Spare Me The Mitt-spittle, Please

In reading around the blogosphere, I see there are many wonderful sentiments being posted about Mitt Romney. I was in the hall today when he delivered a genuinely terrific speech, perhaps the best of his campaign. Clearly he "gets" conservatism, if his words are to be believed. I liked Romney months ago, before it was fashionable. My Brother is a big fan. My suspicions are that he is a fine man and incredibly capable executive. Whether he would have made a good POTUS, or not? I've never been sure because of his hyper-focus on details and data. A president has to be able to see the forest, not just the trees. But given the field this year, I was convinced he was by far the best of the lot.

Some talk radio types took heat for coming on board too late. Sometime back, I sensed the same frustration among them, that Mitt was kindling in me. I can recall Limbaugh saying weeks ago, "You can't drag any candidate across the finish line, they have to do it for themselves."

I'm not piling on Mitt here. I don't feel any sour grapes. And I think he's probably a hell of a guy and know he's a highly accomplished man. But Mitt Romney has no one to blame for his failure, but himself. But he shouldn't feel bad about that. I honestly think he gave it his all. As I told someone at CPAC today, watching Mitt campaign was like watching a white man dance.

McCain crashed in the summer, perhaps Fred froze - and then froze the race. Rudy spent a ton of money in the early states, but he never tracked. Governor Romney should have owned Iowa. He should have owned New Hampshire, too. They sat out there for the taking, but it simply was not to be.

My brother asked me a month ago, what's going on with Mitt? I don't know, I told him. But something's wrong. He just doesn't seem to resonate with voters. His numbers in Iowa and NH are soft. And it shouldn't be the case.

Understand what I'm saying. I don't mean to be cruel to Mitt. I am not even retracting my now irrelevant endorsement. Were he still in, I'd be backing him all the way. But the man was clearly not a politician - that could be a good thing, you know. He never went for the jugular in a debate. Though, we must all acknowledge he let his negative attack ads and gotchas get out of hand at one point. He ran something of a detached, or aloof campaign. Those issues are likely a part of what kept some voters from bonding with his candidacy. Whatever the reason, not enough of them ever did. Maybe he changes in four years, comes back more seasoned, more politically skilled, if such instincts can be honed.

But, ultimately, the sad fact about Mitt is that, he didn't stir up so much emotion in many these last couple weeks because of who he is. He did that because of who he ain't - John McCain.

I'm genuinely disappointed that Mitt dropped out. But what really makes me sad is not that he had to lose this year. It's now that someone else had to win. Maybe some few top Right-side pols sat this one out, looking into what appears to be a buzz-saw run by Democrats this year, maybe not. But we have to admit, this was the weakest field of Republican candidates we've seen in some time. And Mitt's leaving didn't make it better, it only made it worse.

Finally, congratulations to Senator McCain, who I also heard speak today. Someone had to back into the nomination this year. In the end, maybe it's a blessing that it didn't happen to a nicer, more qualified, guy. He'll still be viable in 2012.

And why the hell is Huckabee still in this thing? Geesh! Would someone please give him a call? The man gives viable a bad name outside of the deep South.

Comments

[elixelx]

"All things are known, and yet Free Will is given" (Rabbi Akiva)

If ever I saw a great event in which the Free Will of people, expressed as votes, were cast in order to further the inevitable, THIS IS IT!

John McCain's chorus is somehow bigger than the single voices singing in it.

[docweasel]

"if his 'words' are to be believed"

That's the operative thing, isn't it? He was the governor of the most liberal state in the country, enacted socialist medical policies, backed abortion and gay marriage (not that I disagree with his stands, at least back then) and has a politically convenient conversion to conservatism and is very slickly packaged and financed and well-able to convince some of you he "gets" conservatism.

Why don't I ever get easy audiences like you guys?

[docweasel]

oh, and forgot, claimed to back Martin Luther King's march for civil rights 18 years before the church of which his father and grandfather were in the very highest levels of control allowed a black man to be admitted to the temple or be ordained.

