On Meet the Press, Joe McQuaid, publisher of the New Hampshire Union Leader, compared Mitt Romney with his father, George, who ran for president in 1968:
We have a cartoon running of him running a dog sled, and he’s telling the dog sled, “Go left, go right, go left, go right.” But, actually, it’s not him — it’s his father from 1968. We had the same problem of going back and forth.
Huzzah! As Rush might call it, a "random act of conservatism"...Good 'toon Bolduc! Good to see that people are starting to realize (Lowry's earlier post too) that the problem with Mitt is his conservatism...or lack thereof. Heavens, the base really DOES care about ideology!
Mitt's displays the same kind New England Republican intellectual incoherence that plagued the Bush administration. When you don't know what you believe in, or feel that your beliefs are not popular, you tend to weave like a drunk during a sobriety test.
As for a more balanced approach to covering the candidates here at NRO, I can only say this:
I watched that interview and have been musing over it ever since.
Several times reference was made to the fact that Romney has a "strong moral core politically" but is "inconsistent in his public persona."
We have all come to look on this as a sort of given, and then we just glide over it. But philosophically, is this possible? Can you have a "strong moral core" in one aspect of your life while being dishonest or inconsistent in another area?
Is morality an absolute, or is it not? Can you be a "little bit immoral"... or "moral" except for one part of your life?
I don't know the answer, I'm just turning it over in my mind and welcome the views of others. This is a very smart group, and usually presents enough facets of any issue to help provide clarity that has hitherto escaped me..
This is actually sort of interesting. I always took that framing to mean that Romney seems like an upright guy in his personal life and general dealing with people, but is shiftless and capricious in his political convictions. It's not a contradiction, but it does show some light on how people evaluate politicians. Do we want a decent guy, or someone who will fight and won't buckle for a policy or principle?
The opposite of Romney would be someone like Rudy Guiliani, or Rahm Emanuel. "He may be an SOB, but he's our SOB."
My probelm with Romney is he never ran or governed like a conservative.
In my view, he doesn't have the record to even claim he was a moderate, much less a conservative.
Coulter and others want to give him a free pass because he was govenor of a blue state, but he never even tried to move to the state to the right. How is that a leader? How can anybody logically claim he will advocate conservative principles if he's president? Based on what? Seems like wishful and illogical thinking to me.
He was also governor during a time of national economic growth, so he had the leeway to move things in a conservative direction. He chose to use that opportunity for.... Romneycare.
He was also governor during a time of national economic growth, so he had the leeway to move things in a conservative direction. He chose to use that opportunity for.... Romneycare.
So now we're going to criticize Romney because of his father's politics? As far as him not governing as a conservative, please read Maggie Gallagher's column on Romney's efforts to maintain the traditional definition of marriage in MA. Also, I became aware of Romney during the stem cell debates in MA, in which he came down on the side of life.
What exactly did Romney do to move Mass just the tiny bit to the right? Did his governorship actually matter? If there was a Democrat in office then would it make a difference now?
Did you even bother to study the record before typing?
Romney's reduction of taxation and regulation in a Democratic Partisan entrenched State was outstanding.
His amount of vetoes alone, defying the Democratic Partisan run legislature was a sign of his conservative offering.
He simply turned around an incredible failure again, bringing MASS back to being Business - Private Sector friendly.
It was excellent, prior to the Health Care reform. I opposed this offering, even surprised the Heritage Foundation and others were involved. The effort was worthy, except the Mandate - which was actually designed to end folks exploiting the system, to pay their fair share.
Regardless, Romney's tenure in MASS was excellent, and a sign of a serious CEO who is clearly center-right, a Free Market believer.
Comparing him to his fathers shortcomings is not criticizing because of his father, but just showing their similar weaknesses. But see what you want to see, it's easier.
