Michael Corleone said to “keep your friends close, but your enemies closer.” But what, pray tell, do we do with our frenemies? This is the awful election-year quandary of movement conservatives. And everything you need to know about our heartache can be summed up in one image: 2008 presidential-election loser John McCain and Mitt Romney together on the campaign trail.
When they’re together, they look like they’re holding each other (and the rest of us) hostage. Their toxic chemistry makes seething ex-newlyweds Kim Kardashian and Kris Humphries look like Fred and Ginger. In New Hampshire last week, after Romney’s Iowa caucus squeaker, an overly giddy McCain mocked his endorsee for his “landslide victory.” Awkward.
Then in South Carolina on Friday, McCain mistakenly referred to Romney as “President Obama” — as Romney and South Carolina Republican governor Nikki Haley rushed to correct the gaffe. Freudian slip? Senior moment? Sabotage? All of the above?
Advertisement
Of course, if you choose to pal around with a double-talking, big-government barnacle, you get what you deserve.
McCain is the entrenched incumbent Arizona senator/war hero who lost to a neophyte, radical leftist community organizer from Chicago. The “straight talk” GOP candidate flip-flopped on everything from illegal immigration to global warming to offshore drilling to closing Gitmo. He pandered to minority grievance-mongers and the liberal media. He proposed massive government interventions bigger than Obama’s.
This Beltway fossil who now poses as a tea-party hero proudly teamed with big-government liberals Teddy Kennedy and Russ Feingold. He’s the “maverick” who supported the $700 billion TARP bailout, the $25 billion auto bailout, the first $85 billion AIG bailout, and a $300 billion mortgage bailout — yet he now carps about “record deficits and debt.”
A career politician for the past 30 years, McCain set the stage for the suicidal anti-capitalist rhetoric now polluting the GOP primary. Four years ago this month, during a GOP primary debate held at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, it was McCain up on stage denigrating Romney’s private-sector experience. Asked whether he thought Romney’s record as CEO made him qualified to lead, McCain snarked: “I know how to lead. I led the largest squadron in the United States Navy. And I did it out of patriotism, not for profit.”
Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, and Jon Huntsman have all followed suit, bashing Romney’s venture-capitalist past at Bain Capital with Occupy Wall Street–style zeal.
It’s one thing to carefully dissect Romney’s investments, as the Wall Street Journal did, and weigh his wins against his losses. (The paper found that “in total, Bain produced about $2.5 billion in gains for its investors in the 77 deals, on about $1.1 billion invested. Overall, Bain recorded roughly 50 percent to 80 percent annual gains in this period, which experts said was among the best track records for buyout firms in that era.”)
It’s quite another to shamelessly disparage those who work in private equities as immoral corporate raiders and avaricious job-killers, as the three aforementioned GOP Occupiers have done. If they keep it up, they’ll soon be chaining themselves together with bike locks, performing “mic checks” and “down twinkles” at the next GOP debate.
Gingrich has pushed McCain’s profit-bashing line the farthest. Backed by a super-PAC (the very campaign-finance vehicle he was whining about last week) flush with $5 million from casino mogul Sheldon Adelson, the vendetta-driven former House speaker accused Romney and a “handful of rich people” of “looting” companies. Channeling left-wing propagandist Michael Moore, Gingrich railed that Bain “manipulate[d] the lives of thousands of other people.” Gingrich — who raked in millions consulting for the taxpayer-subsidized Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac racket — also served on the advisory board of private-equities firm and leveraged-buyout experts Forstmann Little.
But, hey, it’s only “looting” if it doesn’t line your own pockets.
Romney’s chronic flip-flopping political career is teeming with reasons for grassroots conservatives to oppose his nomination — his support for racial preferences and government funding of abortion, liberal judges, global-warming enviro-nitwittery, TARP, auto bailouts, the Obama stimulus, gun control, and, of course, the Massachusetts individual health-insurance mandates that presaged Obamacare. But instead of focusing on his long political record of expedience, incompetent non-Romneys have borrowed from McCain’s 2008 playbook and thrown wealth creators of all kinds who take risks in the private marketplace under the bus.
Ms Malkin, Mitt Romney also attacked McCain in 2008 in turn. They have now put it behind them and are working together to get Mitt the nomination and the Presidency.
You've got that right. Malkin likes to chatter on about what should have been, whereas the Republican Party needs to be focused on what it should be doing.
As in putting anyone but President Obama back into the White House. As Mr. Romney has said repeatedly, this next election is about "the soul of America."
