Matthew Yglesias (January 11, 2008) - Democrats for Romney (Politics)

The downside is if you support a candidate other than Clinton and (as seems highly probably) Michigan's delegates are in fact seated at the Democratic convention. In that case a unanimous or overwhelming Clinton victory in Michigan could be decisive in winning the nomination. Voting uncommitted seems much more sensible for Michigan Obama and Edwards supporters.

Posted by Ron | January 11, 2008 11:50 AM

Romney 08: As sleazy as the rest, but not bugfuck crazy!

Now that's a bumper sticker.

Posted by Brautigan | January 11, 2008 11:50 AM

Except-- look at that photo. See the single white pixel at the center of each eyeball? How can you vote for that?

Posted by MattF | January 11, 2008 11:51 AM

You seem to have forgotten his comment about how Hezbollah, Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Al-Qaeda are going to band together to create a caliphate, but other than that I agree.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | January 11, 2008 11:51 AM

This sort of thing always makes me nervous. Not because I suspect Romney would in reality be a stronger candidate or a worse president than the alternatives, but just out of that vague and decontextualized "careful what you wish for" fear of unintended consequences that is shared by all superstitious baseball fans. One fairly plausible scenario, for instance: Right now McCain is trying to finish off Romney so he can be the sole establishment candidate facing down Huckabee's populist challenge. If Romney stays in the race and challenges McCain for establishment backing (how weird is it that the establishment is thisclose to swallowing hard and accepting McCain?, by the way), that vote stays split and Huckabee plausibly could keep winning a bunch of primaries until he's uncatchable. Who knows what an economically populist evangelical unburdened by Iraq votes would look like against the Democrat next year?

This is entirely half-baked, I concede. But something makes me nervous about this thing. Generally, keep to picking your own best candidate and worry about the other side when you're actually playing against them.

Posted by Jack Roy | January 11, 2008 11:53 AM

I agree that Democrats should vote for Romney in terms of campaign tactics. I'm not so sure that I'd prefer Romney to Huckabee as president. Huckabee at least sounds less hawkish in foreign policy, and as a governor he did ok and was reasonably moderate (from what I've heard).

The idea of giving Huckabee the power of the Presidential pardon is quite scary, though.

Posted by Jim W | January 11, 2008 11:53 AM

Vote for Mitt Romney, who seems like a much easier general election opponent in November.

I think Kos' rationale is that it will create more confusion in the Republican primary, not that Romney is necessarily the weakest candidate.

It seems pretty clear to me that Huckabee would be the weakest candidate in the general election. If you want to see a 46-state sweep in November, root for Huck.

Posted by right | January 11, 2008 12:03 PM

...vote for Mitt Romney, who seems like a much easier general election opponent in November.

I question the assumption. If McCain gets nominated, 2008 becomes a war referendum. If Huck does, he carries a lot of baggage -- he's likeable, but generally uninformed, which I think plays far worse now than it did in 2000 -- and his social views are rightward enough to alienate quite a few. Romney -- well, the guy isn't that bad a campaigner, and he drifts towards the middle. Maybe a better president, but a tougher electoral opponent.

Posted by Brad L | January 11, 2008 12:03 PM

Vote for a Republican who seems easier for the Dem to beat? Sorry, too dishonest for me.

Posted by Gary Sugar | January 11, 2008 12:06 PM

Romney -- well, the guy isn't that bad a campaigner, and he drifts towards the middle. Maybe a better president, but a tougher electoral opponent.

Yeah, but the media just hates the guy - he's gotten the Gore treatment *and* the Kerry treatment.

That could be because he tried to stand in the way of the Sainted McCain, though.

Posted by Gabriel | January 11, 2008 12:07 PM

Isn't there an upside to the Republican nomination fight staying muddled for as long as possible? Keep the Right and their donors writing checks for each candidate. Once the general election arrives maybe a few sources will be tapped out. Plus the longer it goes on the more frustrated each candidate's backers may become as their man drops out. Also the more mud flung, venom spewed, dirty secrets and faults exposed and general overall rancor within the party engendered. If Michigan Dems really wanted to screw with the system they should all show up and vote for Ron Paul.

Posted by steve duncan | January 11, 2008 12:07 PM

An organized effort to game someone elses primary election is really stupid. It may not be election fraud but it is the same ballpark.

It is the kind of thing we would expect from corrupt old time politicoes or from any modern republican campaign. But from liberals?

