Mitt’s 2010 CPAC speech was a triumph. Pundit after pundit has praised it. The liberal press had difficulty dismissing it. A number of his committed non-supporters here at Race4 have expressed their admiration of it. His grasp of the issues was superb. He was confident. He was at ease. It was evident to almost all that he was having a good time. What a performance!
Mitt’s last major public address was at the 2008 Republican Convention. That one was nearly universally panned. His 2009 CPAC speech was nothing to write home about. And here we are a year later, and we have this masterful speech. Where did that come from?
I fully admit that as a Romney supporter, I would sometimes wonder before his speeches which Mitt would we be seeing? Would it be the Mitt Romney that bowled them over at CPAC 2007, or would it be the Mitt Romney that put them to sleep one month earlier at the National Review Institute’s 2007 Conservative Summit. He seemed to vary between hot and luke-warm. This didn’t bother me so much because I’ve always gone for substance over style, but it did bother and turn off a number of other people. “Too Plastic”, was a common complaint. “Unauthentic”, was another. He often seemed ill-at-ease standing before a crowd. He often sounded less than solid about what he was saying, which only served to feed the “flip-flopper” charges leveled at him by his opponents.
I suspect his problems came from the fact that although Romney believed in conservative principles, he had difficulty expressing them convincingly. He had not studied them in depth throughout his life as he had studied business, management, organization, and finances. Those he could expound upon for hours off the cuff. He knew the language backwards and forwards. He had no such background on the language of conservativism. He knew in his gut they were right and true. He had lived with them and seen their results his whole life, after all. Yet he could not articulate them as well as he would like. He was a native speaker of business, not conservative politics. That caused him difficulty when he was called upon to speak it in public.
There was no sign of that hesitancy in his 2010 CPAC address. He knew exactly what he was saying. He had the background. He had the knowledge. He had the vocabulary and syntax of conservative speech down cold. He had confidence in what he spoke. He was totally in his element.
Where did he get those heretofore missing pieces of his conservative language? Would it surprise you if I said part of the answer lies with Ronald Reagan?
Ronald Reagan was often dismissed by his critics as an intellectual light-weight, yet he overcame and outsmarted them all. He knew what worked. He knew how to articulate it. And he persevered until he obtained it. He never had a fully Republican controlled congress at any point during his time in office, yet he was able to get nearly all the important parts of his agenda passed . In the process, he changed the way most Americans viewed government, and his influence is felt even today more than twenty years after leaving office.
Where did he get those conservative intellectual chops? Since his death, studies of his papers has revealed that Reagan spent years honing his intellectual arguments. He studied. He took detailed and careful notes. He wrote out draft speeches. He was constantly correctly, adding, and refining his arguments. He honed them to the point that when the time came, he was ready.
Mitt Romney has done essentially the same thing, but has crammed it into little over a year. What has he been doing? He has been writing a book. Not just any book, but a detailed study, a tome, a manifesto if you will of America — where she has been, why we are great, where we are now, where we need to go in the future, and how we can get there. For over a year while Mitt’s rivals for the 2012 nomination have been doing politics as usual, or writing light-weight memoirs dwelling upon their past, Mitt has been out of sight, nose to the grindstone writing his book. He would emerge occasionally to make some comment about what was going on, but he would head right back to his studies. It was hard, focused work, but Mitt Romney has never been afraid of hard detailed work. The results are obvious. Writing his book has given Romney what he has needed, the background, the vocabulary, the insights necessary to be fluent in the language of conservative politics. He is now fully articulate. He now speaks it with confidence and with ease. And his 2010 CPAC address is our first taste of it.
February 19th, 2010 at 10:13 pm
Romney’s role model is more Richard Nixon than Ronald Reagan. Much in the same way Nixon reinvented himself in every election, so does Mittens.
Romney was a liberal in 1994, a moderate in 2002, a born again conservative in 2008, and now he’s something else in 2012. So many transformations I’ve lost track.
Ronald Reagan didn’t need to study up to understand what he stood for.
February 19th, 2010 at 10:18 pm
Flip stop lying about Romney. He was not a liberal. He simply made some huge misteps on the abortion issue, which was not explained right and his bigger error. He was never a fanatic on pro choice. He always was personally pro life and it is hard in Mass to find a reasonable way to explain that.
Also, he has always been against Gay Marriage, even though Huck supporters and the corrupt media lie and say otherwise.
May I remind you that Reagan was more Pro Choice than Romney and Romney might even be considered more pro family than Romney, if you really think about.
February 19th, 2010 at 10:19 pm
“Ronald Reagan didn’t need to study up to understand what he stood for”
Ahh but you should probably study up before typing. Go back to Romney’s 1994 Senate campaign and you’ll see that he held many conservative positions.
February 19th, 2010 at 10:22 pm
All this is well and good, as long as – and I know I’m into broken record territory on this one – he does not allow social and moral issues to fall away from being a primary tenant of the platform.
February 19th, 2010 at 10:23 pm
At least he did not use someones religion against them as Mike Huckabee did or lie about everything like Palin and ATTACK EVERYONE, INCLUDING HER FORMER BRO IN LAW AND ALMOST SON IN LAW, FATHER OF HER GRANDCHILD!
It’s clear to everyone you hate Romney. Everyone is entitled to some misteps, including the many Huck and Palin and others have made. As well as Reagan, who legalized millions of people who came here illegally.
Get over it! At least he did not run a sorry campaign like Huckabee and to this day show an obsession with the passed like Huck who obsessed with Romney.
February 19th, 2010 at 10:24 pm
#3, I have studied Romney’s 1994 Senate campaign.
Nobody disputes he was a social liberal.
He was pretty much an economic liberal also, favored a big increase in the minimize wage and even favored indexing it to inflation.
February 19th, 2010 at 10:27 pm
so who are you supporting Flip?
February 19th, 2010 at 10:27 pm
Flip stop lying about Romney. You seem pretty desperate, because Romney is looking very good. Huckabee is the economic liberal. Romney was trying to run Mass. give the guy a brake as even Huck and Palin have flipped on some issues, includiing Hucks huge change of tone on illegal immigration in the 2008 race.
February 19th, 2010 at 10:31 pm
Can’t wait to read the book, even though I believe I know what’s going to be inside. If I don’t know what Mitt believes by now I probably never will. It really doesn’t matter to my commitment how he comes off in a speech because what matters to me is that he’s the best manager available to turn this country around. He has proven it time and time again and he has mastered his methodology by turning around more than 150 companies that were basket cases before his interventions.
But communication skills are, unfortunately, required to make the case to enough people to put him over the top, and it’s good to see that Mitt is more consistently bringing his “A” game. By doing this, he will be able to put those unparalleled managerial skills to work in saving our nation from Economic Apocalypse.
February 19th, 2010 at 10:31 pm
Oh,Good Lord,
Trying to make connection between MAGNUS ROLANDUS,and Mitt Romney?
Ronald Reagan is symbol of conservative principals.
Mitt Romney?
His positions were always changing,depending which political office
was in his sight.
But,I still think that he is very nice,decent and overall great guy.
February 19th, 2010 at 10:32 pm
Aaron,
I think Mark opened the door with the Reagan comparison
JA Pruce is smiling somewhere (insert reference to the Hispanic Reagan).
February 19th, 2010 at 10:34 pm
Romney has already made his opinion of Reagan’s legacy clear:
“I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I’m not trying to return to Reagan-Bush.”
February 19th, 2010 at 10:38 pm
I loved the CPAC speech. My complaint with Romney is that he seemed too plastic and robotic in ’08. This was because of his disciplined adherance to the campaign script. I always felt that he should have left the script home and speak from his heart. I feel like this is what we will se in the future. Nothing focuses a person more than writing a book about your love of America’s greatness. Everything he wrote is ingrained in him and it will come out with more warmth and ease.
February 19th, 2010 at 10:40 pm
10. That’s not true Tex, but anyway . . .
I’ve always said that Romney is not a natural politician (coming to it very late in life), he’s a real-world kind of guy. I think that’s why he sometimes had trouble pulling off campaign events, rallies, etc. He’s not a rah-rah guy. He’s a doer.
But, over the past 3+ years he has definitely learned to do everything well – speeches, interviews, etc, and better than all of his rivals. No one gives a better or more credible interview. I’m afraid he’s going to be very hard to beat once people start really looking.
February 19th, 2010 at 10:41 pm
What will Flip and company say when Mitt gets elected and governs as a solid conservative? I bet he can never be good enough.
February 19th, 2010 at 10:42 pm
15. Her head will explode.
February 19th, 2010 at 10:45 pm
Romney’s convention speech was TERRIBLE. Not what he said, but the fact that he knew no one wanted to hear him. The crowd was on fire for Palin. Bless his heart, he did the best he could.
February 19th, 2010 at 10:49 pm
Fine article Mark. I agree with nearly every thing you said. You have a couple of typos in case you want to send this anywhere else. For one, change ‘newly’ to ‘nearly’ in the third to last paragraph.
Personally, I’ve never heard a Romney speech I didn’t like, but this one was certainly great. The convention speech wasn’t great because they gave him about 9 minutes. There isn’t much you can say in that short of a time.
Flip Dixon, for you to say Romney was a liberal in 1994 is nothing short of idiotic. You’re either a liar, or totally misinformed. He was on the wrong side of governments role on abortion. That’s it! He was rock solid on everything else. When he was talking about not being like Reagan in that one speech, if you bother to look at the context, he was saying he would not go back to the deficit spending during those years. People like you conveniently chop out of the little videos so they can spread the lies all over the internet. I’ll leave it up to God what to do about your lieing problem.
February 19th, 2010 at 10:49 pm
Flip, You don’t have a clue abut either man. The Reagan of the ’60s and ’70′s was NOT the Reagan of 1980. I know. I was a CD co-chairman and national delegate for him. He refined positions where necessary, changed positions when moved internally, and polished himself to be the man who could win in 1980. He screwed a bunch of stuff up in 1991 and 1992, and then went on to be fabulous for the next 6 years. And for all those years of acting and governing CA, he had to grow and study to be President. No man/woman is ready based on their previous experiences. Most never will be.
Too many people here spout off about things they have read about. Some of us lived it. Some of us were the soldiers in Reagan’s revolution. We were the soldiers of St Crispin’s Day. You must think your manhood’s cheap who were not there, who received not the scars, with us.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAvmLDkAgAM
Romney has taken a very similar course of adjustment, learning, changing, and growing. He has changed no more, maybe less, than RR. And he is on the same course as a man who history needs, who America needs. Reagan’s greatest strength was not his economic understanding, or his stand on social issues, but belief in America’s greatness. Does the wall ever come down if we had filled those 12 years with Dems?
Romney vision, and skills, are to restore America’s dominant place in the world economy. Without the world’s most vibrant economy, you will NEVER be the dominant power in the world.
Ultimately, the wall came down because of the differences in the output of the two economies. The USSR could not continue to compete with our defense expenditures and global influence-building. They couldn’t keep the pictures off the TV of supermarket shelves full of goods with no rationing.
Today we compete with China and India. They have 4-5 times as many people each. But they pay them squadoosh. How will we beat them? We will force their economies to acknowledge a middle class, which their economies cannot support. When those people will no longer tolerate living poor, they will lose central planning, as the USSR did. When they have to pay real wages, the cost of their goods will no longer be attractive. If we can get rid of our unions and our crippling taxes, America’s goods, and manufacturing standards, will again drive export surpluses in new markets around the world.
February 19th, 2010 at 10:51 pm
It seems that Romney has gotten less “plastic” since the 08 primaries. I think his fundamental mistake last time was trying to occupy a position on the right that he simply didn’t have or was comfortable with. If there hadn’t been a Rudy and McCain in the field, I think Romney would have been more moderate or at least sounded a more moderate tone.
February 19th, 2010 at 10:52 pm
“our unions”
eh…be careful here. Like it or not, Unions are a big part of what has led to people being paid a living, middle class wage.
We can argue unions have become politically corrupt, but its a difficult argument to make that people should not be able to stand up for the value of their labor.
February 19th, 2010 at 10:53 pm
Good point on Mitts convention speech Martha. I think this guy is going to be fun to watch. In many ways expectations are lower for him and it’s always great to watch someone grow before your very eyes. Palin better start growing very fast, or else even conservatives will slowly but surely feel she is not up to the task!
February 19th, 2010 at 10:54 pm
Moderation is dangerous – there can be no doubt about that.
For many of us, what drew us in to Romney was the fact that he was both an incredibly talented executive who knew tons about the economy, AND the fact that he had legitimate concern for the moral decay in this nation, and had the fiber to stand up against it and make it part of his policy agenda.
February 19th, 2010 at 10:54 pm
Oh God
February 19th, 2010 at 10:58 pm
Romney is no Reagan. Period.
February 19th, 2010 at 11:00 pm
S&M – Reagan, sadly, you never knew him.
February 19th, 2010 at 11:00 pm
and neither is Palin. period. But superstar status aside, Romney has a better claim to it than she does.
February 19th, 2010 at 11:01 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJDhS4oUm0M&feature=fvw
February 19th, 2010 at 11:01 pm
And in 1976, Reagan was no Romney.
February 19th, 2010 at 11:02 pm
Regarding the convention, I still thought Huckabee and Rudy gave very good performances even though one could also argue that “no one wanted to hear [them]” either.
WSU, I agree with you on union-bashing. It makes no sense given how much support we give the First Amendment and freedom of association issues (even though the recent SOTU decision is very unpopular even with most of our own party if the polling is to be believed).
Let’s go after union bosses but not the actual union members. It’s their right to organize and the marketplace will determine whether unions will continue to be a strong presence in our economy in the next couple of decades.
February 19th, 2010 at 11:02 pm
I think it’s really funny that Palin fans claim Reagan all the time, and so do Huck’s. But Mark and still hurting in AZ have made here the best arguments for Romney/like Reagan than anyone I’ve seen on race.
BTW Still hurting – Great comment #19.
February 19th, 2010 at 11:03 pm
I agree with you about the unions WSU. We, as a party, and as conservatives need to temper our remarks about unions. Without them, we would still have the poor and rich, with few in the middle, which is what we had until the unions didn’t buckle under during recessions. There are a lot of union members who vote Republican. The wrong rhetoric will drive them away.
February 19th, 2010 at 11:03 pm
His speech was better than Pawlenty’s. but that’s not saying a lot. REagan was the scourge of the anti war left, a supporter of victory in Vietnam when that was a tough line to support. and a thorough going evangelist of capitalism, he made some mistakes on welfare and abortion, but he learned from them. Bold colors, clear differences,that was the theme of his ’75 CPAC address, in the aftermath of the shellacking of Watergate. No Mitt doesn’t fit those shoes
February 19th, 2010 at 11:04 pm
#24 – ‘Oh God’ – No, Mitt’s not God, he’s just really good!
February 19th, 2010 at 11:06 pm
There is a lot that Republicans and Unions could find in common. Unions are inevitable in any fair and free market – thats why they’ve developed in every major economy in the world.
And quite frankly, its hard to make the case that higher wages are bad for the economy.
Our problem shouldn’t be to try and get rid of unions here, but to use our trading policies to bring those nations taking jobs from us to move into the world of advanced nations.
February 19th, 2010 at 11:14 pm
Don’t get me wrong about unions. (My grandfather would probably blister me for that comment. He immigrated from England to Seattle in 1906. He wasn’t quite a Wobblie, but he never voted R and he never voted against the union.)
There was a day when what they did was important in shaping the economic fabric of America, and in creating a middle class. Those days were decades ago.
Today, they are happy to take more than they make. They have destroyed Detroit and the domestic automakers. They have destroyed American education. They are destroying American govt. They force exorbitant wags and benefits/pension packages and destroy productivity. They make 170% of the average worker and produce half as much.
I mean only to say that the balance has to be restored, that gov’t workers must learn to live on what the average American makes and have to produce as much.
Apologies for overstating. (I think it was Branaugh’s St. Crispin’s Day speech. lol)
February 19th, 2010 at 11:19 pm
“They have destroyed Detroit and the domestic automakers.”
Actually? I don’t think so. I’m going to school in Detroit right now, as many people on here know, and despite my Conservative leanings, I will tell you that free trade policies have done a lot more to harm Detroit than unions.
Even absent excessive pay, no living wage in the United States could truly compete with dirt-poor workers in Mexico, which is the real “enemy” in this area, moreso than China.
February 19th, 2010 at 11:23 pm
Nobody will ever be like Reagan. This is much in the same way they’ll never be another George Washington or Abraham Lincoln. But out of all of this, I think Romney is the most like Reagan. Whether its his strong understanding of the task at hand or his humble acts or the appeal he offers the moderates of the nation.
It is indeed watching the growth of Romney. He made a splash due to his extension knowledge of policy, but always seemed a bit stiff. This stiffness lasted throughout the primaries and into the convention speech. He never really felt in to it. At CPAC 2009, I think became a little more focused and started to lose his stiffness. In all the interviews he has done this year I think he has continued to develop his persona. AT CPAC 2010, I think he has finally been able to combine his vast knowledge of the issues with an ability to connect with the people.
I feel over the next year during his book tour and while campaigning in the fall, we will see him further hone this newly found ability.
February 19th, 2010 at 11:24 pm
34. Now that was pretty good.
February 19th, 2010 at 11:24 pm
If the government would not permit unions to use violence and intimidation to enforce their demands and picket lines, unions would not be nearly as powerful as they are today. The unions we have today are not a free market phenomenon. They benefit a select group of workers at the expense of everyone else.
February 19th, 2010 at 11:26 pm
He got a long ways to go. But he’ll get there ……about 2014.
February 19th, 2010 at 11:29 pm
“They benefit a select group of workers”
They benefit the workers who believe that those benefits outweigh the costs. Its not like Unions membership is exclusive in this country, any company where a signficiant enough percentage of the workforce wanted to unionize would be allowed to do so.
” at the expense of everyone else.”
Not so sure here either. Unions do raises costs, but the also raise wages (and we could probably argue by a more substantial %), wages that are then spent on other goods, which helps the economy.
I am by no means a socialist, communist, or wealth re-distributer, but if I have the choice between giving an extra $5,000 a year to an autoworker, who will spend it, or to a company, who will simply stuff it into some kind of savings, well, it makes sense to me to have as much of our money supply actually flowing as possible.
February 19th, 2010 at 11:29 pm
36. I think that was the best comment of the day. Really good stuff. I applaud you, AZ.
February 19th, 2010 at 11:31 pm
Question, did some of you even bother to read carefully what I said, because some of your comments about what I supposedly said bare very little resemblance to what I actually did say.
I did NOT say Romney is the next Reagan. That is impossible. No one could be the next Reagan. Nor could anyone be the next Washington, the next Jefferson, the next Adams, the next Lincoln, the next Grant, the next Teddy Roosevelt, etc. Mitt Romney can be Romney, Sarah Palin can be Palin, Mike Huckabee can be Huckabee, etc.
