Tuesday, January 15, 2008
A few short and obvious political observations following Michigan
A few random and probably obvious thoughts after watching Michigan primary coverage with one ear open:
I had a conversation yesterday with a very successful Mormon businessman who supports Mitt Romney, but does not believe that American voters are ready to elect a Mormon. But that really is no longer the question, is it? The question for the general election is whether the people who are reluctant to vote for a Mormon are more numerous than the people who are reluctant to vote for an African-American or a woman (as the case may be). Is it good news or bad news that there is no clear answer to that question?
I have decided that Mitt Romney is the lowest risk Republican. If you are pro-business, think that we need to move away from the status quo in health care, and want a forward foreign policy, Romney is the lowest risk Republican. He may not be the best president of the group, but he is the least likely to be the worst. How's that for ambition?
Notwithstanding that, between now and South Carolina I'm all about Fred. Why? Because in the end I'm for any non-Paul other than Huckabee, so we need Fred to do "better than expected" and chew into the Huckster's lead. My advice: Let's see more Jeri.
Judging from Frank Luntz's focus group tonight, the typical Nevadan is not nearly as articulate as the typical Iowan. Just sayin'.
The Luntz focus group thought that John Edwards "won" tonight's Democratic debate in Nevada, which I did not see. That makes me think this: Edwards is killing Obama. The Breck Girl is sucking off a big chunk of the anti-Hillary vote among Democrats. If he would prefer Obama to Hillary, he needs to get out now or he will guarantee HRC's victory. The question is whether Edwards is playing to run as Clinton's Veep. If he stays in, that is the only job he has a chance of getting.
26 Comments:
By 
, at
Wed Jan 16, 02:32:00 AM:
Your assessment of Romney may be correct, but only if you believe what he is saying. I don't. I believe what Fred, Rudy, and McCain are saying -- they have pretty well demonstrated they are men of principle, and even when I disagree with the principle, I prefer that. Romney has not yet shown he is a man of principle; too much the shallow opportunist.
Owen Johnson
By 
TigerHawk, at
Wed Jan 16, 06:36:00 AM:
I agree that is the perception of Romney, so he has not run a great campaign to date. Perhaps he has pandered too much. But he also has the baggage of having been a politician from Massachusetts, which is going to require him to have taken positions that many red state conservatives do not like. Do the Republicans never want a shot at the Northeast again?
Anyway, I have spoken to people who know Romney, and they believe that the impression you describe is not accurate, political rhetoric about flip-flopping aside.
All of that said, I do not have the courage yet to endorse any of the Republicans -- none of them blow my socks off.
By , at
Wed Jan 16, 06:53:00 AM:
Bush campaigned as a conservative but has been anything but a conservative. Fool me once. . .
Perhaps a liberal northeastern Republican is unfit for the Presidency because of their inability to stand up to Democratic legislatures and eagerness to compromise.
By , at
Wed Jan 16, 07:16:00 AM:
I met Romney twice while in grad school at Iowa. Once after a speech to 100 or so students and then once in a more personal setting as one of my classmates used to work for him.
In the hour or so that we talked in the small group setting, he came across as decent, honest, and incredibly smart. This is clearly anecdotal evidence but he won my vote that day.
By M. Simon, at
Wed Jan 16, 07:59:00 AM:
decent, honest, and incredibly smart
Very nice. Now what does he stand for? I know,I know.
Decency , honesty, and intelligence.
How about Federalism, the Constitution, and wailing the tar out of the Islamonazis.
Who does that suggest?
By , at
Wed Jan 16, 08:13:00 AM:
...Cheney?
I am not sure McCain nis all he's cracked up to be militarily. He's the squishy one in this race. Trotskyites? He need their help? Tounge in cheek aside, i believe he was correct in that statement.
j.p.williams
By M. Simon, at
Wed Jan 16, 08:13:00 AM:
Romney vows to aid the car industry.
That is great. I didn't know he had a plan to gut the unions.