This, in my opinion, is a bad idea.

Beside, with the economy the number one issue for voters come November the suggestion that Romney would be the weakest candidate for a democrat to face is just plain wrong.

Posted by ken | January 11, 2008 12:08 PM

I should probably clarify - I meant voting for someone I'm against as a tactic is too dishonest for me.

(Romney is also too dishonest for me, but then again, so is Clinton.)

Posted by Gary Sugar | January 11, 2008 12:10 PM

Given that there's no Democratic primary in Michigan

???

So, all Michigan Democrats have been disenfranchised?! Wah? How is this not an incredible issue? If I were a Michigan Democrat, the last thing I'd be concerned about is which Republican to vote for because the Democrats don't want to count my vote for my own party.

Posted by Al | January 11, 2008 12:11 PM

Maybe it was just more of his inauthentic, say-anything pandering, but I found his "let's *double* Gitmo" comment in an earlier GOP debate to be profoundly troubling. Even a dried out husk of a shell of a human being ought to shy away from saying something that grotesque.

Posted by Double Gitmo! | January 11, 2008 12:12 PM

I agree with you Matt. Plus, even though he's running on "a shitty agenda," his lifework and experience -- attending Ivy league institutions, making lots of money, living the life of a cosmopolitan in a liberal city and then governing as a moderate -- strongly demonstrate what a sham his current "agenda" is. Only problem, though, who's to say he'd be easier to beat than McCain in the general? Were Romney to tack back to the center in the general election, he'd be able to do so credibly. Massachusetts has achieved such iconic status as a liberal stronghold I think it will be hard to tag anybody from the Bay State as a right wing extremist. Plus, he's younger and better looking than McCain, he has kind of a major network primetime look and feel about him (couldn't you imagine the Mittster hosting "Deal or No Deal?") that Americans are a sucker for. He frankly has a somewhat Reaganesque folksiness about him. And as far as I know he's not associated with the 100 year American occupation.

Huckabee may be the most beatable GOP nominee, but I'm not so sure McCain's the least. I think the economy is going to dominate all issues over the next ten months, and the GOP may rue nominating an uberhawk when the main concern of a lot of voters is more likely to be hanging onto the house or affording health insurance.

Posted by Jasper | January 11, 2008 12:13 PM

I think Matt's case can be rephrased a bit like this.

Romney has a proven track record of morphing into whatever he thinks will advance his interests at any given time. Currently he's interested in winning the Republican nomination so he's morphed into a Real True Conservative. If he becomes president he'll be interested in retaining the job and he knows he can't do that just with hard-core ideological conservative voters. He'll probably leave as much of the ideology behind as he thinks he can get away with and try morphing into the Competent Executive. Supposedly this is a form he already has some experience with.

Of course his weakness is a bit like that of Odo in Star Trek. He can morph into almost anything but he can never quite look like a human being.

Posted by Hawkster | January 11, 2008 12:15 PM

Romney appears not to quite have either McCain's zeal for war or Huckabee's zeal for not knowing what he's talking about.

Romney's corporate-authoritarian plastic persona is far more disturbing to me than the loopy half-assedness of McCain or Huckabee.

Posted by James Gary | January 11, 2008 12:15 PM

"He frankly has a somewhat Reaganesque folksiness about him."

"Folksy" is just about the last word I would use to describe Mitt Romney. Uncomfortable, humorless, superficial, rehearsed, animatronic--these adjectives seem to fit a bit better, and basically mean the exact opposite of "folksiness".

Posted by Chesser | January 11, 2008 12:23 PM

When I registered to vote I signed up as an R. Now, of course, the R's sicken me and there's a decent chance I won't vote for them again for a few decades.

But, alas, I was lazy and didnt change my party affiliation. AFAIK its too late. So I might go to my primary and vote for Mitt on this recommendation. I don't like Romney but I think (1) he's by far the best Republican out there and (2) the weakest in the general (probably because of #1).

Posted by Joshua | January 11, 2008 12:37 PM

I'm not sure Romney would be easier to beat in the general, but I have to disagree with all these "be careful what you wish for posters". Usually, the best thing to do is just the most straightforward thing. I don't really understand the Michigan situation on the Democratic side, but if that side of things doesn't matter, you should probably try to pick a Republican candidate. If you are really afraid of picking a worse guy who is less electable or a better guy who is more electable, then sit it out, I suppose. But in general, I think you should use your judgement and make the best call that you can. From the evidence, I am the least afraid of a Romney presidency. Less upside, but also less downside. Also, unexpected factors are far less likely to come into play and screw over the Dems with Romney. His support will come from the Republican base, but it won't be rabid. He won't get independent support. He won't be a media darling. And he's a mormon. With Huckabee or McCain there are wild cards in play that I'd rather not face in an election where the consensus is overwhelmingly in favor of the Dems. So go with predictable: go with Romney.

