Posts filed under ‘Mitt Romney’
Our man Mitt is getting some attention and it’s coming from the Obama campaign (emphasis mine):
Mitt Romney’s chances of becoming John McCain’s vice presidential running mate are strong enough that the Democratic National Committee launched a full-scale attack on him Thursday.It introduced a Web site section to knock him and sponsored a nationwide conference call for reporters to listen as Romney was verbally flogged by politicians from Massachusetts and Michigan — two of the three states that Romney has called home. The other state, of course, is Utah, but no politicians from it joined the attack initially but did later in the day.
“He is the most intellectually inconsistent politician in the history of politics,” Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., said of former Massachusetts Gov. Romney. “I have never seen anyone so completely without any commitment to any particular principle and so willing to say whatever he thinks will help him win the next election.”
Whaaa..? Barney Frank is a moron. Whatevah.
As a fan of the Mittster this article was welcome news. Mitt has done a great job of remaining relatively low key over the last several months. Let the Obama spend the money and time getting his name out there. There is more fun in that article to be had if you care to read the rest.
Two new babies have arrived at IRF in the past few weeks. This baby mayhem has definitely contributed to the recent absence of one Joe Miller and myself. That sounds like we may have had twins, so to clarify, Joe Miller’s wife gave birth to their daughter three weeks ago and I had a girl seven weeks ago. No doubt they’ll carry on the IRF torch to future generations when the time is right.
Also, my sisters and I welcomed our new adopted brother from Guatemala (not unlike the Bluths’ brother Annyong, 20 years younger than the next oldest sibling).
New jobs for some IRF contributors, tax season and March Madness have also detracted from frequent posting. And to make some future excuses, you can expect a prolonged absence of posting from LeMare, who is bravely forging a journey to Sweden to pick up her new vehicle.
If Mitt Romney were still in the presidential race, the rate of posting just might have been higher. Rooting on Mormon American Idol contestants just doesn’t seem as compelling as getting Mitt in the White House to turn around our economy. But, rah, rah, David Archuleta and Brooke White. We hope you still do well and that Huckabee doesn’t sabotage your chance right as you make the top three!
I was pretty bummed out on Wednesday. Mitt’s failure to win some key states had me frustrated, but yesterday’s speech gave us some direction and put Mitt in a great position.
This video pre-dates the suspension of the campaign, but I enjoyed it.
It has been addressed in the comments to my previous post, but I think it merits further discussion:
What is a conservative to do if/when McCain wins the nomination?
I have a little round-up of interesting articles that may provide some insight:
John Podhoretz on why conservatives hate McCain. Much of this rings true, but not the part about ideological purity. Reagan said that a party could not and should not be all things to all people.
Jed Babbin on McCain’s failure to close the deal, his possible intro to his CPAC speech, and what he needs to do to win conservatives over.
How Campaign McCain is almost certainly more conservative than a President McCain would be. Of course, that has happened before- (Bush, Bush, Ford, etc.)
From the publisher of the American Spectator, more on what McCain needs to do to convince conservatives that he can be their guy. It involves not asking Giuliani, Lieberman, or Crist to serve as running mates. I would consider McCain/Thompson, or at least not reject it from the get-go. Or as someone, somewhere suggested, McCain/Cheney (hah!).
Hugh Hewitt, an ardent Romney supporter, explains how we are in too important an era to abandon ship if our candidate is not the nominee.
The WSJ‘s Daniel Henninger explains why it is important for conservatives to engage McCain and the party to help reshape it in a more conservative fashion. This is one of the better articles in favor of remaining involved and not sitting out the election.
As I wrote above, I find Henninger’s piece the most compelling. Despite my distaste for McCain, the “let the Dem win” angle may not be the best one for the country or the party. However, as I have also written, McCain/Huckabee would not be acceptable.
Up until last Tuesday I had not contributed any money to the Presidential race. I rebuffed a call from the National GOP people (I had to hang up on the overzealous caller), knowing that I wanted to know who I would be supporting with my dinero. Finally, last Tuesday, Mitt got some of my lettuce for his Media Victory Fund. Regardless of the outcome of today’s primary, I am glad to have done so.
I had lunch today with some conservative friends. Aside from chatter about Gainesville’s new city ordinance mandating protections for transgender folks, we coalesced on our support for Mitt. One, a Baptist, has been convinced away from Huckabee and McCain by me and some other friends. Another jumped on the Romney-train as soon as Fred Thompson left the race. By our different paths we have all come to believe in Mitt.
I haven’t voted yet. I’ll provide my on-the-scene report when I do. Gainesville is a smaller city, a liberal hot-bed, but we’ll see what is happening around 5pm.
Here’s hoping for Mitt to pull this off.
