said it correctly back in 2000, as quoted by Andrew Sullivan:
Something happened on 9/11 and after that made these people who used to say smart things become the stupidest and dumbest of people. Nowadays Ms. Rice says stupid things like this:
These are not the kinds of people Mr. Romney should be supporting if he wishes to win in 2008.
Comment by Dan — February 14, 2007 @ 9:45 am
Dan,
While I agree with you to a point, opposing Bush as a Republican can be tricky. Chuck Hagel (from my home state) is considering a run at the White House, but has no shot at winning a Republican primary because he is now viewed as a traitor.
Comment by Tim J. — February 14, 2007 @ 9:56 am
Romney’s interview this morning with Matt Lauer basically says why he supports Bush and the war. Interestingly, like George W. Bush, it has to do with his father.
Yeah, hear me roar! I’m conservative because I refuse to back down even though I’m on the wrong side of the war!
Interestingly, this reminds me of Bush and the reasons he acted the way he has these past six years. He too wished to avoid the mistakes of his father, but in doing so made matters worse.
Seriously, which George Bush do you think will history remember more kindly? Is Romney falling down that same road? Romney’s father made the right call regarding troops in Vietnam. He paid the political price for it, but that’s the way it goes.
What’s more important to Romney? Getting to the White House, or getting things right?
Comment by Dan — February 14, 2007 @ 9:57 am
Tim,
Then the Republican party is doomed in 2008.
Comment by Dan — February 14, 2007 @ 9:58 am
Which makes me wonder why there hasn’t been a viable independent candidate (no Joe Lieberman, please remain seated) to come out of the woodwork. I think the timing is perfect and I think the people would support it if the candidate was right.
Hagel would be a good choice but he has so far resisted.
Comment by Tim J. — February 14, 2007 @ 10:44 am
Tim
I am with you there… this whole Democratic vs. Republican nonsense just gets me upset… people acting like idiots…us against them… argh…
An independent candidate would be most welcome I would think… I bet a lot of people in this country are just as sick of the party wars as I am.
Comment by Stephanie — February 14, 2007 @ 12:01 pm
Dan, many people feel that Bush wasn’t wrong on the war but was incompetent on the implementation. However I agree that dealing with that nuance will be difficult for whatever Republican wins the nomination. If Iraq is (as most suspect) a mess come election time then I agree the Democrat will likely win easily.
Comment by Clark Goble — February 14, 2007 @ 12:10 pm
Tim, the reason there has not been a viable independent candidate is because an independent candidate simply doesn’t have the infrastructure to win. Parties help a lot especially in grass roots efforts. Further there is a percentage of Republicans and Democrats who will vote the party line for various reasons. So you automatically loose those.
The best you can hope for is someone from within the party who attempts to either reform the party or run as an outsider. (As both McCain and Guiliani are attempting to do – although McCain is the consummate insider so we’ll see how his media savvy works there)
Comment by Clark Goble — February 14, 2007 @ 12:12 pm
I agree, Clark. Many Democrats also agreed with Bush. Obama’s lucky he wasn’t even a Senator when the Iraq war was put to vote–he has much less explaining to do than Hillary on the matter.
Comment by Tim J. — February 14, 2007 @ 12:14 pm
The American way of life is under assault. The reality of Peak Oil has fostered the desperate measures in Iraq, Afghanistan and now soon to be Iran. Dick Cheney has been quoted as saying, “the American way of life is not negotiable.” The challenge to our weak dollar as the reserve currency in the world is under attack. Most people can’t fathom the geo political realities facing this country.
This is why GW ingores U.S. and world wide pleas to pull out of Iraq and instead increases trooop build up. This is why the Congress won’t shut down the funding and why candidates like Romney and Hillary tow the party line. Most people don’t realize that we are building permanent bases in Iraq and Afghanistan. What for? Aren’t we there to liberate and then go home?
Welcome to world of smoke and mirrors forgein policy and our politician magicians who wield the deception on every front.