Posted by mpowell | January 11, 2008 12:39 PM

I with the concerns of the comments above. Do we really want to set the precedent for this kind of thing? What if Hillary wins, becomes a marginally unpopular president and faces a primary challenge from a popular, progressive candidate? Do we really want Republicans running out to our open caucuses and primaries and voting to give themselves another chance to beat her?

Posted by badger | January 11, 2008 12:42 PM

(as seems highly probably) Michigan's delegates are in fact seated at the Democratic convention.

There will probably be a caucus later. The Michigan primary violates several Democratic party rules . . .

Posted by rea | January 11, 2008 12:46 PM

be careful what you wish for.
someone already said it, but it bears saying again.
i strongly disagree about romney being such a weak general election candidate. romney, mccain and huckabee would all be tough general election candidates.
as is obvious, huckabee is a charming guy, the type of guy that reporters eventually have a soft spot for.
no need to talk about the media's goo-goo eyed love affair with mccain. hell, reporters even admit their affection for the old fighter pilot, though they try to rationalize it by talking about how much access he gives them, as though that fact justifies their lack of objectivity.
sure, the press gives romney a relatively hard time now, but that behavior would change dramatically in a general election.
also consider this: almost every day, a new romney lie surfaces. something comes out of romney's mouth that is just flat out untrue. but the media only reports on a fraction of the lies.
if clinton or obama or edwards had lied so obviously and frequently, and flip-flopped on so many issues so blatantly, ALL you would ever hear about them was that they had lied and dissembled and flip-flopped. but with romney, the flip-flops and lies are mere background noise that gets brought up only every once in a while.
even at this point, the democratic candidates are extraordinarily careful about their statements, because they know that the media will crucify them if they are even a slight bit inaccurate.
a case in point: hillary's flub of the new york drivers' license question in the debate. because she gave a somewhat weaselly, lawyerly, but not false, answer to the question - she is after all a lawyer by training - the press has skewered her for that answer ever since.
can you imagine what the press would have done if she had flat out lied as romney does routinely?
for instance, in a debate last weekend, he stated flatly that his tv ads did not call mccain's immigration proposals "amnesty". that is a flat out lie.
but the press only briefly touched on it, and basically gave him a pass. in fact, most pundits argued that romney had a great pair of debates and a great weekend going into the new hampshire primary.
again, imagine what the media reaction would have been if obama had been caught in that kind of flat out lie. you would have seen footage of his debate statement, followed by footage of the ad that made him out to be a liar, over and over and over again.
that is exactly what would happen during a general election. romney could lie and lie and lie and dissemble - and benefit from doing so - and the press would only rarely mention it.
and the focus would be on romney the candidate.
and frankly, romney, the candidate, aint bad. again, if you can strip away the maniacal, pathological lying, he presents in a very positive way. for most americans.
once the general election happened, it would be a contest between a dem and a republican. all you have to do is look at recent history in order to determine how the media will handle their reporting responsibilities. this is not a matter of conjecture. i'm talking about a look back on how the media has actually performed its duties.
why would you expect anything different this time?
also, i never believe that it is a good thing to give a great deal of responsibility, power and authority to a pathological liar who will obviously do anything to gain power. my experience has been that such people are extraordinarily dangerous. i would always rather deal with a honest - or relatively honest - person who i vehemently disagree with. at least one could have a slight degree of trust in that person, something that i, at least, could never have for a person like romney. again, someone like romney is extraordinarily dangerous, once they gain power.

Posted by frankie d | January 11, 2008 12:55 PM

I'll only note that there's no reason one need be so cynical about it. I would much rather live under President Clinton or President Obama than under President Romney, but I'd take President Romney over President McCain or President Huckabee.

We'd be living with President Clinton, Obama, Romney, McCain or Huckabee. You live under kings, not elected leaders. I'm being pedantic and nitpicky here even by my high standards for being pedantic and nitpicky, yes, but I'm also expressing cynicism about the state of our democracy.