What I DID say was Romney got his newly found background and his thorough intellectual foundation for his vastly improved articulation of conservative ideals and standards the same way the Ronald Reagan come by his, through thorough dogged diligent hard work!
February 19th, 2010 at 11:33 pm
Fair enough, Mark.
February 19th, 2010 at 11:34 pm
#42,
Savings represents an increase in wealth, whereas spending represents mere consumption. Living standards are only increased in the long run by lengthening of the capital structure, which requires putting off present consumption in favor of future consumption. It is only through saving that companies can invest in the machines that make workers more productive, help bid up their wages, and make goods cheaper for all.
February 19th, 2010 at 11:37 pm
I am union member who votes Republican. I didn’t get to choose whether or not to join the union.
February 19th, 2010 at 11:37 pm
I’ll accept that. Certainly, there are reasons to save.
But I would also argue there is such a thing as excessive savings – because then too much money is being taken out of the economy.
February 19th, 2010 at 11:38 pm
” I didn’t get to choose whether or not to join the union.”
Would you have?
February 19th, 2010 at 11:39 pm
49,
Probably not. But I gotta tell you – television news is hurting and the fact that I am in a union has definitely worked to my benefit over the past few years.
February 19th, 2010 at 11:42 pm
Good analysis Mark.
I really think Romney may have had some help with this speech though. Quite often when I have listened to, or read, his speeches they were very clearly penned by him; they sounded exactly as he speaks off-the-cuff. But this one…this one sounded more professionally written. It was still clearly evocative of Romney but with more polish and wit. He had some funny lines that I doubt he came up with.
I say none of that to be critical. Every President has speech writers and I have thought for some time that Romney needed to step up his game and bring in the pros so if that’s what he’s done, I applaud it. If he wrote it completely on his own, all the better.
I do agree though that while Huck has been hamming it up with the likes of Ferrin Young and Pat Boone and Sarah’s been chatting with Oprah, Mitt seems to have been honing his conservative credentials and readying himself to be the next President.
February 19th, 2010 at 11:43 pm
#48,
I agree that there can be “excessive savings.” It would be absurd, for instance, for government to starve consumers in the present in order to pay for future foods. However, on the free and unhampered market, market participants are at liberty to save at the rate that is best for them. When the government grants unions the power to coercively redistribute wealth from producers to consumers, with the purpose of redistributing wealth from savers to spenders, they are destroying wealth by preventing the formation of the pool of saved funds necessary to invest in the capital that will ease working conditions, raise productivity (and therefore wages), and make goods cheaper.
February 19th, 2010 at 11:46 pm
Faron Young (February 25, 1932–December 10, 1996) was an American country music singer and songwriter from the early 1950s into the mid-1980s and one of its most colorful stars. Hits including “If You Ain’t Lovin’ (You Ain’t Livin’)” and “Live Fast, Love Hard, Die Young” marked him as a honky tonk singer in sound and personal style; and his chart-topping singles “Hello Walls” and “It’s Four In The Morning” showed his versatility as a vocalist. Known as the Hillbilly Heartthrob, and following a movie role, the Singing Sheriff, Young’s singles reliably charted for more than 30 years. He committed suicide in 1996. Young is a member of the Country Music Hall of Fame.
February 19th, 2010 at 11:48 pm
if there is a legitimate goal behind the savings, some definite attempt to create improvements, you would be correct. The problem is that much saving is done, not with something specific in mind, but with the general idea that “we’ll use it as somepoint”
February 19th, 2010 at 11:49 pm
I’ve little doubt Mitt had help, too. But who cares. One of Reagan’s most stirring and memorable lines “Mr, Gorbachev. Tear down this wall!” came from a young speech writer.
The point is, he felt completely comfortable giving it. It was his speech. His body language said it was his speech. He had a blast giving it. And my point is that the increased confidence from 2008 to today is directly traceable to his thorough preparation from writing his book.
February 19th, 2010 at 11:51 pm
#54,
When you save money for yourself (and possibly your family), do you know exactly what you’re going to need it for in the future? Do you know that you’re going to use exactly $1000 for a car repair in a year and a half, use $200 on medicine in three years’ time, etc.? Or do you just set aside a sum that generally anticipates your future need for savings, without having everything specified?
February 19th, 2010 at 11:51 pm
I’m thinking that weekend in Vancouver was good to mitt – minus the dust up at the end.
February 19th, 2010 at 11:51 pm
Elisabeth Hasselbeck was Mike’s first guest of Huckabee’s #1 rated show …
Huckabee has also interviewed Political leaders, diplomats, and celebreties, such as Michelle Obama, Geraldine Ferraro, Chuck Colson, Rod Blagojevich, Chuck Grassley, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Tom DeLay, and political commentator Ann Coulter; Former head of the NYPD Howard Safir; U.N. Ambassador John R. Bolton; former Secretary of State’s Lawrence Eagleburger and Madeline Albright; former Vice-President Dan Quayle; and former British prime minister Tony Blair. Celebrities include, Jon Voight, Andy Williams, Richard Dreyfuss, Chuck Norris, Kathy Ireland, Susan Powell, Gretchen Carlson, Katie Stam, Bob Barker, Paula Deen, Frank Caliendo, Jerry Springer, Tony Danza, The Amazing Kreskin, Michael Strahan, Dennis Rodman, Vince Curatola, Charles Grodin, Rosie Perez, Bernie Williams, MC Hammer, Neil Sedaka, Pat Boone, Rick Springfield, Tanya Tucker, Lorrie Morgan, Lynyrd Skynyrd, Oak Ridge Boys, The Ventures, Bo Bice, and Kris Allen.
February 19th, 2010 at 11:58 pm
Well, I mean, there is logic behind a rainy day fund….but there is the point where you have to ask if it is going to seriously harm a company to pay its workers more, so that they can go out and buy more things, so that other companies can pay their workers more, etc.
Autoworkers now make about, I believe, 30k – thats 10k less (at least) than the average American makes. They used to make a lot more. You can’t tell me there won’t be adverse economic effects from that.
February 20th, 2010 at 12:04 am
#59,
Why not let the entrepreneurs make these decisions for themselves? If producers save too much at the expense of hiring more workers or bidding up workers’ wages, then they will be outcompeted by their competitors who are more efficient at knowing how much to save. Market forces can regulate this just fine. Entrepreneurs are the ones accountable to profit and loss, and hence they will have the most incentive to invest their resources in the most value productive way. Government or government-empowered unions meddling in this process is, at best, superfluous, and, at worst, destructive.
February 20th, 2010 at 12:11 am
“For over a year while Mitt’s rivals for the 2012 nomination have been doing politics as usual, or writing light-weight memoirs dwelling their past…”
You think that’s fair, Mark? Mike’s written two books while going the once successfull Reagan route of daily radio and TV. That’s politics as usual? Light-weight only? How ’bout this: Huckabee’s been workin’ his butt off also along with your man Mitt.
Sarah, TOO
We clearly have three amazing hard working “focused” (as you put it) strong candidates. That’s how I see it.
February 20th, 2010 at 12:27 am
I just read through many of the posts here where many say Romney is no Ronald Reagan. That’s true. There will never be another Reagan. He was one-of-a-kind.
In 1984, I was finally old enough to vote and I enthusiastically voted for the Gipper. As a member of the Young Republicans, I devoted much time to help him get re-elected too. Back then, we had the same spirit and enthusiasm that I saw among Obama’s young supporters in 2008.
Reagan had changed America for the better in his first term and, thanks to him, it was indeed ‘Morning Again’ in America and the future of all of us college freshman who worked so hard for him was looking bright because he was restoring the spirit and promise of this great land. I said that to say this: I loved Reagan. He was a great man, a great leader and he was exactly what America needed in the 1980s. He will always be highly regarded by me. But I believe Romney has every bit the potential to be another great President and in many ways, I believe he can exceed my hero.
Romney has three college degrees (two from Harvard) and is far better educated than Ronnie (my apologies to Eureka College) and Romney has excelled at everything he has touched. By most accounts, Reagan wasn’t a particularly good actor. While Reagan was busy making B-movies, Romney was launching companies and making fortunes. Romney created jobs and employment for many while Reagan entertained. Reagan was wonderful at delivering speeches because he’d delivered his lines on cue for 40 years. Romney has been a bit stiff but he excels at delivering results in the field of commerce. Romney has a personal life beyond reproach while Reagan was our first divorced President and his relationship with his children was somewhat strained.
So, no, Mitt Romney isn’t Ronald Reagan but in some ways, he might actually be better. My opinion is that Romney is the most intelligent and superbly qualified man to run for President in my lifetime. If he runs again in 2012, he has my vote. I know I won’t be getting another Reagan but I think I’ll be getting another man that is exactly what America needs for the times.
February 20th, 2010 at 12:28 am
unions, I believe, ARE market forces, because they function essentially as producers of labor.
February 20th, 2010 at 12:35 am
Sarah and Mike,
My apologies. The guy I was thinking of was Ray Price rather than Faron Young. The point remains though. Huckabee has been hamming it up with entertainers from a by-gone era while Romney has been preparing for the role of President.
February 20th, 2010 at 12:36 am
S&M Superstars.#61,
I submit that writing a Christmas story book and a mean-spirited tell-all expose’ about how rotten that mean, evil, and vicious Romney treated him during the 2008 campaign is hardly on the same intellectual level as Mitt’s new tome “No Apologies”. Nor is Sarah Palin’s tell-all account a whole lot better.
