Defending Mitt

In the interests of bipartisan comity, let me say that I disagree with those who think "a vote for Romney is a vote for Satan." Romney is not Satan. He's a former businessman and a competent manager with a bit of a taste for political opportunism. I have some bad things to say about the man, but he's not Satan or even in league with Satan and to say otherwise is unfair.

I think it's too bad that this Mormon business will almost certainly sink Romney's campaign (this probably won't help either) since my guess is that he'd be a better president than the other leading GOP contenders. (Link via Chris Orr).

Comments

This is because of the cocktail party yesterday, isn't it? Sheesh.

Posted by sangfroid826 | May 11, 2007 6:52 PM

My initial tendency is to agree with Matt, but I don't want to prejudge.

Posted by Steve | May 11, 2007 6:54 PM

but he's not Satan or even in league with Satan

So sayeth the unbeliever! You lack credibility on this matter, heathen. I'm with Steve--let's wait for all of the evidence to come out before we make sweeping judgments.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | May 11, 2007 7:22 PM

he's not . . . in league with Satan.

Matt, you forgot to source this. Is that from one of Satan's official representatives, or one of those anonymous senior officials?

Posted by David Tomlin | May 11, 2007 7:29 PM

I feel an Onion piece coming on.

'Satan, Romney, both deny links.'

Posted by David Tomlin | May 11, 2007 7:33 PM

David Tomlin -

Onion article? Hell, it'll probably be a question in the next debate:

"Governor Romney - how long have you been a minion of Satan?"

Posted by NonyNony | May 11, 2007 7:37 PM

Fool Matt once, shame on you. Fool Matt twice, shame on him.

Posted by neil | May 11, 2007 7:58 PM

The penultimate sentence of that WND article is the ultimate in awesome.

Posted by Jim Henley | May 11, 2007 8:30 PM

1. If we venture an opinion "in the interest of bipartisan committee", shouldn't we check fist what this the opinion on GOP side? Otherwise, the opinion that Romney is not a Satan's legate on Earth could increase, rather than decrease.

2. Romney has a BIT OF TASTE for political opportunism? It is like Cheney has a bit of taste for killing harmless birds. Rabbit and varmint hunter, if you will.

Posted by piotr | May 11, 2007 9:04 PM

He did speak at Pat Robertson U. I'm not qualified to say that's evil, but it's definitely not unevil. Wait 'til he gets rolling. We see a whole bunch more not unevil.

Posted by ed | May 11, 2007 10:13 PM

I write as a progressive Dem who has run campaigns and who has continually made pretty good judgments about voter behavior. My view is that our side is way underestimating Romney. I think he is going to be a formidable candidate who is very appealing to large numbers of ordinary voters--not the people reading this, but less involved voters who make up the bulk of the electorate.

Posted by z | May 11, 2007 10:32 PM

Matt, what you are missing is that Satan's # 1 tool is...deception! Mitt starts out with good hair and teeth, nice wive and kids, impressive business background, then - it turns out he is Satan! Everything you hoped would be good about him - rationality, management skills, paying attention to important issues - all turn out to come so far down his list that they are not visible to the naked eye. Then, right while you are watching, he turns into a grotesque caricature of the most hideous 'winger you have ever seen. It is truly frightening.

Yet, he keeps on smiling and talking. This is why Cheney can't be Satan - it is too obvious.

decayb from Mass.

Posted by decayb | May 11, 2007 10:52 PM

Not Pol Pott to be sure - what a defense! He's a competent manager! What the hell does that mean?

What can one actually say good about Romney? The Salt Lake Olympics? He hasn't done jack for Mass so please do tell.

Posted by berger | May 11, 2007 10:55 PM

My pro football team just drafted a Mormon quarterback. So I have to find a new pro football team to root for.

Posted by dj moonbat | May 11, 2007 11:07 PM

dj moonbat,

Since you are now a former Dolphins fan, may I recommend the Redskins for your future fandom?

Posted by Brian | May 12, 2007 12:20 AM

I forgot to mention the most important part:

Washington Redskins. Mormon free!

Posted by Brian | May 12, 2007 12:21 AM

Since you are now a former Dolphins fan, may I recommend the Redskins for your future fandom?

Well, since they are now more-or-less 'Canes North, and I now live in a megalopolis without a team to call its own, I could probably be convinced...

Posted by dj moonbat | May 12, 2007 12:33 AM

I'M, CURENT LY DRUNK, SO THAT'S WHY THE ALLCAPS. BUT. ROMENY MATT?!!! COME ON? THE GUY IS A DOCUMENTED WEASLE. THERE IS NO PREDICITING. A WEASLE WILL WEASLE THE WAY THE WIND BLOWS. THE PROBLEM IS YOU NEVER KNOW HWITCH WAY THE WIND BLOWS OR WHICH WAY THE WEASLE (IN HIS POLITICAL COCOON ALA SENIOR BUSH) WILL THINK THE WIND IS BLOWING. MUCH BETTER TO HAVE A GOOD IDEA WHAT THE POLITICIAL WILL DO IN THE FUTURE.

AND DO WE REALLY WANT A WEASLE FOR PRESIDENT OF OUR COUNTRY? I'M SERIOUS. THIS GUY (OR GAL) REPRESENTS US. OTHER COUNTRIES JUDGE US BY OR PRESIDENT. I WOULD LIKE TO GO TO FRANCE WITHOUT A BUNCH OFF SNICKERING.

QUESTION: WHY DO YOU NOT SEE MORE DRUNK COMMENTERS? COMMENTS SECTIONS SEEM TO BE UNDERUTILZED BY DRUNKARDS WHO ARE NOTRIOUS FOR HAVING COMMENTS TO MAKE.

I POST WITHOUT EDITING.

Posted by cw | May 12, 2007 1:07 AM

AMEN, cw. hic'

Posted by anotherdrunkasshole | May 12, 2007 1:34 AM

Gotta give a guy props for admitting off the bat he's drunk. Coming from Mass, I wouldn't want another 4-8 years of living under Romney, but I would rather have that that living under Senile McSurge or Professor Ferret. Out of the big three, the guy wearing the magic underwear creeps me out the least.

Posted by Reality Man | May 12, 2007 3:17 AM

How big is Bill Keller in the Evangelical world ?

I've never heard of him.

Posted by David | May 12, 2007 3:50 AM

Like Steve Martin once said, comity is not pretty!

Posted by joejoejoe | May 12, 2007 6:30 AM

While this guys opinion was a bit over the top. He's right, Romney ain't a Christian. He's a mormon... there is a difference.

-TP

Posted by The populist | May 12, 2007 6:31 AM

Was he always so dumb? That's the question I ask. Mitt has many of the pluses Bush has and fewer minuses. Still he's a sort of loose cannon and the GOP won't settle for that.

No, the guy who is going to be it is Thompson, the Law and Order one. From his minor but on point work in the Clinton wars to his appearance at the Libby trial with Victoria Toensing at his side Freddy has all the marking of a made man. The real beauty part is he plays good leader on teevee. All presidents in the future will be popular culture celebrities or the people who employ them I predict.

The only problem with that being that I can't correctly predict anything. Well I did predict in june 02 that Iraq would be the worst place in the world to be.

Posted by rapier | May 12, 2007 7:32 AM

Dear Matt: If you thought Reagan or the current Bush were lazy presidents, wait until Romney. As a resident of MAssachusetts, I can safely say he did doodley-squat here in four years. Pleasant guy to watch an NBA with (I haveO, not a dope, but there really doesn't seem to be anything he wants with jobs except have them.

Posted by JMG | May 12, 2007 7:50 AM

Maybe a vote for Romney is a vote for Satan in the sense that Romney will split the anti-Satan vote, raising the chance of a victorious Satanic plurality.

Posted by otto | May 12, 2007 9:05 AM

Call me a nitpicker, but if Mitt doesn't really believe in God, how can he be Satan? Can't have one without the other, can you? I'm beginning to suspect this Keller guy is not that much of theologian.

Posted by The Next to Last Pope | May 12, 2007 9:51 AM

In defense of Joseph Smith

While fooling around the internets reading stuff about Django, I discovered that there's a mitochondrial group that occurs fairly heavily among Algonquin Indians and with similar frequency among the Druze around Lebanon and with scant frequency among other groups. And that distribution along the expected geographic pathways -- eastward from Siberia -- doesn't look likely. It's been suggested that this group, bearing Clovis technology, migrated 12000 years or so ago WEST from Europe to North America along routes similar to the Vikings 11000 years later, bringing Clovis technology with them. There are difficulties, of course, but one of the traditionally wowzer (apologies to Mormons reading this) beliefs of Joseph Smith is that Indians are the lost tribes of Israel. It would be nice to think that he looked at the Indians of the North East and saw in them a resemblance to the ancient peoples of the Eastern Mediterranean.

Here endeth todays lesson: don't go mucking about following too many hyperlinks.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | May 12, 2007 10:22 AM

We're falling down on the job of propogating the "Three Stooges" meme for the Big Three GOP candidates. One reason is we haven't figured out which is which. I nominate Mitt as Larry (the hair), Rudy as Moe (he's mean), and McCain as Curly (he's goofy).
Any other nominations? Let's get them out of the way, vote, and start referring to them constantly as the Three Stooges.

Posted by CJColucci | May 12, 2007 11:27 AM

Say what you will about that Bill Keller guy, but he's just acting like he actually believes what many Christians claim to believe.

Posted by Bryan | May 12, 2007 1:01 PM

I have to admit, I had no idea that alcohol made you type in all caps. And I have, um, a fair amount of the experience with the stuff..

Posted by lemuel pitkin | May 12, 2007 1:58 PM

since my guess is that he'd be a better president than the other leading GOP contenders.

That's what I thought, too, until I started listening to what the man was saying. Unlike our current president, Mitt has no problem declaring that we're in a War against Radical Islam, publicly embraces surveillance on all mosques, and barely hides his intention to attack Iran.

Of course, he agrees with Bush's policies on Iraq, torture, civil rights, and domestic surveillance and thinks the problem with our military is that we haven't spent nearly enough on it yet.

Posted by Mike | May 12, 2007 11:59 PM