What's Wrong With Mitt

In that his ideas aren't innovative or revolutionary. I'm beginning to believe that we need a shot of energy on the Right from somewhere, something to generate excitement like Obama did on the Left. The current candidates just don't have it. And "it" is the only thing that can win, IMHO, in 2008, enough buzz and interest to neutralize the Enemedia's grip on the sound bite minds of the Middle.

he just seems....political. It isn't that he is Mormon, it isn't that he is "wrong" on the issues, it is that he seems to be "what we want" molded by his political handlers to fit Massachussets then and to adjust and fit the heartland conservatives now. And to me, the more Hugh and Dean push this guy, the more suspicious I become. WHY are they so for Mitt and not Duncan (Who Hugh has known for years) or Tommy Thompson (who a few years back everyone thought was the GOP Governor star in the making) or Huckabee (who is Southern and a former pastor). It is like a certain segment of the conservative media lined up and said ok, here it is, either you get Romney or you get Guiliani who is so socially liberal. No other options available, all these other guys don't count, take your pick. Good Post

My brilliant Tory business partner made a few interesting remarks about Newt that I would like your take on.

He said that the "conservative" that REALLY let the Right down was Newt. He was Speak of the House, THIRD from the highest office in America and with the "Contract with America" ended 40 years of Democratic rule...yet he risked it all (and lost) by cheated on his wife. Think of what he could have done if he hadn't put his interest and desires above your nation's...

I dutifully brought up Clinton and the fact that his personal life did not hurt his career.

He replied..."The Right cannot claim to be for family values and support a man who has none."

I would say the same. Yet the war in my opinion makes these non-normal circumstances. Newt above all others articulates the war and seems to understand:

1) The historical parallels, and where they do not fit
2) The future ramifications of inaction or incomplete action
3) How to communicate this all to people who do not get it.

Newt is a student of history, and it gives him a perspective few others have. Churchill also was a student of history. Churchill also had major megalamania and personal life flaws, yet he was needed for that time of war. Had he been listened to during the late 40's and early 50's, the Cold War might have been avoided.

I wish Mitt, Rudy, or Fred had this same historical clarity. Maybe they do, and we just haven't heard them articulate it. McCain has it, he just has too much other baggage, especially political inconsistency. Hunter has it but can't get a national hearing. Rudy shows flashes of getting it and in the wake of 9/11 sounded very Churchillian. But I don't know if a mayor can jump to national level foreign policy effectively, and recent gaffes tell me he may not be ready.

Its about communicating the cause and never wavering. Newt wavered in the late 90's on his Contract, and yes, his personal life did play a role in his failure to lead. But he is a historian. I think he knows enough to know that history would judge him as an abject failure if his personal life compromised his war leadership. This is bigger than the domestic agenda of the 90's.

I am not yet a Newt follower. But I love to read his writing because he so clearly understands. As I said in my recent post, the other two who get it that I read are Victor Davis Hanson and Mark Steyn. Are there others? Yes, but none who articulate it that clearly.

This is kind of rambling, hope it made sense.

and I thank you. Believe me, I am not a big fan of moral dictating: I do not believe that one sin condemth forever.

The thing that made me pause was the idea that for all Newt's fine words of clarity, Newt basically FAILED.

On a strictly professional basis, a Director is judged by what his department accomplishes. A major lost could get the Director fired. If he resigns, he is NEVER considered to head another department, much less the CEO seat that could tank the entire company.

You're right...this ISN'T "normal" circumstances...are willing to risk it all on someone who made promises but failed to remain long enough to keep them?

Gingrich may have failed in the 90's, but I cannot accept the moral judgement of him by those who have none (meaning the Liberals). That said, I'm not fully in the Newt camp either, but he's the only one on the Right now that has IDEAS that seem to be clearly conveyed. I can't explain why the other candidates don't seem to do this other than to agree with Wil that Newt's historical perspective aids the communication.

I don't demand a sinless President, and it was Clinton's lying to the Grand Jury that did it for me, not the sex. Conservatives don't claim to be sinless, in fact they claim their helplessness towards sin and pray for the grace to defeat their own sinful nature. It's the Liberals who paint conservatives as Righteous, and it's much more positive to seek a moral structure like "family values" than to say morals are relative.

And there are plenty of cases where Liberals are given a pass that conservatives don't get, KKK Byrd, freezer cash Jefferson, Land deal Harry, etc.etc. It's all who has the media, and we know who that is. So, to your Tory friend, pot meet kettle. The greatest failure of this last 40 years was the failure of the Democratic party to care about the future of this Republic when it embraced the Communist ideology hidden in the 60's era Counter Culture idealism.

is that the candidate needs to appear to be mainstream to get elected. We cannot win with conservative votes alone. As I state in my new blog, "Insanity," everything really boils down to abortion and has for 34 years.

Can the WOT usurp that issue for once? Can the Party agree on a candidate that can win? That is the big question.

as to Mitt, of whom you write, it is true that something is not letting him "break out." I'm not sure what that is. We need a "Rock Star" to beat a "Rock Star," meaning Hillary. Ugh... I hate to say it, but the Clintons are "stars."

I'm not so sure that we need a Star as much as we need someone who can capture people's imaginations, who can make us really believe with excitement that the future can be better.

of GOP and my Brit partner is what I thought all conservatives were: reasonable, realistic, and logical.

He's not judging Newt on a personal level but on his ability to actually do the Right good or bad. He is basing this (as he does on most matters) from a strictly intellectual prospective not emotional.

What Newt promised verses what he actually accomplished and what he could have accomplished if he had not put his own personal desires above his party and his contract with America.

Are their perspectives that would paint Bush's first term a "failure"? If so, how did he rate a second term?

You don't get it...JD is quite clinical in his evaluation...he doesn't "rate" Bush's first OR second term a failure. Like me, JD determines the success or failure of an executive by the results he/she produces not whether or not that executive is popular.

Bush's first term had numerous accomplishments but his second term is even more impressive because of the challenges he's had to face (the RINO press, unforgiving Conservatives.)

Bush has "danced" and still managed to keep the music playing.

In the world of business, he'd be a keeper.

In my humble opinion Bush will go down in history as one of the best presidents in our history...

As to Romney, your take is interesting...maybe he's too wealthy, too good looking, too smooth, too predictable?

I don't know, in terms of ability, from what I've read he's very qualified, compared to Newt who has the vision, but can he manage and run a country and a war?

Rudy, on the other hand, seems good at all of it. He's got a good sense of humor, he's down to earth, smart as a tack, and has proved he CAN run a major city, and do it conservatively, and make it a better, safer place to live...

But he's not so polished, he's not a hunk, like Romney, and he seems more approachable...seems the average Joe would like him.

To be honest I think Rudy would be a very good president.

His speech at Houston Baptist College was quite good, I thought, and it gave me a better picture of who he is.

None of our great presidents in the past were flawless, yet we on the right seem to think in this imperfect world we can have a perfect candidate...sometimes you just have to go with the hand you're dealt.

Okay, I get what you're saying. I'm not disqualifying Newt because of that past. If you're saying he's not qualified because he failed once, well, you've got the right to that opinion. I'm not viewing him in that light. If you're saying he can't be successful because he failed, I can't agree with that either. So, with respect to JD, I'm not sharing that opinion. Everyone can learn from mistakes, and Newt has a long record in the public forum since the congressional days.

So, clearly, are you saying he doesn't get your vote because of what he did back then?

historical perspective is more likely to recognize and not repeat mistakes he made in the past. It isn't that past mistakes don't matter, its what you learn from them that matters more. In all honesty, its anybodies guess. Sanities partner, Me, Doc Steech, and Dave all are simply guessing based on how we rank different aspects of the situation. How Newt would or would not conduct himself as President is anyones guess but does need serious analysis.

Didn't 9 of the 10 contract items come up for vote? I am a bit forgetful.

JD believes that America is important not just to Britain but to all of Europe...so he has an interest in who occupies the WH and who will head the fight against the terrorist that is in his own "backyard."