Romney is optimistic
So he is optimistic about optimism and thinks it has a great future in America. That makes me optimistic too. I'm especially optimistic about optimism.
I like his energy plan. What is it? Less oil only not much less. Our destiny in our own hands. Where the hell does he plan to drill or mine? I know. In places where no one objects.
My energy plan is better:
WB-7 First Plasma
And you know he treats every one with respect: Like this med pot patient who he turns his back on:
Romney On Med Pot.
One decent feller there for sure. And it shows.
By Dan, at
Wed Jan 16, 08:22:00 AM:
'Hawk, I'm all about Fred until SC. I'm also all about Fred until the primaries are over. Whether he wins or not, I'm all about Fred until November. If he's not on the ballot I'm writing him in.
It's not so much that he is or will be hurting Huck, though (though that's a noble cause as well). It's because of the entire field in either party, he's the ONLY one who does not hold a single view that makes me wonder what he's smoking. Nobody like that has come along since Reagan (though I was--barely--too young to vote for him).
By , at
Wed Jan 16, 08:35:00 AM:
Wow, we can only hope to see a Hillary/Edwards ticket. To see two preening, self-important dirtbags go down in defeat this year would be such a great sight, almost as good as, no wait, better than watching the last two preening, self-important dirtbags go down in defeat back in 2004!
By Cardinalpark, at
Wed Jan 16, 08:38:00 AM:
The case for Romney -
Let's abstract away from politics, because the political sausage making process makes a hash of principles.
His resume is vastly superior to every other candidate. I hire CEOs for a living. There's no comparison:
1) CEO of Bain Consulting and Bain Capital, which he also founded.
2) Turned around Bain Consulting, which was near failure
Both firms are preeminent in their respective fields.
3) Assumed leadership of failing Salt Lake City Olympics. Turned it around. Fixed it.
4) Republican Governor of an extreme blue state - turned around a budgetary disaster. Worked both sides of the aisle.
5) For a true test of his character and sense of principles and values, look at his family life. Look at his business life.
What his policy positions will be -
1) Defend America against its enemies aggressively. Treat radical and violent Islamism as a warlike enemy, not a law enforcement problem
2) Free trade
3) Enforce immigration laws
4) Cut taxes
5) control spending - nobody will do a better analytical job on the budget. Nobody.
6) Appoint conservative judges based on merit
There's no more qualifed candidate based upon his record of actual accomplishment.
I'd hire him.
By , at
Wed Jan 16, 08:58:00 AM:
"I have decided that Mitt Romney is the lowest risk Republican"
I'm "Sick and Tired" of voting for "The Lesser of Two Evils!" I refuse to play this game in 08 and if Rooo Dee, Romney, or McNutt get the nomination I will be writing in Fred!
By , at
Wed Jan 16, 09:26:00 AM:
Here's another short and obvious political observation following Michigan:
Don't trust the polls as far as you can throw them.
Jan. 15: Romney and McCain in 'dead heat' in Michigan
Link
Jan. 16: Mitt Romney wins Michigan primary [39% to 30%]
Link
By , at
Wed Jan 16, 09:49:00 AM:
"His campaign was a reminder of how far corporate Republicans are from free market Republicans. He proposed $20 billion in new federal spending on research. He insisted that Washington had to get fully engaged in restoring the United States automotive industry. “Detroit can only thrive if Washington is an engaged partner,” he said, “not a disinterested observer.” He vowed, “If I’m president of this country, I will roll up my sleeves in the first 100 days I’m in office, and I will personally bring together industry, labor, Congressional and state leaders and together we will develop a plan to rebuild America’s automotive leadership.”
This is how the British Tory party used to speak in the 1970s.
http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/republicans-brawl-democrats-yawn/
From Europe it appears to me that while World is going in path of more economic freedom, except basket cases, USA seems to be in inverse direction. I bet in near futur the centre of prosperity and capitalism will be in Asia. There is no critical mass in USA citizens to mantain economic freedom, on contrary. Btw a country that grows at 7,2%/year duplicates wealth every ten years...China for example.
