Romney?

The “N-Head” “controversy” – which was the most contrived, yellow bit of journalism since Rochelle Olson’s hit piece on Alan Fine back in the ’06 race in MNCD5 – may not be what knocks Rick Perry out of the presidential race.  Indeed, there are months before the fat lady sings, and anything can happen.

But Perry is making some unforced errors.  And it looks as if Mitt Romney is making some moves toward testing the thesis that he’s “the most electable Republican”.

Now, let’s be clear ; Romney’s never been my candidate, but he’d be light years better than Obama.  Indeed, except for John Huntsman and Mike Huckabee, every GOP contender (I know, Huck’s not in the race; work with me, here) would be a better president than Barack Obama, especially if we flip the Senate this next session; on dealing with the economy, Mitt Romney at the head of a Tea-Party-motivated two-house majority to temper whatever flecks of “moderate” impedimenta he still has would be just the cataract of common sense this nation desperately needs.

There is danger here, of course.  “Berg’s Law” – the immutable laws of human and political behavior that I’ve compiled over the years – pretty clearly apply here.

I’ll cite the relevant ones:

Berg’s Eleventh Law of Inverse Viability: The conservative liberals “respect” for their “conservative principles” will the the one that has the least chance of ever getting elected.

The McCain Corollary To Berg’s Eleventh Law: If that respected conservative ever develops a chance of getting elected, that “respect” will turn to blind unreasoning hatred overnight.

The Huckabee Corollary the McCain Corolloary To Berg’s Eleventh Law: The Republican that the media covers most intensively before the nomination for any office will be the one that the liberals know they have the best chance of beating after the nomination, and/or will most cripple the GOP if nominated.

No ambiguity here.

It’s why the media has given the likes of McCain, Huckabee and John Huntsman such “favorable” coverage; in the hopes of building them up into contenders that’d sap the real Republican front-runner, or even fatally weak nominees that they could then turn around and demolish (vide McCain).

Now, I think the Democrats and media (pardon the redundancy) are in a bind here; they hate Perry, obviously; if nominated, he’s win in a landslide, so the media is on full-blown destructo alert; unfortunately, Perry is obliging.   But they really wanted to prop up someone like a Huntsman, who is indistinguishable from a mainstream Democrat, or Huckabee, who is more of the same plus the kind of pro-lifer that’ll get the social libs exercised enough to maybe squeedge out some votes.

Romney?  He’s not a Tea Party favorite, but most of the Tea Party is driven by common sense, not purist ideology; the Tea Party is as much about rejecting socialism as it is adopting pure conservatism.

And that may sum up Romney’s appeal; he’s not a pure libertarian ideologue; nobody will ever mistake him for Ron Paul.  But he’s conservative enough on the issues that matter – the economy, business – and he’s got a lifetime of experience actually executing on that ideology, unlike the current resident.

So yeah, if Romney is the nominee, I won’t need to hold my nose to work and vote for him.  He’s not perfect, but he’s way more than “good enough”.  On a stage full of candidates who would all be better than Obama on every issue, Romney (along with Perry and Cain) stands out from the pack on the issue – the economy.

Could Herman Cain still blow this thing up?  It’s fun to think so; I’d hate to think that our race was already decided 10 months before the convention, 2-4 months before the first caucus or primary.

At any rate, as (I think it was) Mark Steyn noted on the Hewitt show the other day, the GOP race really has devolved  to “who is going to be Marco Rubio’s running mate?”

12 thoughts on “Romney?

  1. Huckabee would be vastly better than Obama and arguably better than Romney. And favorable coverage for Huckabee? Forgetting the whole “floating cross” freakout episode? His cultural views make him entirely unpalatable to today’s media.

    But yes, Perry seems to be self-destructing. But there’s lots of road ahead.

  2. The big thing is not to elect a “I’m not Obama” candidate, who once in office, does more harm than good to conservative-libertarian causes. I like Cain, but don’t think he is ready for the big show.

    See the current occupant of the White House as an example.

  3. I like Cain, but don’t think he is ready for the big show.
    That is the most racist thing I have ever read, Chuck.

  4. Terry, you’re only saying that because I am Lutheran. But for the low rate of $10,000, I will give you and your people a seminar on how to deal with anti-Lutheran bullying.