(A quick aside. Has it been established yet once and for all if she wrote that book or not? I know many people claim she used a ghost writer. Has Sarah definitively stated, “No, I did not use a ghost writer?” Honest question. I wouldn’t think less of her if she did, though it does happen to be germane to this discussion.)
Now, I will grant you Huck’s preparation for his show, plus his daily (?) radio spot is good homework for the job if he should decide to run. However, I will say that I used to faithfully listen to Reagan’s radio spots before he was elected. His always seemed to be a means to an end. Huck’s seem to be more like Paul Harvey in that he is doing them because he enjoys doing them and not because he isn’t President at the moment.
February 20th, 2010 at 12:38 am
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4025386/preview-of-michelle-obama-on-huckabee
February 20th, 2010 at 12:39 am
Martha, if no one wanted to hear Romney, why did half of the crowd leave the moment he finished his speech? They were there for HIM.
Sarah Palin is a valued voice in the conservative movement, but I don’t think her life has prepared her to be chief executive of our nation the way Mitt’s has. She studied journalism in Idaho, which is a great degree (and a swell state), but qualifies you to be a spokesperson on Fox News, not someone who can fix a nation.
She has time to figure out the economy, etc., but I suggest that this election, merely being able to articulate an economically conservative path will not be enough. America needs a specialist. Obama is failing for many of the same reasons she would. Neither is prepared.
She could be a good VP. A friend mentioned yesterday that she would be a great Energy Secretary. But in 2012, America needs Mr. Fix-It, and that’s Romney.
February 20th, 2010 at 12:40 am
#63,
I agree. Unions, in and of themselves, are perfectly compatible with the free market. It is only when government allows unions the ability to enforce their demands and picket lines through violence and coercion that the market is hampered.
February 20th, 2010 at 12:41 am
One more thing. Reagan’s spots are almost as good as the Federalist papers. They talk about deep theory of how government works, and what makes a policy successful. They are replayed today on conservative channels. They are just as fresh and meaningful today as when he first gave them.
Huck’s are mainly commentary on today’s event. Not the same thing.
I would say that Romney’s new book more closely matches Reagan’s spots than Huck’s.
February 20th, 2010 at 12:44 am
Jeb Merrill.#67,
You must be new here. Martha is one of our most staunch and ardent Romney supporters. Are you sure you’ve got the right person? Or perhaps did you misunderstand her?
February 20th, 2010 at 12:47 am
I haven’t really been able to read through everyones comments…mostly because it’s just banter back and forth over the Mitt is a liberal or Mitt is a conservative crowd. Look, i’ll give you my 2 cents….although hardly unbiased, i have to say I probably come closer than anyone else here.
Mitt Romney has made not only mistakes in his past, but has changed his positions on the issues fully. That doesn’t disqualify the man. If anything people should be more upset that he went straight to running for president in 2008…rather than gathering his conservative credentials. Romney is, i believe a strong conservative. He wasn’t always so…and at times in his past he seemed to come off as a liberal. Maybe he wasn’t really a liberal, maybe he just felt like it…but it was a mistake. We have to move on. Romney ran strong in 08 and lost. Now he’s gearing up not just for a run, but to seize the mantle of conservatism. As long as he strongly pushes a pro-life agenda…the rest of what he plans to do…doesn’t seem so bad.
NOW, all of this has been said by someone who supported huckabee in 08. Get over yourselves.
February 20th, 2010 at 12:49 am
No prob, Ci2Eye. Mike has entertainers on mainly for the last five minutes of each show to change the pace. Watch more often, you’ll be surprised with how much time is spent on the current important issues of the day each Sat & Sun on FOX.
Mark, I get the feelin’ that you haven’t (probably intentionally) listened to Mike’s daily radio spots on over 500 stations throughout this great country. They are very very political.
http://radio.mikehuckabee.com/
I guess we all want to believe in our favorite’s work ethic and political goals. Oh, well. Time will tell.
February 20th, 2010 at 12:52 am
wateredseeds,
You’ve always struck me as coming by your opinions honestly. It’s never bothered me when we’ve disagreed over the years, unlike some people whom I have a difficult time believing to be sincere. They shall remain nameless.
February 20th, 2010 at 12:55 am
S&M Superstars,
I have not listened to them religiously, but I do listen when I can. I might catch two or three of them a month. I enjoy them thoroughly. When I compare them to Paul Harvey’s, I cannot think of a higher compliment I could give.
February 20th, 2010 at 12:57 am
Well, now here’s your chance. Link up.
February 20th, 2010 at 12:57 am
Waterseeds,
Romney, like Scott Brown, had to have somewhat moderate positions on social issues to ever hope to get elected in Massachusetts. That’s what the Huckabee supporters fail to acknowledge. Romney’s personal life, background, and religion are consistent with being a true and strong conservative so I don’t have any concern about his core beliefs. If he was ever disingenuous, I don’t think it is now. I think it was in 1994.
February 20th, 2010 at 12:57 am
We’ll win you over, yet.
February 20th, 2010 at 12:59 am
Sarah and Mike,
Here’s the episode I was thinking of:
http://www.foxnews.com/search-results/m/21994881/ray-price.htm
February 20th, 2010 at 1:03 am
Great analysis Mark!
I do slightly disagree with the perception that Mitt was too “plastic” or “inauthentic” during his speeches. The Faith in America Speech was powerful and evocative. His speech at CPAC 2008 in which he dropped out of the POTUS race nearly had me in tears.
February 20th, 2010 at 1:07 am
SED,
I disagree with it, as well. I never had any problems with his speeches. I enjoyed everyone of them. However, others found him “plastic” and/or “inauthentic” — something I personally did not see.
February 20th, 2010 at 1:08 am
Thanks Ci2Eye,
My 71 year old Dad has played with Mr. Price who is much older. Great stories about performing in Texas nightclubs and county fairs throughout the whole state. He’s a beloved legend throughout that state and many others. I think he’s been on “Huckabee” two times now.
February 20th, 2010 at 1:20 am
Mass. says U.S. marriage law is unconstitutional
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-02-19-federal-marriage-massachusetts_N.htm
February 20th, 2010 at 1:24 am
Brown’s White House buzz could spell trouble for Mitt Romney
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/82069-browns-white-house-buzz-could-spell-trouble-for-romney
Testing the 2012 ground, Pawlenty, Pence court conservatives; Barbour won’t rule out run
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/wire/sns-ap-us-conservatives-2012,0,2218146.story
Conservatives Get a Look at Possible Candidates
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/20/us/politics/20conservative.html?pagewanted=print
February 20th, 2010 at 1:25 am
Mark,
I wonder if it was mostly a situation where it fit the critics narrative. Romney was too “perfect” his hair is never out of place. Also, I question if people were actually even paying attention. For instance many nights during the primaries were focused on “The Mac is back!” or how McCain was raised from the dead like Lazarus. McCain and Huckabee had better narratives. Easier to spin in the media. By comparison Mitt was boring and didn’t deserve notice. I am absolutely positive that no one other Romney supporters know that Mitt’s campaign was about “Change Begins With Us”. When he attacked the corruption and departure from conservative principals.
February 20th, 2010 at 1:37 am
People who are ridiculously talking up Mr. Clemmens Mike Huckabee and how great his show is ECT ECT, let me say, are you talking about the same negative man who also is so insecure that during almost every show he consciously or subconsciously is obsessively grabbing his suit coat and trying to pull it over more to hide his belly, EVEN WHEN IT CANT BE PULLED OVER MORE, BECAUSE CLEARLY HE IS VERY SELF CONCIOUS ABOUT IT AND HOW HE HAS GAINED WEIGHT AGAIN?
I’m sure when he runs we will see a flip flop on his personal health and he again will become thinner. This guy is the biggest fraud ever and if you can’t see through that cheesy smile then, well nevermind.
He ran the most unAmerican campaign I think in history. Using another mans religion against him. That not constitutional and it’s not conservative. Huckabees record is an Economic liberal and the only reason he was against any form of saving the financial system was for political reasons.
February 20th, 2010 at 2:18 am
Such unchecked anger and sheer pettiness is not good for one’s health. Try to be more civil, Aaron.
February 20th, 2010 at 2:20 am
Are we not all Republicans, my friend?
February 20th, 2010 at 2:20 am
85 Aaron
Why in the world you’re talking about Mike Huckabee’s waight?
What the hell is wrong with you?!
You have nothing better to do in life other than spew hate,day in, day out.
Geez,get a life!
February 20th, 2010 at 3:04 am
MarK:
Good post..and great observations. I think he’s learned from his mistakes, and he was the first one to talk about them…. I’ve was a supporter of Romney early on….I think it was March 2007 after hearing a speech he gave about cutting waste in Government…..I also remember reading about his campaign staff’s fear of having a macaca moment and how everything candidates say end up on You Tube, sometimes in a cut and pasted form and often taken out of context.
So, I think that could have also played a part as to why Romney was guarded and protective. But I never heard him whine or complain, or say anything about the dirty campaigning and personal insults aimed at him by the other candidates.
I also don’t think Romney and his staff dealt with the flip flopping label early enough. It was a phrase that was spread early on by Dick Morris through his online website and his position on FOX when he was an unofficial advisior of Huckabee.
February 20th, 2010 at 3:17 am
Aaron: #65
You’re right…and anybody that followed the 2008′ primaries would know that. Tex and Fox Superstar can dish it out, but can’t take it. They both not only attack Mitt as a politician but also in very personal ways, they’re antagonist.
Just one question… When Huck is being interviewed, how does the camera make him look smaller. Is it an optical alusion by seating him across the table and to the right of the interviewer, Or do they shrink him somehow. I’m asking with all due respect to Huckabee.