Gotta love Mitt, he does have the balls to just brazen out these major contradictions. That's why you guys get accused of simply being deranged against McCain, because you throw away all rationality and logic to back Romney, mostly because he isn't McCain and he says all the right things to you.

According to some "players" I know (I wouldn't know personally) flattering, pretending to care about her opinions and agreeing with everything she says is a great way to lull a girl into submission before you give her a royal fucking, then proceed to ignore her calls. Romney would have made a great player, I have a feeling.

[Bill Mitchell]

Romney for VP: Pluses and Minuses
I have been sitting here pondering the possibility that John McCain could tap Romney to be his VP. There are obvious pluses and minuses to each man in this. Let's discuss them:

PLUSES:
1. Gravitas - McCain is strong on Defense, International Relations and How Washington Works. Romney is strong on Economics and understanding How Business Works.
2. Experience - McCain/Romney's Experience - Together, these men make Hillary or Obama look like the neophytes they are. Considering that America has not elected anyone but a Governor or Former VP for 40 years, EXPERIENCE does count in the end.
3. Money - Romney can raise money and McCain needs it badly.
4. The Base - Many within the Conservative base that will NEVER vote for McCain (myself included) would vote for a McCain/Romney ticket.
5. Winning Ticket - With McCain appealing to Indepedents and Romney appealing to Conservatives, this ticket might actually stand a chance.
6. Age Argument - Having Romney onboard helps to calm the MSM frenzy on the "McCain is too old" meme.
7. Temperment - Having Romney onboard also helps to balance McCain's temperment.

MINUSES:
1. Bad Blood - Oh well, Reagan/Bush weren't lovers either. That's politics.
2. Who Delivers the South? - This may be the biggest problem of all. Without the South, a Republican ticket cannot win. Will Southerners ever vote en masse for a Mormon? Well, maybe with the combination of McCain and Romney, they would. Huck won the South, but he didn't win with a majority anywhere.
3. Ticket on the Titanic - By allying himself with McCain would Romney be buying himself a ticket on a doomed ship and thus hurt his chances for 2012?

[Dan Riehl]

I think Mitt would be a great choice - not sure if he did a deal, maybe to be on the short list.

[Fred Beloit]

doc, one supposes you feel celebratory. Fine, enjoy. But don't forget the spectacle you have made of your religious bigotry.

[docweasel]

Why is it bigotry to point out the well-documented fact that prior to 1978, Mormons did not allow blacks to become Members of the Temple, nor could they be ordained as priests. Romney's father and grandfather were powerful elders in the LDS. Romney trotted out the brag that his dad marched with MLK (apparently he marched at the same time but not actually with him, a hair splitter that was made worse in fact Romney claimed to have "seen" his father march with King).

Now you don't see a little bit of a paradox there? Hey, we will march for you to get equal civil rights, but we don't want you in our church.

He marched in '62. Blacks were granted equality in the LDS in '78.

This makes me a religious bigot for mentioning? What the hell does screening your church members by skin color make you?

[Peg C.]

I think I'm doomed because I now prefer non-politicians to politicians for any- and everything including president. I just despise pols. This is not a winning strategy. ;-)

Secondly I am truly shocked and I don't mean this sarcastically, by the racism in the Democrats and the religious bigotry in the Republicans. This is repugnant on both sides.

[Fred Beloit]

"Why is it bigotry to point out the well-documented fact that prior to 1978,..."

"Blacks were granted equality in the LDS in '78."

For Christ's sake, doc, that was 30 years ago. And you are pointing it out now? Why, are you an historian of religions?

[seekeronos]

"--- Why don't I ever get easy audiences like you guys? ---"

Because you have closed your blog's comments, and I'm too lazy to register with a forum :P

[seekeronos]

(my last comment was for doc weasel)

[seekeronos]

For Bill Mitchell:

(as a former airman, I gotta respect your chouce of handles :)

Erm, oh yeah -

- I'd support a McCain/Romney ticket... but I your minus points (2) and (3) would be very good reason for Mitt to take a pass and wait for 2012.

