I’ve been trying to put together a voting guide to give you the “pro” case for each major candidate. Unfortunately, every time I start gathering “pro” information, certain candidates come out with more “con” reasons, candidates like Mitt Romney. The latest example is that Romney keeps hiring former Bush people. Ugh.
Hiring Bushies is bad in and of itself. Whether you liked Bush the person or not, the fact is he was not a conservative. From needlessly raising CAFE standards, to the Ted Kennedy No Child Left Behind Act, to expanding bankrupt Medicare to cover prescription drugs, to failing entirely to prepare for post-war Iraq, to opening the doors of the Treasury to Goldman Sachs, to doing nothing to lower the nation’s regulatory burden, to his tinkering tax cuts which did nothing to increase the national incentive to work, to TARP. . . Bush was no conservative.
His staff was worse, as they’ve continued to prove over and over again now that they are out of the White House. They bleed RINO blue and spend their days attacking conservatives and pimping for lobbyists. The advice they give is “surrender” and “stop being so partisan.” They never have unkind words for liberals, but somehow can’t find anything good to say about conservatives. So who in their right mind would bring these people onto their team? Romney.
And it gets worse.
The latest former Bush staffer in question is Alex Mistri. Beside being a Bushie, Mistri was a registered lobbyist for Solyndra. Yes, that Solyndra. This is one of the bigger Obama scandals and should become one of the bigger clubs with which the Republican nominee will beat Obama during the election. Hiring Solyndra’s lobbyist all but prohibits Romney from making that attack -- in fact, it basically says there was nothing criminal involving Solyndra. This is beyond stupid. Hiring this man at this time tells us something is very wrong with Romney’s judgment.
The next Bushie is Jim Connaughton, a big firm attorney and energy company lobbyist. Connaughton was the architect of Bush’s climate plan when he was Chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality. This is the same White House that mandated the use of renewable fuels in 2005 and raised fuel economy standards at the urging of the Democrats when he was a lame duck. Near the end of Bush’s term, Connaughton even embraced a national goal for controlling “greenhouse gases,” i.e. regulation to stop global warming.
The other Bushie is Greg Mankiw, the former chairman of Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers. Mankiw was an “outspoken advocate” for a carbon tax. His current job is to help craft Romney’s jobs agenda.... presumably destroying jobs, not making jobs. In September 2007, Mankiw wrote this in the New York Times: “There is a broad consensus. The scientists tell us that world temperatures are rising because humans are emitting carbon into the atmosphere. Basic economics tells us that when you tax something, you normally get less of it. So if we want to reduce global emissions of carbon, we need a global carbon tax.”
Maybe we should tax stupidity.
Since Romney is noted for his flip-flops on global warming, these last two choices are downright foolish. What should we trust? Should we believe Romney’s recent conversion to global warming skepticism? Or should it concern us that he’s filling his team with global warming enthusiasts?
Finally, as we mentioned yesterday, Cain is being smeared with unidentified sexual harassment allegations. It is worth mentioning again, that Bushie Karl Rove, who has been acting as an unofficial Romney cheerleader on Fox, has jumped on this along with the MSM and is trying to smear Cain. Way to go Karl.
Whether we believe these people will influence Romney the wrong way or not, their hiring demonstrates a lack of judgment by Romney. In hiring them, Romney defuses two strong issues which should be used against Obama and instantly raises skepticism in conservative ranks that he is who we fear he is -- an establishment, dead-center technocrat. Yet, he gets NO benefit from hiring them because whatever wisdom they may bring is readily available in less offensive personages all over the country. So doing this was stupid. Romney gave himself a self-inflicted wound and got no benefit for it in return. That’s not the kind of judgment we want in a Republican President.
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
Judge A Man By His Friends
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
50 comments:
it is hard to know what the man really thinks about anything. Personally, I liken him to Wm. Jefferson Clinton whose beliefs can be summed up in one word . . . . expediency.
Still, I am preparing myself for a Romney nomination because conservatives have such a hard time finding someone who can articulate conservatism. That is why I felt with Ryan and Rubio, "the future is now."
It is obvious to me, that if Romney is going to be the nominee and no one else is available who is a conservative then I will vote for Obama. I know that sounds sacrilegious, but bear with me.