February 20th, 2010 at 7:06 am
#1
Reagan signed into law one of the largest abortion bills! He changed his position. It lowers a person’s intelligence to debate you.
February 20th, 2010 at 7:22 am
85. Aaron, you write with as much ugliness toward other candidates as the worst of the other side does about your candidate. This site can really be good at times with people in all camps firmly debating the issues and who’s most qualified to lead our country.
You do your cause no service with your mean-spirited rants. They stand out in a bad way.
February 20th, 2010 at 7:40 am
44 – I got it, unfortunately you claim it took Reagan many years and Romney merely months…
February 20th, 2010 at 7:47 am
65 – from what I understand, from all along, is that Palin’s book is based on the journals she has kept her entire life. The co-writer helped to organize the passages into a book. I’m sure there was editing as well…like almost every book ever published.
February 20th, 2010 at 8:07 am
hamaca, thanks for the interjection in the other thread with Thunder…much appreciated. I’m not the most informed poster on the site…nowhere near, but I do try to be, relatively, fair. I try not to take things too personal but that guy…anyway thanks again.
February 20th, 2010 at 8:19 am
Mark, I skipped all the comments to say, why can’t you just let Romney be Romney and not try to make him into Reagan II? You seem to take the Palinites to task for trying to make her into something that they want her to be, but here you are doing the same thing with Romney.
February 20th, 2010 at 8:20 am
Don’t shoot me but Reagan is overrated.
February 20th, 2010 at 8:33 am
On paper, Romney is the best candidate by far, just as on paper Kerry was the best Democratic candidate in 2004. I like Romney, but I still have a nagging doubt he may face the same fate against a sitting president in 2012. Does he really have the personality to appeal to the average Joe?
February 20th, 2010 at 8:41 am
85. From a Romney guy through and through, that was one of the dumbest posts evah! It was as shallow as all the talk about Mitt’s hair, as if hair or weight have anything to do with character or competency.
February 20th, 2010 at 9:10 am
Electability arguments for candidates don’t always tend to work out (think Dole, McCain, and Kerry). Mitt is in much the same position as Dole and McCain were prior to the 96 and 08 primaries – the establishment candidates seen as the most electable and attractive to moderates with one last shot at their dream job.
Mitt needs to evolve into a more populist persona, something I like to call, “Lunch Pale Mitt.” He needs to get out there with the folks and get in a pick up truck (think Fred Thompson and Scott Brown) and a plaid shirt wouldn’t hurt either (Lamar!). Mitt needs to begin to connect with the grass roots and Tea Party folks on a more visceral level and shed some of his aloof CEO persona in the process. Mitt is the front runner and like all front runners at this stage his status is quite tenuous, but he does have the potential to succeed if he gives it a good college try and fits like an old broken in mitt to the American voters.
February 20th, 2010 at 9:15 am
98 – I have to wonder the same thing. I don’t support Romney but I will vote for him in a general election.
I also wonder if his background will help or hurt him against Obama. His economic credentials are impeccable but can he sell that to the people without being labeled as Mr. Wall Street?
And then you have health care reform. With some similarities between MassCare and ObamaCare, will Romney be able to use the healthcare reform debacle as an argument…or will all of the hard work, defeating that horrible bill, be wasted because Romney cannot use it in his campaign arsenal? All Obama will have to say is…we based ObamaCare, in part, on MassCare…a program you started and signed into law. Right then and there…just like that, the issue is off the table.
Romney seems like a better candidate this time but in ’08 he did get, visibly, flustered when he was attacked in debates…how will he handle the Chicago machine?
A lot of questions that we won’t know the answers to until the primary debates…at that point we will see how much better of a candidate he is. He’s good on policy but can he beat the Obama Machine?
February 20th, 2010 at 9:17 am
DanL, you’re a good guy, but it’s obvious you missed all the comments.
February 20th, 2010 at 9:45 am
DanL.#96,
You might wish to read my #44.
February 20th, 2010 at 10:11 am
JA Pruce.#100,
(First a minor nit pick. Died-in-the-wool Romney supporter that I am, I would not call him “the” frontrunner at the present time. Rather, he is one among several.)
While your basic premise of getting the “common touch” is correct, it is fraught with dangers. Do you remember the grief Romney got with his mention of “varmint hunting”? John Kerry got nailed with his “huntin’ license” query. Of course, his was a special case. His entourage pulled up to a fast-food place and made a big show of ordering take out, but once back onboard the bus, they threw it into the trash and dined on gourmet food.
And finally, who could forget this moment:?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Michael_Dukakis_in_tank.jpg
That has to be the all-time “pretending to be what they are not” moment in Presidential politics.
February 20th, 2010 at 10:21 am
Mark B.,
It may be a Mass pol thing. Dukakis, Kerry, Romney…
Mitt does need to be careful and I agree with your premise but he also needs to burnish his man of the people persona. He needs to run as the self made everyman fighting against Obama the scion of the powerful and elite. Mitt needs voters (especially Tea Party voters) to want to have a beer with him (albeit of the non alcoholic variety).
February 20th, 2010 at 10:27 am
I went back and reread all the comments, including marK’s 44. I find his denials to be exceedingly disingenuous.
You are a smart and careful writer Mark. The Reagan parallels were very carefully crafted, though not nearly so subtle as you seem to think. And embedding a picture of Reagan in the text along with a picture of Romney is none too subtle at all.
Romney is a great guy and I am excited about his ongoing success. I would love for him to be elected president. This isn’t an attack on his efforts or the efforts of his supporters. I am just sick of all the Reagan BS from all the camps and would love to see it stop.
February 20th, 2010 at 10:29 am
One more thought to add to 106. Your denial, marK, smacks of Huckabee’s Who Me? tactics. You are far too coy for your own good at times.
February 20th, 2010 at 10:34 am
Screw Reagan. There, I said it. One of the most overrated presidents of the 20th Century. Nixon (despite his expansion of federal entitlement programs) and Bush I were much better. Secondly, why does every single GOP speech have to invoke him? If I hear “we need to do this because these are the principles Ronald Reagan stood for” one more time, I’m going to puke. Reagan was a disaster on immigration policy and federal spending, and not so great on foreign policy either. His only major accomplishment was reducing tax rates (I know I’m oversimplifying his presidency).
Romney was fantastic at CPAC.
February 20th, 2010 at 11:01 am
108. ***Screw Reagan. There, I said it****
That kind of bold honest attitude coming from his supporters truly helps Mitt Romney’s cause.
Not.
February 20th, 2010 at 11:15 am
From Rubio and other young GOP stars, Obama-style inspiration
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/19/AR2010021903043_pf.html
Crist, Rubio camps dicker over debates
Is Rubio afraid of David Gregory?
http://www2.tbo.com/content/2010/feb/20/na-crist-rubio-camps-dicker-over-debates/
Santorum: GOP in Washington should stop ‘showing their hand’ in races
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/82437-santorum-gop-in-washington-should-stop-showing-their-hand-in-races-
Buffett, Gates and other super rich may pay price for estate tax fix
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/82415-bill-gates-warren-buffett-and-other-super-rich-may-pay-price-for-estate-tax-fix
February 20th, 2010 at 11:24 am
108. I kind of agree with Nate. I think Reagan was a good president. But I kind of like Bush 1 and Nixon a little better. In fact, the reasons I like Reagan are usually different than the reasons that conservatives give. For example, Reagan did increase defense spending in the first part of his presidency and I think that had a huge part in bringing the Soviet Union down. But by 1985, Reagan saw an opportunity with Gorbechev to pursue a more diplomatic course. I think that Reagan could be a realist and also a diplomat at the same time. It was Reagan’s personal relationship with Gorbechev that also affected history.
109. Way to try to kill an honest discussion about Reagan. No thinking skills required for you, huh?
February 20th, 2010 at 11:47 am
Interesting how all the Rom-bots seem to enjoying bashing Reagan and belittling his education and acccomplishments.
Coincidence? I think not.
February 20th, 2010 at 11:55 am
112. Flip, once again you are killing the discussion. Can we have a serious discussion about Reagan. He is not God and I am not committing blasphemy by recognizing the Reagan was not perfect. No one was bashing Reagan’s education by the way.
February 20th, 2010 at 12:03 pm
Pablo… are u really defending Nate’s “I’m going to puke” comment in his 108? Yep, intelligent discussion regarding Ronald Reagan, indeed is what you Romney folks want. But to mock him like Nate?
February 20th, 2010 at 12:03 pm
David Frum: Good-Romney for president in 2012!
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/02/20/david-frum-good-romney-for-president-in-2012.aspx
February 20th, 2010 at 12:05 pm
112.
Flip said it of course more concise than me as usual.
February 20th, 2010 at 12:07 pm
Bloomberg Shifts $5 Billion Out of Friend’s Firm
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/20/business/20mayor.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1266685461-pdxY3fUqxvwu5jUoCsET1g&pagewanted=print
February 20th, 2010 at 12:10 pm
114. Yes, I am defending his statement, because I agree. Reagan was a good president among many good presidents that the Republicans have had. But he is not my favorite. I care about policy and I don’t think Reagan was right on some policy.
I think that the reason for Nate’s “I am going to puke” comment was not that he wants to puke at the thought of the Reagan presidency but that he wants to puke because Republicans can’t say something more meaningful than, “Reagan was great!!!” I think it is kind of silly that Republicans are always trying to compare themselves to Reagan. It is a slogan intended to create political empathy, but it means absolutely nothing.
