Tuesday, January 09, 2007
|
|
Smarter than the Average Bear
|
|
Posted by:
Dean Barnett at
11:09 AM
|
|
Most people think that the first primary in the nation happens in New Hampshire. That’s not quite true. Two important primaries happen before then – the money primary and the media primary.
On the Republican side, the runaway favorite for the media primary was John McCain and his “Straight Talk Express.” Oh, how the reporters have come to adore the maverick Senator. But a new reality has crept up on McCain. As the President fades into political irrelevance, McCain’s habit of sticking his thumb into the administration’s eye will also fade into irrelevance. The Senator will have to learn a new trick to keep the media enamored. And if there’s ever been an old dog, it’s John McCain.
The big surprise is that as far as the right wing portion of the media primary is concerned, Mitt Romney has already won. I know a lot of people wonder how this has happened. How did an obscure blue-state governor so strike the fancy of conservative pundits?
I’ve written this before, but it bears repeating: Mitt Romney is an exceptionally impressive man. It is very difficult to spend any time with him and not come away charmed. It is even more difficult to spend time with him and come away unimpressed. In addition to being almost preternaturally affable and engaging, Romney also has what lawyers like to call electric intelligence. For reasons that don’t require much elaboration, this is a characteristic that the Republican electorate currently hungers for. Desperately.
In short, Romney is smarter than the average bear. Admittedly in politics this isn’t much of a feat. While politicians as a class are articulate and charming, they tend to lack intellectual curiosity and intellectual rigor. It’s not that they seek simple solutions to complex problems. Were that only the case.
In truth, they seek to attack complex problems by delivering mindless but effective sound bytes. Think of an example, any example: Religion of Peace, Two Americas, Culture of Corruption, Support the Troops, Don’t Escalate – all of these are examples of labeling a problem with the hope that the labeling substitutes for actually engaging the problem. On the political level, it usually works. In terms of getting anything productive done, it’s reliably an abysmal failure.
Romney’s different. He spent a business career mastering difficult fact patterns and figuring out what to do. Simple sloganeering was never an alternative to effective action. As proof of his acumen in this regard, there are numerous businesses that he helped build (Staples, Domino’s) and a vast personal fortune.
THE QUESTION WAS, Would the Romney way be effective in politics? As a politician, would he be just another guy, or would he continue to be the innovator that he was in the private sphere. Yesterday, his political competitors got some bad news on the front.
In a unique fundraising event that combined lots of modern-day viral marketing with a smidgeon of old fashioned phone-banking, the Romney campaign raised over $6.5 million. There has never been anything comparable to it in American politics. Although the money primary is just beginning, Mitt Romney looks like he’s going win that one as handily as he won the right-wing media primary.
But it’s not just about the money. Under no circumstances would Mitt Romney’s campaign lack for funds. If he wanted to, he could probably self-finance a presidential run with the loose change in between his sofa cushions.
What yesterday shows is that the Romney campaign, like his business career, will be marked by innovation. The Romney campaign won’t be relying on techniques that were moldy back when David Letterman was actually funny. Nor will it just trod the road that Joe Trippi and the Howard Dean campaign paved in 2004.
As he has done throughout his career, Mitt Romney will build a better mousetrap. While John Edwards delivers speeches that sound like they were ripped from Huey Long’s playbook, Barack Obama ponders his future and John McCain defends McCain/Feingold, Mitt Romney will run a 21st century campaign that will leave his rivals looking like the antiquated relics of yesterday’s politics that they are.
Compliments? Complaints? Contact me at Soxblog@aol.com
|
|
"... what lawyers like to call electric intelligence."
Dean -- can you elaborate on the term .. IANAL, but I haven't heard it and Google was not helpful. |
|
Thanks for the fine POST MR. DB.
Wasn't it a riot to see JOHN MCCAIN FLIP a coin on National TV?
A perfect symbol for he and the Senate...
Toss a coin, let the populist decide your vote.
McCain looked far from Presidential in this scene.
Not very wise...
'Senator McCain, will you flip a coin for the BCS bowl?'
'Sure...'
|
|
meant to type: "Toss a coin, let the populist WINDS decide your vote." |
|
vote for Romney no problem. I will never vote for McCain thanks to his hatred of the first amendment and his go along to get along way of doing things. I only really have two concerns about Romney: 1. Universal health care, will he try to do nationally what he did in Mass? 2. Second amendment, will he promise to keep his and the DOJ's, Congress hands off the Second amendment? If the answer is yes and no respectively then I would have a hard time voting for him however, I don't see a better REPUB candidate on the horizen also I think a really good Vice President for him would be Newt Gingrich. |
|
|
Well, he's worked the bloggers artfully. That, and a token.... |
|
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/01/mitt_romney_a_massachusetts_li.html
"Romney's campaign distributed pro-gay rights campaign literature during Boston's ‘Gay Pride' events," issuing pink fliers stating, "Mitt and Kerry [running mate Kerry Healey] wish you a great Pride weekend! All citizens deserve equal rights, regardless of their sexual preference."
- Romney advocated governmental recognition of homosexual adoption rights, domestic partnerships and homosexual civil unions.
- Romney opposed the Boy Scouts' policy prohibiting homosexuals from serving as scoutmasters and prevented the organization from participating publicly in the 2002 Olympics.
- The Boston Globe wrote in 2005, "Governor Mitt Romney, who touts his conservative credentials to out-of-state Republicans, has passed over GOP lawyers for three-quarters of the 36 judicial vacancies he has faced, instead tapping registered Democrats or independents - including two gay lawyers who have supported expanded same-sex rights."
- Romney promoted homosexual propaganda in Massachusetts schools through the "Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth," funding this bureaucracy of social engineering instead of eliminating it.
|
|
These posts about Romney remind me of a young girl being swept off her feet. Romney has said all the things that the conservative bloggers have longed to hear and they are positively swooning at his feet.
Others aren't quite convinced. Robert Novak has some doubts:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=14345
And here are some quotes that will make any rational person wonder how strongly he's committed to the pro-life position:
http://romneyisapro-lifefraud.blogspot.com/ (yes it's a partisan site, but the quotes are accurate)
As a Democrat looking in, Romney reminds me of Bill Clinton- young, good-looking, smart, engaging, knows the right things to say, slick as hell. That ought to make any sensible Republican think twice.
(pssst: Your best candidate by far is Giuliani)
|
|
McCain is a pander bear for getting more conservative on gay marriage--but if that is true, isn't it true for Romney too? Romney also changed from being pro choice to being pro life.
I do not think politicians who change their views is a bad thing or something that should be looked down on. Frankly, if McCain said that in hindsight McCain-Feingold was a mistake--that would be a good thing.
I respect Romney, but I am not sure he can win the general election. McCain (who is by far the best candidate on the GWOT), however, will face the long knives of Hugh and K-Lo and a lot of conservatives who hate campaign finance reform and his stance on immigration--so whether he can win the primary remains in doubt. Forget about Guiliani, Newt, Sonny Perdue, Brownback, and the rest of the mob--they are not going to win. I like the idea of a McCain-Romney ticket--but I am getting worried that the Dems will take the White House in 2008.
|
|
|
|
We should be so lucky as to have his kind of executive leadership....but there's basically a year in which to try to convince evangelicals that is's worth getting excited... Documentary style films (stressing polygamy) and pamphlets decrying LDS as a full-stop cult are a part of the culture. We'll see if his masterful working with the punditry can get him past it all. I'm not that worried on health care. If anything, he'll talk circles around the competition with his actual knowledge of the subject. Gun rights? I just don't know... having grown up in Massachusetts I certainly don't want those kind of gun laws enacted or encouraged anywhere else...so I guess we'll have to trust his sense of Federalism. Running from a small state and having dealt directly with the CRAZY Mass supreme court, I think he can make a powerful case for states rights and keeping most social engineering projects out of the federal jurisdiction. At least that's what i hope for. I see a Romney/ Guliani race with Newt pushig the conversation. Hmm. |
|
laborlawyer writes: Tuesday, January, 09, 2007 2:46 PM (pssst: Your best candidate by far is Giuliani)
Giuliani is as socialy liberal as Romney from what I have read and heard however, I will wait and see I think these are the two front runners right now, McCain I don't think has a chance of winning the primaries, most of the base holds BCRA, his defense of terrorist rights and the main street organization(partly funded by George Soros(spit)against him as well we should.
|
|
|
|
"As a Democrat looking in, Romney reminds me of Bill Clinton- young, good-looking, smart, engaging, knows the right things to say, slick as hell. That ought to make any sensible Republican think twice."
The big difference between Clinton and Romney is substance--Clinton was nothing but talk, but Romney turns talk into action. Those who wonder what Romney is really like should read his book _Turnaround: Crisis, Leadership and the Olymipic Games_. What I learned from the book is that Romney never does things half-way.
|
|
Yes, the blogs on the right have done a good job of putting Romney in good light. The trouble is many conservative, evangelical christians will not vote for a Morman, (I listened to an Al Mohler podcast that discusses this very issue and Al's anxiety summed up my feelings). Rudy is not conservative enough on social issues to win the Republican Primary. McCain is hero, American Patriot and a lousy Republican not to be trusted. Newt understands the the threat of Islamism and articulates it in a manner that we can understand. He believes in American Exceptionalism and states it. But Newt has personal issues that will be laid bare by a hostile press for the American electorate to see. Where is the Republican bench strength........? |
|
"Romney reminds me of Bill Clinton"
Yeah. Two legs. Two arms. A head. Two ears. Can't tell the difference between them, can you?
|
|
While some self-titled conservatives feel comfortable under the big Republican circus tent, many of us are being driven out by the smell of neglect and elephant stench. The truth is, there is not yet any nationally recognized person who can bring the party together to form a wide enough base to win in 2008.
Romney could overcome the anti-Mormon prejudices of Evangelicals,but he is almost TOO polished for his own good (or ours). I refrain from the overused term "slick" because it carries connotations of depravity, which I think is not appropriate to Romney. I just doubt people will feel they can trust the guy, impressive as he may be.
McCain and Giuliani are lost causes altogether. They are donkeys in elephant clothing. One or two issues do not a viable Presidential candidate make.
Guys like Tancredo (who I really like a lot) and Newt are simply too divisive.
For reasons explained in my Flagwaving Knuckledragger blog, Hillary can't be elected. Ever! This means we may be forced to watch as neophyte and ultra-liberal President Obama saunters down the aisle to the strains of Hail to the Chief. Couple that with a left-dominated Congress, and you have yourself a bitter brew indeed.
Face it. We're hosed.