Being a Tory, he naturally leans toward the Right and being a businessman, he judges each candidate on their assets vs their liabilities. To him, it isn't Newt's mistakes...it's the fact that the man came up to bat...and missed an important and vital chance to hit it out of the park.

JD doesn't believe that in this time of war, the America voter will risk another shot on a man that talked a good game--but folded and lost when it counted.

As for me...I just found the entire idea interesting because the very people who want perfection in Bush is willing to "forgive" Newt's mistakes.

As for me...I just found the entire idea interesting because the very people who want perfection in Bush is willing to "forgive" Newt's mistakes. - That's a fascinating observation.

But those people you refer to focus on conservative ideas, and Bush strays more than Newt or Thompson "appear to". The reality may be different.

As for Europe, it influences American politics more than JD may think, and more than it should IMHO, though mostly in the Media and Democratic Elite circles.

But Newt didnt' fold on his ideas, he disqualified himself from the game because of a personal foul. New game, wiser player. And I think Wil may be right about Newt's scorecard. Can you clear that up?

I too believe that Bush will go down as a great president.

A long time ago I wrote an essay entitled "He## froze and no one noticed". In it, I stated that if Bush never did another thing...if Afghanistan and Iraq only had the Bill of Rights for 2 weeks...the fact that they had it at all would make Bush a great leader.

In the months following 2001, I honestly thought my life as I knew it would never be the same. America was at war, the economy had tanked, and Hawaii was a ghost town. I watched an elderly man, months from retirement clutch a pink slip and ask me why...why did the terrorists do this to him and his family? I listened to a poweful CEO cry as he told me about coming home from Vietnam and being treated like he was the enemy.

If Bush never does another thing for the next 18 months, he will be, to me, the greatest president this nation has ever had...for another man or woman that gets to reach their golden years...for troops that will come home proud...for Waikiki, Disneyland, and Vegas...brimming with the sounds and sights that is glitzy, loud, exciting -- and American.

don't have to be perfect; they just have to get over some pretty big liabilities.

Rudy's donation to the death mill is a huge one--and after 3 decades of C/PL's putting aside their Left leaning issues (homeless, environment, education) to make sure the guy who appoints judges are pro-life, Rudy isn't going to get off easy with his "I'm personally against abortion cr@p".

As for Romney (which is what this article is about)...tell me honestly Sheila...does the man excite/inspire you? Do you see him winning against the Clinton machine?

If not, why not?

so...he won't go visit his current wife in the hospital to show her divorce papers or he won't fool around with his secretary?

He won't go up against an opponent that has more charisma than he and lock up the government till he has to cry "uncle"?

What exactly are the mistakes Newt has made that he learned from and won't do again?

Dave, Newt came up to bat...all the bases were loaded...he got struck out by Clinton...but he was still in the game. He didn't disqualify himself because of a personal foul...he put his own desires over the country and his party...which is more akin to someone who gives in to his desire for a few beers and blew his team's chances of winning the championship game.

Valid points. You seem to disdain the guy, and they are good reasons. I also think (correct me if I'm wrong) if it's him or Hillary, you'll vote Newt, not that he'll get that far. So, what is your point, that we should see that the emperor has no clothes, or is it something else? I'm sincerely listening.

But did Reagan cheat on his wife?

Doc...the terrorist are going to do more than throw his a spitball...it's not a shame to get struck out...but it IS unforgivable to put yourself in a situation where you can't come up to bat at a crucial moment. I'm sorry, but even the most forgiving coach would never put his team at risk with such a "star player" again.

Newt is on every talk show...and he can rake it in...as long as he DOESN'T RUN. This is like the great players of old who gives their fans a "what if". Newt isn't stupid, he KNOWS the money is in the "what if" and he will cash in for all it's worth. I don't blame him...it's the smart thing to do...besides, what does one do when one has been on the public payroll for near 30 years?

Come September, Newt won't run...like a "stripper", it's all in the promise, not the delivery...and you heard it here first.

no no, I like Newt and absolutely, between him and Hil...no contest.

I just found the idea of Newt being the champion of those who claim that Bush let the Right down interesting. I don't even really care about his personal life. (Although I think most women would find that unattractive; part of Bush's "manly charisma" is his devotion to his wife, his mother, and the women in his life (Condi, Karen).