February 20th, 2010 at 12:10 pm
115. The Bad:
The bad Romney is the Romney who delivered the governor’s last major public address, at the Republican convention in St. Paul in August 2008.
“You know, for decades now, the Washington sun has been rising in the east. You see, Washington has been looking to the eastern elites …. If America really wants to change, it’s time to look for the sun in the west ….”
A strange thing to hear from the ex-governor of America’s second most easterly state.
February 20th, 2010 at 12:17 pm
119. Yeah, that is because he was trying to promote the Republican nominee from Arizona. The speech was not intended to promote himself because he lost. It was intended to promote McCain. What do you want him to do, promote himself at a convention nominating McCain?
February 20th, 2010 at 12:21 pm
But as Frum went on to say: (thanks to Aron)
2008 marked the end of a two-term Republican presidency and the recent expiry of 12 years of Republican congressional majorities. Bad Romney disregarded that history to score a crowd-pleasing point:
“Last week, the Democratic convention talked about change. But what do you think? Is Washington now, liberal or conservative? … Is government spending, putting aside inflation, liberal or conservative if it doubles since 1980? It’s liberal.”
February 20th, 2010 at 12:55 pm
The worst aspects of ObamaCare that the people react against, e.g. forcing people to buy health insurance, were part of what Romney did in Massachusetts. Romney is a skilled businessman, not a conservative leader. Lee Iacoca observed once that he himself would make a terrible president because the skills of the business world are not the same skills that political leadership requires. A business leader does whatever the moment requires rather than on principle. Because Romney does not have an ideological compass telling him that there is something wrong with forcing people to buy health insurance, for example, RomneyCare in Massachusetts became what the Dems looked to in their disastrous Health Care “plan”. Men who have no ideological compass are a real disaster in the White House. In his insincerity, lack of ideological direction and desire for expediency, Romney could be a real Nixon.
February 20th, 2010 at 1:15 pm
Thanks Pablo. Yea the puke comment wasn’t an indictment of his presidency; it was directed at the fact that every single Republican feels the need to stand before a podium and laud Reagan as if he were some sort of god. I don’t think he was a bad president. I think he was probably above average, maybe even good… but certainly not in the top 10. It’s just ridiculous to see a poll showing a plurality of Republicans consider him greater or more influential than titans like Lincoln, Washington or Jackson.
As a student of foreign policy, I’ve had the chance to review many of Reagan’s decisions in that area, and the verdict isn’t very good. Sure, he spent the Soviets into oblivion, but far too many of his policies around the world focused too heavily on Cold War considerations at the expense of long-term strategic planning. Many of today’s problems/threats in the Middle East have roots that are decades old, yet I can’t think of one Reagan didn’t exacerbate somehow by treating it with a bipolar world mentality. (Saddam and Hamas are two very prominent byproducts of this). I consider myself an American exceptionalist and support American global hegemony, however, he allowed ideology to dominate our foreign policy (the freedom agenda). This a lot of times has toppled bad regimes but creates instability that usually results in a worse situation. Or we support despots (Egypt, Pakistan) and look hypocritical, further destroying our credibility. Nixon and Bush were great because they had amoral foreign policies that allowed us flexibility in dealing with other states. Sometimes promoting democracy and human rights is good (Central and Eastern Europe), but a lot of times it isn’t in our best interests, and therefore we should take a more pragmatic approach. That is my biggest complaint with Reagan.
February 20th, 2010 at 1:21 pm
I think it’s nice that Romney went to Harvard and has a lot of fancy degrees. I consider that a plus — but that alone does not qualify him for the Presidency or anything else. Reagan went to Eureka College, true, but he was better read and wiser than most Ivy League people I’ve met in my life.
The snobbish attitude of many of the Rom-bots makes me sick, quite frankly. I hope they’re not reflective of his base of support, but it strikes me as very elitist.
February 20th, 2010 at 1:28 pm
There are many people hate Mitt,anti Mitt,critic Mitt,blame Mitt and much more about Mitt,but the true is no one is better than Mitt,does Obama has any thing to compare with Mitt? nothing.Mitt is the strongest,smartest,most experience and look more presidential than any other leader at this time in the U.S.Mitt Romney/Rick Santorum 2012.
February 20th, 2010 at 1:34 pm
Nate,
To a certain point I understand what your saying. My generation, the millenial generation, do not know Ronald Reagan. We were born in the 80′s and our earliest political memories started with Bill Clinton and our political activism probably started with George W. Bush. Reagan to us is a sage that we read about in history books and look towards as a JFK or Eisenhower. We have no connection to him. At least I don’t.
In the last POTUS primaries, every single candidate wanted to be the next Reagan or invoked his name over and over again. I’m sorry, but I’m not looking to elect the next Reagan. There will never be another Reagan; like there will never be another JFK, Lincoln, or Washington.
In the MA senate race with Scott Brown v. Martha Coakley; Brown was asked what type of Republican he was. Brown replied that he was a “Scott Brown Republican”. My respect for him shot through the roof. I don’t identify myself as a Reagan Republican, but a Romney Republican and all it encompasses.
February 20th, 2010 at 1:36 pm
122 Cris L.
Very well said.
Ross Perot is much better in making money than Romney.The man is a billionaire.
Would you like Perot to be President?
He’s another one without any ideological principals.
No,good businessman can not “fix” America.
Ronald Reagan came from small town,small college,was not businessman,but he sure
was one of the greatest Presidents this country ever had.
The liberals and wishy washy,In Name Only Republicans can hate Ronald Reagan as
much as they want,Reagan’s place in history is secured at the top.If for nothing
else(and there are many reasons),he broke the back of Soviet Union and put it out business.
February 20th, 2010 at 1:37 pm
Chris L.,
It’s true that Mitt is pragmatic, but if you think he lacks an ideological compass within which to frame his pragmatism, you have zero comprehension of what Romney is all about. ZERO!!!
February 20th, 2010 at 1:58 pm
123. Nate, I was also a student of foreign policy (not that that means anything) and I couldn’t agree more with your post. When it comes to foreign policy, I think Nixon and Bush 1 represent traditional amoral realists policies, like Waltz and Morganthau (for those students of foreign policy). Reagan was a little bit more of a neocon though not to the extent of Bush 43. Nixon and Bush 41 were not charismatic, and so Reagan is certainly more beloved (plus Nixon was a little corrupt). But that does not mean that Reagan was better on the issues.
I just think that constantly comparing oneself to Reagan might be a good political move, but to thinking people it gets a little annoying.
February 20th, 2010 at 2:01 pm
124. I am PROUD of the fact that Romney went to Harvard and graduated at the top of his class in both law school and business school. I would love to have the same opportunity but I just not that smart.
Let me be clear, succeeding at Harvard is a plus, not a negative. You may call it snobby, but the rest of us Romney supporters are not going to apologize that Romney is smarter than most people.
February 20th, 2010 at 2:09 pm
123 Nate
You might be student of history,but your judgment is faulty from the start.
In your own words,you are for US world hegemony.That means world domination.
News flesh!!!
19th and 20th centuries are over.Soviet Union doesn’t exist anymore and
USA is borrowing money from all over the world and from future American
generations in Utopian imperialistic dream to dominate the world.
Let’s see how well we are doing:
The country is desperately broke and broken,we can’t even subdue and conker rag tag
7th century primitives wearing diapers around their savage heads.
Thanks neocons,what a way to go,sure way to destroy the great USA,once the envy
of the world.
February 20th, 2010 at 2:13 pm
Romney’s best bet to win the White House, besides adopting the “Lunch Pale Mitt” persona, is to ride in on foreign policy – vehemently oppose the withdrawal of troops from Iraq, oppose timelines, and to recognize that we are at war with Iran and move towards overwhelming victory against Iran, the taliban and the terrorists.
February 20th, 2010 at 2:16 pm
122.
Many Romney bashers are not fully learned on the Mass Health plan. There were told all these fallacies by challengers in the primaries. For one thing, there are many differences between it and Obamacare. Also, the mandate part in MA was adamantly opposed by Romney. People need to realized that many of Romney’s vetoes were overridden by the massive liberal legislature. With that said, I would say the Mass Health plan is overall effective and is a good starting place for a conservative health care plan. It is done on a state level. Cut bureaucratic layers. And did not place the government in the healthcare of the people. Not to mention it did not raise taxes and give policy cuts to other citizens the way Obamacare would.
After all, there is a reason Romney’s health plan was FULLY endorsed by the Heritage Foundation. There is some Reagan vibe for you.
February 20th, 2010 at 2:16 pm
127 TexMilan
Doesn’t it get a trifle unrealistic to keep comparing the current GOP crop with Reagan? I voted for him twice , but I certainly appreciate that his times, his supporters and his adversaries, his tools and weapons , were incredibly different from today. Just as was the case with Lincoln and Washington, and, yes, Kennedy and Franklin Roosevelt. Pick Reagan up and mover him to today’s $14 T deficit and looming fiscal disaster with entitlement commitments and see exactly what he can accomplish.
Good businessmen , perhaps, cannot fix this mess…..caused by three decades of ” leaders” who were, arguably, NOT good businessmen. But a good businessman can certainly understand the problem better than the current collection of clowns in D.C Yes, perhaps better than previous generations of fiscally irresponsible clowns , of both parties, that we have sent to lead us. The current ” fawning” over GOP leaders who wear their fiscal ignorance and lack of management experience on their sleeves, while they seek to be appointed to manage the world’s largest business, is frightening enough. The fact that large numbers of voters continue to disdain high achievement, morality and experience says worlds about exactly why we are in this mess and why we yearn nostalgically for simpler times and legendary people.