A wonderful picture above the column of two losers. Romney will lose in a landslide. Once again the stupid party does the stupid thing. The Republican part needs to go the way of the Whigs and Federalists.
It was another time, another place... At the local elections, the two major parties nominated humdrum folks for humdrum offices. Then, there were the minor parties: The Communist Party, The Communist Party of Marxism-Leninism, The Authentic Communist Party, and so forth, all hurling accusations against each other regarding doctrinal purity, for the amusement of the few folks who showed up to candidate panels, in much the same way that popes and anti-popes excommunicated each other during the great schism.
Ah, but when will I be able to get NRO pundits to think about this possibility: Voters don't want war heroes. They don't want naval squadron commanders. The anti-war vote coalescing around Ron Paul is a component of the larger anti-war vote that coalesced around Obama. Perhaps the photo of Perry astride a fighter jet (compared to Obama smoking a cigarette at the same age) did more to hurt Perry than one might image.
Well, let's stop and take stock: Gingrich and Perry have eliminated themselves from consideration by openly demonstrating that they have no idea how the American economic system of capitalism works; Huntsman and Paul were (for me) never a consideration in the first place, as neither could be elected, Huntsman because he also is apparently anti-capitalism and because of the "Who? factor" and Paul...well, just because. I don't have the time to detail the reasons.
By my reckoning that leaves me with Romney and Santorum. Not a bad duo from which to select (although the McCain endorsement is NOT a plus) but neither is a slam-dunk either. I'll have to continue to educate myself about them, and weigh the options - not that it matters, as Iowa and N.H. will have determined the candidate long before my state gets to vote, but that's a whole other topic - but vote I will, regardless.
And in November, no matter what, I will be there early to color in the oval for whoever the not-Obama on the ballot is. Boy, sure wish I could get excited about the prospect though...
Consider this too, Anybody But Obama means that once Romney has the Nomination locked up (if it hasn't happened already)....it'll be that much easier for him to "move to the Center"...ignore...even contradict the Hard Right for the General Election.
He will have no fear of losing your vote, will he?
No. Not if the only alternative is another 4 years of Obama. I have not failed to vote in a national election for almost 40 years, and I won't start now; to fail to vote for the eventual Republican nominee in November is to support his opponent. Does Obama have your vote if Romney is the one?
Instead, I will also support and vote for the most conservative Senators and Representatives that I possibly can and hope to force any "moderate" Republican President to work with them. I refuse to let the perfect be the enemy of the good - or even of the slightly better.
I always remind myself that a lot of people thought Reagan would be a mistake too. That turned out OK, as I recall...
Really? Does John Boehner strike you as the kind of guy who's going to "strong-arm" a "President Romney" into some far-reaching rightwing agenda? or even Mitch McConnell?
Malkin-the self-hating hate peddler attacking two members of the goon squad. How surprising. She makes a lot of money going through her weekly catharsis.
And...for all her complaints, Mitt Romney could come out for Federally-funded abortion clinics in gay wedding chapels...and have no fear of losing Ms. Malkin's vote once he's the Nominee.
Where was Ms Malkin when Bush was expanding Government and running up the Debt ? Lauding Bush to the skies, that's where.
Where was John McCain? Voting against the "Free drug "bill, ( unpaid for). Voting against" No Child left behind", Voting against the vast expansion of Government under Bush.
Mr McCain may well be a fossil now, but he was a real conservative back in the Cretin Era when Ms Malkin was swooning over the Catastrophe that was Bush.
No, no,no...Tea Party needed years of secret meetings, meetings nobody not even Fox News knew about, to get organized to oppose the deficits and debt before they "just happened" to pop on the scene one month after President Obama was elected.
I am not a Romeny fan. But he would be well-advised to pay attention to Ms. Malkin. Mccain is a big reason Obama won. His tepid, scared campaign is exactly what Romney should not do. If we have learned anything it is that Obama has to be confronted, fought and oppsoed every way possible. And to have Mccain around as a memory of the incompetent and awful 2008 campaign is naseating. We KNOW he is telling him to do all that "honorable" nonsense that led to this ongoing disaster. Being a nice guy gets us another loss.
When Sen McCain (DB, Az) ran for reelection to the Senate, he suddenly became a tiger; when "running" against BHOII, he was the perfect loser GOP candidate. If he thought his friends in the media were going to help him in any way, he was a fool. Why conservative talk shows continue to have him on is a mystery.