Comment by David L. — February 14, 2007 @ 12:18 pm
Clark,
If you read the latest polls, they show up to 60% of Americans now think the war itself was a mistake, from the start, and not just because of the incompetence of the Bush administration. But here’s a good question for Romney, if Bush has been so incompetent in Iraq, why does Romney still support Bush?
Comment by Dan — February 14, 2007 @ 1:52 pm
Dan, that poll isn’t nuanced enough to explain things. Hell, knowing what I know now I think the war was a mistake. But Romney isn’t saying that going in claiming WMDs was a good thing. Rather he advocates trying to stabilize Iraq in contrast to pulling out as fast as possible without regard to the consequences to Iraq.
Tim, to be fair I don’t think most Senators voting for the war thought they were voting for what they got.
Comment by Clark Goble — February 14, 2007 @ 2:40 pm
Clark,
I respect your opinion and have a serious question, what do you know now that you didn’t know then? Is your disapproval limited to post-invasion military managing or is there more that you simply weren’t aware of?
Am trying to wrap my mind around why so many informed Mormons were pro-invasion (even though the church teaches “proclaim peace, and denounce warâ€).
Comment by Carlton — February 14, 2007 @ 4:50 pm
Clark,
That’s a straw man and you know it.
Iraq is failing because of two reasons. The underlying assumptions behind reforming the Middle East were flawed, and as such, when applied, would not bring about desired results. They can’t if they’re flawed. Let me share with you a quote from a man named Mokhtar Trifi of Tunisia who said:
You cannot transform an autocracy into a democracy at the point of a gun. It is impossible.
Secondly, Iraq was a failure from the start because the executors of the plan were not true believers in nation-building, and as such never applied the principles of nation-building. It is no surprise that Iraq is now a civil war, and worse.
Why should you trust that the men who gave you this hell will somehow give you a victory? From their actions in their past, what evidence do you have that their plans will work where they’ve failed previously? Seriously!
Comment by Dan — February 14, 2007 @ 5:42 pm
Dan,
To your Middle Eastern commentator I would ask, “does your country possess the 2nd largest know oil reserve of light sweet crude?” We’re not interested in Nation building. We’re interested in large scale oil grabs backed by large military armies. Nation building is a “ruse” and perpertuated fraud on the American people and the world.
We’ve been doing peaceful business with the Saudi’s for decades. Why havent we asked them to Democratize their governments and hold Thomas Jefferson like elections? Better yet, why haven’t we invaded them and used the same military might we’ve used on Iraq? Isn’t Bin Laden a Saudi national? Weren’t most of the 9/11 hijackers Saudi nationals?
We’re asking the wrong questions here with regard to the present Middle East debacle. I know we all want to sound like arm chair political scientist and pretend we have some divine moral agenda for why we’re over in Iraq but we’ve seen the outcome and the fruits of our labor and its embarrassment to whatever ideals we still stand for and hold true.
Comment by David L. — February 14, 2007 @ 6:30 pm
what do you know now that you didn’t know then?
I know there were no WMDs which was a deciding factor in being for the war. I trusted the administration on their intelligence for WMDs and felt quite betrayed by them on that. I also thought that there was a plan from the early days to rebuild Iraq ala the Marshall Plan. There was none. Had I known prior to the invasion those two things I would have been firmly against it.
Iraq is failing because of two reasons. The underlying assumptions behind reforming the Middle East were flawed, and as such, when applied, would not bring about desired results.
That’s not a strawman and while there were some underlying assumptions that were flawed (i.e. the animosity between the Sunnis and the Shites) I don’t think most of the assumptions were flawed. (Well, ignoring some of Cheney’s more idiotic comments.)
You cannot transform an autocracy into a democracy at the point of a gun. It is impossible.
Don’t tell the Germans or Austrians.
Secondly, Iraq was a failure from the start because the executors of the plan were not true believers in nation-building, and as such never applied the principles of nation-building.
That I’ll completely agree with. It was disgraceful how the Pentagon rather than the State Department was in charge of rebuilding and none of the expertise that was out there was consulted.
Why should you trust that the men who gave you this hell will somehow give you a victory?
