Theoretical Mitt

December 31, 2007 at 5:04 pm 18 comments

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.


Entry filed under: Commentary, Mitt Romney, Politics. Tags: .

Movie Review: National Treasure: Book of Secrets I’ll take the smart kid

18 Comments Add your own

  • 1. JL  |  January 2, 2008 at 9:21 pm

    And should Huckabee win the nomination, I’m voting for Obama!

  • 2. lowdogg  |  January 2, 2008 at 9:52 pm

    That’s the worst part. Could I vote for a Democrat? Almost certainly not, but I could see myself abstaining.

    A sad prospect.

  • 3. TRussell  |  January 2, 2008 at 11:29 pm

    I would abstain 100%. The second to last thing I need is for the Commander in Chief to be telling me I’m going to hell.

    The last thing I would need, of course, is some socialist shoving some Progressive-Marxian shovel of Yak pie down my throat! I’ve tasted the jerky, I can only imagine the droppings.

  • 4. Sportsattitude  |  January 3, 2008 at 1:21 pm

    Oh great…I’ve actually gotten moderately interested in all this presidential politicking (after abstaining for the last eight years) and now it appears IRF’s worldwide membership is on the verge of passing on the opportunity to throw its mighty, collective clout into the electorial process. Let’s see where the next few days take us…

  • 5. lemare  |  January 3, 2008 at 2:57 pm

    I’m anxious today. I just read Dick Morris’s ananlysis in the NY Post. Very interesting. While Iowa is important, it’s not the be-all-and-end-all. Huckabee can win Iowa, but won’t win New Hampshire, so then they’re neck in neck. If Romney loses to Huck in Iowa and McCain in NH, his chances of winning Michigan are diminished. Giuliani won’t win the early primaries, but has a fight with the rest of the US.

    Obama and Hillary? I have NO IDEA. I don’t know which one I would rather have win it.

  • 6. lowdogg  |  January 3, 2008 at 3:20 pm

    I know. Obama by a mile. I just couldn’t stand to have to deal with her for 4 years. Obama is liberal, yes, but I think there is some sincerity there that could be useful. In Hillary, not so much.

    We may be overly hasty. Huckabee could easily be this cycle’s Howard Dean. Dean was a Republicans dream, then a poor finish in Iowa led to a precipitous decline. Huckabee has to win Iowa to have a chance. I think Mitt has to win Iowa, but could deal with a close loss if he has a strong showing in NH.

    So dumb that we are discussing what will happen in Iowa or NH.

    I could vote for Thompson or Giuliani without wincing, and for McCain with some pain.

  • 7. lemare  |  January 3, 2008 at 3:35 pm

    Speaking of Huckabee being a “Dean” as a Democrat’s Dream:

    Rudy is my second choice, Thompson, third, McCain fourth, and Huckabee, well, I won’t vote for him in a general election.

  • 8. Joey  |  January 3, 2008 at 6:50 pm

    Obama is a radical departure from Clintonism, and that should horrify all conservatives, except to the extent that a President Obama would be a failure and our pain would be short-lived. Obama talks pretty, and says all sorts of ecumenical things when he’s on television. But we Illinoisians know better: despite his pretense of moderation, his stint in the state Senate here did nothing but prove that he’s an uncompromising liberal. When he talks to poor blacks on the South Side, he’s as vitriolic as Jesse Jackson. When he talked to a roomful of Hyde Park elites and elderly activists, he actually said, “Republicans don’t believe in a safety net. They don’t want to reform Social Security. They want to dismantle it.” He preaches that Republicans hate poor people, and for that, gets called a moderate. Look at who else supports Obama and tell me you want to be in their company. You couldn’t do it, I promise.

    Clinton, on the other hand, is a known quantity. She is beholden to conservative Democrats, who believe she is saner than Obama. She is competent. And she is seen as more electable than Obama for a reason: she has broader appeal, i.e., she’s more moderate. She is also beholden to Wall Street to a certain extent–Obama is not. Her stances on national defense and homeland security are triangulated, but certainly saner than Obama’s. Her current healthcare proposal, though I think Mitt’s national healthcare reform proposal is far better, bears a lot in common with Mitt’s Massachusetts reformed health care system. Obama’s reply to Hillary’s current proposal? It amounts to, “forc[ing] people to buy health insurance.” What would he do instead? Expand Medicaid, Medicare, and S-CHIPs so that healthcare was “free.” Hmm.

    Give me Hillary any day.

  • 9. Kerry  |  January 3, 2008 at 9:23 pm

    I’m watching the Iowa caucus as I write this — go Mitt!

  • 10. lemare  |  January 3, 2008 at 10:10 pm

    I’m hyperventilating and have decided that Iowan’s have proven their inability to adequately choose a candidate.

  • 11. lowdogg  |  January 3, 2008 at 10:45 pm

    Good comment Joey.

    I’m just shaking my head that the caucus is even a part of our modern political process.

  • 12. lemare  |  January 4, 2008 at 3:32 am

    Rich Lowry’s comments on National Review were heartening

    “Here’s one way to look at it: 60% of voters were evangelicals. Huck beat Romney among them 45-19%. 40% weren’t evangelicals. Romney beat Huck among them 33-13%.”

    Peggy Noonan also had some interesting insights:

    She mentioned that the Evangelical voters of Iowa think the biggest problem we have in the US isn’t economic or jihad, it’s our culture. She made a GREAT point here:

    “But there are two problems. One is that while the presidency, as an office, can actually make real changes in the areas of economic and foreign policy, the federal government has a limited ability to change the culture of America. That is something conservatives used to know. Second, I’m sorry to say it is my sense that Mr. Huckabee is not so much leading a movement as riding a wave. One senses he brilliantly discerned and pursued an underserved part of the voting demographic, and went for it. Clever fellow. To me, the tipoff was “Don’t Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?”

    My sense is that Mr. Huckabee’s good supporters deserve a better leader.”

  • 13. TRussell  |  January 4, 2008 at 12:30 pm

    I love the fact that a guy who is a liberal for all intents and purposes, has had ethics violations slapped on him, doesn’t know who the current president of Pakistan is, can just say, “Yeah, but I’m a baptist preacher” and win.

    What kind of blinders do these evangelicals have on? And they think we’re brainwashed!

  • 14. lemare  |  January 4, 2008 at 12:51 pm

    John O’Sullivan on NRO says: “It seems clear that we should do all we can to help revive the Romney campaign. If that fails, we face a choice between Huckabee and McCain. Neither looks like a good bet against a surging Obama candidacy. ”

  • 15. Sportsattitude  |  January 4, 2008 at 3:45 pm

    I was quite surprised at Obama’s showing…and Edwards for that matter. Could Hillary actually be D.O.A. in New Hampshire already? Iowa’s so “odd” it’s very hard to say…but I think she’s really in a bit of trouble. Huckabee will surely “come back to Earth” on Tuesday and it is now up to Mitt to start leveling the playing field with a strong showing in N.H. I keep hearing things about McCain possibly indicating a one-term presidency is all he needs/wants to make things better. That positioning intrigues me and I wonder how that would factor in people’s opinions of him. TRussell – I think blinders are a standard feature on all 2008 evangelicals – they’re not a “factory option!”

  • 16. TRussell  |  January 4, 2008 at 4:06 pm

    For the last 8 years I have been very comfortable with the evangelicals and types of people they can keep out of office. I somehow feel strangely similar to the way I felt in the 8th grade when my evangelical classmate told me that I was going to hell. A little bit of anger but a lot more pity at his ignorance.

    I overheard one guy say on a radio show that “as long as the candidate supports the right to life and the sanctity of marriage, the rest will work itself out”. You know, the small stuff like nuclear war, global jihad, immigration, entitlements, big brother government, Harriet Meyers nominations, etc…

  • 17. lowdogg  |  January 4, 2008 at 4:53 pm

    I’ve done a little round-up on my blog, particularly focusing on a David Brooks piece from todays NYT that really bugged me.
    but wanted to comment some more here.

    I think a bedrock conservative principal is adherence to the constitution. I may be off-base, but my biggest concern with evangelicals is that I think they are primarily concerned with seeing their beliefs enforced, even at the expense of the Constitution. This is not universal of course, but I sense if enough that it bothers me.
    Like Tim I grew up with many evangelicals. In political terms I have been grateful for their influence in past elections. But someone like Huckabee dredges up memories of ignorance and stupidity with regard to their views on my religion, and I find myself continually reacting with deep emotion to the prospect of a President who is less concerned with upholding the law than he is advancing a religious agenda.
    As a Mormon, the prospect of a Mormon president excites me and I would lie if the improved perception of my Church wasn’t a part of that. But it would be an ancillary result, not a primary focus, and that is as far as it should go.
    On the other hand, I do have a great deal of confidence in the checks and balances of our Federal Government, and I suppose it would be hypocritical of me to discount Huckabee soley on a test of whether he likes Mormon or Mormonism.
    Fortunately I can discount him on foreign policy and immigration grounds, leaving that thorny issue alone.
    Enough for now. Work to be done.

  • 18. TRussell  |  January 4, 2008 at 5:32 pm

    San Dimas High School Football Rules!!!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed

December 2007
« Nov   Jan »

RSS The Heritage Foundation

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS Yahoo! News Most Emailed Stories

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS The Daily Universe

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.



Blog Stats

  • 276,595 hits

%d bloggers like this: