Thursday, January 04, 2007
|
|
Steyn, Owens, Romney and Me
|
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
8:42 PM
|
|
On tonight's program, columnist-to-the-world Mark Steyn analyzed the GOP race for the presidential nomination and declared Mitt Romney least burdened among the top tier of candidates:
HH: Thirty seconds, Mark Steyn. Rudy Giuliani had his plans leaked, Mitt Romney declared. Is there anyone else in the top tier besides those two?
MS: Well, there's Newt Gingrich, who everybody says, and I think they're right, has been making terrific speeches on terror. He gave a terrific appearance in New Hampshire, in which he called, he said that those six imams in Minneapolis causing the trouble on the plane should actually have been arrested. He's absolutely terrific, but he carries way too much personal baggage. And all four of these candidates, I think, are defective in some ways. Mitt Romney I like, but in many ways, because I think his kind of Mormonism is the least problematic baggage of the major candidates.
Steyn also added his analysis of the Vanity Fair piece on John McCain, and we see eye to eye on its impact on the senator's diminishing political heft.
Outgoing Colorado Governor Bill Owens then appeared and bluntly announced that he is for Romney, the sort of early declaration I hadn't expected. A transcript of that will be up later.
Romney has his web site up and running, and is actively soliciting online donations. The early money primary is an important one.
My book on Romney will appear in two months and will address the positives and the negatives of a Romney candidacy, including the "Mormon problem" to which Mark Steyn referred. The governor has sat down with me for extended periods, as his his close family, business and political associates and a variety of commentators and analysts from across the political spectrum.
There's a long way to go until Iowa, but as 2007 opens, the momentum remains where it was throughout 2006, with Mitt Romney. Mayor Giuliani could indeed make it a race, and Senator McCain might still turn it around with some "straight talk" with conservatives, not Chris Matthews.
Let me repeat: This isn't an endorsement, just an analysis. Announcements like Owens' matter and takes like Steyn's do as well.
UPDATE: Here is the excerpt from the Owens' transcript:
HH: Now Governor Owens, have you been talking with the leading Republican candidates? Have you got a favorite in the race?
BO: I have been talking to the leading Republican candidates, and I like Mitt Romney. I think when your earlier caller was asking about somebody who has real substance, and I realize that some of us who are conservatives, there have been some questions. But I think that Mitt Romney's a conservative, and I think he can win. But I also like John McCain. I'm not being political here. I'm not one of these anti-McCain people. I want a winner, and somebody that's going to be with me 80% of the time, both of them would be, and I'm for Romney, but not against McCain.
HH: Now I saw...you know, you worked with Romney at the Governor's Association, both the Republican and the national. Explain to people what you see in his candidacy?
BO: Well, I think he's one of the brightest people I've ever seen in public office. He's a businessman, he's a manager. He understands markets, he understands the private sector. He is a conservative, he wants to cut taxes. You know, he's a Republican who was elected in Massachusetts, which has about 12% of its voters who are Republican. He was able to win that election, and we saw what he did at the Olympics. His foreign policy experience isn't substantial, but I know he's a conservative on foreign policy in the sense of understanding the role of America in the world.
UPDATE: The Amazing Kreskin, Peeps, thinks I should go ahead and endorse Mitt Romney. Peeps is welcome to do so, but there's a lot of turf to be covered between now and 2008, and I'd prefer to continue to evaluate the candidates as they make their cases throughout the year. To be favorably impressed with Romney (and with Giuliana, though with more reservations than regarding Romney) does not mean any analyst has to give up the right to watch and remark. To put it in terms that Peeps will understand, I think Romney enters the season with the number 1 ranking, and Rudy at #2, Senator Brownback at 3, Governor Thompson at #4, Congressman Hunter at #5, and Senator McCain at #6. But not even a single game has been played yet. Once we see a few contests --the money primary, the first few debates, more profiles with more revealing statements, then it will make sense to rerank. For the time being, I think my preseason standings are much more accurate thatn the MSMs.
|
|
|
I would prefer someone who isn't Mormon, but if the choice is between Hussein or/and Hitlery on one side and Romney on the other, I will be voting for Romney and praying that he will not be ruled by the temple in SLC as I believe he has said would not be telling him what to do. |
|
|
I agree Gingrich has too much personal baggage to be elected President, but what about Newt for Secretary of State in a Repub administration? He may be the only person with the brains and the will to clean house there. We had high hopes for Condi but she caved to the old striped-pants crowd. |
|
My co-blogger John Schroeder, an Evangelical Christian, has written extensively (and in a scholarly manner) about the role of Romney's faith in the election, and how Evangelicals should see it. You'll find him at:
http://www.article6blog.com |
|
If actions speak louder than words, then it looks as if Mitt Romney is NOT a socially conservative candidate. Deal Hudson of the Catholic Morley Institute says this about Romney's record on social issues:
"Although Gov. Mitt Romney brings what many describe as intelligence, solid management skills, optimism, and charisma to the presidential race, an increasing number of Catholics are concerned that Romney's recent conversion to pro-life, pro-family conservatism contrasts dramatically with his public record of speaking and governing as a social moderate or liberal, routinely backing down when the going gets tough, and accomplishing few conservative successes."
See Hudson's article at http://www.morleyinstitute.org/documents.php?doctype=1&doctypename='The%20Window'&docstyle=168 for details of Romney's record on these issues. |
|
Since the past few presidents have been Governors, I would expect that trend to continue. Is Mitt Romney the only available Governor to be on the ticket?
|
|
And that is Romney clearly and simply articulating a short list, maybe 6 or fewer, traditional conservative principles as his own and then relentlessly campaigning on them AND TREIR IMPLICATIONS FOR THE COUNTRY AND ITS FUTURE. It's amazing how such an openly stated set of principles can simplify everything. A good answer or position is one which is clearly consistent with said principles; a bad is anything else. Simple. Powerful. Atypical for politicians. Much needed today.
Plan B, or maybe A Prime. Revere the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, which after all will be the basis for many of said principles. This country was founded on many amazingly powerful ideas that resonated then and can do so again.
Please. Work on this. |
|
Hugh, I really enjoy your radio show and blog. Good insight and analysis. However, you're being intellectually dishonest about your claims of neutrality regarding Romney. It has been obvious for the past 6+ weeks that you're a "Romney guy". Nothing wrong with that, eventually everyone will pick a horse. Clearly the process of writing the book on him got you close enough and provided enough information that has swayed you. However, as you've pointed out over and over to the MSM, it is vital that reporters be transparent as to their beliefs/convictions. Enough already w/ the "I'm neutral" stuff. It's not good when even Chad the Elder can see it (http://www.fraterslibertas.com/2007_01_01_archive.html#116793292450440281) ;-) |
|
|
When will Townhall.com begin publishing Mr. Steyn's column's? |
|
Thanks for the plug Rat. I think.
What's the one main criticism that bloggers have of the MSM? That they don't admit their biases and put on a pretense of objectivity.
Hugh stopped being objective on the GOP field for '08 some time ago. As Rat said, there's nothing wrong with that. He just needs to be upfront about it. |
|
No need for me to repeat what has already been said. I'll admit that the high political campaign season (which seems to be extending in this case) is my least favorite time for Hugh's show, which I love. This is when Hugh moves from any pretense of objectivity to full advocacy. His take, for example, on Arnold's treatment of women raised right before the recall election was particularly hard to swallow. Sure, it was a late hit job, but that alone couldn't eliminate the serious concerns.
I'm glad to see things out there like Articl6Blog, I'm going to have to read it thoroughly. Again, it's OK to be an advocate, and to advocate hard (though I worry about Hugh here sometimes). But definitely be up front about it, or you lose credibility. As Chad says, it's a little bit amazing that someone who is so dialed in on this for the MSM fails to recognize it for himself. |
|
"...and accomplishing few conservative successes."
Dude, the guy's governor of MASSACHUSETTS. Just keeping them from hoisting the red flag outside the Statehouse is a conservative success.
What about Romney's role in orchestrating and forcing a vote on the gay-marriage referendum -- against a tidal wave of Democrat and press opinion? That was a huge conservative accomplishment. |
|
|
Romney's healthcare plan for citizens of Mass. was startingly coercive. As I understand it, the State now requires all citizens to purchase their own health care insurance if it's not provided by employers or by Medicare/Medicaid. And this guy is supposed to be a conservative? |
|
Briggsy has a point, even if it's a supernatural one. The angel Mitt Romney has arrived, is arriving as we speak: Savior of Conservatives (depending on how persuasive he is on each and every rightwing knee-jerk issue he continues to embrace (gay marriage, illegal immigrants who cut his lawn, how a Mormon is the same as an Evangelical, etc., etc.), already connected to Hollywood, noble Dad who was brainwashed during the cold war but survived, persuaded his future press secretary Hugh Hewitt to write a book about him...the list goes on and on.
But I don't think so. |
|
|
Substitute any minority for Mormon and then maybe you'll realize what a bigot you are? |
|
Personally, I'm not religious (bona fide minority group member). But you should appreciate the special relationship between church and state that this candidate represents. Check it out, Bambi. I also think he's a pure opportunist, moderate running for governor one day, rightwinger running for president the next. Which day is he lying about?
(Caveat: If he really turns out to be The Angel Mitt Romney, nevermind what I just said above). |
|
|
Dudley: are you saying that no one with any religious beliefs can therefore run for President? Or, are Mormons special? |
|
|
|