I don’t. At this stage I merely hope to restore security. I think victory as it was conceived in 2003 is now a lost cause.
But in any case we’re not talking about the men who gave us this hell. We’re talking about Romney.
Comment by Clark Goble — February 14, 2007 @ 7:31 pm
David,
If our true objectives in the Middle East right now are the democratization of the Arab world, the question is a very valid one. Why don’t we start with our allies? To force our enemies to “convert” seems rather, well, vain and foolish. If our true objectives are not the democratization of the Middle East and instead the control of oil, then we lie when we say otherwise, and people in the Middle East see those lies exactly what they are for, and as such, we lose more and more standing and credibility, even among our allies. It doesn’t sound like a very sound foreign policy.
What does Romney say? Does he advocate continuing this very poor and self-destructive foreign policy? At what point, after how many losses will we finally admit the truth that our policies in the Middle East are the worst America has ever had?
Comment by Dan — February 14, 2007 @ 7:45 pm
Mr. Goble,
Since the reasons this administration gave for going into Iraq were completely bogus, and since the prosecution of this war was monumentally incompetent, I predict, without much fear of eventual contradiction, that we will fail spectacularly in Iraq.
Were it not for the deaths of so many good young men and women, it would serve this administration right for the failure of their macho plans for the mid-east.
Since this is no joking matter for the troops, I will predict that Dicky Cheney and maybe even George W. Bush will be, eventually hauled before the courts, or at least, Congress, to explain their great adventures in spreading “democracy” into the bronze age middle east.
I know Mormons are secretly hoping this might be “armageddon” shaping up in the middle east, but let me remind you how much Mormons enthused about the original 1993 Gulf war as the impending armageddon. (Dare I mention, Cleon Skausen?)
It seems to me, that that kind of thinking is a perfect example of the kind of danger represented by ridiculous, fundamentalist muslims and christians described by Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris in their recent best sellers.
Oh, I’m sorry, I know the folks who contribute to this blog are not those kinds of un-sophisticated religionists. None of you would opine that this might be a lead in to the second coming. But, just maybe, Romney is the predicted, prophesied, priesthood bearer who will save the nation and the Constitution.
Does anybody talk about that prophesy anymore?
So. At the risk of being accused of a diatribe, could we assume that Romney, who is a member of Christ’s Church, will have the help of Christ in his campaign? ( Kind of like those football players who point to the sky when they score a touchdown). And if Jesus is in fact in Romney’s corner, how could he possibly not win???? And if he doesn’t win (and I predict, confidently, that he will NOT win) how shall we interpret that?
Come on, go out on a limb and state your feelings about the possibility of a Romney win. Either God is for him or not. Or not?
Comment by Katonah — February 14, 2007 @ 7:53 pm
Clark,
The straw man was this:
Tell me who advocates “pulling out as fast as possible without regard to the consequences to Iraq?” You may think some do, but that’s a straw man.
The flawed assumptions were that you could forcibly change a Middle East country into a flourishing democracy. And you cannot ignore some of Cheney’s most idiotic comments. That’s what he really believes and he is the puppeteer of this government.
From my recollection of history, I don’t recall our purpose in attacking Germany or Austria being to set up democracies in their countries. Please don’t revise history.
Yes we are talking about Romney. He supports this man (George Bush) and his plan in Iraq, so asking these questions about Bush relates and are highly important to understanding what Romney will do if (not when) he becomes president. Will he follow the foolish foreign policy of the previous administration? Will he start wars with nations based on faulty intel and then dance around the accountability?
We’re talking about Romney when I ask how you can trust the same men who gave you hell to somehow solve the problem, because Romney backs them. If Romney backs them, what does that say about his views about foreign policy?
It tells me one of two things. Either Romney believes these are the best policies (if this is the case, and if Romney becomes president, then we’re in trouble from 2008 to 2012), or the Republican base believes in these foolish foreign policies, and will (if they keep power) regretably further erode our nation. In either case, the more we continue to support Bush and his foreign policy, the more America loses.
Comment by Dan — February 15, 2007 @ 8:28 am
There are two different answers.