Newt was in the position to actually do something incredible...but he was like the star player who got drunk the night before a big game...people may not care about the drinking, but Newt doing so, knowing it would take him out of the game...now THAT should bar him from ever playing in a major game again.

We're at war Dave...we need someone who can do more than talk a great talk.

(Btw...I LOVE Hunter...but you knew that:)

and a whole host of "what ifs" is that they keep making promises.

Come on out and take a swing. If they strike out, they strike out. But at least they gave the public a chance to see what they had.

As it is, they're making money out of "maybe" and a nation at war needs a leader that the terrorists KNOW will come after them if they attack us.

Stop with the "old"...you and I both know that like fine wine, age can break it down and mix it up...youth has to wait an awful long time to go down smooth and palatable.

I'm impatient with Newt and Fred. Waiting till September is wrong (yet his right), but mid June for Fred could be feasible. The ebb and flow of the momentum is kind of unsettling, I'd like to know who's in or not, and get on with it. This early campaign stuff is baloney.

BTW Doc, you've only got one year on me, so no sympathy from me, I'm only behind you by a shovel or two.

Don't you think there's something wrong with constantly looking in the past (Reagan) or a maybe (Fred and Newt) to "save" the Right?

Unlike the Libs, we're supposed to live in the real world. We're supposed to take what we have, work our tail off, and MAKE it happen...not lament about what we could do IF ONLY.

Dave...I hate to break it to you but Newt and Fred's value is in the "what if". They are like the pin up gal or Marilyn Monroe who makes men dream, but when the lights go off, the act is the same and you had better have more than a visual to sustain you.

If either man actually ran, nothing they do will satisfy the absolutes/Conservatives/Isolationist
As I said before they could have the best economy in a quarter of a decade (as Bush does)... return of our life after 9/11 (as Bush did)... an actual, real tangible victory on abortion (as Bush's Roberts & Alito got)...and they would STILL hate them and call them not conservative enough.

The MSM will go after them even worst than they have Bush because they think they are holding all the aces in Hil and Obama.

No, both men understand that the value of an ex actor and an ex politician IN THIS POLITICAL

post...geez, so it publishes when I'm not done but gets lost when I've been brilliant???

Let's try this again...

Don't you think there's something wrong with constantly looking in the past (Reagan) or a maybe (Fred and Newt) to "save" the Right?

Unlike the Libs, we're supposed to live in the real world. We're supposed to take what we have, work our tail off, and MAKE it happen...not lament about what we could do IF ONLY.

Dave...I hate to break it to you but Newt and Fred's value is in the "what if". They are like the pin up gal or Marilyn Monroe who makes men dream, but when the lights go off, the act is the same and you had better have more than a visual to sustain you.

If either man actually ran, nothing they do will satisfy the absolutes/Conservatives/Isolationist
As I said before they could have the best economy in a quarter of a century (as Bush has)... return of our life after 9/11 (as Bush did)... an actual, real tangible victory on abortion (as Bush's Roberts & Alito got)...and they would STILL hate them and call them not conservative enough.

The MSM will go after them even worst than they have Bush because they think they are holding all the aces in Hil and Obama--and the GOP would have "stolen" ANOTHER election from them.

No, both men understand that the value of an ex actor and an ex politician IN THIS POLITICAL CLIMATE is to tell other more courageous souls what they would do...if only.

And Doc, Dave is correct, you're way too young to even attempt sympathy..and don't you think that's a bit unfair the way YOU debate?

If you really hated to break it to me, why'd I have to hear it twice? Just kidding. Actually I believe I've said Reagan would be smeared by Conservatives today because of Lebanon and Amnesty, but I'm hoping some candidate would espouse his conservative philosophy. And someone who wouldn't cave in to the Dems in the name of bi-partisanship (McCain), and someone I could trust to not flip flop his positions (not Romney) and someone who'd try to shrink government.

