Monday, July 09, 2007
|
|
Too Perfect?
|
|
Posted by:
Matt Lewis at
11:34 AM
|
|
Dean's comment that Mitt Romney isn't "creepy," he's "exceptional" makes a very good point, but the outcome may be equally disappointing to Romney fans.
While George W. Bush may have caused many to wish for a more intellectual president, the fact remains that Americans have an anti-elitist streak. To use a Joe Klein analogy, Mitt Romney is the kind of guy who sits in the front row of class and raises his hand. Fred, Rudy, and McCain are the kinds of guys sitting in the back of the room, throwing spitballs. I've always idenfied more with the kids in the back of the room.
To some people, extraordinary is creepy. With his perfect family, perfect speech delivery, and perfect hair, Mitt Romney may ironically turn off some voters by being too, well, perfect. At the very least, it casues some to wonder if he is just a perfectly-packaged candidate...
|
|
You wrote: "I'm voting for Ron Paul, the only true conservative in the race cut from the Goldwater/Reagan cloth."
***
The ONLY true conservative? Really? Not even Duncan Hunter qualifies? I've heard that "straight is the gate and narrow is the way . . . and few there be that find it," but this is ridiculous! Ron Paul is the only one who has found the narrow, exclusive path to political justice?
If you believe Ron Paul is the ONLY TRUE conservative in the race, I suppose you would assert that he is the only conservative in the Congress and perhaps the only conservative holding any political office. If pressed, you might admit that you believe Reagan himself was not worthy to stoop down and unloose the latchet of the shoes of your political savior, Ron Paul.
Matt Lewis wonders whether Romney's too perfect, but your political puritanism makes Ron Paul seem a bit too perfect. Paul does seem at times to have a political messiah complex, speaking as if he were the lone voice of truth in politics. He is too self-righteous to appeal to anybody but the few fanatics who are willing to adore him as if he were the Constitution Made Flesh.
|
|
LOL - yes, Mitt's the first white Bill Clinton from Mass. Very polished, and would probably be every bit as teflon as Bubba.
|
|
So you are saying Mitt is the "white" version of Billy Clinton?
LOL |
|
|
Are you marrying into the Romney family or something? |
|
al writes: Monday, July, 09, 2007 4:15 PM
Mitt's lack of substance...
On THAT we can agree...but Ron Paul? Ummm, no.
Pam... I didn't see where Anna said anything about Paul...
But as for YOUR Man-Dolphin, Flipper/Mitt, he did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in MY STATE as Governor and I VOTED FOR HIM...TWICE in fact (even he would be have better than fat-teddy)...
When Flipper was heading off onto the POTUS campaign trail he became A LOT MORE CONSERVATIVE (ie...allowing State Troopers to question a persons LEGAL STATUS) knowing full well two, four or six weeks of his NEW CONSERVATIVE policies would be overturned by the incoming Super-Lib...
And that is EXACTLY what happened!!!
Thanks alot Flipper! |
|
Mitt's rhetoric has been driving hard right to get the nomination, but I can't believe people are falling for his act that he's a true conservative. He's a quintessential politician. People can claim he was stuck in a liberal state all they want, but the proof is in the bills he signed.
Gun control - passed an assault weapons ban, then claimed he was staunch pro-gun.
Abortion - will flip pro-life unless he gets the nomination, then will flop pro-choice or remain ambiguous.
Health care - socialized it for Mass.
Does this have all the markings of a true conservative? He's a big government pseudo-socialist statist who will say anything for a vote.
I'm not falling for it. I'm voting for Ron Paul, the only true conservative in the race cut from the Goldwater/Reagan cloth. It's high time we finally elect someone who will uphold the Constitution. And his voting record is as consistent as it can be through much adversity.
|
|
|
|
You wrote: "when you're in a state that is very liberal, and 85% democratic, as a conservative you have to choose your battles."
***
Here are the links to a couple of clips from Romney's 1994 and 2002 campaigns. Not only did he not choose to fight battles on the issues, he went out of his way to assure the public that he took a liberal stance. While I really want to believe he later had a road-to-Damascus conversion, I can't help doubting the depth and sincerity of his newfound convictions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9IJUkYUbvI&mode=related&search
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9IJUkYUbvI&mode=related&search
Still, I haven't written Romney off completely. I would much rather have him than Giuliani as the GOP nominee. Of course I would support Mitt in the general election, but I cringe as I realize that the Democrats will repeatedly air the preceding videos for the general public throughout the campaign if he gets the nomination.
|
|
By the way, I don't understand why there is so little coverage of Congressman Duncan Hunter on Townhall.
TH has offered more material about the campaign of the undistinguished freshman Democrat Senator Obama than it has about the distinguished, experienced Congressman Hunter.
The editors of Townhall, like the mainstream media, have so far missed a great opportunity to inform the public about a great man who would be a remarkable President. |
|
As conservatives, we want someone to lead out on conservative issues. But when you're in a state that is very liberal, and 85% democratic, as a conservative you have to choose your battles. That is the reality of politics.
Mitt is smart, articulate, and imaginative. If we can give him a conservative Congress, we'll get a lot out of him. If the Congress is liberal, he'll do the best he can -- as he did in Massachusetts. But above all, he'll do what's best for the country. It would be a shame to discount this brillant man simply because he appears to be too good to be true.
More than any of the other candidates, he doesn't just talk, but has proven himself with commendable, obvious competence. He's the right man for the times. |
|
Nobody is perfect, though some men have been especially suited for the Presidency in their times. Reagan was nearly perfectly suited for his time. The same could be said for Dwight Eisenhower, Teddy Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, and George Washington.
If we were in peacetime with an economy in the tank, I think Romney's success as a business executive would be an even better selling point than it seems to be now.