By D J Holroyd, at
Wed Jan 16, 10:20:00 AM:
I'm a Massachusetts Republican, and won't ever vote for Romney again. He was AWOL for the last two years of his governorship, running for president. His much lauded health insurance program is a crock. He picked high profile, unwinable fights with various state agencies & institutions to raise his profile rather than doing the job he was being paid for.
By , at
Wed Jan 16, 10:27:00 AM:
Yeah, what Cardinalpark said.
As to the direction of "free trade and economic freedom" the "world" is taking, I can only say I don't discern any kind of trend.
China is an incredibly mercantile economy, with government banks and the bureaucracy moving heaven and earth to promote industry and exports, to maintain a full employment economy. That promotes political stability. There is precious little "true" economic freedom in China, although there are literally millions of small entrepenuers that may upset the whole system in a generation.
Russia is becoming incredibly mercantile.
The EU controls all manner of imports to protect a range of industries and subsidizes jobs in the "Eurozone"; Airbus being a stellar example. There is a whole host of chemical, steel and agricultural businesses that only thrive because their markets are protected
Where is this "economic freedom" that is transcedent in the rest of the world that is disappearing in the USA?
-David
By , at
Wed Jan 16, 11:11:00 AM:
Tigerhawk,
You had me until you implied that you believed Luntz was surveying a real cross section of voters. Remember that Luntz has admitted on YouTube how such sessions can be fixed to get the results you want. Fox News assumes its viewers don't augment their news via Youtube (older people might think Youtube is for young people like MTV - wrong answer).
So it is a given that Luntz was told to promote Edwards and he did.
The question for smart bloggers, then, is why? Well, Murdoch is having a big fundraiser for Hillary right? OK, so 1+1=2, Edwards is being groomed for VP and his job now is to siphon off enough Obama support to win the nom for HRC.
Another point to make is that I was a fan of your blog for many years as I was and still am a supporter of OIF. But that war is growing old and Bush has had plenty of opportunity to take down Iran's regime if that was what the CFR wanted (yes, the CFR exists and they do advise our Presidents so lets not hear nonsense about "conspiracy theorists" when one mentions the name of a powerful institution that exists and advises Presidents).
So...why wouldn't pro-war servicemen and vets and businessmen vote for Ron Paul?
Because we still need to be "ready"? OK. I will give you that. I don't agree with Ron Paul on foreign policy.
But what the heck has been happening to our rights?
1) Banking laws: I live in Europe and I must report to the IRS all my foreign bank accounts? Since when does the US government own me? Since when can they tell me what to do outside the boundaries of the US?
2) Internet regulation: COPA law is outrageous? Credit card needed to view a naked person online? I would assume our troops were fighting for freedom, not censorship. Has anyone surveyed the troops as to whether they want porn thrown behind credit card barriers online? I thought not. We have a right wing blogger community that presumes to represent how the troops think, then promotes what the troops think they are fighting against.
3) Internet Regulation: Laws like IMBRA assume that American men are sex offenders until proven otherwise. Federally mandated background checks just to say hello to a foreign woman online? No thank you. Do the troops even know about that law? No. Bloggers don't think that online dating regulation is an interesting topic.
Meanwhile, the Russians, 75% of whom approve of Putin, are not amused by Hillary's "diplomatic" remarks about Putin "having no soul" and they are laughing at how the Diebold memory cards really are programmable and capable of carrying out an executable file automatically on any data entered.
We Americans need to clean up our act. The Iraq War was the right thing to do but look at what we have done to ourselves.
The 6-10% of Americans who back Ron Paul will NOT be supporting a nominee who does not listen to them very, very carefully.
The ridicule of Ron Paul supporters must stop now or HRC will be given the White House if only so we can remove all the liberal RINO deadwood from DC.