The voter-rich South is the key GOP constituency, along with the more sparsely populated "flyover" country. That's why McCain really needs to tap a hard conservative Southerner (i.e. NOT Huckabuck) with excellent bonfides to recapture the base.

[mike]

I have to disagree that Mitt looked like a white man dancing. This is a filtered statement. I was part of his campaign and saw him talk often, in person. His CPAC speech was not much different then his other stellar speeches on global jihad, taxes and social issues. What you are commenting on is the prism through which Mitt was projected by the media. Why did Mitt do so well in Caucus states? Because those going to caucus most likely had had contact, direct contact with him. I've said this for 2 years now...if you could just listen to him speak, in person, he would have converts by the thousands to his campaign.

His CPAC speech moved a number of people in my office and left them wondering why he wasn't the nominee. I personally feel that Mitt needs time to increase his conservative bonafides across the country. He is a major part of the GOP, he spoke at the convention in 2004, he'll speak there in 2008 and he'll have something to say about the next president and his or her comportment over these next few years. Mitt will be well positioned for a run in 2012 and I will be right there supporting him.

[Dan Riehl]

Mike - I don't disagree with what you said - and I'd readily consider supporting him in 2012. So don't get me wrong. For better or worse, it is the media narrative that influences most voters. I was in the room at CPAC - I agree with what you said. Why he didn't succeed may be debateable. But all I can do is give one person's impressions.

[serfer62]

I heard some southern baptist on Rush saying how no baptist would vote for a god-fearing Mormon...gee after so many decades the KKK changed from white robes to halos

Gov Romney is a good man...MacAss isn't...

[seekeronos]

Gahh. Some "Baptists" need to get their nose back into the Bible to look at Matthew 7:1-2 ... while the Mormon arguably needs to come to Jesus, the Baptist forgets that he too, is but a sinner saved by grace.

[docweasel]

Its fair game because he brought up the fact of how supportive of civil rights and equality he was. So its fair to bringup the fact that during the period of tims HE's dragging up he, his father and his grandfather were dynastic members of the LDS leadership.

Also, in 1978 Mitt was 31. He should have to answer for it. He was a LEADER in a church that discriminated against blacks. We've heard plenty about Robert Byrd being in the KKK back in the FIFTIES, and he was a very minor member, he was not a grand Kleagle in charge of changing policy. If Mitt wants to make points on how supportive of blacks they are, he should have to answer: did he support the actions of his church? did he actively work to change policy? Mormons believe in the infallibility of The Prophet: was he wrong in implementing the policy of excluding blacks?

These are fair questions of a guy who wants to be president of the US, with a large percentage of blacks. He owes an accounting of his actions and the discrimination his RELIGION practiced.

Jesus, there is a huge outcry when a guy hss been the member of a COUNTRY CLUB that excludes blacks. A religion? That's really egregious. He never faced up to it.

Also: Mormons teach a very hostile, offensive doctrine about other Protestant religions (as well as Cahtolics and Jews). This is not bigotry on my account, its a fact, look it up. They believe protestant sects and catholicism not just wrong-headed, buti an abomination, run by Satan and an absolute evil. Its little wonder the South overwhelmingly rejected him (he came in 3rd in every state in the South, with Huckabee voters indicating McCain as 2nd choice). You can ignore these facts, wish them away or call us all bigots. Look at the Super Tuesday results: Mitt Romney has no future as a national politician, not with the money he spent and had nothing to show for but Mass, his Mormon base and Minnesota, Montana and Alaska. You don't win an election with >100 electoral votes.

He never addressed these things, with he and his supporters, like you, instead calling people asking for an explanation anti-Mormon. He reaped the results: the animosity of Evangelicals.