However, the paramount issues of our time are, first, the illegal immigration crisis and, second, the wars against terrorists and rogue nations that threaten our security. This is no time for a Mr. Nice Guy. There are other very important issues, but I think our sovereignty and security trump everything else.
That being the case, Duncan Hunter is the right man for the job at this time. This Vietnam War hero has the toughness, tenacity, commitment and conviction needed to focus on border control and national security. His emphasis on these matters is reminiscent of Reagan's focus on winning the arms race and the Cold War. He is more knowledgable about these matters than Romney, and seems more passionate about them.
Reagan didn't have nearly as much executive skill as Mitt Romney; but he understood what was most important, he understood what his mission was, and he had the passion to stay focused and undeterred in achieving it.
I hope Romney has that same laser-beam intensity of interest in our sovereignty and security, especially since he seems to have a better shot at the nomination than does my first choice, Congressman Hunter. However, as I have studied the candidates, Congressman Hunter is the one who strikes me as the gutsiest, strongest, and most credible leader for these perilous times.
|
|
|
is, go to his own town!.......See MASSRESISTANCE.ORG and hear what the conservatives of Boston have to say?......Had we did that with Jimmy Carter, he would have never been elected! |
|
|
Matt identifies with the candidate who sits in the back of the class. Matt must of loved the last eight years. Keep up the good work Matt. |
|
You can add Bill Clinton to your list of “Good Ole Boys” sittin’ there in the back disrupting class. I never did consider him a problem solver.
I didn’t give Mitt a chance at first. The more I learned, the more I liked. He’s a problem solver. He was paid well as a problem solver because he solved Big Problems. That’s what we need as a president. Not some buddy I can go drink beer with. Hell, lets all pull out our fiddles and play while Rome burns. Right now I see only one choice.
|
|
to Romney. He has a very conservative platform and is as conservative as any man running, and much more so than Guilliani. Not to mention he is by far the most capable.
Oh, I know, you want to talk conspiracies and why Ron Paul is it for you, but he is a leftie on the WOT and that leaves him dead in the water with those of us who do not want to see Iraqi children served as lunch to their parents. |
|
Try as I may, I cannot visualize either Guliani, Thompson, or McCain sitting in the back of the class shooting spitwads. None of those three patriots are that shallow, and you do them a disservice to suggest they are.
I find it ironic that we constantly complain about corrupt, stupid, and/or immoral politicians, then in the next breath denounce a person who apparently is none of those as too perfect. Is it really true that we don't want someone who comes off as the perfect candidate? If so, we will get the leadership we deserve. |
|
You are right. Romney is no conservative. Since Georgie stole the crown from Jeb (who was supposed to be the heir apparent), Romney is the man the Bush machine is putting up.
Bush vs 2.0. That means he is on board with the same globalist, CFR, North American Union agenda as Bush. Romney has carefully avoided taking a conservative stand on anything. What we need is another Republican president who would sell out Americans with another amnesty bill??
Bush has succeeded in uniting the country. We all hate him. Think a Bush clone with better hair and diction can beat Hillary? |
|
but Mitt Romney is!
He's too slick, kind of like a stereotype of a candidate sometimes. It's a shame that a guy with such a great resume is hindered because he's, well, brilliant. But everyone knows the world ain't perfect...so instead it's: "What's up with that Romney guy?"
Also, there IS the tendency to pander, very shamelessly and transparently sometimes, to whatever audience he's in front of.
|
|
has already been revealed. Look at his rhetoric now vs. his record as Mass. governor. He passed that insipid "assault weapons ban" and claimed he was a strong advocate of the Second Amendment afterward... and bought a lifetime membership to the NRA once he decided to run for president. How hollow is that? Look at how he flip-flopped on abortion. I can't trust a word he says. Explaining himself to Mike Wallace, he said he was evolving. I have to question anyone who doesn't realize this blatant dishonesty.
Romney is far from perfect. In fact, his word is worthless, and he's the most dangerous candidate out there from what I can tell. He'll take the politically popular position everytime and spin away his inconsistencies. I want someone who's been consistent through the years.
|
|
that made Mitt Romney able to accomplish all that he has in business and the 2002 olympics, etc.
A lack of substance would have been revealed long ago. |
|
Oh yes, please, people. Let's all vote for mediocrity. Let's set our standards low and vote in some average person that we would want to drink a beer with.
That's right, that would lower any standard there should be for a presdident and make us comfortable around the fellow.
Mitt is too perfect, of course. Too successful, too intelligent, too good at solving problems.
Why vote for someone who is efficient, who knows how to set goals and get them accomplished, someone who could make changes and possibly have a good effect on the country?
Why, indeed.
Let's just throw ourselves out with the bath water now., |
|
We need a candidate who can communicate, can handle the press, looks good on camera, can manage a campaign etc.
However, what we need most is someone who can create real solutions to the problems that we face. Some one who is innovative, aggressive but wise and has enough flexibility to change course when plan A does not work.
We need managerial competence and real solutions to the problems that voters care about. Romney can handle this.
If you want a beer buddy, they are a dime a dozen. Just head to your local pub. I am sure you can find someone who will solve the world's problems. |
|
perfect thing I can say about Flipper is he was "PERFECTLY NON-COMMITAL" towards advancing any part of a conservative agenda while Governor here....
Thanks again Mitt |
|
|
You left out the perfect dog...Shame-Us the Irish Setter with the perfect bowel problem while on the perfect family trip.... |
|
What matters more is the "likable" test i.e. who would you rather have a beer with? Which is one of the big reasons why Bush beat both Gore and Kerry. I would not even want to share a taxi in pouring rain with John Kerry.
Lucky for us - Thompson, Romney, Giuliani and even McCain will beat Hillary Clinton in that most important category.
|
|
...that's what you're hoping, right?
|
|
|
|