SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home In Defense Of Romney, Sort Of

THE PLANK JUNE 7, 2007

In Defense Of Romney, Sort Of

BY TNR STAFF

Josh Marshall has a take on the GOP field that, atypically, I find to be the complete opposite of mine. He writes, first, that the current field looks "feeble, dispirited and generally languid."

Really? Two of the leading candidates, Rudy Giuliani and John McCain, do far better than a generic Republican in trial heats. While polls show that the public strongly prefers a Democratic president in 2008, those two consistently hold their own. That's the definition of a strong candidate, to me.

Next Josh writes about his strong aversion to Mitt Romney. He writes of Romney's phoniness and "the terror of a Romney presidency." To me, Romney's phoniness is exactly why I'm not terrified of the prospect of him as president. I see him as a competent, moderate-minded manager who has decided his only chance of being elected is to masquerade as a whacko.

And Josh details his visceral aversion to Romney, "I feel it to an extent with Bush, though nothing like I do with Romney." Wow, hating Romney more than Bush? There are plenty of people I hate more than Bush, but most of them are mass murders. Romney certainly doesn't qualify.

--Jonathan Chait

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 16 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

16 comments

I see him as a competent, moderate-minded manager This is what I thought about Bush in 2000. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, the world dies.

- ratnerstar

June 7, 2007 at 6:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ratnerstar, I think you make a good point, but at the same time Bush is a very peculiar case, and despite Romney's contrived political being, he does have a history of competence and seriousness. When he finally gets the nomination/Presidency he would be more free to be the Rockefeller Republican he supposedly is. I'd be far worried that the "Manhattan Mussolini" (Giuliani, in Andrew Sullivan's nifty term) winning. Though, that pre-supposes that Giuliani will actually follow through on his wacky notions on foreign policy, rather than take a more serious, technocratic apprach. Also, Bush's preposterous rule was aided by the GOP Congress, which isn't all that likely under a Romney/Giuliani or McCain.

- hustveit

June 7, 2007 at 7:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

On Romney, I agree more with Chait (seeing it as a travesty that Romney just can't be the moderate Governor of a blue-state he seemingly is), but Marshall has a good point when you consider how terrible Romney is behaving towards his former voters. Romney manouvering as best he can in a far-right party is one thing, the non-classy way he's doing it by is another. So both Chait and Marshall are right, I feel.

- hustveit

June 7, 2007 at 7:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Actually, I agree hustveit. Romney is I'm sure much more competent than Bush and I agree he'd be better than Giuliani (although I'd prefer McCain to either). I was mostly joking, but it's going to take a lot to get me to vote for any Republican these days.

- ratnerstar

June 7, 2007 at 7:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

On the thinness of the bench, I think Chait's right. The GOP has strong candidates, I would rate four _Giuliani, McCain, Romney and Huckabee_ as being reasonably strong candidates in the field. The field in 1996 and 2000 were far more shallow and nondescript (from Arlen Specter and Lamar Alexander in 96, and only McCain and Bush being serious options in 00.) At least this time the GOP has a plausible Mormon running (in 00 Orrin Hatch gave it a shot.) My feeling is that the Republican bench under the Southern Conservative Republican party of the past 25 years has been poor outside of one or two decent candidates each cycle. At least now you have four _five if you include Thompson_ reasonably decent candidates who could plausibly win. (the same is true for the Democrats, I think. Since 1988 _and not counting Clinton 92_ I think every cycle up to this one has been fairly poor.)

- hustveit

June 7, 2007 at 7:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I see him as a competent, moderate-minded manager who has decided his only chance of being elected is to masquerade as a whacko. " Well they sold Bush that way. You can understand why people are freaking out. Also if people prefer a Dem, what kind of Dem do they want, Bill Clinton? Maybe what people really want is the past and that explains the oddball poll results.

- Yminale

June 7, 2007 at 7:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Romney's phoniness is exactly why I'm not terrified of the prospect of him as president. I see him as a competent, moderate-minded manager who has decided his only chance of being elected is to masquerade as a whacko." Wasnt this exactly the argument of those who, back in 2000, argued that Bush wouldnt be all too big a danger..? After all, wasn't it clear that this playboy-turned-politician, this business interests stooge merely masquerading as a sincere religious right-guy, didn't really *believe* in the hardcore stuff - if in anything at all? So no reason to be too afraid - he'd turn out to be more of a pragmatist than we thought? We know how that went. Romney is a man without convictions - and a man without scruples. Witness the "double Guantanomo" type rhetorical excess. He will say anything that's needed to win power, yes - and that is dangerous because it strongly suggests he will also *do* everything that's needed to keep power. Contrast McCain, or even a wingnut like Brownback, with whom it's clear that they have some principles that they will stick by no matter what. Even if doing it is impopular - and specifically, impopular in their own party. When I compare them, I think that the bigger danger is not that a principled President will push through an all too zealotic personal issue - because short of another 9/11 happening, that is likely to hit sufficient resistance in Congress anyway. The bigger danger is that you have an unprincipled President that will go along with whatever populist sound and fury emanates from his party - or is calculated to keep it on board. Drastic example: McCain would try to put a stop to US torture. Brownback would earnestly deliberate who exactly would all deserve to be tortured. Romney, on the other hand, would not care about who was being talked about - he'd simply have as many random people thrown in Guantanamo as were needed to keep the base happy. That's sort of what I'm talking about. If you have a President with some principles of his own that are sometimes mainstream and sometimes in conflict with his party's standards, you can at least expect some to and fro between him and his party, some conflicts - and therewith, balance. If a president's only gut instinct is to do whatever it takes, to say whatever is needed, to keep him and his party united and in power, the risk of executive overreach and DeLay-style machine politics seems much larger.

- jobeek2

June 7, 2007 at 7:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think Yminale is exactly right -- there's a great desire among Dems at least for a Bill Clinton presidency.

- ironyroad

June 8, 2007 at 12:28am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Bush has some things he rebukes his party on. Take immigration.

- guyminuslife

June 8, 2007 at 3:52am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Your post is right on -- Romney is exactly like Bush in 2000, a complete phony. The only difference I would draw is in the intelligence and accomplishment advantages Romney has over the 2000 model Bush. A side thought on Romney -- it would be good to see the GOP nominate a Mormon, or a godless heathen like Giuliani, but I think it will split the party in two if they do. Neil

- purcellneil

June 8, 2007 at 7:53am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Or even more so, an Al Gore presidency.

- hustveit

June 8, 2007 at 9:18am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Romney appeared moderate when it was politically expedient to do so (in Mass. governor role). He appears radically conservative when it's politically expedient to do so (GOP primaries). Why the current version of Romney should be seen as a facade but the previous one is his "true self" isn't clear. As well, I didn't have the impression that his tenure as governor was marked by particular competence. Was it?

- miceelf

June 8, 2007 at 9:19am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I hope the Repubs. nominate Romney, there is a very strong hard core wing of the party that will stay home if he does. While I think it is regrettable the Democrats will win because of prejudice (talk about an ironic twist) I will take that win anytime. Supporting Romney supports the Democrats.

- blackton

June 8, 2007 at 10:31am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

As someone who gags at the thought of a Clinton/Obama/Edwards presidency, I might still stay at home if the phony Romney is nominated. As for Giuliani, if Democrats believe that Bush has eviscerated the Constitution they haven't seen anything yet. Which leaves McCain-and he leaves a lot to be desired, with his campaign finance "reform" baloney-as the only reasonable alternative. That is, of course, if you don't believe that mass deporation of illegal immigrants is desirable policy.

- MUGGER

June 8, 2007 at 3:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Romney certainly doesn't qualify." Yet. Let him "double Gitmo" in those unspecified ways he talks about, and he might end up being just that. I join the group who are uneasy as hell about a man willing to say absolutely ANYTHING to get elected, on the grounds that once he's in he may be willing to do ANYTHING to retain power. (And how much do we know about what Romney's true core beliefs really are, anyway? Is it possible that he's actually been a hard-line rightist from the start, and has been concealing THAT fact until now in order to win in Massachusetts?)

- moomaw1

June 9, 2007 at 3:54am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

At least Romney, slimy as he is, is not a moron who destroyed what little brains he had to begin with, with drugs and alcohol.

- nancyirving

June 10, 2007 at 5:57am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close