President Romney will kill the United States. If Romney is in, Congress will have so much pressure to go along with his RINO BS plans, that it will be as if Obama was still President. If Obama is in, there will at least be people in Congress opposing him.
This is NOT a situation where getting partially what we need will suffice. There is no way any one can convince me Romney won't destroy us. All I can say good about Romney, He has good hair.
Judge a man by his friends? Sure, we on the right by and large know how to do that, but try futilely explaining that to the other side, who gave passes to Van Jones, Rev. Wright, Ayers, etc. and on and on from the Obama cabal-o-rama of friends. Sorry, "friends" and/or people the President "barely knew."
"Whether you liked Bush the person or not, the fact is he was not a conservative."
You wrote that for my benefit, didn't you, Andrew? ;-)
Seriously though, Rove and others have proven over and over again their hostility to the Tea Party. Romney has to know this. I don't know if he intended this at a poke at the conservative base, but that's what it seems like from my perspective.
They say actions speak louder than words. Even if Romney currently says he is against so called "global warming", his actions tell me otherwise.
Romney is the chosen one. This is the Republican modus operandi, as we all know, as was GHW Bush in ’79, or a reasonable Howard Baker. Rove is in the ruling class and knows what is best for us all. He’s steering the machine and his judgment is all that matters…tell that to Reagan. The same is true for all statist Republican handlers. We must remember seven of the ten wealthiest counties in America are around the Beltway, hmmm…what does that mean? The infamous revolving door from politician to K-Street lobbyist, to Wall Street hedge fund managers, and round and round it goes, the perfect remedy, a Herman Cain. This is why he must be destroyed, and you can count that both sides will participate, they will not rest until ten of the ten most wealthiest counties are around the Beltway. It’s us against statist Washington.
Jed, If I had to put money on it, I think you're probably right that it will be Romney. I don't like the idea, but I can live with it.
That's why one of the things I want to put together is a "pro" argument for each candidate, so that we can get more comfortable with each candidate.
Unfortunately, things like this keep happening which just make it hard to be "pro" a guy like Romney because he's sending up these huge signals that he's ready to be Democrat-Lite in a big way.
Unlike Joel, I will hold my nose and vote for Romney if he wins the nomination. I'm not a believer in inevitability in politics, but Romney keeps holding the number one or two spot consistently while everyone else bobs up and down in the electoral waters. That said, as unenthusiastic as I am about Romney, I also fear that those who are not fans of Obama but don't want a liberal Republican either will simply sit out the election. That hands Obama another undeserved victory.
If Romney becomes the nominee, then it's our responsibility to make sure that we also elect a largely conservative House and Senate. At least that would provide the possibility of pulling the president to the right (or at least the center/right), which simply will not happen with a newly reannointed Obama.
I have more faith in conservative Republicans than Joel. Despite all the spin from the MSM, they are not standing up to Obama just to keep him from getting reelected. I don't think that those who are standing up to the Obamists now will suddenly decide to go-along to get-along with a Romney presidency. If those conservative numbers are increased substantially in the two houses a year from now, we at least have a chance to get conservative, pro-business legislation passed and get the economy back on-track. That possibility doesn't exist with Obama in the White House.
Joel, I wouldn't go that far. I think Romney would prove to be a competent president but he won't be a conservative. I think he'll be a solid "centrist". And I think he will do whatever the Congress sends him, be it Republican or Democrat. So I don't think he's a true danger to us, I think he's more a lost opportunity.
The more I learn about Romney, the less I like him. I trust him even less.
Eric, It is amazing how far the left will go to look beyond, ignore or excuse the crimes, misconduct, racism, insanity and just plain evil-ness of their friends.
I don't think conservatives should follow the same approach because I think that's part of the reason the left is in such disgrace in this country, but as I mentioned in yesterday's article on the harassment claims against Cain, we should at least hold our fire against fellow conservatives until we know the facts of any supposed wrongdoing.
Conservatives are way too quick to throw their own under the bus.
T-Rav, The truth is that I liked Bush the person. He seemed like a very decent guy with his heart in the right place and he seemed like a guy who wanted to do the right thing at all times.
