We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Tuesday, October 4. 2011
Or with David Brooks, anyway, when he says The strongest case for Romney is that he’s nobody’s idea of a savior.
There is no political messiah, and never will be. America doesn't work like that, and I do not need, or want, a tingle from a politician. From a cute girl, yes.
I am for Romney-Rubio. For now, anyway. Have at me - tell me why I am wrong.
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
I would caution against accepting the NYT;s advice on GP candidates, not to mention their house fake consevative, David Brooks.
The Democrats want him to be the one so that they can pound him for being a Mormon and rich.
The figure no doubt, that even if he get in the WH, he is just another RINO pushover and they can thus continue down the path of destruction.
I don't think he's a RINO. He's a pro-business, pro-free market fiscal Conservative.
Who supported an anti-free market state takeover of healthcare that is bankrupting MA.
In recent weeks I've come to the conclusion that Romney is a dishonest man. I don't know what he cares about apart from the fact that he thinks he should be president. I would have a hard time voting for him.
Looking for moral perfection in politicians is naive or crazy. These people all want to be Prez. Why? They're crazy.
I don't view any of the current or expected candidates as saviors and that goes double for Romney. He may be Massachusetts's version of a conservative, but he's not mine. I think we need a real conservative, not conservative-lite which is what we've gotten since Reagan.
You better be prepared to define 'real conservative' 'cause there's lots of opinions on what that means.
There’s a reason no president save Obama has been able to pass health care reform. ~~~~
Obama had a Progressive Left super majority in both the House and Senate. Had he not had those majorities, Obamacare would still be sitting on a shelf. Along with what sure to be arm-twisting by Pelosi---remember her advice to throw themselves off the cliff to pass this thing.
I agree with previous commenter. The Dems will tear Romney apart. As this article doesn't quite say, his historical ideology is such that it couldn't stand up to Dems. He is he candidate they would most like. His 'adaptability' on major issues such as Romneycare, abortion, immigration make him vulnerable.
He learned his lessons last time around and took the time to smooth the edges, get his finger on America's pulse (so he knew where and how much he has to adapt) to make the right presentation.
He truly is the candidate the Left would most like to see elected, since they don't even want their own anymore, and can't gracefully primary him, and don't have a viable option to primary with...so if they can't have someone preferable in opposition, the one they'd most want is Romney. And why would that be, do you suppose?
Kelly, I'd love to have some of what you're smoking. I think you'd better decide what you think: Either the Dems would "tear him apart" or "the Dems WANT HIM TO BE PRESIDENT." Which is it?
The Dems want him to be the GOP candidate as he would be the easiest to tear apart. Brooks is a RINO working for the most liberal paper in America.
Agreed. The Left would love to have Romney, but only if they control Congress. Romney would be a 'problem' with a Republican House and Senate.
The Dems also want Romney because while he is one of the best opportunities to defeat Obama, he is the biggest liability as well. They have tons of ammunition prepared for him.
Romney has very little to make him a desirable candidate beyond "he looks presidential, he acts presidential, and he wants to be president. Oh yeah, he has a background in business, too."
I'm not opposed to Romney. I just don't support him. But like many other people, if given a choice between Obama and Romney, I'd vote for him. Hopefully, he will prove to be like Chris Christie. I voted for Christie reluctantly and have been pleasantly surprised.
"I am for Romney/Rubio. For now, anyway." Somehow this sounds Romneyesque in its conviction. He seems to be a decent "manager" which is maybe what the country needs if we have a dearth of "leaders". But, among other things, I have a hard time with any candidate who signs any of these various "pledges" out there which would seem to abdicate executive decision making.
Sigh. It's just not a pretty picture. The overall pool of candidates, that is.
Presidential candidates are not always made in Heaven, sometimes they are just there.
Well, I suppose it will be entertaining to watch the MSM go after his butt. I remember when Romney ran against Ted Kennedy and I expect a replay. It will be like Charles Schulz had returned to earth to do one more Lucy and the football panel.
I don't want charisma, and I don't want a savior. I want someone who goes to work. Is that Romney? Could be, but it's not any of them, really. Everyone at this level is pretty full of him (or her-) self.
There are two separate issues in elections, and it pays not to confuse them. The first is who is best qualified to govern. Then there is the horse-race aspect of "who can win," and "what is the long-term effect of compromising or not compromising on a candidate."
In this election we are starting to get the same thing from some conservatives that we always do: the assertion, based on no evidence whatsoever, that a Real Conservative will be much more popular and will sweep all before him if we were only brave enough to nominate him.
To be fair, liberals believe the same thing about nominating a Real Liberal. It seems to be a cast of mind unrelated to ideology, that if we would just stand up and get behind a real Christian/Socialist/Southerner/Libertarian/workingman/businessman, the electorate would be amazed and the scales fall from their eyes.
Please. Just stop. You feelings about what would work are merely that. If you have actual evidence, share it. If not, then keep the two questions separate.