I DO like Duncan Hunter, and even Huckabee, but I don't think they will get the nod. It'll be mid June in a little over three weeks. If Fred gets in, fine, lets see how hard he'll go. He may have real value as a candidate, how can you say for sure he won't? You're busting his chops because he's not in right now. So, what happens IF he is in, and doing well, gaining momentum and showing energy and enthusiasm and generating excitement? There is that possibility. The actual vote is as Doc says, it's 400 some days to the election.

Other than that, I'm content to look at the cards I've got now. And in spite of how much some Conservatives actually hate him, I'd vote for Rudy if he's nominated because of the reasons we've both discussed ad nauseum. You seem to be prickly towards Newt and Fred. What am I missing here?

what is wrong with Fred and Newt?

Let's see Newt lost to Clinton 1 despite all the ammunition in the world. He isn't going to run, he likes being conservative icon too much.

As for Fred, best mates with McCain, but you knew that and opps sorry Newt but Fred didn't think that convicting President Clinton on article 1, the perjury article was so hot either.

Look these guys look good, because, yep the field is not covered with stars and so you are looking at these two hoping that they are going to supply the miracle answer.

And they know that, no debates for them, some analysis I grant you, buy hey I can give intelligent answers after hearing everyone else's response hour to think of something clever.

That's okay, I can understand your points. If it seems like I'm running a draft Newt or Fred campaign, I've mislead you, my fault. You are right, I'm hoping SOMEBODY will energize the field, but it seems to be a case of choosing the lesser of evils, which is how I'd approach the general election, but this is primary stuff, and com'on guys, can't somebody get us fired up? Are my expectations too great? Maybe that's the point you and Sanity are trying to make. Well, maybe. Or maybe the primaries are the time to tell the party what we're looking for in a candidate. I have no illusions about Newt or Fred, my interest alone is a statement about the current crop. But Newt and Fred will have to show everybody the money if they're game. So until then, how bout that Duncan Hunter guy?

He's probably too busy, but I wonder if you'd extend an invitation for your Tory partner JD to weigh in here. He may enjoy it, and his viewpoint would be extremely interesting. Or has he already?

I didn't mean it in a bad way silly. I meant you don't need anyone's sympathy but the "other" guy could sure use some.

JD is running two companies right now, his father's (his dad is seriously ill)and ours. He's like Newt in that he likes to give his opinion on politics without actually taking part...(grin, just kidding.)

Perhaps I can approach the subject at a calmer time.

I sat watching the re-run of the debate and held my breath each time Hunter was called to answer...I was terrified that he'd say something that would make him unsaleable.

Fortunately, he did great. I really thought he shone during this debate because while everyone was busy entertaining the audience with clever one liners, he came across as serious and strong.

And Dave, one more thing that made me think of what's wrong with Romney (the subject of my post)...Hunter had that "ring of sincerity" while Romney came off phoney as all get out...doesn't Mitt seem almost Manchurian to you?

Romney does seem artificial, unfortunately for him. As far as Duncan, I'd like to hear some political ideas about Iraq from him. He's got the tactical strategy down, but how would he pull off the reconciliation? He was on tv with a Dem, and they debated that very point. He repeated his plan to get the Iraqi Army rotated in, us out, but the Dem called him on how to fix the political issues. But this gives him time to work on it, I hope he's got it in him.

BTW, at Pajamas media, there's an audio of John Bolton going at it with a BBC radio host. Veeeery interesting. I wish there was a place in our government for John Bolton.

Sanity, the audio piece with Bolton is from Thursday, at Little Green Footballs, not Pajamas Media. It's a must hear.

Sanity102 is going up today on my site (http:/camp2008victory.townhal.com) as a must-see. Some of the very best material on TH, including his, is truly going up "Outide of the Box," outside the "ordained" columns, some of which are truly awful. I put up today Jack Kelly's comments in Pittsburgh on the immigration legislation, which he supports. Why Jack Kelly isn't on TH is a major question. He'd surely like to be. See what he wrote today in the Phg. Post-Gazette:

http://www.post-gazette.com/forum

Thanks for bringing my attention to your blog, Sanity.

steve maloney
ambridge, pa

Why thank you but you need to knock the emphasis of 'MAN' seeing as I'm a WOman...lol