Maggie Gallagher's view is certainly worthy of respect on this issue, but many others who were active in Massachusetts at the time do not agree, by any means, that Romney did all he could for marriage. I cited a few of his critics on the Gallagher thread, and they are highly persuasive that Romney is just what he seems to be -- unreliable and unwilling to fight when he is needed.
McQuaid is from the same folly which endorsed John McCain the last time around. It is no wonder why the Democrats in the MSM want to have him on the air to debase the GOP's best offering in Romney.
Now McQuaid mindlessly endorses another Beltway Insider who was on the Taxpayer payroll raking in some 1.8 Million via Fannie and Freddie, who was peddling Global Warming on TV with Nancy Pelosi.
It is fools like this who are eagerly helping the Democratic Party...
McQuaid reveals he has no clue, and it is amusing to see some follow him over a cliff.
We see the more growing reaction of the impending disaster: External Link
The poster has offered ugly class warfare demeaning the "rich" - "wall street", provided disgusting sexism against Ann Coulter, references abortion as "pro-choice", presents bias against those in the East, even offers pathetic levels of religious bigotry, etc.
It is truly sad, either a Democratic Partisan who cannot handle strong ethical Americans like Mr. Romney, or a symbol of how dysfunctional the fashion amongst us has grown.
George Romney's 1968 run also garnered the following line, preserved in Theodore White's "The Making Of The President 1968": "Watching George Romney run for president was like watching a duck try to make love to a football." Mitt's more polished than that.
Is this Joe McQuaid, the same historically-ignorant buffoon who compared the serial flip flopper RINO Newt Gingrich to Winston Churchill?
McQuaid already made a fool of of himself with his stunningly stupid endorsement, so why does the NRO regurguitate nonsense from this character?
How about a post on the endorsement Romney just received from a much more credible N.H. newspaper..
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHuzzah! As Rush might call it, a "random act of conservatism"...Good 'toon Bolduc! Good to see that people are starting to realize (Lowry's earlier post too) that the problem with Mitt is his conservatism...or lack thereof. Heavens, the base really DOES care about ideology!
Mitt's displays the same kind New England Republican intellectual incoherence that plagued the Bush administration. When you don't know what you believe in, or feel that your beliefs are not popular, you tend to weave like a drunk during a sobriety test.
As for a more balanced approach to covering the candidates here at NRO, I can only say this:
MUSH!!!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI watched that interview and have been musing over it ever since.
Several times reference was made to the fact that Romney has a "strong moral core politically" but is "inconsistent in his public persona."
We have all come to look on this as a sort of given, and then we just glide over it. But philosophically, is this possible? Can you have a "strong moral core" in one aspect of your life while being dishonest or inconsistent in another area?
Is morality an absolute, or is it not? Can you be a "little bit immoral"... or "moral" except for one part of your life?
I don't know the answer, I'm just turning it over in my mind and welcome the views of others. This is a very smart group, and usually presents enough facets of any issue to help provide clarity that has hitherto escaped me..
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSorry, that second sentence should read " has a strong moral core PERSONALLY"...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is actually sort of interesting. I always took that framing to mean that Romney seems like an upright guy in his personal life and general dealing with people, but is shiftless and capricious in his political convictions. It's not a contradiction, but it does show some light on how people evaluate politicians. Do we want a decent guy, or someone who will fight and won't buckle for a policy or principle?
The opposite of Romney would be someone like Rudy Guiliani, or Rahm Emanuel. "He may be an SOB, but he's our SOB."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMy probelm with Romney is he never ran or governed like a conservative.
In my view, he doesn't have the record to even claim he was a moderate, much less a conservative.
Coulter and others want to give him a free pass because he was govenor of a blue state, but he never even tried to move to the state to the right. How is that a leader? How can anybody logically claim he will advocate conservative principles if he's president? Based on what? Seems like wishful and illogical thinking to me.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHe was also governor during a time of national economic growth, so he had the leeway to move things in a conservative direction. He chose to use that opportunity for.... Romneycare.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHe was also governor during a time of national economic growth, so he had the leeway to move things in a conservative direction. He chose to use that opportunity for.... Romneycare.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnother uninformed, moronic post from MattX.
