Here’s a funny line:
“I believe in an America where millions of Americans believe in an America that’s the America millions of Americans believe in. That’s the America I love.”
Funny? Well, not so much, maybe. According to a tart item at the Corner yesterday by Mark Steyn, Mr. Romney actually said this in a stump speech to explain his rationale for running. I’m still trying to figure out whether the quote is genuine or not, but the fact that it even seems plausible to the many people who, according to my brief web search, appear to have taken it as genuine indicates that we have a problem here.
And of course we do have a problem here; the lack of a candidate who is both a solid conservative and capable of winning in November has me, and obviously the rest of conservative America, worried. There will be nobody riding up on a white stallion to carry the battle to Mr. Obama; it’s going to have to be Mitt or Newt (or certain defeat with Rick Santorum).
In South Carolina Romney only got a centrist, upscale fraction of the voters, while Gingrich grabbed everyone to the right. I’ll assume that in the general election this same conservative base, having no other choice, will rally behind whoever is running against Barack Obama, and so will vote for Romney if he becomes the nominee. The battle, then, is for those in the middle, and I think Romney has a better shot at those in the general election than Newt does — so I think the Buckley Rule (nominate the most conservative candidate who can win) favors Romney here. But does he have a better chance at winning the center than Barack Obama? Only if he ups his game considerably. Gingrich’s pugnacious resurgence, which will seriously test Romney’s mettle should give him incentive to do so.
I hope he can manage it. One thing all of us agree on: this election really, really matters.
8 Comments
It was said of Romney: “He has been on so many sides of so many questions that one begins to wonder just where does he stand. He sounds like a man in a panic. And a man who panics is not the best candidate for President.”
The Romney in question was Mitt’s father George, and the speaker was President Eisenhower, illustrating the proximity of apples to apple trees. The younger Romney’s panic is palpable: a month ago it looked like he would be the Ken doll who cruises to an easy nomination over his feckless competitors, and now he is as terrified as someone who had a bran muffin and two cups of coffee and gets stuck in heavy traffic.
As gratifying as it is to see Moe, Larry, and Curly bash each other’s brains out – truly, is there anything better than Schadenfreude? – at some point the WWF smackdown will be over. I’m sure that a lot of social conservatives will have a hard time voting in November for the priapic Gringrich, just as a lot of principled conservatives will have a hard time voting for Romney, who lacks principles. Perhaps their loathing of Obama will overcome their scruples, but I think not. As Peggy Noonan, the exemplar of black cocktail dress and pearls Republicanism, observed in Saturday’s Journal: you guys are losing this thing.
I made three predictions on 1/13/11 in http://malcolmpollack.com/2011/01/11/bad-moon-rising/#comments: Obama would be ascendant; Palin would be marginalized; and the best days of the Tea Party were behind it.
Now that I have caught my breath from my victory lap, I’ll make three more. Obama wins with at least 280 electoral votes. No predictions of who wins the House, but it will be within five seats. Democrats retain their majority in the Senate.
I don’t expect loathing to overcome scruples. Fear, however, is another matter. We’ll see how your predictions turn out, soon enough.
Your comment, by the way, contains an egregiously unhyphenated compound adjective. As a kindness, I generally correct typos and other such errors in comments, but I think I’ll just let this one stand. I’ll take my Schadenfreude where I can get it.
Hyphens? I don’t need no stinking hyphens. Hyphens are for (rhymes with wussies).
Moreover, your third sentence should not have a comma, indicating an egregious Misuse of Appositive Clause. Five yard penalty.
I’m sure that a lot of social conservatives will have a hard time voting in November for the priapic Gringrich, just as a lot of principled conservatives will have a hard time voting for Romney, who lacks principles
Romney has more principles than does Gingrich, who is by far the most liberal of the four remaining candidates and who makes Romney (and Obama for that matter) look like Mr Consistency.
As usual, you don’t now what you’re talking about. But I suppose you serve the purpose of letting us know what the left is saying without having to read TPM.
In South Carolina Romney only got a centrist, upscale fraction of the voters, while Gingrich grabbed everyone to the right.
That’s peculiar if true, given the actual positions of the two men.
Determining whether Romney is more unprincipled than Gingrich is like determining whether Pee Wee Herman has more gravitas than Tiny Tim.
Gingrich is not “by far the most liberal of the four remaining candidates.” Ron Paul is.
Even if Gingrich was the most liberal candidate, that assertion bears no relation to the assertion that “Romney has more principles than does Gingrich,” unless you are mindlessly equating liberalism with lack of principles.
As usual, you don’t now what you’re talking about. And that’s as much as I will engage with you. Sorry, I don’t do ad hominem.
Sorry, I don’t do ad hominem.
He exclaimed pompously, after spewing his usual string of ad homs.
Even if Gingrich was the most liberal candidate, that assertion bears no relation to the assertion that “Romney has more principles than does Gingrich,” unless you are mindlessly equating liberalism with lack of principles.
That would not actually be “mindless”. But even if we assume that some liberals are highly principled people, there is no logical contradiction between the two positions you list. It is perfectly possible for Gingrich to be the most liberal candidate, and at the same time be the least principled one, even if consistency is equally distributed between liberals and conservatives.
You illustrate the most annoying trait of liberals – you’re a stupid person who is convinced right down to his bones that he is extremely intelligent.