Michael Gerson tried desperately to pen an op ed that explains why conservatives could be comfortable with a Mitt Romney for President. Unfortunately, it makes Mitt even less savory to principled conservatives. Worse, Gerson makes a few assumptions with his argument that doesn’t make even a tiny bit of logical sense no matter to who they are applied.
Gerson calls his Washington Post piece, “The conservative case for Mitt Romney,” and at least acknowledges that Romney’s main political vulnerability “is a serious one.” And that serious one is flip flopping– even though Gerson does not give it its proper name.
Romney’s main political vulnerability is a serious one. Running for Massachusetts’ governor in 2002, he was a pro-choice, economically centrist, culturally liberal, business-oriented Republican. Running for president in 2008, he was a thoroughly pro-life, orthodox supply-side, culturally conservative, Fox News Republican. Romney’s shape-shifting 2008 campaign only reinforced the impression of a consultant-driven candidate.
Calling Romney merely a “consultant-drive candidate” is far, far too kind. The truth is Romney is a man that has no principle from which he won’t run full tilt while hunting a campaign victory.
Gerson goes on to excuse Romney’s flip flops by saying Mitt’s past left-wingery was but a result of “ideological regionalism.” Yeah, we call that east coast liberalism in the real world. Gerson uses a lot of neologisms and pretty vernacular to say in code words what we are all thinking. Romney is a man without principles, he’s one buffeted by every political wind.
Catch this gentle way of saying Romney just bowed to liberalism at every turn in order to win in Massachusetts: “Being an elected Republican from Massachusetts all but guarantees past political heterodoxy.”
In other words, as far as Gerson is concerned we should not be so worried about a guy that compromises his principles because, why, heck, he had to win elections in Massachusetts.
That does not reassure anyone that Romney can be trusted, does it? It doesn’t me, anyway.
So, can we believe Romney, the man that supported abortion only about 15 years ago? That’s awfully late in his life I’ll note. Can we believe a man that didn’t come to feel that life is precious until he got to his 50s?
Ah, but Gerson has an answer for that. “But Romney has converted to a view that seems more consistent with his background,” says he.
Sorry, Mr. Gerson, but that is sooooo weak!
Oh, but Gerson is not even close to being done dealing out weak arguments in favor of Romney. The weakest is yet to come.
Catch this absurd argument:
Even conservatives who buy none of these explanations may calculate that Romney is acceptable. Precisely because he has a history of ideological heresy, it would be difficult for him to abandon his current, more conservative iteration. He has committed himself on key conservative issues. Having flipped, he could not flop without risking a conservative revolt. As a result, conservatives would have considerable leverage over a Romney administration.
Um, what? Romney won’t change back to being liberal because he’s changed too many times already? Really, Mr. Gerson? that is your argument for why we should accept Romney as a conservative torch bearer?
Were I texting I’d write “OMG!” hereabouts.
Let’s use an example to show why this is idiotic. Imagine this conversation: “Gee, Mrs. Adams, I know your husband has cheated on you a dozen times already, but he’s come back and said he loves you. He would never risk cheating on you again! Why, he’d lose credibility!”
Do you think Mrs. Adams would believe that hollow argument? I doubt it and if she did she’d be a fool.
So, neither will Mr. and Mrs. Conservative America.
No, what is far more likely is that Mitt Romney will, after promising conservatives the moon, get into the White House and become the Democrat lite president the second someone at The New York Times scolds him for the first conservative idea he floats. We know this will happen because it’s happened before.
The founders had a saying. “Let history be your guide.” If we do that with Mitt Romney we find a center left politician that would be more comfortable in Ted Kenedy’s office than he would in Ronald Reagan’s.
Speaking of the 40th President, in 1994 Romney dissed Reagan, too. He then said he is no follower of the greatest conservative president in the modern age and wouldn’t want to return to those times.
Sorry, Mikey, baby. I love ya, but this is the worst excuse for an argument that I’ve heard for a long time. Epic fail, Mikey. Epic Fail.
November 2nd, 2011 at 3:26 am
Romney is a slime ball. I see that many in the Media are now trying to connect the Cain sex scandal leak to Politico with the Rick Perry campaign. But I have another take on this. Who has a history of leaking dirt to Politico already this campaign season???
