![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Maybe that will wake people up a bit...
Latest polls, reported on the news last night, have the "shocking" revelation that Mitt Romney is now tied for the lead in the NH Republican Primary. Granted, he has an edge there (his name recognition is far higher than in most of the country, having been the governor of the bigger state next door), but it does show that the momentum is entirely on his side.
Everyone seems astonished by this, which still confuses the heck out of me. The media have been making him out to be a no-hoper, which is bizarre. They've been making a huge deal about his Mormonism, entirely missing the point that this just emphasizes him as a "person of faith", which nowadays is compelling to much of the country. In general, they've been painting him as a longshot, which never made any sense to me -- I've considered him the likely winner of the primary ever since he threw his hat in the ring.
Mind, I despise the man to the core of my being: I think he's a hypocrite, and a monomaniac even by the standards of politicians. I decided that I disliked him when he destroyed Jane Swift (who I actually thought was a decent governor, brought down by a couple of ordinary rookie-governor mistakes), and I haven't change my mind since. But that doesn't mean I underestimate him.
Mitt Romney is the consummate politician. In particular, he will say and become anything he needs to in order to be elected. He's expert at repainting his image -- as far as I can tell, he isn't anything *but* image. In my eyes, he's the dark shadow of Bill Clinton. I respected Clinton precisely for his ideological flexibility: he listened to the populace, and when they slapped him down he generally changed his stance. But it always felt like he was doing so out of at least a measure of respect for the people. Romney does the same thing, but in a purely self-serving way: he measures what people want out of a candidate, and distorts himself to fit that model.
Honestly, Romney scares the hell out of me. I look at his eyes, and I don't see the slightest genuine compassion or warmth, just calculation of what can be done to advance his own political interests. And when someone like that gets to the top, I don't know what he does next. I'm not sure he knows. Frankly, while I certain that he's smarter than Dubya, I'm not at all sure that he's saner.
So now is the time for image-countering. The correct counter for Romney is "slick Mitt". He has spent decades as nothing but a candidate, using each position carefully calculated as the springboard for the next. In MA, he showed a complete willingness to stab his own constituency in the back if it would advance his personal cause. That needs to be used against him, and that needs to start *now*. Otherwise, if he's allowed to continue controlling his own image through the primaries, I currently give him better than even odds of winding up in the White House...
Everyone seems astonished by this, which still confuses the heck out of me. The media have been making him out to be a no-hoper, which is bizarre. They've been making a huge deal about his Mormonism, entirely missing the point that this just emphasizes him as a "person of faith", which nowadays is compelling to much of the country. In general, they've been painting him as a longshot, which never made any sense to me -- I've considered him the likely winner of the primary ever since he threw his hat in the ring.
Mind, I despise the man to the core of my being: I think he's a hypocrite, and a monomaniac even by the standards of politicians. I decided that I disliked him when he destroyed Jane Swift (who I actually thought was a decent governor, brought down by a couple of ordinary rookie-governor mistakes), and I haven't change my mind since. But that doesn't mean I underestimate him.
Mitt Romney is the consummate politician. In particular, he will say and become anything he needs to in order to be elected. He's expert at repainting his image -- as far as I can tell, he isn't anything *but* image. In my eyes, he's the dark shadow of Bill Clinton. I respected Clinton precisely for his ideological flexibility: he listened to the populace, and when they slapped him down he generally changed his stance. But it always felt like he was doing so out of at least a measure of respect for the people. Romney does the same thing, but in a purely self-serving way: he measures what people want out of a candidate, and distorts himself to fit that model.
Honestly, Romney scares the hell out of me. I look at his eyes, and I don't see the slightest genuine compassion or warmth, just calculation of what can be done to advance his own political interests. And when someone like that gets to the top, I don't know what he does next. I'm not sure he knows. Frankly, while I certain that he's smarter than Dubya, I'm not at all sure that he's saner.
So now is the time for image-countering. The correct counter for Romney is "slick Mitt". He has spent decades as nothing but a candidate, using each position carefully calculated as the springboard for the next. In MA, he showed a complete willingness to stab his own constituency in the back if it would advance his personal cause. That needs to be used against him, and that needs to start *now*. Otherwise, if he's allowed to continue controlling his own image through the primaries, I currently give him better than even odds of winding up in the White House...
no subject
on teh other hand he got rid of bilingual education which in my book is a huge plus for him...
the problem is that the Republican runners mostly suck and blow. Rudy maybe, but really the rest suck. and the Dems are jsut worse. ugh.
no subject
no subject
What I don't know is why he's running, other than for the fun of living in the White House. Due to his slippery changes of agenda, it's hard to know what his policies would be, other than helping the rich. I believe that George W ran in order to invade Iraq (really), but I can't guess about Romney.
no subject
I don't think he *has* an agenda. When I call Romney a monomaniac, I mean that quite sincerely -- as far as I can tell, almost everything he's done in the past decade has been solely for the purpose of putting him on a track for the White House. I *think* that's simply due to a sense of personal entitlement (he's just as much a child of politics as Dubya is), but it's hard to be sure. And that *does* scare me, quite a bit...
no subject
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/06/us/politics/06romney.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
re: a couple of ordinary rookie-governor mistakes
Re: a couple of ordinary rookie-governor mistakes
Re: a couple of ordinary rookie-governor mistakes
Her actions, however, belied that understanding. Many of us move our homes (or take supplemental lodging) for our jobs, rather than be chauferred back and forth by state police. And when that didn't happen fast enough, a chopper ride would get her home faster - but the rest of us don't have that option. *We* move closer to our job, or wait out the time in traffic, especially at a time when such jobs were in scarce supply.
Some of us have paid upwards of $20,000 (or more!) per year in childcare expenses, something for which many sacrifices need to be made on a family level. We don't have the opportunity to bring our child to work and have our aides watch the kid. Some might call these rookie mistakes; I'd say that they were made by someone who at the very least had problems managing her image (and potentially, given her reaction to the uproar, didn't care). These all came out when they happened, well before any election campaign in which they were reiterated.
People got on Deval Patrick's case for getting an Escalade, but when comparing $70k to chaufer's fees for 6 hours or driving a day, plus the cost of outfitting her van as a mobile office.
Re: smear campaign
no subject
That said, I'm not sure, either, what Romney would do as President. At worst, he'd be a politer fascist than Giuliani.
no subject
But he can fund-raise like a S.O.B., and that money can make him quite the power-broker. He is currently singing the song most beloved by the big donors to the Republican party. And telling them that he views "Jesus Christ as my personal savior", which is quite the New Righteous message.
But his Jesus Christ is a separate being from God, and lives on another planet. :-) There are many fundamental differences between the Mormons and the ordinary Christian faithful. And, if one studies the Mormon War, and some of the doctrines of the time - it is easy to be concerned, specifically, about the beliefs of a Mormon President of the United States.
There are some fascinating YouTube videos that show him flip flopping, loudly, on various positions. He can't survive that.
Look for VeepRomney, or Secretary of State Romney. But not President Romney, is my bet.
(And I sure hope I'm right.)
no subject
From the Republican faithful's POV, all of the candidates are damaged goods, and Romney at least *looks* a lot like what they want, if you don't look too closely. He is by far the *smoothest* of the Republican candidates, and that appeals to many people. While his religion is an issue, he does a very good job of presenting himself as *culturally* a good Christian, and frankly, I think that matters a lot more to most of the religious right than theology does. And we're talking about the past master of the stab in the back -- he *will* fight dirty, while appearing to be floating above the fray, based on his record.
I'm by no means sure that he'll win: he's vulnerable in lots of ways. But the only way I see him losing is if people begin to actually leverage his weaknesses carefully. So far, all I see is lots of people talking about how he can't possibly win, while his standings in the polls continue to skyrocket...
no subject
It's a year and a half to the election. There are 3 unsatisfactory candidates... but there is plenty of opportunity for more to run. Just a quick scan of the sources show that Brownback, Huckabee, Thompson (T) and Thompson (F) - and Gingrich.
no subject
The only problem there is that, in a race that is expected to cost over 2 billion dollars between all the various candidates, it's already quite late for someone to enter the fund-raising race. If only one of that list enters, *and* he does a good job of connecting with the Religious Right and convincing them that he's their man, *and* he mounts a powerful fundraising campaign from the get-go, then he's got a good shot at taking it.
It's not going to be easy, though. The fact is, the calendar this time has shifted significantly -- it's only ten months to the important primary day (with so much now riding on next February), and that's not long when you have to raise at least a hundred million dollars to be considered competitive. Ordinarily, I wouldn't give them much of a chance, especially since most of them are hardcore conservative enough that their chances in the general election are mediocre. But with such weakness among the leaders of the Republican field, it could certainly happen.
My money's still on Romney vs. Obama as the final candidates -- that's where the momentum is, and while each has problems, each is better at *inspiring* their respective parties than their current competitors are. Time magazine did a fascinating analysis recently, that the parties are really looking for the spiritual heirs of Ronald Reagan and Bobby Kennedy: I think that's very insightful, and Romney/Obama are the best matches for that. But that's only about even odds in each case, and there's still lots of time for things to shift...
no subject
That's why I referred to V.P. Romney. He can buy that kind of access.
It is interesting that, for the first time in my memory, we have zero "designated inheritors" for either party.
no subject
Yaas. The result is that *both* parties have a mad scramble among many candidates, instead of just one doing so as usual. That does make the whole equation very unpredictable...
no subject
Classically, there has been very strong antipathy between those groups, and the LDS church - and the LDS church returned it. Search some of the old Usenet discussions of "Is the Mormon Church truly Christian" and see.
Since many of the political church groups have, essentially, turned their backs on much of the basic Christian preaching.... (Seriously: compare what you know of the Gospels, with the Republican and Democratic practices and platforms. Which would Jesus most likely prefer?)
Endorsement of Romney by these groups would require a great deal of philosophical flexibility. But it will matter greatly to his chances.
no subject
But I honestly doubt we're going to see any major ones *opposing* him publically on the basis. Ecumenicalism is the order of the day: far as I can tell, most churches are far more scared of atheism than they are of heresy at the moment. I'm certain that Romney's Mormonism will get him some outspoken religious opponents, but I think they're going to be at the fringes rather than the core of the Religious Right; if so, they probably won't do him too much damage. What I'm less sure about is how many will be willing to back him, especially in the South.
I'm sure that most of the church groups would *much* rather see a mainstream Christian conservative like Brownback or Thompson enter the race -- someone who they could back wholeheartedly. If that happens, Romney's support among them is likely to evaporate. If not, it's hard to say with confidence how it plays out between what they will see as the Libertine (Giuliani), the Flip-flopper (McCain) and the Heretic (Romney)...
no subject
no subject
The same site strongly critized the language of the Zogby poll that was used. The American Assocation for Public Opinion Research said:I've read the source site for years, and there is often learned commentary on various weaknesses in Zogby polls. They aren't malevolent - just willing to let the payor of the bill set the tone.
Judicial Watch is a conservative non-profit. While it nominally looks for government corruption issues, in practice it has focused on non-conservative officials.