There’s the one group who advocate pull outs and say, “it can’t get any worse.” Now one could argue that this group don’t think the consequences don’t matter, they merely think that the consequences won’t be bad. However this just seems at best naive and worse just as irresponsible and Bush’s rose colored glasses. Now not everyone does this. I think figures like Murtha sometimes do this. But certainly I’ve encountered many that do.
The other group are those who honestly don’t care. They feel that it is immoral for us to be there and that we need to leave. The Iraqis don’t want us there and so forth . . . The cost of our staying to us isn’t worth whatever consequences follow. I’ve met lots of people in this camp. If Iraq becomes a nasty genocidal civil war, well that’s Bush’s fault for starting the war but we shouldn’t be there.
Of course note that I’m not putting all critics into these two camps. Far from it. There are responsible folks. While I disagree with him, Murtha sometimes speaks like he is responsible, for instance. The responsible viewpoint is that that only solution for peace in Iraq is a political one. The culture and political realities mean that the longer we are there the more they can avoid making the real compromises needed for peace. If we leave not only will political progress be made but we won’t be drawing the ire of Iraqis. That’s a very defensible position.
Comment by Clark Goble — February 15, 2007 @ 11:38 pm
Don’t get me wrong, Cheney deserves a lot of blame for what happened. It’s interesting since in the 2000 Presidential debates both Cheney and Leiberman came off as far more trustworthy and competent than either Gore or Bush. But Cheney certainly hasn’t lived up to his advertising.
However I just don’t buy the idea of either Cheney or Rove as puppeteers. It’s a nice convenient story for some. However ultimately Bush decides what happens.
But the reason I discounted some of Cheney’s idiotic comments to the press such as the idea we’d be greeted analogous to our retaking France in WWII is simply because I don’t think these comments really reflected the underlying assumptions in the policies. I think they were Cheney trying to justify through rhetoric tricks his actions.
Our purpose in Iraq wasn’t purely to set up a democracy either. However you said, “you cannot transform an autocracy into a democracy at the point of a gun.” So obviously Austria and Germany offer compelling examples where at the point of a gun democracies were set up.
Now perhaps “the point of the gun” in Iraq doesn’t function as well because we don’t have that currency to do what we want. Had Iraq turned out to have WMDs perhaps the world community and Iraqis would have allowed us more latitude in our actions there. Perhaps had we done this back in the early 90′s when the world considered Sadaam as more of a threat we could have installed democracy easier. But it seems those are issues in addition to the forcing democracy.
So the fact is your claim was simply wrong.
To say Romney supports the Bush plans for 2007 does not entail that he supports the Bush ideas from 2002 – 3. Indeed in my listening to interviews I get the distinct impression he’d take a different approach. I think it erroneous to equate the two. Although I’ll admit that I’d love to hear Romney discuss the Bush doctrine of 2002 and whether he thinks it still applies given the realities of Iraq.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m still skeptical about Romney. I just think everyone else I’ve seen thus far are worse. But there’s not a lot in the field on either side that makes me particularly excited.
Comment by Clark Goble — February 15, 2007 @ 11:49 pm
Clark,
Germany and Austria were democracies before World War II. The institutions were in place, the people knew what needed to be done. We didn’t set up a democracy in those two countries, we merely took out those who took advantage of the democracies and created a totalitarian state.
So, sorry, but I am not wrong, Clark. You cannot create a democracy at the point of the gun. That is an inherently contradictory stance, because democracies are about the people deciding. If there’s a foreign force with guns pointing at the people, how can the people choose for themselves what they want without angering the foreign presence? It is not a democracy at that point.
Comment by Dan — February 16, 2007 @ 11:58 am
You cannot create a democracy at the point of the gun. That is an inherently contradictory stance, because democracies are about the people deciding. If there’s a foreign force with guns pointing at the people, how can the people choose for themselves what they want without angering the foreign presence?
a) You’ve not established your point. You’ve asserted it but don’t offer any arguments except for:
b) The idea that a foreign power who drives off a totalitarian government denies the ability to choose for themselves.