But the truth is that (1) he was never a conservative, (2) he wasn't very competent, (3) he did incredible damage to the conservative brand, and (4) his staff was SO much worse -- as they keep proving. His staff is the personification of RINOdom.
On this being a poke, either way it's a problem. If he intended it as a poke at the base, then he's really a problem. If he just doesn't realize how stupid these hires were, then it's also a problem. This was an easily avoidable self-inflicted wound.
TJ, I agree. And while I am willing to believe a change of heart, I still go with trust by verify. And when I see him bring on board two prominent pro-global warming advisors, it makes me think his change of heart is just for show.
Stan, There is definitely a difference of opinion between the establishment and the public. But the public is riled up right now and the establishment has blinded themselves to that. That's why I think Cain will surprise the establishment. They are doing the usual smear job on him and it's working inside beltway circles, so they think they're safe.
But what they don't see is exactly what happened in the last election cycle -- a vast section of the public is out there waiting to get into the primaries and vote for an outsider (in this case Cain). The establishment can't see that because the Tea Party people don't travel in their circles and don't attend their get togethers. All they see is people scoffing at Cain.
I suspect they will be very surprised when the voting starts, just like they were in a dozen states when their anointed candidates got crushed by unknowns.
Folks like Bush, Romney, and those they surround themselves with make it next to impossible to distinguish conservatism from liberalism to the uninitiated. If I thought for a moment that Bush and Romney were the conservative standard-bearers, I would no more want to be a conservative than I would want to be a leper.
Gladly, such is not the case. But if ever one wants to make the case for conservatism, the first thing one must now do is work to dispel the myth that these guys have anything to do with it. As if the hill weren't steep enough...
* * *
Here is another fear I have: I am afraid--now that the left has confirmed Herman Cain as a viable candidate by virtue of their smear campaign--that if Cain is not nominated to be the Republican Party presidential candidate, that will lock-in the narrative of conservatives as racists for a whole other generation, if not longer.
Like I said, the hill for conservatism is steep. While I believe good principles are strong enough to overcome any obstacle, I would hate to see the present momentum conservatism has get lost over something so stupid. But stupid is what liberals do best, so for them, it could work.
Andrew, your last post wasn't up yet when I started mine. Thank you for that shot of optimism. I think we all needed that.
Lawhawk, I agree. I think a second Obama term would be a genuine disaster for the country and I would rather have any Republican, even one I didn't care for. I also don't think Romney is that far left. I think he's a centrist without any specific ideology or principles. And I think he will do whatever the Congress tells him.
So we will need to make sure to keep the Congress (and the Senate) as strongly conservative as possible to keep him in line... assuming he is the nominee.
But electing Obama to a second term, a lame duck term, will be so much worse than this term, even with a Republican Congress. Look for rule by executive order and leftist regulation. That would be a disaster.
Writer X, I'm with you there. It's hard to trust a guy who has changed his positions so much and it's hard to like a guy who has done some very Obama-like things. I think a case can be made for him, but he's not my first, second or even third choice at this point.
tryanmax, You make a good point, there is a difference between "conservative" and "Republican." And what we need to do is to work to close that gap. So we need to make it clear that while Romney may or may not end up being the "Republican standard bearer," he is not the "conservative standard bearer."
Cain on the other hand is the "conservative standard bearer" even if he doesn't become the "Republican standard bearer."
I would like to see those two be the same thing, but right now they are not. Hopefully, the continued push by the Tea Party people will cause that to happen.
I don't know about the racism angle. I'm sure the left will call it that, but I think the fact Cain is seen as so popular with in the conservative basis (and will probably maintain that popularity win or lose, i.e. as a speaker and talking head), will make the left want him forgotten, not held up as an example to be used against conservatives. His very existence (win or lose) is dangerous to the left and its ideas. My guess is they will try to crush him even if he left the race tomorrow and keep trying to crush him no matter what he does next so that he disappears.
tryanmax, You're welcome on the optimism.
I think we have a lot to be optimistic about, even with a guy who isn't as conservative as we like. I think things are moving in the right direction finally even if they aren't as fast as we like. Fixing the country is a project that will take several election cycles and so far everything is going pretty well in that regard.