|
|
|
So, "concerned" conservatives and evangelicals won't vote for Mitt, or Rudy? So, they will what - Stay home? Vote for the Dem candidate? Are so many people REALLY that stupid and short sighted? Lordy I hope not. Maybe the next couple of years will remind them of what the Democratic Party is truly all about, lest they have forgotten. |
|
Look at the republicans that stayed at home because our Republican leaders could not control spending, secure the border and they barely delivered on judges - barely. Yes it is really stupid and short sighted and it happened. Please explain to me why after the '94 revolution we still have an National Endowment of the Arts? The NEA is one example of many as to why the republicans do not deserve to govern. It is sad indeed. |
|
|
what precisely was so innovative about Romney's fundraiser? |
|
Starspangledblogger-
I might agree with your "too polished" argument were it not for the fact that the GOP- and the nation- already wholeheartedly supported and elected a Hollywood actor. Not to dump on you, but sometimes the concerns I hear from our side about Romney are like a stuck needle. "America will never elect a (fill in the blank) to the presidency." Well, one thing Americans are good at is shattering the conventional wisdom. Thank the Almighty for that. |
|
"but he is almost TOO polished for his own good"
So arrange for him to misspell "tomatoe" or have a wardrobe malfunction. Too much polish is nothing a good but harmless gaffe can't solve. |
|
Whatev-
As far as Romney and the WOT is concerned, you might find Little Green Footballs illuminating. Go to that website, type "Mitt Romney" in the search bar, and choose the first or second of the three stories. You will probably find them most illuminating- especially the comments pages afterward. |
|
...is all that matters in 2008. With the Democrats already in control of the House and Senate, it's irrelevant whether Mitt Romney is the best, truest conservative candidate the GOP has to offer. What's critically vital to our national security is preventing the Democrats from taking the White House as well; and with Romney, you're unnecessarily rolling the dice.
If any weight is to be put into current polling, Mitt Romney has a 45-50% chance of beating Hillary, Obama or Edwards. Giuliani has a 75-80% chance of beating any of the top-tier Dems in the field. Considering Rudy has gone on record saying "I don't understand how you cannot be for strict constructionist judges," and has gushed praise on both Roberts and Alito, his personal beliefs on abortion should be a non-issue. His views on 'gay marriage' are no different than President Bush's. Giuliani said this past May, "I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, that it should remain that way, it should remain that way inviolate, and everything should be done to make sure that that's the case."
Even if it feels like choosing between the 'lesser of two evils', can you, in good conscience, stay home on Election Day and accept Hillary Clinton or the grossly inexperienced John Edwards or Barack Obama as our Commander in Chief at this most perilous of times?
In yesterday's New York Post, Dick Morris wrote:
"Yes. There is a war going on and of course Rudy Guiliani is the man we should have had all along running Homeland Security. Obviously, he is the candidate Osama would least like to see in the White House."
If it's that obvious, then Rudy should obviously be our next president. |
|
Romney is as phoney a Conservative as Hillary Clinton is a Centrist.
Romney will never convince enough Conservatives that he's for real..another flip flopping opportunist.
Judging from the results of the last election it's not an asset to be ultra Conservative but rather to appeal to Independents and moderates as well.
Senator McCain is literally an open book. He can be trusted with National Security, Foreign Policy and the Military. He's the most Conservative candidate in the field and still has the Media bamboozled.
My monies on McCain to beat the tar out of Hillary Clinton. With him everyone knows what they're getting..with Romney, it's a crap shoot.
|
|
By "too polished" I mean ( and I apologize if this wasn't obvious )that many people feel they can't trust the guy. He comes across as a car salesman. Hollywood background and shiny hair aside, you never thought of Reagan as oily.
Now, you and I know that only an idiot ever really TRUSTS any politician. But we do prefer to elect people who seem more "regular". Who knows? Maybe an XYZ episode would help the guy's image. Something tells me it won't happen.
Hey, I'm a Fundie, and I might vote for the the guy. I'm just mentioning one of his potential liabilities as a candidate. McCain and Rudy, OTOH, will have to do a lot of convincing to get my vote.
To call people "stupid" for refusing to choose the marginally-better-than-democrats candidate is ,IMHO, the kind of arrogance that got Republicans trounced November last.
|
|
|
|
Is 2008 going to be about the lesser of two liberals? If the two main liberal parties in America get their way it will be.
Fiscal Conservatives better take over the Repub party if Conservatism is going to last.
Congressman Ron Paul of Texas for Pres in 08. |
|
|
Everyone is going to slam Mitt, call him names, say that his being a Mormon is a big hurdle, but no matter how you slice and dice him, he's still the best and only MAN I'd vote for President of the United States. We need a muscular politician to pick up the reins, and if he happens to also be a muscular Christian, all the better. Mitt is the man. |
|
|
|