Jim Peterson
St. Petersburg, Russia
www.veteransabroad.com
By , at
Wed Jan 16, 11:27:00 AM:
It seems anyone to the left of the racist, anti-Semitic Ron Paul loons is a RINO. My guess is this fever will break at some point and they'll return to reading Ms Rand and counting their bars of gold in survivalist hideaways with pictures of Tom Cruise on the dirt walls.
By , at
Wed Jan 16, 11:45:00 AM:
Well, no.
We are 6-10% of Americans who include a lot of servicemen and veterans and, this time, we will NOT go the way of the Ross Perot crowd...unless the Republican Party changes. Even Howard Dean was given control of the DNC as a result of his successfuly little movement. So I will be OK with Ron Paul getting control of the vetting process for new Congressional candidates.
Read "The Elephant in the Room". Julie Annie has been defeated because he did NOT read that book, but thought three numbers were all he needed to say to get us to vote for him.
No intelligent bloggers consider a man to be racist who was just defended by the NAACP as a freedom fighter...practically the only man in Congress (along with Tom Tancredo) who consistently votes No on all the unconstitutional laws coming down the pike from John McCain's office.
There is such a thing as being too pro-semitic. I do business every day with wonderful Israelis here in Europe. I will go to Shabis with them on Friday nights...but I will not vote along with the type of American who fervently uses political correctness regarding being Jewish in an underhanded manner in a debate or discussion.
Bush has had his chance to "get Iran" and I give him another year of course as well. If the cruise missiles start flying tonight, I will cheer.
But a strict Constitutionalist has to be in office next January or else HRC can have that office while we clean out the Augean Stables that will be remnants of the neocon Republican Party.
Besides, Ron Paul supporters are the CEOs and other executives you see on the airplanes going back and forth over the Atlantic and Pacific. Our survivalist getaways are quite interesting.
And we date great looking foreign women...which the IMBRA law assumes we want to immediately marry and torture in some basement in a trailer park back in the States.
To us, Congressmen and Senators are mostly crooks pandering to idiots. With IMBRA, they are pandering to radical feminists and busybody evangelists. As I said, pandering to idiots.
By Andrewdb, at
Wed Jan 16, 02:24:00 PM:
Cardinalpark -
I voted for GWB because he was suppose to have good management skills (it sure wasn't his oratory) - well that and the the competition was aweful.
I have been terribly disappointed in GWB and I think one of the lessons of that experience is that leadeship (ie, oratory) is a very important skill when most of what you have as President is the "bully pulpit."
His management skills haven't been all that hot either, but that pales in comparison.
I don't want to make the same mistake again, and I fear Romney isn't the fix.
By , at
Wed Jan 16, 03:47:00 PM:
A defeat of Huckabee and McCain anywhere is a victory for conservatism and Americans everywhere! Go Mitt!
By Kelly, at
Wed Jan 16, 04:06:00 PM:
Paulistas are 6-10% of the population the same way gays are. (3% tops, and likely below that.) A very small, very fringe minority that regularly inflates their numbers and hits way above their weight class because they know how to manipulate the media.
Sorry, but it is so.
By Cardinalpark, at
Wed Jan 16, 05:03:00 PM:
Andrewdb -
I was and am a Bush supporter. Romney towers above Bush in terms of business accomplishment. There is simply no comparison. The 2 Bains are infinitely more significant than being the managing GP of the Rangers.
Having said that, Bush was Governor of Texas, a bigger government job than Massachusetts.
And while soaring oratory is not Romney's greatest strength (I think Giuliani wins there amongst Republicans), he is a capable and articulate speaker. My guess is he will improve markedly. People forget that Clinton was perceived as a rambling speaker at the 1988 Democratic convention. He improved at the craft of oratory as President. I suspect Romney would too.