Tim Pawlenty! He was most likely the source of for the hit piece Politico did about Michele Bachmann’s migraine headaches. Who is T-Paw working for now??? Mitt Romney!!! Who benefits the most if Cain gets smeared??? Mitt Romney!!!
November 2nd, 2011 at 5:39 am
Yeah Andy, I posted that same thought somewhere else also, just cant remember where.
Seems TPs got the least to lose at this point.
November 2nd, 2011 at 7:16 am
In a sane world, Ron Paul would be the front-runner by a great distance in this pathetic field. Right now, Obama’s biggest strength is the futility of the GOP.
November 2nd, 2011 at 7:41 am
Ron Paul is a lunatic.
Domestic policy and economics, fine. But not global economics.
Too much of an isolationist
Foreign policy, not so much.
I know you love the libertarian, but radical Islam prays for a Ron Paul pres.
I think Barrys help will mostly come from independents and liberals not voting.
His foreign policy on security is just as questionable on the global economy.
He doesnt seem to understand that our presence in the locations were at now are to give security to the global market works and prevent deterrents by by those who’d like to collapse it.
Sorry, we do actually have to police many areas that if effected would have a direct impact on us
First thing that would shut down under Paul would be the straight of Hermuz. 75% of the worlds oil goes thru there.
Oil would be cut off to many countries as a radical strategy, shipping lanes, trade agreements, would all go to sht under him.
I love his local policies, but as a global player he’d be a disaster
November 2nd, 2011 at 9:47 am
We need a healthy dose of isolationism right about now. We’re stationed in, what, 180 countries or so? That’s not defense, that’s imperialism. Not to mention the fact that we are flat-out broke, thanks mostly to said “defense” activities.
November 2nd, 2011 at 10:40 am
How’s this for an argument Andy– you have zero chance with any other candidate.. Romney though might actually win.
November 2nd, 2011 at 11:27 am
Yeah Rhay, I agree were spread out too thin but I said what I said because Paul wants to reduce our presence to almost nothing.
I like him on the border, drug policies, but…
If he did get all that fixed his policies would allow for serious threats to us and allow global economic anarchy.
As the saying goes.
(i said it)
Nice house, too bad its gonna get blown up tomorrow.
Hes very naive on our enemies, doesnt understand the importance of Israel.
Sorry dude, but ever since he practically blamed 911 on America in the 2007 debates he lost all my respect.
And then theres that little thing called temperament.
He just does not come off as very stable sometimes.
November 2nd, 2011 at 2:24 pm
Sorry dude, but ever since he practically blamed 911 on America in the 2007 debates he lost all my respect.
I remember you saying that more than once before, and I have to say I think you’re reacting emotionally to an important intellectual point. To point out that aggressive imperialism harms our relationships with those subjected to it is not to “blame” America. The point is that we do not do ourselves any favors by needlessly provoking animosity.
It’s like saying that women should avoid going out, getting sh*tfaced drunk, and riding off alone in a car with a stranger without letting anybody know where she is going. That doesn’t mean that a woman who does so is at fault if she gets attacked — clearly it is her attacker who is to blame. However, as a matter of practical advice, it’s smart for women to stay on their toes and avoid dangerous situations when possible.
Same thing here — obviously 9/11 was not the “fault” of anybody but the scumbags who masterminded and executed it. But heck, as a practical matter, for our own good, maybe we should try to be careful about who we piss off. Maybe we should avoid stoking resentment and animosity if possible — not because such provocation “earns” us a terrorist attack, but because it’s simply in our own best interest.
That’s what Ron Paul said that night. He did not “blame 9/11 on America” — he pointed out that barnstorming around the world with an iron fist is bound to piss somebody off, which ultimately is not in our interest. His point was about practical safety, not an emotional blame game.
November 2nd, 2011 at 3:48 pm
Yeah he did “blame” and theres nothing emotional about it.
He blamed our presence, hence, us.
Our place is more than justified in many areas he’d like to pull troops out of.
“Iran hasnt attacked anyone yet”
Thats a quote from Paul the other day with Chris Wallace.
The panel went quiet with astonishment at the ignorance that he has no idea just how prevalent Irans presence is everywhere we go.
The Kuds follow us to every strategic area and cause trouble whether its Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and the Gaza strip.
Gf course they’ve attacked and killed hundreds of Americans, just not on our soil.
He has no business in national security.
Its a global economy and he cant make the connection between that and the securities necessary to facilitate it.
He’ll never win.
We need someone we can be absolutely sure will displace Obama and its a crime that hes going to be siphoning off votes from what will more than likely not be the ideal candidate but can beat Obama.
We cant afford to vote for who we want in this election, we need to vote for what we need.
And this anyone that can get this collosal screw up out of office.
Anyone but Obama, but Paul wont even get a fraction of what he needs.
I’d like to see Nugent run, I like his philosophies, but I know it would be a wasted vote if I wanted Barry out.
I’ll hold my nose and pull the lever if Romney, Cain, or Perry gets the nomination because I know there’ll be a more substantial majority behind him.
4 more years of this ass hole will put us at the point of no return.
Sht, bring back Clinton, at least he knew how to play centrist when need be
November 2nd, 2011 at 7:16 pm
I agree completely that he will never win. It’s an impossibility. But I think he has more things right than anybody else on either side of the debate right now. His platform, taken as a whole, makes more sense than Obama’s or Romney’s or Perry’s or Cain’s or anyone else.
(For the record, I don’t agree with Paul on everything. I am pro-immigration, and think the way to solve our border security problem is liberalizing legal immigration. Also, I’m an atheist, and don’t see the abortion debate in the same light as he does.)
Anyway, I am precisely one of those voters who will be siphoned. I don’t want 4 more years of Obama, but I want one of the GOP front-runners even less. Sorry dude, that’s just how I feel. I’ll either go 3rd party or abstain altogether in 2012. Unless something other than business as usual happens between now and then anyway.
November 2nd, 2011 at 7:20 pm
Anyone that thinks they know definitively that someone cannot get elected (unless said person actually does not satisfy the requirements) is not to be believed.
November 3rd, 2011 at 4:03 am
Nugent? I know Ted from all the way back in his Amboy Dukes days and even he would say he is not suitable for public office.
He says things for effect and would be the first to say he does not have the temperment for any political office.
November 3rd, 2011 at 5:17 am
Some time ago, I really needed to buy a good car for my organization but I didn’t earn enough money and couldn’t purchase something. Thank heaven my friend suggested to try to get the home loans from reliable bank. So, I acted that and used to be happy with my collateral loan.
November 3rd, 2011 at 7:00 am
“He says things for effect and would be the first to say he does not have the temperment for any political office.”
Better than Franken or Wasserman, even Biden.
I’d like to see a little gonzo in our leaders.
Just about everything barrys ever said was for effect.
There sure as hell havent been any resuls.
Good ones that is.
But hell, I’d like Jeri Ryan to give me a sponge bath also
November 3rd, 2011 at 7:19 am
Anyone that thinks they know definitively that someone cannot get elected (unless said person actually does not satisfy the requirements) is not to be believed.
Right, and Schroedinger’s equation tells us that there’s a chance that the next time we walk into a wall, the atoms will be aligned in a manner that allows us to pass through it. Not gonna happen any time soon though.
Politics is an insider’s game, and a guy who rocks the boat as much as Ron Paul has no chance.
November 3rd, 2011 at 7:22 am
Chances are very low, I agree, but historically, many of our presidents were a surprise to those very insiders (look at Lincoln) that thought they had it all tied up!
November 3rd, 2011 at 7:39 am
Yeah, of course Lincoln didn’t have to put up with a 24-hour news cycle and a massively bloated bureaucracy full of inside connections and backroom handshakes. You’re right, it’s not technically impossible, but I won’t be holding my breath for anything besides the status quo.
November 3rd, 2011 at 11:29 am
Do not acknowledge how to begin essay papers completing? That question can be disappeared when you ask: ” write my papers “.
November 3rd, 2011 at 1:42 pm
I attended a seance for speaking with the Amazing Criswell. He predicts that if Romney wins the GOP nomination, Donald Trump and Sarah Palin will team up and launch a third party bid. He added that they would still get more votes than Romney and Obama.
November 3rd, 2011 at 4:36 pm
Fact: Either Iowa or New Hampshire has produced a surprise winner every cycle for 35 years
Lessons From History: Don’t Be Too Quick to Pull Down the Curtain
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/ljs2011110302/