For good or evil, charisma can be really handy if you're the president. Ask W (who although was a lot smarter than he seemed didn't have a lot of charisma and suffered) or Clinton (who charmed the pants off people we'll never know about not to mention a sizable chunk of the electorate) or Kennedy (who defined the term and was heading toward reelection when he was assassinated in spite of a pretty mixed show of competence) and of course Reagan (who charmed even his enemies). Obummer seemed a lot more charismatic when he was running than after he got in (maybe it was manufactured?).
Obviously, the best combination is charismatic competence.
So this "natural-born citizen" issue has been put to rest?Just asking.
I am not ruling out Gov. Romney, however I have a specific concern with people who have been in politics a long time.
My understanding is that congress was established as such to be a slow legislative process. Only situations that truly warranted action would muster the numbers needed to pass both houses and all other legislative proposals would fall by the wayside. However, many congress and senate members are too ready to negotiate, compromise, and, essentially, wheel and deal for their partisan or pet legislation. As a result we get bills (and laws!) with numerous articles that in no way promote the main focus of the bill; lots of money getting doled out on these deals, and very often, misleading accounting of their reasons for voting for or against the bill by our representatives.
While there is definitely a need for some degree of compromise I think many politicians compromise too much rather than simply say no. And I suspect that this is a habit of Gov. Romney. I'm still looking at whether this is a just accusation but it is a measure I am holding to all candidates.
Romney supports starving children by burning food, thereby raising the cost of corn and causing the malnutrition and starvation of those on the margins in poor countries.
America burns 40% of the corn we grow.
Ethanol is inefficient to produce, hurts small engines to the point of ruin, and gets fewer miles per gallon than gas without ethanol added.
Rich fat white welfare kings in Iowa have Mitt on their side, which is why I could never support him.
Guess what Herman Cain thinks of Iowa farmers who need Uncle Sam to get rich raping the free market while starving children to do it?
Romney is a spineless, flip-flopping weather-vane.
Even those who don't expect politicians to be saviors can reasonably expect some ideological consistency.
Especially at this juncture, where the choice between socialism and liberty is stark.
You're right: MF is not a conservative website.
It'd need informed writers to be.
"Have at me - tell me why I am wrong."
No one can tell you why you're wrong. You have goals, standards, and expectations. Few of these are visible, even to yourself. I can say why I won't vote for Romney--and if he's the nominee, I'm staying home--but all that will say is that my goals, standards, and expectations aren't yours. Duh.
I will say that no candidate offers the platform I think would be best; few offer any goals I share; and most have defects so severe that only the most repulsive of opposition candidates could motivate me to vote.
I am aware the Wilson, LBJ, and FDR all ran as peace candidates. How'd that work out? That Nixon ran as a Republican, then instituted price controls. That Reagan promised to abolish the then-new (and still deserving of abolition) Department of Education. There is no knowing how a candidate will act in office.
How to choose for whom to vote? By character and history. For me, Romney has one but not the other.
So if Romney is the Pubbee's nominee, you'll sit this one out in 2012. Are you serious? You would rather have 4 more years of Obama; because that's what your 'goals' will end up achieving. I would rather put a clothespin on my nose, enter the voting booth, and support Romney than have the country suffer through another 4 years of Obama unleadership.
Oh, right. Put a gun to my head and say "vote for Romney or else." How to sell a candidate. We've still got a few months, I'm not going to sell my soul to the Devil just because I can't bear the suspense.
I'll vote for him if it's him against Obama. That doesn't mean I'll support him in the primaries. Almost the best thing I can say about him is that is all likelihood he'd be better than Obama.
PS, Rubio, on the other hand -- him I like a lot.
"You would rather have 4 more years of Obama; because that's what your 'goals' will end up achieving."
Tell you what: when I don't vote and Obama wins my state by one vote, I'll set fire to myself in public protest, like those Buddhists did in Vietnam. Otherwise, I defer to the choices of the American people, whose wisdom in choosing among candidates is better than mine (something with which you already seem to agree).
A Romney/Rubio ticket would be sort of like an inverse of Reagan/Bush I. I think strategically for the longer term a good choice. I do think Romney has cross party appeal, while he has liberal instincts, or is described as ObamaLite, a Congressional sweep of small govt. types should (should, but when either party has both branches they seem to spend) help keep him in check. He should move the Overton window back to where a future run by Rubio would be possible. Irregardless of presidential outcome, a Congressional philosophical change is critical. A supermajority doesn't need the executive branch to do what they want.
I don't think you can ever find a 'perfect' candidate, so I never try to look for one.
I first look for a candidate who can change the discussion. I want a person who is coming forth with ideas that have a solid theoretical or practical backing.
Usually these candidates fade (not always), at which point I seek out a good compromise candidate, someone who is appealing and supports enough of my views to be a reasonable choice.
If that candidate doesn't exist, I will vote 3rd party. Voting conscience is what democracy is all about, anyway. I don't believe a vote made is a vote wasted, though many people do. You have to vote for what you believe.
I do not believe in not voting. I don't see that as a viable option. There is almost always at least one candidate you can vote for and feel good about.