February 20th, 2010 at 2:24 pm
131. Apparently you didn’t read Nate’s post. Bush and Nixon were not neocons. They were realists. When Bush 41 led a multilateral coalition into Iraq to stop Sadaam from taking Kuwait, he didn’t try to bring democracy into the Middle East or topple Sadaam. He simply prevented a dictator from gaining regional hegemony and thus affecting the price of oil around the world. It was in everyone’s interest to stop Iraq. This is called realism. If anything Reagan was the neocon. Certainly Bush 43.
You flat out do not know what you are talking about.
February 20th, 2010 at 2:38 pm
134 “while they seek to be appointed to manage the world’s largest business”
This is the key,this is exactly what Obama is doing,which is catastrophic fer the country.
President with firm conservative principals doesn’t run US economy.Reagan never did,and country
prospered.
February 20th, 2010 at 2:39 pm
124. If it is reflective, and on this site, it surely is, then they’re wasting their time and money once again. The American people have had enough misery with the so-called “elites” (see: Obama and our “friends” on Wall Street who’ve systematically destroyed Main Street) to see right though it! Mr. Establishment Romney (RomneyCare promoter, TARP pusher, and Tax and Fees raiser to the tune of $750,000,000 a year as MA governor) has little or no chance.
The answers for 2012 are of course, the non elitists: Successful and popular (especially with their former constituents who knew them best)…
Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska or Governor Mike Huckabee of Arkansas
February 20th, 2010 at 2:46 pm
137. S & P, please try to be factual. Anytime you want to compare taxes between Huck and Romney, you can be my guest. And for the billionth time — PALIN SUPPORTED TARP. Of course, now she is just pandering claiming that it was a mistake.
February 20th, 2010 at 2:48 pm
135
Common man,everybody knows that Nixon and Bush Sr were not neocons.
Who said they were?
Bush Sr tried very hard to persuade his son not to attack Iraq.
I do know what I’m talking about,but I sure don’t know what you are talking about.
February 20th, 2010 at 2:49 pm
I agree with FlipDixon, Chris L and TexMilan et al that Romney is not the way to go. How could a guy who (when running in Massachusetts in 1994) claimed that he would be more supportive of gay rights than Ted Kennedy and then at CPAC in 2007 (when getting ready for the 2008 primaries) claimed that the biggest thing distinguishing him was his stance on a marriage amendment, who (in 1994) claimed he was an independent during the Reagan years and then in 2008 tried to claim the Reagan mantle, who is such a poseur that he claims having a gun in one of his homes in Utah makes him a “varmint” hunter, who has swung with every breeze and focused on issues OTHER than those vital to the nation, have the mettle to cut spending and protect individual rights. He can’t. Just like Nixon, Romney’s NOT the one, not even close.
February 20th, 2010 at 2:53 pm
137 Sarah & Mike
Excellent post,it’s so good I have nothing to add.
February 20th, 2010 at 3:02 pm
138
Sarah Palin DID NOT support TARP!
John McCain did,she had no choice.You don’t want to accept it,because you want to attack her.
That’s fine,when time comes she will explain and even bring witnesses,if needed.
February 20th, 2010 at 3:03 pm
140
Gay rights in 1994 was about discrimination. Especially in the work place. Not about gay marriage.
February 20th, 2010 at 3:05 pm
Posts like #140 causes one to want to stay away from race to avoid idiotic postings! Is anyone that misinformed? Unfortunately, I guess some are! I hate baby sitting, and especially changing dirty diapers. Please get informed or honest, whichever is missing my child!
February 20th, 2010 at 3:05 pm
142. Thanks
Pablo knows that. I think he’s trying to convince himself by typing otherwise. Won’t work.
February 20th, 2010 at 3:06 pm
#142 – Are you calling Sarah Palin a LIAR? She admits she supported it! She now says she was wrong.
February 20th, 2010 at 3:15 pm
138. Pablo my friend, we’ll win you over to Sarah or Mike pretty soon. Enjoy:
Mitt Romney’s record of higher fees and taxes as governor
As governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney raised state government fees and taxes by three quarters of a billion dollars a year. During his four year tenure, Romney nickeled and dimed Massachusetts families and individuals with over a hundred fee increases, on everything from getting married (he upped the price for a marriage license), to buying a new home (he increased charges for Registry of Deeds paperwork), to owning a gun legally (he tripled the fee for a Firearms ID Card). He also proposed and obtained hundreds of millions of dollars in new tax revenues from business, with tax changes he dubbed loophole closings but critics said were really just tax increases. The fee hikes and tax revenue increases described here were all proposed by Romney himself, as elements of various budgets, revenue raiser packages, or other measures or policy proposals originating in Romney’s office.
Increased state fees and taxes by three quarters of a billion dollars brakdown:
$432 million in fee hikes:
As governor, Romney increased state fees on residents on businesses by $432 million annually. These fee hikes were all proposed by Romney; they were not items originated by the Legislature. (Note that Romney originally sought an even higher amount, but the Legislature reduced or rejected some of his demands for higher fees.)
$309 million in higher taxes:
As governor, Romney increased various taxes on businesses by $309 million annually, via three “corporate loophole” closing packages, one each in 2003, 2004 and 2005. (Note that Romney originally proposed an even higher amount of increased taxes on business but reduced or dropped some proposals due to opposition from business and/or lack of Legislative support.)
——————————————————————————–
= $740.5 million dollars a year in higher fees and taxes
Year Fee/tax increase Revenue raised in millions (annually) Notes … Sources
2003 88 different fee increases in first budget $59.0 Proposed in Romney’s first budget — increases in 88 different new or existing fees, including fees to get a marriage license, renew a driver’s license, and legally possess a gun. (See “Detailed list of All Romney Fee and Tax Increases” for a complete list) Boston Globe 2/28/03, 7/24/03
Mass. Taxpayers Fdn. 5/15/03
2003 Registry of Deeds fee increases $175.0 Proposed by Romney in February 2003 — affects all real estate transactions, such as buying and selling a house Boston Globe 2/27/03
Boston Globe 9/27/06
2003 Petroleum product delivery fees $60.0 Proposed in Romney’s first budget — tax generally would be passed on from wholesalers to retailers to drivers and other consumers Mass. Taxpayers Fdn. 5/15/03
Boston Herald 6/28/03
2003 Fees from Children’s Medical Security Program co-pays and premiums $6.5 Proposed in Romney’s first budget — fees to be paid by residents receiving insurance through these programs H.1, Line item 4590-0905
2003 Fees for probation services $45.0 Proposed in Romney’s first budget — additional fees to be collected by probation officers and public defenders H.1, Line item 0339-1006
Boston Globe 2/27/03
2003 Sales tax increase on used car sales $10.0 Proposed in Romney’s first budget — tax raised by assigning higher values to used cars Boston Globe 2/27/03
2003 Increased tuition & fees at state & community colleges $50.0 Proposed in Romney’s first budget Boston Globe 2/27/03
2003 “User fee” on private insurance companies to pay for MassHealth $0.0 Proposed in Romney’s first budget and valued at $90 million– in response to industry opposition, Romney later withdrew the proposal StateHouse News Service 2/26/03, 4/10/03; Boston Globe 2/27/03
2003 Expansion of bottle bill deposits $0.0 Proposed new 5-cent deposits on water and juice bottles and 15-cent deposits on wine and liquor; change valued at $15 million. Rejected by the Legislature Boston Globe 4/4/03
2003 Corporate tax increases (“closing loopholes”) $128.0 Proposed by Romney in separate bill at same time as first budget Boston Globe 2/27/03
2003 Increased premiums for MassHealth and children’s health state insurance $10.0 Implemented in November 2003 by Romney-Healey administration, targeted at poor families receiving Medicaid StateHouse News Service 12/17/03
2004 Various fee increases in second budget $16.5 Proposed in Romney’s second budget — includes doubling of mortgage broker licensing fee, increased civil service exam fee Boston Globe 1/29/04
2004 Corporate tax increases (“closing loopholes”) $95.5 Proposed in tandem with Romney’s second budget Boston Globe 3/4/04
2005 Corporate tax increases (“closing loopholes”) $85.0 Bill filed by Romney in January 2005 and originally proposing $170 million in higher taxes. In response to business opposition, Romney later scaled back his proposal, Legislature passed smaller version raising about $85 million annually Boston Globe 2/1/05
Boston Globe 6/11/05
TOTAL of all higher fees and taxes proposed by Gov. Mitt Romney and which became law. $740.5 Note: The actual amount of tax and fee increases proposed by Romney was even higher, since the state Legislature rejected or reduced some of Romney’s proposed increases. See above notes.
Romney’s record of fee hikes and taxes became an issue in the 2006 governor’s race, with the Boston Globe reporting that “Fees and taxes have increased more than $700 million a year under Governor Mitt Romney and Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey, a leading budget specialist said.” The analysis, by The Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, pegged Romney’s fee hikes and tax revenue increases at $740 million to $750 million a year!!!!!!!
February 20th, 2010 at 3:18 pm
IG, Read her book. Quit being a wet blanket.
February 20th, 2010 at 3:20 pm
146
Sarah Palin is not a liar,she’s the most honest politician,that’s why she’s loved and admired
by millions.
She was just covering for Johnny,she had to.
After all if it wasn’t for him,she would be still unknown in Alaska.
She’s loyal,that’s all.
February 20th, 2010 at 3:21 pm
I’m off to my run on the beach… be back in a hour or two…
February 20th, 2010 at 3:21 pm
Hold the fort, Tex
February 20th, 2010 at 3:24 pm
Palin did support TARP. Even Hotair couldn’t spin away this from Sarah.