This is why there is ZERO reason to put Mitt on the ticket. He has NO constituency that matters, and he has the animosity of a large, important constituency.

As you doctrinaire conservatives are finding out, that ain't you. McCain has no reason to pick Romney to pacify you guys (many of whom still won't vote for him).

[tally]

if he runs again, he's gotta sound like he did yesterday. he's got to loosen up and be himself (assuming yesterday he was himself).

[docweasel]

Read this, then get back to me on "questioning the execrable parts of Mormonism=bigotry". Hitchens, as usual, is masterful in his dissection of the venality, dishonesty and opportunism of Romney, the plastic conservative.
http://www.slate.com/id/2178568/
All you guys seem to have forgotten about "Flip Flop Mitt" and his "evolving" opinions on social matters.

[seekeronos]

I'm not buying it.

Mitt is a mormon, and the LDS church has had its issues in the past.

But I really do not believe that the average man on the street really knows (or cares) about the LDS church's dirty laundry.

Any more than we are willing to pillory Catholics for what the RC church has done through the ages.

There is no "perfect church", even among faithful Bible believing Christians... at least not as long as we are constrained by this carnal fleshly body of sin.

But we'll strive toward the high calling of Christ in God to do right by our God as He leads us.

[Mick Stockinger]

I just don't get these attacks on Romney for the fact that his church changed a racist policy. The fools act like the only racists there ever were in this country were Mormons. Nobody ever mentions that the Southern Baptist Convention only embraced desegregation and the demise of Jim Crow in the 1970s.

When I read crap like this I think to myself, "is this person a bigot or simply stupid?" I can never tell which or whether both apply.

[tally]

however, blacks have been baptists for over two hundred years at least.

[docweasel]

Yeah, but first off, not that any candidate IS Catholic, but those excesses were long before any of us were born, and mostly when the CHurch was a POLIICAL establishment, involved in Europe's many royal intrigues.

The Mormon question about discriminating about blacks went on until Mitt was THIRTY ONE YEARS OLD, he, his father and his grandfather were all in the LDS's highest echelon. Now give me a break, Robert Byrd has been pilloried for being a rank and file member of the KKK back in the FIFTIES for cripe's sake, which he has rightfully had to disavow and apologize for. Romney has never addressed his church's racist past, and racist theology it STILL teaches. Also, as far as we know neither Romney nor his sainted father who supposedly suppported MLK did anything to end that discrimination: if they did, Mittens sure hasn't brought it up.

No, Mormon are not the only racists (that we should excuse them because "everyone did it as some time or other" is asinine on its face) but they are RECENT ones, the only religion I know of that as part of its main testament, the BOOK OF MORMON, teaches, codifies and preaches racism. And, they discriminated against blacks joining their Temple.

We've heard a lot of people excoriated for joining whites only COUNTRY CLUBS. This is 100x worse, plu the fact Mittens was in the LDS LEADERHIP.

Its hard to believe you morons would be so in the bag for Romney you would excuse this kind of very egregious situation. And that's not even addressing the fact that Mormons are VERY insulting, slanderous and hate filled agsinst all Protestant sects, Judaism and Catholicism. And Romney reaped that whirlwind in the South. All you "Romney in '12" dreamer, dream on. He better address this crap or he'll never win in the South.

That is probably the MAIN reason he placed a distant 3rd, with McCain as an overwhelming number of Huckabee voters, in every Southern Super Tuesday state, as well as losing FL the weeks before. Romney can spend 100 mil of his own money in '12 or '16 - it will be the same result. Plus, since there is zero reason to put him on the ticket, if McCain wins Romney will have to deal not only with the REpublican VP presumably running, he would have to deal with 12-16 years of a Republican presidency.

Even IF he repudiates his cult' disgusting racist past and intolerant present, he isn't going to be president in this lifetime. Thank God.

[Fred Beloit]

Nice long comment. Thanks for helping me prove my point, doc.