But in terms of commercial accomplishment, it would be hard to find someone superior to Romney. I take his resume combined with his character above all other candidates. As I said, were it not for the hideous sausage making political process, it would be so plainly obvious that he is the best candidate. But people make up reasons to choose to look away from pure talent -- be it Mormonism, perceived flip flopping or whatever.
Objectively, - amongst any partisan out there -- who will take the position that any other candidate, of either party, has more proven talent and character than Romney?
By , at
Wed Jan 16, 05:27:00 PM:
Romney left conservatism behind in Michigan.
He said would immediately bring the power of the Presidency to bear on manufacturers, working to revive the industry in that state. He also repeatedly said things that sounded a lot like code for state planned industrial policy.
He promised to take $20B of taxpayer's money and give it to UAW. He promised a soviet-style economic plan.
I was considering to vote for Romney, despite his poor economic record as a governor.
Not anymore. I don't vote for socialists, economic planners and statists.
By , at
Wed Jan 16, 06:30:00 PM:
By making Romney the winner, may just have proven that the electorate still cannot tell a card-board cut out for President from the real thing. Romeny as an instrument of change? LOL. He has the backing of the GOP establishment, which wants no one rocking the boat. With rose colored glasses like these, the people of Michigan get the dreadful economy they deserve. Come next year for Romney it will be "Michigan...who?" Just like his flip flop on choice and the gays. UNTRUSTWORTHY!
By , at
Wed Jan 16, 06:44:00 PM:
I'm learning to despise the words "conservative," "enough," and "Ronald Reagan."
We shouldn't be applying ideological litmus tests to our candidates like that. Just because someone agrees with you on certain values doesn't mean that they'd make a good president; likewise, just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean that they'd be a poor president.
When Joe Lieberman lost the Democratic primary in his state of New Jersey the other year because he wasn't "against the war enough," rightists everywhere shook their heads about the idiot liberals trying to throw out a good man because he didn't repeat their dogma. Lieberman went on to win the general election.
Now, rightists everywhere are doing the same thing to their own Republican candidates. I hear it on the radio and read it in print all the time; "so and so isn't *really* conservative because of X," "Ronald Reagan would roll over in his grave," et cetera.
All that does is encourage candidates to spout so much bullshit during the campaign to inflate their 'conservative credentials' in order to pander to primary voters. The candidates who don't do so (i.e. those who have an overabundance of integrity, or who lack political experience) are typically then at a disadvantage.
But then, too much of that can hinder the general campaign when the candidates need to attract independents and opposition party voters, who can then look back at all of these reactionary statements and promises with revulsion.
It's bad for everybody.
I would rather vote for a decent candidate of experience and competence with whom I disagree on one or a few core values than a vote for a hack with whom I agree on all values. (Huckabee supporters, pay attention)
Being a 'nice guy' who is 'pro-life' and supports 'family values,' 'law and order,' and other conservative trademarks is all well and good, but that doesn't qualify one for running the country; for commanding the armed forces and intelligence apparatus, for engaging in foreign diplomacy and power struggles, for developing and successfully executing economic and fiscal policy, for negotiating between conflicted parties, or keeping their wits in a crisis. A strong personality, a set of core principles, executive experience, foreign contacts, military service, education, and demonstrated strength under fire are examples of other traits that need to be considered beyond parroting the right phrases and donating to the right causes.
If you prefer a 'values based candidate' so much that you don't mind ineptitude or weakness, make a statement and write in for Jimmy Carter.
By , at
Thu Jan 17, 04:03:00 PM:
I think this thread shows that people across the country have no idea what it takes for a Republican to get elected to ANY office here in the People's Republic of Massachusetts.
Did Romney have to get pretty fuzzy on things (abortion, gay marriage, etc.) when he ran here? Of course he did, but our current governor was even fuzzier (but he's black, so all the liberal moonbats here ignore his lack of any sort of plan).
Is he a values guy? Way more than the guys he's running against, with their collection of trophy wives/girlfriends/multiple marriages. To see the Romney family together is a photo op for what America stands for, and I didn't even vote for him!