It’s time for a little humor. The day before the Michigan primary, Mitt received a very important phone call:
I know, the title doesn’t work perfectly, but I am pleased with the result in Michigan. It is nice to see Mitt take the win over the “straight-talker” McCain and “forked-tongue” Huckabee. Did I just call him a snake? I think I did.
So yet another campaign that had it’s epitaph written by the media lives to fight another day. Who’s next? My guess is Fred Thompson. I am very hopeful that he will put a major dent in Mike Huckabee’s southern efforts. Mitt will not thrive in the South, but he doesn’t have to.
It’s a good night.
Not really, but this is a great article by Dave Barry. It is pretty funny, and I was ready for something like this. He’ll be writing every day from New Hampshire. an excerpt:
Everybody in this race, Democrat and Republican, is now officially for Change. They get more fervent about Change every day; it’s only a matter of time before they start calling for tactical air strikes on Washington. I’ll be honest with you: I’m getting tired of Change. I think it’d be nice, for a change, if a candidate came out against Change, maybe with a catchy slogan like, ”Remember: It Could Get Worse,” or “Hey, At Least You’re Not Dead.”
Here in Nashua, I watched Mitt ”Mitt” Romney call for Change. I will say this about Mitt: He is the most clean-cut human I have ever seen. He makes Ken, of Ken and Barbie, look like Chewbacca. I was standing with Jeff Greenfield, veteran TV political analyst, and when Mitt called, about 30 seconds into his speech, for Change, Greenfield leaned over and said, ”I want to give you some change,” then handed me a quarter.
I like this post from Time.com’s Michael Scherer:
Here’s one thing you need to know about John McCain. He’s always been the coolest kid in school. He was the brat who racked up demerits at the Naval Academy. He was the hot dog pilot who went back to the skies weeks after almost dying in a fire on the U.S.S. Forrestal. His first wife was a model. His second wife was a rich girl, 17 years his junior. He kept himself together during years of North Vietnamese torture and solitary confinement. When he sits in the back of his campaign bus, we reporters gather like kids in the cafeteria huddling around the star quarterback. We ask him tough questions, and we try to make him slip up, but almost inevitably we come around to admiring him. He wants the challenge. He likes the give and take. He is, to put it simply, cooler than us.
Now here’s the thing you need to know about Mitt Romney. He is the overachiever, the do-gooder, the kid in class who always does everything right. All his life he has outperformed, as a Mormon missionary in France, as a corporate takeover consultant, as the guy who saved the Winter Olympics from financial ruin. He works crazy hours and apologizes after he makes a joke, because he is worried you won’t understand his meaning. He is the one who takes endless notes in every class and has a little plastic container inside his locker for all of his mechanical pencils. He will probably be the valedictorian, and he will surely disappoint you at graduation by giving a bland speech that all the parents just love. “Isn’t that boy so sweet,” say all the moms.
So here is the situation that Republicans in New Hampshire face on Tuesday: Do we elect the jock or the overachiever? Do we go with cool and confident, or cautious and competent? It’s an analogy that doesn’t hold up in every scenario and doesn’t characterize the candidates with total accuracy, but it works. Personally I find competence compelling by itself. There is something great about excellence. It may appear bland, but is that because it is of itself unremarkable? Or is it that we expect nothing less from such a person? Try as you might to claim that campaign pronouncements mean much more than the paper they are printed on (or the blogs they are posted on), the real proof is in how the candidates have lived and worked. I don’t think anyone can question Mitt’s competence, just as we don’t question McCain’s bravery or Huckabee’s…uh…weight loss?Likewise with the Democrats there is not a one that has been as effective in the private sector as Mitt has been, short (maybe) of slimy Trial Lawyer Edwards. Unfortunately for the Edwards, his senate tenure was extremely unremarkable.So like I said above, I’ll take the smart kid. Check out Scherer’s whole post for his great jab at Huckabee.
I enjoy Michael Barone’s insights. He has an interesting theory as to why some people find Mitt Romney off-putting: Mitt is like a person from the ’50′s. The theory makes some sense when you consider where Mitt spent time leading up to his Church mission. During his mission he was out of the country during some of the most tumultuous (and socially destructive) years in American history. He married quickly after returning and has been kicking butt ever since.
Barone’s post is no endorsement, but is an interesting piece, his conclusion:
So Mitt Romney, unusually for an American born in 1947, missed the ’60s altogether. The prevalent culture in his formative years was the ’50s, and for him it has presumably remained the formative culture ever after. The cheerfulness, energy, and community spirit of the Mormons still embody much of that culture, and so does Mitt Romney. That’s why he seems so corny and, to some, so phony. Or at least, so my theory goes.
In related new, my unease and distrust of Huckabee deepens. Should he win the nomination, which I consider unlikely, I will have many new things to lament.