Hey Matt, have you ever taken even a high school civics class?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo now we're going to criticize Romney because of his father's politics? As far as him not governing as a conservative, please read Maggie Gallagher's column on Romney's efforts to maintain the traditional definition of marriage in MA. Also, I became aware of Romney during the stem cell debates in MA, in which he came down on the side of life.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat exactly did Romney do to move Mass just the tiny bit to the right? Did his governorship actually matter? If there was a Democrat in office then would it make a difference now?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDid you even bother to study the record before typing?
Romney's reduction of taxation and regulation in a Democratic Partisan entrenched State was outstanding.
His amount of vetoes alone, defying the Democratic Partisan run legislature was a sign of his conservative offering.
He simply turned around an incredible failure again, bringing MASS back to being Business - Private Sector friendly.
It was excellent, prior to the Health Care reform. I opposed this offering, even surprised the Heritage Foundation and others were involved. The effort was worthy, except the Mandate - which was actually designed to end folks exploiting the system, to pay their fair share.
Regardless, Romney's tenure in MASS was excellent, and a sign of a serious CEO who is clearly center-right, a Free Market believer.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseComparing him to his fathers shortcomings is not criticizing because of his father, but just showing their similar weaknesses. But see what you want to see, it's easier.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMaggie Gallagher's view is certainly worthy of respect on this issue, but many others who were active in Massachusetts at the time do not agree, by any means, that Romney did all he could for marriage. I cited a few of his critics on the Gallagher thread, and they are highly persuasive that Romney is just what he seems to be -- unreliable and unwilling to fight when he is needed.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMcQuaid is from the same folly which endorsed John McCain the last time around. It is no wonder why the Democrats in the MSM want to have him on the air to debase the GOP's best offering in Romney.
Now McQuaid mindlessly endorses another Beltway Insider who was on the Taxpayer payroll raking in some 1.8 Million via Fannie and Freddie, who was peddling Global Warming on TV with Nancy Pelosi.
It is fools like this who are eagerly helping the Democratic Party...
McQuaid reveals he has no clue, and it is amusing to see some follow him over a cliff.
We see the more growing reaction of the impending disaster:
External Link
Ironically, we are seeing the sound endorsements grow for Romney:
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Sheriff Paul Babeu, an Arizona lawman known nationally for his criticism of the Obama administration's handling of the "Fast and Furious" scandal, has decided to support Republican presidential aspirant Mitt Romney, and will serve as co-chair for Romney's Arizona campaign, FOX has learned."
Your hero Ramesh was a huge McCain supporter in 2008.
He supports Romney this year.
I'd stop playing the McCain card in your talking points for Romney.
Most former McCain backers are in the Romney camp this year.
This was truly a pathetic embarrassing offering. Unfortunate, really. :)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis ugly poster is an embarrassment.
Matt X actually wrote:
"You are flamimg gay man.
Get some real problems or just shoot yourself."
External Link
The poster has offered ugly class warfare demeaning the "rich" - "wall street", provided disgusting sexism against Ann Coulter, references abortion as "pro-choice", presents bias against those in the East, even offers pathetic levels of religious bigotry, etc.
It is truly sad, either a Democratic Partisan who cannot handle strong ethical Americans like Mr. Romney, or a symbol of how dysfunctional the fashion amongst us has grown.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMattX is a spammer, a sock puppet whose stunningly and consistently ignorant posts should just be ignored.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou realize of course that you're saying this in a thread about the comments of the New Hampshire Union Leader... which backed McCain last time.
Speaking of pathetic and embarrassing offerings...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGeorge Romney's 1968 run also garnered the following line, preserved in Theodore White's "The Making Of The President 1968": "Watching George Romney run for president was like watching a duck try to make love to a football." Mitt's more polished than that.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse