My Useless Endorsement

Josh Marshall says Mitt Romney "seems so transparently phoney, so willing to say anything that I find him genuinely frightening. And this is something I don't feel about any of the other credible Republican presidential candidates, though I obviously have criticisms of each." Well, not that the Romney campaign wants to hear it, but though I clearly have no way of saying for sure, I feel pretty strongly that Romney would be a much less pernicious president than either Rudy Giuliani or John McCain.

My sense is that Romney's a phony in the best possible sense -- he wants to do what people want him to do which means, among other things, that he tries to achieve political popularity by delivering generic good government and technocratic competence. Given that he's a Republican, that he has a business background, and that corporate America holds many levers of political power -- in practice he'd probably still do lots of bad stuff. But I doubt he'd go the extra mile of badness or force the issue the way Giuliani or McCain almost certainly will. Romney, in short, seems like he's neither crazy nor a bumbler; just someone whose policy initiatives I'll probably disagree with. That he also seems like the Republican who'd be easiest to beat in the general election (he really does seem fake, which I think will doom him with swing voters who seem to me to prefer authentically nuts) is icing on the cake -- go Mitt!

Comments

Ah the incredible lightness and gullibility of being a liberal.

There is no such animal as a benign Republican. At least I have not seen one ever since I have been following politics here beginning in the early seventies.

I don't blame you. You had to watch the Watergate hearings live.

Posted by gregor | June 8, 2007 11:28 AM

well, i didn't hear matt say "benign". (i didn't even see him misspell it).

i mean, MY did say romney will still do a lot of bad stuff.

just: not as crazy and bloodthirsty as mccain or reichstag rudy.

Posted by Count Cant | June 8, 2007 11:38 AM

My visceral reaction to Romney is also totally different than Marshall's. Maybe I just have a soft spot for hypocrites and phonies. I just believe that, unlike Giulianni and MCain, he can't really believe the crazy stuff he's saying.

He also seems to be on the inside track for the nomination, although Fred Thompson could be a problem. Ultimately, I don't think the Republican base will be able to resist his convenient stands on the issues, when combined with his presidential looks.

Posted by Jim W | June 8, 2007 11:38 AM

On the other hand, there's the possibility that a McCain or Giuliani campaign would be a full-fledged calamity for the Republican party. Romney would probably run a losing campaign, but one that's good enough to add 'unsuccessful campaign for President' to his resume.

Posted by MattF | June 8, 2007 11:41 AM

Something like this exact argument--he's pandering but doesn't really mean it, he'll govern from the comfy middle--was making the round in 1999 by friends and followers of George W. Bush. It made sense back then. Why would such a nice governor want to govern from the hard right?

The problem with Bush, and it seems Romney might fit this bill as well, is that he didn't then (and doesn't now) have any real core principles beyond winning elections. He said what he was told to say, kissed the right rings, and he got to the White House willing and eager to take more orders from the people around him. Without any actual convictions, it was easy for the wackjobs around him to steer his policies towards the rocky shoals we now find ourselves upon.

Romney may be smarter than GWB (he certainly was more successful in business), but everything about him suggests that he'd govern in much the same way as Bush--willing to do whatever the last guy who talks to him says he should. We could trust him to surround himself with competent levelheaded aides, but there's no reason to give him that benefit of the doubt. I think that's what JMM was getting at.

Posted by Ben | June 8, 2007 11:42 AM

Matthew, your endorsement is a null set, if you will.

Jim W, McCain's been leaning on the "I'm not crazy, I'm just lying" defense for several years now... It makes me sick to my stomach. Why don't we all try to support a candidate who is neither crazy nor a liar?

Posted by Chris Conway | June 8, 2007 11:44 AM

I view Romney as being the more dangerous for his pervasive dishonesty. If Romney is willing to SAY and be anything to be elected president, he will be willing to do anything to be re-elected. And all of that means is that Romney would DO anything to pander to his right-wing base.

There's also an issue with the dynamics of lying. One of the interesting things about compulsive liars is that you can see them convincing themselves that their lies are the truth as they're telling them. It's like they would have a higher level of commitment to their lies than they would to the truth.

What makes Romney scary is that he would do anything for political gain. The other guys would just do the things they believe in.

Posted by Ric Caric | June 8, 2007 11:48 AM

Ah, still trying to rationalize that gubernatorial vote Matt?

Posted by Dan Kervick | June 8, 2007 11:53 AM

Someone who is willing to do anything to get reelected is also someone who is unwilling to do anything that will risk his reelection, such as invading another country for dubious reasons.

I think Bush is very different. He's reckless, extremely self-righteous and thin-skinned, and not very bright. For me, that's about as odious a combination of qualities as you can find in a leader. I would say Romney is the opposite in those qualities (well, about the self-righteous part, I don't know).

Unlike Matt, though, I'm not convinced Romney would be the easiest guy for the Democrats to beat.

Posted by Jim W | June 8, 2007 11:57 AM

Something like this exact argument--he's pandering but doesn't really mean it, he'll govern from the comfy middle--was making the round in 1999 by friends and followers of George W. Bush. It made sense back then. Why would such a nice governor want to govern from the hard right?

Well, there are a number of differences. Romney has a pretty left-wing record; Bush didn't. (Sure, Romney has been governor of Massachusetts while Bush came most recently from Texas, but it still makes a bit of difference.) After eight years of Bush, people are wary (relatively.) During Bush's candidacy and most of the first year in office, he enjoyed a frivolous and wingnut-dominated media and a culture where the most important political issue seemed to be WTO rioters. This will not be the case in 2008/2009; people are paying more attention.

All of this, of course, doesn't really matter much; I agree with Matt that Romney only looks good to me because he seems like he would be weak in the general and because the other Republican candidates are true wackos. I'm just saying, those particular warnings about Bush don't apply to Romney any more than to anyone else.

Posted by Cyrus | June 8, 2007 11:59 AM

Dear Matt Y.,
If you have the time and energy to check out and endorse candidates on the GOP side of the aisle, why not take a little cover this substantial and honest speech by a lesser known Dem candidate, Gravel, at Johns Hopkins University:

http://www.gravel2008.us/?q=node/1383

I notice that you frequently cover major policy speeches by the leading three candidates, especially Edwards and Obama. But these fully funded candidates get plenty of substantial coverage from the mainstream media that your readers can other sources, whereas Gravel giving a sober major policy address doesn't fit into the "crazy uncle" narrative that the press is trying to use to box in his candidacy. In addition, this speech will be very easy to cover, because Gravel just tells everything straight up, not using the usual codes and dodges of a politician, that commentators like you normally need to interpret.

I carry no brief for Gravel in particular--I'd be glad to see you extended this practice to all of the non-fully-funded candidates on both sides, Paul, Kucinich, Richardson, etc.. I'm just a regular and appreciative reader of yours who would like to point out a possible avenue with which to further expand the worth of your blog.
Respectfully yours,
heatkernel

Posted by heatkernel | June 8, 2007 12:06 PM

Folks, this is an argument about comparative badness here. Nobody's saying anyone would be good.

Posted by JP | June 8, 2007 12:10 PM

Perhaps the only correct liberal position is that "they're ALL worse than all the others!" Otherwise you lose your netroots street cred.

Posted by JP | June 8, 2007 12:12 PM

Bottom line: Giuliani and McCain have backbone, but deeply wrong-headed ideas about the use of American military power; Romney seems somewhat more moderate, but has no backbone. Do you want the fool who will get duped into starting unnecessary wars, or the fool who wants to start them?

Posted by Chris Conway | June 8, 2007 12:20 PM

I pretty much agree with Matt on Giuliani, but as a usual GOP-leaner, I think I may give McCain a second look. The guy just seems to have character, and he's non-crazy on things like immigration, fiscal policy, and gun control. I know he's an uberhawk, and that is a bit scary. But on the other hand he's actually witnessed the horrors of war in a most upfront and personal way, and that tells me he'd likely be a lot more cautious about sending young Americans to die than the current occupant of the White House, or indeed anybody else running in either party. Plus, he's a genuine hero. That should count for something. If his primary opponents beat him fair and square, well, good enough. And maybe he is too old for the job. But if Republican primary voters don't at least give him a hearing, and brush him off because of his insufficient xenophobia, they really do deserve the drubbing they're likely to get.

Posted by Jasper | June 8, 2007 12:20 PM

Given your history with Romney, I'd expect you not fall for Mitt again. Fool you once....

As you know from 2002, Romney is an incredibly good liar, which is an important political point. People like candidates that seem authentic, which Romney is fully capable of pulling off for the duration of a general election campaign.

Once in office in Massachusetts Romney was perfectly willing to demagogue on social issues, such as gay marriage, as he was on tax cuts. On the campaign trail he seems to be enthusiastically demagoguing on security matters, torture, gitmo, Iran etc. In those cases, especially, being popular and being moderate are not at all the same thing, with his base or the general public.

Posted by AJ | June 8, 2007 12:21 PM

I dunno. I look at Romney and all I can see is the Smiler from Warren Ellis's Transmetropolitan. That sends shudders down my spine.

Of course, that was my reaction to GWB as well. And it proved to actually be that bad.

Posted by NonyNony | June 8, 2007 12:22 PM

I'm not sure where the actual "generic good government and technocratic competence" are supposed to come in.

Romney had a couple of "mini-Katrinas" on his watch as governor of Massachusetts. In particular, the town of Peabody repeatedly flooded after Romney refused to provide funding for flood control there, and part of the ceiling of the "Big Dig" tunnel collapsed on Romney's watch, killing a passenger in a nearby car. One can argue about how much blame if any should be laid at Romney's feet for these events, but there's nothing about them that suggest supercompetent governing skill.

As governor, Romney kept the budget in balance, but mostly through one-time tweaks and gimmicks. He was nothing like John Engler in Michigan, who (like it or not, and you very well may not) really changed that state's tax system and how education was paid for.

On balance, I certainly don't think he was a terrible governor, but if anything his record is significantly less impressive than W.'s record as governor of Texas.

Posted by alkali | June 8, 2007 12:29 PM

I think Matthe feels about Romney the same that we on the right felt about Clinton. A very good liar whose main purpose is to be politically popular.

Posted by Al | June 8, 2007 12:40 PM

Matt's right here, I think. Romney's the worst possible GOP candidate...except for all the others. For what it's worth this far out in the campaign, I think the GOP nomination will come down to Romney and Giuliani, at which point Romney will get the nod for at least giving lip service to the evangelical base on abortion and gay rights. By next year, the Iraq War is going to be too big an albatross for McCain to bear and he'll drift off into oblivion.

Posted by jonas | June 8, 2007 12:46 PM

Romney sounds like a phony compared to... who, exactly? Hillary Clinton donning the vocal equivalent of black face in Selma ("I don't feel no ways tired...")?

Populist trial lawyer John Edwards explaining that he took a $500k part-time job with an offshore hedge fund to give him perspective on poverty?

Barack Obama, raised by a white mom on the mean sands of Waikiki, stoking anti-whitey sentiment at a meeting of black clergymen?

Other than Rudy, Romney is the only leading candidate who's ever successfully run a large organization. As a former CEO of one of the top consulting/I-banking companies, he has more highly competent former colleagues he can draw on for government posts than any other candidate.

Posted by Fred | June 8, 2007 12:48 PM

Fred, as a REPUBLICAN, Romney will have a much SMALLER pool of qualified candidates he can draw on for government posts. He's not interviewing for "investment bank CEO." He's interviewing for "President of the United States" as a member of a party that believes "Government is the problem." It is highly unlikely he knows or will be able to hire anyone with an interest in government policy and administration.

Posted by Tyro | June 8, 2007 12:56 PM

The comparison with Bush is not apt. Bush as a governor was always conservative, so his campaign reached out to those on the left. Romney governed as a moderate and now campaigns to the right.

Posted by benny | June 8, 2007 12:57 PM

Here are my takes on the leading Republicans:

Romney has no principles, and he is willing to do anything for power.

McCain has principles, but he is willing to betray them for power.

Giuliani has only one principle, and that is the naked pursuit of power.

Does that about cover it?

Freddy Thompson, to his credit, seems to have principles, lobbyist history nonwithstanding, and he's willing to follow and implement them for their own sake. Lord help us all.

Posted by Zephyrus | June 8, 2007 1:01 PM

(I'll mostly ignore Fred's trolling, other than to say: a nation run by I-bankers...shudder.)

Matt captures my own sentiment regarding Romney pretty well. His seeming lack of an ideological core has always been vaguely reassuring. Evidence suggests that he is a technically competent manager, and the fact that he is now pandering on terrorism and abortion just means that he's a Republican. Mind you, these are not position I find at all agreeable, but I don't fear Romney like I fear movement conservatives. The analogies between Romney and Bush seem mostly specious.

That said, it's not going to take too many more "doubling Gitmo" comments for me to come around to Josh Marshall's point of view. There is something strangely unsettling about watching a guy play at being a hard-ass. McCain and Giuliani's hard-assedness is genuine, and therefore deeply frightening. Romney's just seems clinical and creepy.

Posted by Adam | June 8, 2007 1:05 PM

The only way any Republican is winning the next Presidency is by fear mongering. It doesn't matter who is the nominee. If he actually wins by fear mongering whether it is on terrorism, gays, immigrants, or something else, he'll be too invested in the fear mongering to then turn around and be less than disastrous as President. The candidates are all interchangeable. They would govern almost exactly the same. Guiliani would appoint the same crackpot judges that Brownback would. Romney would invade the same Middle Eastern countries McCain wants to. Any of them will continue the total corruption of the federal government, executive power grabbing, and destruction of longstanding treaties and Constitutional rights that Bush began.

Posted by Ron | June 8, 2007 1:14 PM

Why isn't Bill Weld running? He'd be alright.

Posted by abb1 | June 8, 2007 1:19 PM

I'll mostly ignore Fred's trolling...

Isn't it amazing, though, how white Republicans have solved the problem of racism by making themselves, rather than actual minorities, the arbiters of what's racist and what isn't? It's a remarkably elegant solution and you have to be impressed just seeing it in action.

Posted by Steve | June 8, 2007 1:49 PM

Fred writes:

Other than Rudy, Romney is the only leading candidate who's ever successfully run a large organization.

I would note that Romney ran a very successful private equity firm -- indeed, to his credit, he built it -- but IIRC that firm never had more than 200 employees. That's the nature of such firms. Running an investment firm is very different than running a government.

Posted by alkali | June 8, 2007 1:51 PM

Ben, that's a pretty good point, but really, wasn't Bush actually the least of possible evils considering the GOP field in 2000? I guess I don't remember who else ran besides McCain, but surely McCain would have been at least as bad as Bush. Assuming he wouldn't have foiled 9/11 before it happened, Iraq would have still taken place, he'd have appointed the same far-right SC justices, cut taxes for the rich, &c. And he's old, so he would have had a younger (if less evil) VP who would now be in the race.

I guess what I'm saying is, you're right, President Mitt's lack of ideology is definitely something to fear, but in the worst case wouldn't he just be manipulated into implementing the same awful policies that Rudy and McCain will go after out of genuine belief?

Posted by tps12 | June 8, 2007 1:54 PM

I think it was pretty much the consensus opinion at the time that Bush was not the lesser of two evils in the 2000 primaries.

Posted by JP | June 8, 2007 2:04 PM

Assuming he wouldn't have foiled 9/11 before it happened, Iraq would have still taken place, he'd have appointed the same far-right SC justices, cut taxes for the rich, &c.

I don't take it as a given, at all, that 9/11 wouldn't have been foiled on McCain's watch.

Setting that aside, I think Ron Suskind was right that we fail to appreciate the significance of letting three guys (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld) with serious hard-ons for Iraq run the show. McCain's a hawk, sure, but that doesn't mean he would have staffed his administration with neo-cons. There's at least a decent chance that his military response to 9/11 would have been something wildly more appropriate than Iraq.

Any reason to think McCain wouldn't have brought back, and listened to, large chunks of GHWB's very successful foreign policy team?

Posted by Steve | June 8, 2007 2:10 PM

Do you want the fool who will get duped into starting unnecessary wars, or the fool who wants to start them?
Romney doesn't seem as dumb as Bush.

I guess I don't remember who else ran besides McCain, but surely McCain would have been at least as bad as Bush.
Bush had to be duped into the neoconservative program. McCain was already one of their top fans. There is quite a significant possibility it would have been much worse.

Fred making Al look good
Romney: What everyone who pointed out that being an investment banker does not automatically translate into superior access to skilled personell as far as being chief executibe of the most powerful country in the world has said. That it is not a government position and obviously not a federal position.
Edwards: His trial-lawyering and the details of his post-Senate career (is he not supposed to want to earn as much morally acceptable money as possible?) do not rise to the level of CHANGING HIS SUBSTANTIVE OPINIONS ALMOST 180 DEGREES ON A NUMBER OF ISSUES.
Obama: Obama is not a race-baiter. I am perfectly willing to assert that without wasting my time finding links. It's not enough for him to do a Bill Cosby interpretation at Selma or to wonder aloud in his books on the internal problems of African-America; he has to ignore all the challenges faced by poor African-Americans. I will not indulge the biographical snearing that ignores the existence of a Hawaiian working-class or claims that Obama has never been judged by whites or blacks as black because his mother is white. Also, same as I wrote for Edwards except adapted to specific facts.
Clinton: I believe the phrase you cite is from a hymn she was quoting in dialect as an homage, although I do not find the subtle homage of adopting the dialect of those around you as substantively objectionable as almost everything Bush has done. Also, same as I wrote for Edwards except adapted to specific facts.

Posted by Trolly McTroll | June 8, 2007 2:32 PM

abb1

The Republicans wouldn't let Weld be Ambassador to Mexico you think they'd nominate him for President?

Posted by Eric | June 8, 2007 3:14 PM

McCain's a hawk, sure, but that doesn't mean he would have staffed his administration with neo-cons.

McCain was the neocon's guy in 2k. The word has lost much of it's specific meaning but he was the "Weekly Standard's" guy, they were afraid Bush was an "Arabist" in the model of his father.

Posted by Ed Marshall | June 8, 2007 3:20 PM

abb1:

Bill Weld may be alright, but he is not often upright by this time of day. "Amber fluids" are involved.

Posted by snoey | June 8, 2007 4:29 PM

Alkali writes:

"I would note that Romney ran a very successful private equity firm -- indeed, to his credit, he built it -- but IIRC that firm never had more than 200 employees. That's the nature of such firms. Running an investment firm is very different than running a government."

You are aware that Romney was also governor of Massachusetts, no?

Tyro writes:

"Fred, as a REPUBLICAN, Romney will have a much SMALLER pool of qualified candidates he can draw on for government posts."

Than whom? Romney is a smart, successful businessman who knows a lot of other smart, successful, competent people who could serve effectively in government.

Romney isn't Bush, an unsuccessful businessman who bought into the diversity meme as a politician and too often lapsed into affirmative action, cronyism, or a combination of both (Al Gonzalez) in his appointments. He also isn't Obama or Edwards, who may think government is great, but probably have fewer qualified associates to hire, since neither has any executive experience. Hillary at least could tap into the talents of Wall Street Dems like Pozen, Rubin, etc.

Posted by Fred | June 8, 2007 4:50 PM

Fred:

You are aware that Romney was also governor of Massachusetts, no?

Sorry, I assumed you were referring to his business career. (I addressed why I wasn't bowled over by his stint as governor above.)

Posted by alkali | June 8, 2007 5:42 PM

Romney is a smart, successful businessman who knows a lot of other smart, successful, competent people who could serve effectively in government.

Perhaps they could serve in government, but ideologically, they would be opposed to its mission, and practically, they would have very little experience with it. You seem to think a lot of investment bankers. In that case, I suggest hiring them to run investment banking firms. I know some smart, successful physicians. Does this mean I immediately assume that their contacts with other smart, successful physicians could be drawn upon to serve in government?

And when you mention Hillary Clinton, it seems that you immediate think of her wall street connections exclusively as the pool of people she would turn to for talent. You obviously have a certain blindspot here.

The Democrats simply have a pool of available talent that the Republicans, by their very nature and ideology, cannot draw upon. I suppose you could argue that Romney would be less bad in this sense, but he certainly wouldn't be good. Romney's inner circle in MA wasn't known for its brilliance, and the biggest worry is that he would simply allow a large number of the Bush appointees to keep their jobs, which would be a disaster.

My suspicion about Romney's success in 2002 was this-- most people have no idea what an investment banker is and what Bain Capital Management does. All they know is that Romney made money in "business," so they felt he was qualified. Also, he was tall and had "executive hair" (ht, Scott Adams), so they figured he would be worth voting for. Not much has changed in 5 years, it seems.

Posted by Tyro | June 8, 2007 5:43 PM

Alkali:

"Sorry, I assumed you were referring to his business career. (I addressed why I wasn't bowled over by his stint as governor above.)"

I was referring to both. Romney and Giuliani have much more executive experience than Hillary, Obama, or Edwards do.

Don't get me wrong: I don't think Romney is the most capable American to be President -- just that he may be the most capable candidate running. It's too bad that in this country, most of the truly exceptional folks don't go into politics.

It's too bad that even centrist Dems often feel compelled to demonize the entrepreneurs and businessmen who make America wealthy -- especially since I bet a majority of those entrepreneurs in places like Palo Alto and Cambridge are Dems for social reasons. I'm just not impressed by the background of the three leading Dem candidates: trial lawyer, Senator; civil rights lawyer, state legislator, Senator; lawyer, wife, Senator. You guys can do better than that.

Posted by Fred | June 8, 2007 6:27 PM

That sick feeling Josh Marshall reported is his gut notifying him that Romney will take the nomination.

Now: which Democrat can beat Romney?

Posted by STS | June 8, 2007 6:34 PM

"Now: which Democrat can beat Romney?"

Of your three front-runners, Hillary is the smartest, though she also has the most baggage. I don't think most Dems realize how much of a joke John Edwards comes across as to non-Dems. Obama has held up better than expected so far, considering his lack of campaigning experience, but the Clintonistas will hobble him before the primary is over.

So my bet is it'll be Clinton versus Romney.

Posted by Fred | June 8, 2007 7:30 PM

great reading on the "phoniness" factor:

The Politics of Personality Destruction
Through mind-numbing repetition and bizarre campaign-trail torture, our candidates can seem reduced to pale copies of themselves.
But here’s the scariest part: The process works.
By Jennifer Senior
New York Magazine, June 11 issue

a taste of it, a quote from Bob Kerrey:

“I would much rather have a phony, competent person in the White House than an incompetent, authentic person. I’m not sure the two aren’t correlated: The greater competence you’ve got, the more you’ve got to be phony in order to get the job done.”

She also interviews Dole, Dukakis, and Hart and gets surprising "wiser now" input from them all about being losers. Nothing on Romney, unfortunately, but lots of interesting stuff on McCain, who she apparently has been on the trail with, and Gore and both Clintons.

Posted by artappraiser | June 8, 2007 7:37 PM

civil rights lawyer, state legislator, Senator

Um, I'm actually considerably more impressed with that than I am with "investment banker." Seriously. What the heck are you thinking? I'm not even an Obama supporter, and this is obvious to me that his background is more impressive than Romney's.

You're way too impressed with people simply because they're in "business," regardless of the exact circumstances. I'm not.

Also, you keep using this term "executive experience" as a magical mantra. What I want is political experience-- the ability to play factions off against each other to get the right policies shoved through. In Republican hands, obviously, this is dangerous because their professional infrastructure of political appointees select for people who have no business being in government (eg, Monica Goodling, Lurita Doan, Dick Cheney, John Yoo, etc.). There's nothing that indicates that Romney will have any political competence, and his "executive experience" seems limited to running an investment firm. As governor, most of his time was spent engaing in political posturing in preparation for running for president, so it's hard to say how his fortune at being elected governor of Massachusetts is a major qualifying point.

Posted by Tyro | June 8, 2007 7:43 PM

"Romney isn't Bush, an unsuccessful businessman who bought into the diversity meme as a politician and too often lapsed into affirmative action, cronyism, or a combination of both (Al Gonzalez) in his appointments. He also isn't Obama or Edwards, who may think government is great, but probably have fewer qualified associates to hire, since neither has any executive experience. Hillary at least could tap into the talents of Wall Street Dems like Pozen, Rubin, etc."

So that's been the problem, Bush hasn't been racist enough! Iraq just shows how wrong affirmative action is! I'm surprised you didn't work in a way to also blame this on the Jews as well. You really have some hangups on minorities. You need help.

Posted by Reality Man | June 9, 2007 5:51 PM

I didn't vote for the guy, but I did have the same idea about him: well, he is a businessman, maybe he can straighten out some of the bureaucracy here in Massachusetts. Shortly after he assumed office, he lost interest in the state altogether and moved swiftly to the right to build his conservative base for his Presidential run. I am afraid people will be attracted to the same kind of thing. Why would he be so easy to defeat?

Posted by Kelley Brown | June 9, 2007 10:52 PM