So everyone should always remember to look on the bright side.
Andrew, I don't care for Romney and this doesn't help. But I agree that anybody would be better than Obama. At this point though, I'm hopeful we don't have to worry about supporting him. I think Cain will take it. Did you see he's 1% ahead of Perry IN TEXAS!! His momentum will carry the day.
It helps me guys to look at Romney’s withdrawal speech at CPAC 2/7/08. It seemed genuine with a rock-ribbed conservative theme, who is the real Romney?
I will work against Romney unless he gets the nomination, then it’s time to coalesce and rid this country of the blight that is Barry. Like Lawhawk said we focus down ticket and get as many conservatives in from dogcatcher to senator, governor, congressman etc. If we don’t like Romney “if” he gets in we put up a candidate to challenge him in 2016. We must look at the long game here, Rome wasn’t built in a day. Breaking up the cabal in Washington with take several election cycles. “Resist we much!”
The more I see/hear mitt, the more I shudder. a this point, i'm behind cain. unless...
dear lord, we need strength.
Andrew & LawHawk,
With all due respect, most of the conservative public relation problems can be directly traced to people like Romney and Bush. They along with the RINO's in Congress have only muddied the waters. They have diluted the differences between the parties so much that we have Democrat and Democrat-Lite. The average person claims that both parties are corrupt. A Romney Victory will confirm that.
Right now, we are at the tipping point. Another FRINO President and less than ten years, you will see the Democrat Socialist Party select its first dictator. I am not joking. The United States will be no more than a sad memory of a once great nation.
Noticed I said "select" and not elect. If the conservatives don't get a handle on this, the voting system will be all computerized and the only people who have control will be Socialist/Democrat and the Token RINO. I don't care how "Honest" the polling places are.
Romney is the WRONG candidate. All he will do is direct the great engine of state to slow down, which no one will notice. He won't sign a budget that doesn't have massive tax hikes now to pay for modest cuts that won't be implemented until ten years after he is out of office.
Fortunately I think Cain will win the nomination and then the General election.
DUQ, I saw that. I also heard that yesterday was his biggest fund raising day ever. I suspect his momentum continues.
I can't say for sure right now who will win. I think Romney still has the advantage because he has the organization, which is the hardest part to get down. That will help him in caucus states. But pure popularity can help. I think what Cain needs right now is for some of the others to quit so that he can get their supporters as well. But we'll see, there's plenty of time for this race to change in many ways still.
Stan, Well said -- I agree 100%. I think there are definitely better choices than Romney in the primary. But if he wins, there is no question in my mind that I would support him. I think the long game is what is important here and that requires us to stop the bleeding first and foremost. I would like to jump to pure conservatism, but I will accept step by step. And in the meantime, we need to focus on getting as many conservatives as possible into as many offices as possible. Then it matters less who the President is.
In terms of Romney's resignation speech, I agree -- it was impressive and made me wonder "where has this guy been?!" That speech and many of his actions since do make me think he's probably more conservative than we realize. But I am still troubled by not knowing what exactly to make of him. Plus, his instincts still seem to be technocratic to me. So I would rather he was not the nominee. But I don't oppose him per se.
Patti, I'm not thrilled with Romney either. But he's also not the nominee yet. So I say we should support our candidates of choice and then think about Romney again if and when he wins the nomination. :)
Andrew - I wouldn't worry so much about the racism angle if it weren't for the fact that so much confusion exists about conservative vs. Republican, like we were saying.
As things are, liberals paste all Republican foibles onto conservatism. They've already got their narrative about Cain underscoring Republican racism, a la Garafalo. (The fact that they can even conjure such an idea should tell us something of how they really feel about Obama.) So I'm not so concerned about what that means for those of us who are conservative. We're cut out to be voices in the desert.
I am just concerned about the desert getting drier and diminishing receptivity to the message.
Joel, I don't know what kind of president he will be, but the indications are that he will be a "slow the pace of government growth" president and not someone who will try to actually shrink the government. I don't like that.
I also agree that guys like Bush have been very bad for conservatism because they've stolen the label while carrying out big business/RINO/democratic-lite policies. In fact, I would argue that Bush almost destroyed conservatism until Obama saved it.
But all that said, I'm honestly not sure Romney falls into that category. Romney strikes me as a guy who is much "cleaner" than the Bushies and therefore less likely to do the bidding of donors. He also doesn't strike me as cynical about conservatives as were the Bushies. So I suspect he will try to be genuinely conservative on most issues rather than just hijacking the word.
I am concerned that he won't do much in the way of standing up to liberals, but there won't be many liberals to stand up to after the election.
So I guess, to sum it up, I personally still don't see him as dangerous to conservatism or the country, I just see him as a lost opportunity at getting genuine conservatism in place. And I definitely think he would be a better choice in every way than handing the presidency to Obama again.
Joel, I understand your points irt Romney.
Unfortunately, a conservative Congress (and hopefully, Senate) won't be enough to stop ObaMao.
Increasingly he is using Executive fiat (unConstitutionally I might add) to get around the Congress, knowing full well it will take several years to do anything about it legally and he would probably be out of office before that happens anyway.
The other problem is SCOTUS picks.
If Obama is reelected he may very well have an opportunity to make the SCOTUS primarily leftist for decades.
One could make the argument that Romney won't choose staunch, conservative Justices that still believe in our Constitution, and Romney may make weak picks, we just don't know (although that would be mitigated by a conservative Senate).
However, we already know Obama will make the abslute worst picks possible.
I think we can survive four years of Romney if we have to (hopefully not), and by 2016 we will have a lot better prospects for a conservative President (Ryan, Rubio, Jindal, West, etc.) to replace Romney.
We may, may survive four more years of Obama, but the damage he can do will be exceedingly more than what Romney can do.
Just my two cents.
tryanmax, That's a valid concern. Politics is about attracting people who aren't already believers after all.
I think the left will definitely try to spin this into racism in any way they can, as we've already seen. Seriously, how insane do you need to be to argue that conservatives are voting for a black man to hide their racism? In the end though, I suspect the power of the racism message is failing because few people seem to take the charge seriously anymore.
Nevertheless, I agree that it won't help to shoot down a black candidate. Hopefully, if Cain does lose, then Romney (or whoever) will pick him as VP.
Joel: America is alternately a center-left, center-right nation. As far back as Will Rogers, humorists said the two parties were indistinguishable, usually with the pejorative "Republicrats." It is the hardcore at either end that drives policy. Today, I see the conservative wing as resurgent in the Republican Party and the radical left ascendant in the Democratic Party.
As important as the presidency is, Republicans recognize that Congress must be the source of legislation. Romney is unlikely to veto conservative Republican legislation, which is the best arrow in the presidential quiver. I see moderates in both parties as comfortable with each other, but not ideologically identical.
So we'll have to rely on the conservative wing in both houses of Congress to initiate the changes that I expect Romney would go along with. When he was in private business, he had a record of making unpopular personnel cuts, and downsized when necessary, even if it made him look heartless. I don't think he'd be afraid to do the same thing from the White House if he has a conservative Congress pushing him.
As for his silly dalliance with anthropomorphic global warming, cap 'n tax couldn't even pass with a strong Democratic Congressional majority and a socialist in the White House. Romney is very unlikely to try to push that unpopular agenda.
USSBen also makes a good point worth expanding on. Romney is too much like Bush in many ways, but look at his Supreme Court appointments. The one time Bush tried to push a Beltway cocktail hostess (Harriet Miers) for the Court, the Republican conservative wing shut him down and she was withdrawn from consideration. The Congressional Republicans were much less conservative at that time, but it drove Bush back to the right.
Romney is not the conservative I would like, and he's not yet the candidate-presumptive even if the MSM would like him to be. But like Andrew, I could live with it.
USS Ben, Those are valid points. I think a lame-duck Obama who realized that he had been rejected by the people and saw more and more conservatives filling the Congress and Senate would basically switch to government by executive order and the issuance of illegal regulations -- we actually see that already. These things would take years to stop and many of them wouldn't be stopped by the courts, especially if Obama got to appoint more judges.
So even if Romney isn't a great choice, he's a necessary choice if it comes down to him versus Obama.
It would be up to us to then keep the pressure on him to stay on the conservative path and to make sure the public gets that he's not representing us, but is instead representing the middle.
Andrew, I agree. This makes me less comfortable with Romney, but I won't vote for Obama.
I agree wholeheartedly, AP, far too often saying nobody knows how to eat their own like Republicans/conservatives (notably the Hollywood ones). I still have faith Perry or Cain will clean up their gaffes, and survive the onslaught or character assassinations they're both currently experiencing, if for no other reason I think the Tea Party movement (also experiencing character assassinations, sadly even from the "anointed" ones on the right) will be more effective in holding their feet to the fire.
In the interim, though, thanks for providing the info in this column so we can use it to bludgeon the Romney camp till he becomes less and less of a factor in the race.
Lawhawk, Well said. I agree. The Congress can keep Romney in line, and I'm not even sure he needs to be kept in line so much as shored up. In either event though, he would be better than what Obama would do with another term.
Though I do fully understand and somewhat share Joel's concern. I just think the odds are against it playing out that way.
(Sorry I'm slow responding today folks, but it's been really busy around here.)
Ed, I will try to put together a case for why people should like each candidate. That might help. But since this is a primary, by all means, pick the guy you like -- not the one the MSM tells you is inevitable.
Eric, You're welcome. This is the primaries after all and I'm a big believer in digging into each candidate's actions and words so that we can ultimately pick the best candidate for the job. We should never accept one just because we're told he's a good choice or is inevitable.
On Perry/Cain/etc., there is still plenty of time for things to change one way or the other. So who knows what kinds of surprises will appear. All we can do is try to make the best choice and hope it works out! :)
I agree entirely about conservatives eating their own. We seem to specialize in that. We especially have a chattering class that loves to tear down conservatives at the first opportunity. I wish people would start to shun these air-bags because they aren't helping the cause at all.
Not that I won't check for myself, but can anybody comment on Romney's governance of Mass. beyond the "Romneycare" talking points?
I've seen a lot slung at Perry regarding how this, that, or the other thing happened in Texas "on his watch," but most of it gets brushed away when shown that his actions were generally consistent with what the Texas constitution allows a governor to do.
I'd like to know whether Romney more or less governed in accordance with the Mass. constitution.
* * *
Compare that against Obama who, even in his relatively scant record, displayed a tendency to overstep his authority and continually vie for more.
tryanmax, My understanding (unconfirmed) is that he was a competent governor who did some good things and actually fought quite a bit against an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress. I'll have to look deeper into that before I do the case for Romney.
Of course, if anyone else has more information, please feel free to share it. :)
"I agree entirely about conservatives eating their own. We seem to specialize in that."
I think the main reason that some conservatives do that is because they fall for the leftist narrative and react rather than counter it.
They wanna appear not guilty to the public at almost any cost, not realizing that we aren't guilty, it's the leftist narrative calling us (or some one) guilty.
By reacting they appear to confirn the baseless charges.
For example, instead of falling for the latest attack on Cain we should all do what you did yesterday:
Call it a racist smear brought on by a lying, unethical reporter with no standards.
Then proceed to say why.
I'm all for throwing someone under the bus if they are guilty of something significant, but if there is no evidence and only anonymous allegations why run and hide?
I noticed MSNBC is using another dispicable tactic: now they think it's a good time to talk about the "problem" of sexual harrassment (wink wink).
This is something else we should call them on and point out to the public.
Never let the left (or RINO's) set the narrative. Cut right to the truth. Most people respond enthusiastically to the truth and it hurts the left's waning credibility a lot.
USS Ben, I agree entirely.
First, I think you're right that the problem is that RINOs think they are guilty of something... be it racism or callousness etc. So they are constantly looking for ways to prove they aren't. And they think that throwing a conservative under the bus at the first hint of an allegation of wrongdoing will do that. They are wrong. They are just playing the part of the useful idiot. They are enablers and betrayers, that's it.
Secondly, you make a great point about the leftist narrative. First, they spread the rumor as if it were true, but cover their butts by claiming they are "only asking questions". Then they attack the person for not responding to their satisfaction -- a standard they make sure is impossible to meet. Then they say "let's talk about the issue generally" to distract from the fact they have yet to bring out any evidence of any kind while keeping the conversation going as if the person was proven guilty. It's a smear game. It's not journalism.
And then compare that with the way they treat their own. Look at all the racist statements by Biden or Reid or the rest... "oh, they didn't mean it, there's no story here." Look at the sex crimes of so many democrats... "oh, who knows what really happened, we should respect their privacy" and when all the evidence is in... "but he's repented." They are hypocrites and you should never treat the words of hypocrites with any legitimacy.
Incidentally, since I've kinda implied once or twice I don't care that much for Romney, I do want to be clear--if he is nominated, I will personally stuff any criticisms I want to make about him until at least the day after Election Day. Because while I sympathize with Joel's viewpoint, I agree with Ben that a Romney presidency would still be better than a lame-duck Obama who can still nominate judges and issue executive orders and so on. I mean, we had the Democrats in a "lame-duck" position last December after the elections. Look how that turned out.
So although I'm not sure Romney is even a "good," I will abide by the "don't let the good become the enemy of the great" rule. Assuming he's nominated, that is, which I still hope against hope that he isn't.
T-Rav, I also think it's important to point out the type of criticism we are offering.
I am criticizing Romney for not being a conservative. I am not trying to slander him as some sort of monster or criminal or whatever. I think in primaries, too often, the candidates go way beyond simply pointing out policy differences (or problems in the candidate's record) and go into personal smears that only hurt everyone involved and help the Democrats.
While I don't like Romney's views, I have no objections to the man himself nor do I have any reason to think he's anything other than a pretty decent and honorable man. We just have different views on policy.
>>We especially have a chattering class that loves to tear down conservatives at the first opportunity.>>
I'll be the first to admit I'm guilty of this on occasion, but typically only when the guilty party crosses a line I wouldn't cross myself. Looking square at sycophant John Nolte, too, who took to systematically banning my comments at Big Hollywood, all because I dared to constructively criticize Andrew Breitbart's handling of the Sherrod aftermath.
For whatever it's worth, I'm listening to an afternoon radio show, and the discussion of this whole flap is...interesting. The host, who is kind of a center-right guy, said he really likes Cain but is a little bothered by how he handled this controversy (specifically, he said he had no knowledge of a payoff then said something different). Anyway, then a woman called in and denounced them for "buying into the media drive-by shooting" or something like that, and would not hear any criticism of him.
I must say, some people among the base can be a problem at times, too. It looks bad when supporters refuse to acknowledge that their guy could have done anything wrong, or could have handled something a little better. I'm still a Cain supporter, don't get me wrong, but I don't think it's at all out of bounds to offer some criticism. That's partly what the primaries are about, after all.
T-Rav, I think it's absolutely fair to criticize him for mishandling the affair. I think he could have handled it better. In particular, he made some statements that sound like he was contradicting himself, even though I don't think he was.
BUT let me make two counter points. First, this is a manufactured scandal and thus, we need to be careful not to fall into the trap of criticizing him not playing into that trap. And keep in mind, he was facing a gotcha question here.
Secondly, not everyone is smooth or has a PR firm ready to handle their problems. So we need to be sure not to evaluate him against an honest standard and not a standard of perfection.
Third, we need to make sure that we aren't simply validating the scandal by criticizing his handling of it. That's the real trap here, that in criticizing his handling, we end up making the scandal seem real, when it really wasn't. Remember that the dishonest party here is Politico, not Cain.
Eric, I think we can all be guilty of it, but some people really seem to revel in it. I'm amazed how often I see self-proclaimed conservatives just lay into other conservatives, using all the liberal talking points, with no real purpose except to hurt a fellow conservatives. That's really bad for the movement.
Andrew, that's very true, and I think it's well worth asking where Politico got its information in the first place. This story does need to be stomped on and discredited. I just get a little irritated when people are absolutely unwilling to allow any criticism of their candidate, even if it's only criticism of how he handled this or that question. In the general election it's a little different, but not in the primaries, when we're still thrashing out who is the best, most viable candidate. Just my two cents.
T-Rav, I agree entirely. I think we need to be careful to make sure any criticism we launch is fair, but we should not disallow criticism nor should we be afraid to ask questions. No one should ever fear hearing the truth or hear opposing views.
Post a Comment