However (b), as I noted, was true of Austria, Germany, and Japan. Now you assert these are different due to there being elements of democracy in them prior to the American occupation. Be that as it may they still establish that your (b) is a false argument since all these groups were able to be Democratic despite an occupying army.
Comment by Clark Goble — February 16, 2007 @ 3:07 pm
I was wrong. Romney just torched himself. Check my blog, http://mormonopenforum.blogsome.com/2007/02/16/another-sad-embarrassment-on-mormomdom/. What a fraud!
Comment by Steve EM — February 16, 2007 @ 9:56 pm
LOL. I don’t think that kills him in the least. Look at Ronald Reagan who used to be a Democrat.
Of course Paul Tsongas. . .
Comment by Clark Goble — February 17, 2007 @ 12:50 am
Sorry Clark, but this is Romney’s epitaph and an embarrassment on Mormondom. It’s not Romney’s vote for Tsongas, a pro business Dem. That’s quite understandable. Tsongas was on the money, btw, with his pro business “No goose, no golden eggs” quip. The problem here is Romney’s conflicting, implausible and intellectually dishonest stated reason for voting in a Dem Primary. In a nutshell, he’s a poor liar (something he shares with Bush), and presidents have to be good liars (as do all effective negotiators). When people say they want an “honest politician”, they want to be lied to without knowing it. That takes a good liar.
Regarding Reagan, he evolved politically from a New Deal Dem to a Conservative, as did many in his generation, in a very understandable transition for anyone who understands that era. It can be summed up with FDR and Reagan being bookend great presidents: FDR saved capitalism and Reagan saved FDR’s welfare state from collapse under it’s own weight. The legacy from that era is two parties of big government, albeit of differing priorities.
Romney, on the other hand, is now exposed as a bad liar, plain and simple. There’s no recovery from this gaffe in this election cycle. He’ll die in a whimper like his daddy, and that’s sad him and embarrassing for us.
Comment by Steve EM — February 17, 2007 @ 3:45 am
i came across this ex-mormon’s take on mitt. very well put.
Comment by FT — February 17, 2007 @ 1:44 pm
Watch this video on Romney’s quite strong pro-choice views in the 2002 gubernatorial race. Very convenient that he “converted” in 2003 to pro-life, ain’t it……
Comment by Dan — February 21, 2007 @ 7:38 am
Dan, there’s no doubt that his abrupt change of position is his biggest weakness — especially in the primaries. As is his voting for Tsongas. (Although truth be told, I was kind of pro-Tsongas that year as well as I wasn’t at all happy with Bush I. I have to admit my biggest regret was actually voting for Clinton that year over Bush I. Although it did shake up the Republicans for a bit and brought in the contract with America. It’s just that as soon as the Republicans had been in power they forgot why they were in power.)
Comment by Clark Goble — February 21, 2007 @ 12:11 pm
One thing I think that the Republicans could use to their favor if Romney gets the nomination (which I don’t think he will) is to market him as a squeaky clean kind of guy (complete with lemon scent!). Giuliani has too much of a past as has been said up above. I’m not sure about McCain (except for that he vacillates between the two sides in Congress). Does anyone know if he has any dirty secrets in his past? After the Mark Foley Scandal, the nonsense with Tom Delay, and the whole Enron thing (which had ties to the “El-Shrubo” administration), I think the GOP needs someone good.
I could be wrong about the whole thing, though. Besides this thing with Tsongas, does Mitt have any skeletons?
In reality, though, I think that this election is the Democrats’ to lose. Which may be the case if they don’t get themselves in gear and figure out what to do about the current situation we find ourselves in, or put someone in who is too polarizing.
*hmmm…briefly has images of Hillary vs. Romney… who would win that one?
Cheers!
Comment by Matt W. — February 22, 2007 @ 7:40 pm
Matt, this is one of the reasons I get excited about Romney. I like social conservative candidates, but I’m tired of politicians whose personal lives are out of whack with their political ones. It’ll be nice to have someone with a “boring” past.
Comment by Aluwid — February 22, 2007 @ 8:44 pm