  5. I am LCMS, Chuck.

    That means that I am obligated to believe that the Pope is the antichrist . . . let me check . . . oh yeah, A Brief Statement of the
    Doctrinal Position of the Missouri Synod of 1932
    , section 43:

    As to the Antichrist we teach that the prophecies of the Holy Scriptures concerning the Antichrist, 2 Thess. 2:3-12; 1 John 2:18, have been fulfilled in the Pope of Rome and his dominion. All the features of the Antichrist as drawn in these prophecies, including the most abominable and horrible ones, for example, that the Antichrist “as God sitteth in the temple of God,” 2 Thess. 2:4; that he anathematizes the very heart of the Gospel of Christ, that is, the doctrine of the forgiveness of sins by grace alone, for Christ’s sake alone, through faith alone, without any merit or worthiness in man (Rom. 3:20-28; Gal. 2:16); that he recognizes only those as members of the Christian Church who bow to his authority; and that, like a deluge, he had inundated the whole Church with his antichristian doctrines till God revealed him through the Reformation — these very features are the outstanding characteristics of the Papacy. (Cf. Smalcald Articles, Triglot, p. 515, Paragraphs 39-41; p. 401, Paragraph 45; M. pp. 336, 258.) Hence we subscribe to the statement of our Confessions that the Pope is “the very Antichrist.” (Smalcald Articles, Triglot, p. 475, Paragraph 10; M., p. 308.)

    I am no more fit for public office than you are.

  6. If only Romney would come out and say what a disaster his version of socialized medicine was, and Obama’s will be, I’d be able to vote for him. Until he denounces that, or at least starts talking about repealing Obamacare, I can’t support him.

  7. If the tea party was full of common sense like you think then the tea party would agree that the rich and the corporations should pay more in taxes since they, rather then the rest of us, are the chief cause of the deficit.

    Then the tea party, under the banner of common sense, would quit pulling signs that say “Get government out of my medicare.”

    But the chief evidence that the last thing the tea party is about is “common sense”? That they, down to a letter, advocate the same exact Republican policies that crashed the economy in the bloody first place. And that they all support the same Republican party that crashed the economy.

    So sorry, Mitch, the “Tea party” is a bunch of right wing ideological miscreants who have absolutely no idea how to run the office of county dog catcher much less any office that actually means anything.

    By claiming the tea party is after common sense, mitch, you are lying through your damn teeth and treating your fellow Americans as rank idiots.

  8. If only Romney would come out and say what a disaster his version of socialized medicine was, and Obama’s will be, I’d be able to vote for him. Until he denounces that, or at least starts talking about repealing Obamacare, I can’t support him.

    I don’t expect Romney to denounce his signature achievement as governor (although to be fair, other than the individual mandate, it was probably a step in the right direction where Massachusetts started) but he has come out in favor of repealing Obamacare:

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2011/10/04/is-mitt-romney-committed-to-repealing-obamacare/

    I think where he’s taking some flak is because he’s trying to right set expectations in the event that he were elected President and did not have a filibuster proof majority in the Senate (which would be necessary for full-blown repeal). I don’t think that’s a bad thing and it’s the sort of temperament one would expect to see in a competent executive

  9. FTR: I supported Romney in 2008 and Pawlenty in 2012. My rationale is that I wanted someone with strong proven executive experience who could deliver results rather than just a barnburner at a campaign stop. At this point in time, I am still undecided between Romney and Perry who I see as the only serious contenders at this point.

  10. takes you till the second to last paragraph to mention my guy… show Herman some love Mitch!

  11. Sorry, Mitch, but I’ll vehemently disagree with you on Mitt. He’s a serial flip-flopper (known in the real world as a liar). He’s Bob Dole & John McCain without the military heroism. He won’t inspire anyone.

    In fact, there’s a good possibility he’ll throw lots of cold water on the TEA Party movement.

    I don’t even know that I could hold my nose while voting for Mitt.

  12. Kieres on October 5, 2011 at 4:29 pm said:
    If the tea party was full of common sense like you think then the tea party would agree that the rich and the corporations should pay more in taxes since they, rather then the rest of us, are the chief cause of the deficit.

    The rich and corporations already pay more in taxes than “the rest of us.” OK, he believes that their share isn’t high enough.
    The causes of the deficit? Is it too much spending or not enough revenue? Egg or chicken? One thing is certain, the gap will keep increasing without any new laws being passed, as more and more Americans reach retirement age and start to cash in their entitlements. There is, however, a finite limit of how much revenue can be raised by simply increasing marginal tax rates on the group that already pays most of the income tax. If the economy grows, revenues increase without having to increase rates. I’m not talking about creating more government “jobs” or short term construction projects that benefit a relatively small (but well connected with politicians) group of union members.

    The thing I find most depressing is that Obama must realize that his jobs bill, even with the millionaire tax surcharge, will never pass. His own party won’t provide him with the votes. They couldn’t do it when they controlled both houses and they won’t now. What we are seeing is political theater, a cheap attempt to buy votes with demagoguery.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.