“The 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, planned to meet in Washington this weekend with Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and other senators to press for her state’s share of the package.”
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/02/01/ultimate-heart-ache-palin-supports-the-stimulus/
February 20th, 2010 at 3:27 pm
And if you would take the time to Google “palin support tarp” you would get many more sites saying exactly the same thing.
Apparently Palin met with Paulson to try to contribute to the drafting of TARP. But Paulson said of her “Palin, he says, “rubbed me the wrong way,” meetings with the Senate GOP were “a complete waste of time for us, when time was more precious than anything,”
http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm/0210/paulson_whacks_gop_144d455a-f251-41dc-9032-b06e5d815d45.html
February 20th, 2010 at 3:29 pm
150 S&M, don’t fall and hurt your butt…err head I mean.
February 20th, 2010 at 3:32 pm
115 – On social mobility it would be good to hear from Romney support for a David Cameron’s policy in the UK for Swedish style ‘free schools’ and moves towards education vouchers. He could also go further than Cameron and support the creation of new selective schools too as they have in many continental countries and used to have but now don’t, bar a few counties, in Britain. Look at how popular the selective schools in New York are!
February 20th, 2010 at 3:52 pm
Sarah Palin or Mike Huckabee shouldn’t run in 2012.
While they are fine people and our indeed Fox Superstars, they don’t possess the intellitual acumen to debate Obama and make enough people believe they are smarter and better equpped to run this country than Obama. They just don’t have it. Romney does.
Plus Sarah & Mike will never attract the so called northwest Wall Street upper crust elites/CEO class that the GOP sorely lost in 2008. And that the Republican Party will need to get back in order to win the White House. Romney can win those folks back.
Unfortunately, Sarah and Mike represent the aggrievied part of the GOP and will try to use class warfare to get elected I’m afraid. Huckabee’s done it in the past. And Sarah’s instinct’s gravitate too much to that kind of populism.
Their skills in this area will only be more honed in 2012 as they continue as news commentators and pundits. It is a losing strategy but they won’t be able to help themselves because that’s what they are most comfortable with.
February 20th, 2010 at 3:54 pm
147. Romney never raised taxes once. He raised fees and closed loopholes in the corporate tax structure. We can argue about whether a fee is better than a tax. But to copy and paste that information from the MA Democratic website is a little misleading. Of course they are going to call closing loopholes in the corporate tax structure a “tax.” If you want to debate Romney’s fees then that is fine. As long as we mention the 21 times the Huck raised taxes in AR, the amount of which far outweighed the 90 times that he lowered taxes. Romney’s record is not perfect, but it is pretty good. Huck’s record was terrible.
February 20th, 2010 at 4:07 pm
Somebody wants to be VP! Newt Gingrich praised Romney today during his CPAC speech. He inferred Romney’s speech was great and then said Romney created more jobs in the private sector than Obama did with All of the stimulus money.
Thank you Newt for the WELL DESERVED praise of Mitt Romney but the VP slot is already reserved
ROMNEY / DeMINT in 2012!
February 20th, 2010 at 4:16 pm
To add to what Pablo cites in #157, not only did Mitt not raise a single tax a single dime, he didn’t raise any broad-based fees. The problem he faced upon becoming governor was a looming $3 BILLION inherited deficit with 6 months left before the end of the fiscal year in which he had to find a way to balance the budget. Massachusetts has a constitutional requirement to balance the budget, so he had to find a way to do it.
His other problem was an overwhelmingly liberal legislature who had to approve his spending cuts and who needed political cover on the revenue side to do so. Mitt balanced the budget, didn’t raise taxes, solved the biggest fiscal crisis in the history of the state, and left office with a BILLION DOLLAR SURPLUS.
He did something similar with the Olympics, more than 150 different companies, and will do likewise as President of the good old U.S. of A.
February 20th, 2010 at 4:53 pm
This makes the 3rd year in a row that $$$arah has been a no-show at CPAC. She reneged at the last minute on her CPAC commitments in both 2009 and 2008. It boggles the mind how anyone could think that $$$arah is dependable and honorable considering her history, which includes quitting her job as Governor of Alaska.
Romney can be counted on to fulfill his commitments and that is something we should look for in a president.
February 20th, 2010 at 4:58 pm
S&M you are not paying attention. Romney has given many major speeches since but the one that stands out other than yesterday at CPAC was one not even listed here.
http://www.freestrongamerica.com/speeches
It was not even a formal speech but an interview with the foreign policy initiative. See it here: http://www.foreignpolicyi.org/advancing-and-defending-democracy/luncheon-with-governor-mitt-romney
Mitt is relaxed and yet very much in command of the issues and converses fluently on a subject your idols would stammer over. Wouldn’t it be nice to have such a guy who understand the complexities of foreign policy in the whitehouse? Romney has been preparing for the role his entire life. He is ready to lead.
February 20th, 2010 at 5:01 pm
136 TexMilan
Remember how country prospered under Bill Clinton too. The depth of the current ” Depression” is measured to some extent against the ” highs” of the Dot Com bubble created under Bill Clinton’s purview. To be honest, neither Clinton nor Reagan knew squat about running a business, let alone the world’s largest. But they are symptomatic of our problem. We are in a colossal mess because we continue to select/elect candidate who are photogenic or who give great speeches or have great ghost writers . We seldom elect people with any business / management experience to this most difficult jib. As a nation, we prefer to ” wing it” with our favorites, hoping some ethereal force will steer them and we to a safe landing.
So much for fairy tales. If we don’t start expecting the VERY BEST in ability, education and experience, we will wind up waiting again for a non-existent political fairy to put economic success under our collective pillows only to be disappointed again in the morning as the economic/ management grinch steals yet another national Christmas.
February 20th, 2010 at 5:13 pm
152,153
Here’s what pompous elitist Hank Paulson said about Sarah Palin:
“So she immediately focused on — because we were talking about the need to come in and stabilize, put Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into conservatorship, these two huge financial institutions. And Sarah Palin immediately got to the point and asked what was going to happen to the CEOs. Were we going to replace them? Were they going to get golden parachutes? What was going to happen with the compensation?
So the only thing, the comment that I made really had to do with, she started calling me Hank right away. People know me, I’m the most informal person there is, so everyone at the treasury called me Hank. But I never met her before. I just assumed that that’s what happens on the campaign trail as you’re campaigning, it’s a very nice style.
But it just struck me as being a little bit odd at the moment. But again, as I look back on it right now, she sure had a grasp of where the American public was and what the hot button issues wereompous elitist Hank Paolson said about his meeting with Sarah Palin:
February 20th, 2010 at 6:19 pm
161 CraigS
I agree with you for the obvious,Bill Clinton gave us Dot.Com bubble,George W gave us financial and
housing disaster.
Now,won’t you agree with me that somebody,actually many people,are responsible for this,especially
financial disaster?
Think about this:What kind of corrupt “banana republic” system would allow Bernie Madoff to steal
and rob billions of dollars for over 25 years?For over 25 years!!!
To this day not a single person went in jail for letting the system be so corrupt.
Wall street crooks protect themselves,White House is bought and paid by them.
Sarah Palin is the only Governor that had courage and honesty and backbone to go after corrupt crooks in her
own Republican Party and their crooked friends,Big Oil executives.Many of them are still in prison.
For economy to prosper,for Wall street and Main Street,we need a Presidant who has the character
spine of steel and willpower to clean up Washington and Wall Street swamp.
The ONLY person that I’m sure is capable,willing and very happy to take on corrupt establishment
is Sarah Barracuda.
Mitt Romney is a nice guy,good businessman etc,etc,but he doesn’t have what it takes to pull
this great nation from abyss.
February 20th, 2010 at 7:04 pm
162 Tex, way to dodge. Palin still supported TARP.
February 20th, 2010 at 7:44 pm
For all the anti-Romney folk out there, you better get over something pretty quick — Sarah and Huck are NOT running.
So when there campaigns don’t materialize for you, what then?
There is no perfect candidate – there never is. Whatever failings you see in Romney, his exerience and positive qualities far outweigh what the other two bring to the table.
February 20th, 2010 at 9:04 pm
166. Ok, Dougstradamus.
February 20th, 2010 at 9:27 pm
167 — I like it. Has a sort of omnipresent ring to it. A pointy hat with some stars, a robe and I’m set. ongrats on your Saints by the way, smashing victory. That’s the way we have win in 2010 and 2012.
February 20th, 2010 at 10:41 pm
126. I was born just weeks after Bush I was inaugurated so I’m in the same boat as you. I don’t have some heartwarming story about how I was a Democrat until Reagan and was reborn a conservative, or how he turned the tide after two decades of liberalism… and I feel like that allows us to look at his presidency more objectively.
131. Just because I support hegemony doesn’t make me a neo-con. We could have sustained our empire, if you will, much longer if ideology hadn’t come to dominate our foreign policy. I agree with your assessment of our current situation, but I don’t see how that debunks my history. Hegemons don’t fall arbitrarily, there’s always a reason they go broke and lose their power. A more realist and less idealist foreign policy would have saved us from the Iraq misadventure and its dire implications on our world standing/financial situation. (Of course entitlements are the bigger problem but that’s irrelevant as far as foreign policy is concerned.)
February 22nd, 2010 at 8:53 am
[...] people out there, including Smith, talking about “the New Mitt,” both on the left and within Romney supporters. There is nothing “new” about Mitt or what he is doing. Yes, he is maturing, yes he [...]