So, all Michigan Democrats have been disenfranchised?! Wah? How is this not an incredible issue? If I were a Michigan Democrat, the last thing I'd be concerned about is which Republican to vote for because the Democrats don't want to count my vote for my own party.

It's bad, but not nearly as bad as it sounds. It's not that Michigan isn't having a primary, but the way they are doing it violated DNC rules, so the state's Democratic Party has been stripped of its delegates and some of the major candidates have not had their names put on the ballot there.

On the one hand it's a stupid rule propping up a stupid system that they broke (the early primaries in Iowa and New Hampshire, that is), and stuff like this might be the only way to get rid that, so good for Michigan. But there is still a primary, it just won't count for as much as usual, and there's a question about whether the punishment will stick at all, so I don't think too many Michigan residents will be turned off the Democratic Party in general by this.

Posted by Cyrus | January 11, 2008 12:59 PM

Really?

I don't want any of them to win, but heck, I'll take the anti-torture McCain over "Double Guantanamo" Romney.

Posted by Joel | January 11, 2008 1:09 PM

Seconding Double Gitmo, I also feel that while Romney is probably the brightest and most competent Republican in the field, he is also extremely dangerous, given his support for torture and unchecked executive power. If McCain were to win the presidency, I would not fear for the survival of democracy in America, as I would if Giuliani or Romney were to win.

Posted by Asp | January 11, 2008 1:41 PM

The problem with Romey's candidacy is you never know what's a lie, and what he really believes. I'm not sure he knows. We could get the moderate governor of Massachusetts or we could get the "double gitmo" nutjob.

Posted by Gus | January 11, 2008 1:41 PM

Folksy" is just about the last word I would use to describe Mitt Romney. Uncomfortable, humorless, superficial, rehearsed, animatronic--these adjectives seem to fit a bit better, and basically mean the exact opposite of "folksiness".

I spent four years with this dude as my governor, and I couldn't disagree more. Perhaps "affable" is a better word than "folksy", but he's definitely not "uncomfortable" or "humorless". He's a pretty good speaker. No overly dynamic or uplifting, but you can tell he's made plenty of high stakes pitches in his life in the corporate world. Romney possesses the friendly, smooth, easy glibness of a game show host. Nothing too profound, but nothing very threatening. I'd prefer the Democrats have to run against Huckabee. I doubt I'm going to get my wish. But I'd rather go up against McCain than Romney during a severe downturn.

Posted by Jasper | January 11, 2008 1:43 PM

My thoughts on the gutter bigotry sweepstakes. The country would rather have a woman or black man over a Mormon of any kind. Sometimes, I wonder, was Mitt able to be elected in Massachussetts partly because the enlightened citizens of MA don't make religion as much of a litmus test as some people?

Posted by JMS | January 11, 2008 1:52 PM

Even on the war issue, I'm not sure McCain is as bad as Matt imagines. I mean, yeah, McCain is crazy for war. But to be more specific, he's crazy for the *shared sacrifice* of war. Unlike Bush, he's completely up front and honest about the extreme cost of invading another country. The cost is, to McCain, the goal.

So he would announce a buildup to go into Iran, he would give a speech announcing that we would bear any burden for the cause, and the our entire country would collectively retort "bear any burden for WHAT cause?!!".

Someone like Romney or any of the other candidates (maybe even the Dems) could be tricked by hawks in the military or intelligence services into thinking an proposed war was cheap. There is no danger of McCain being fooled like that--a cheap war is a war without meaning to him.

Posted by Consumatopia | January 11, 2008 2:13 PM

I think you're being too smart by half. Romney seems to have convinced you and most of the left-leaning bloggers that he's the least-bad Republican running right now, despite his explicit desire to go to war with Iran, his open support for torture, his desire to ban abortion by Constitutional amendment, and his rejection of the rule of law. (Personally, I consider him the most dangerous candidate after Rudy).

Why don't you think he can convince center or center-right voters of the same thing?

I don't believe for a second that Romney is the least electable Republican - and even in 2008, I'd give Republicans about a 30-40% shot at winning the presidency. Be careful what you wish for.

Posted by Jinchi | January 11, 2008 2:14 PM

An organized effort to game someone elses primary election is really stupid. It may not be election fraud but it is the same ballpark.

Can you articulate for us in what ways this is in the same ballpark as election fraud?

It's legal. Everyone who participates in it votes legally, under their legal name, and casts the one and only ballot to which they're entitled, at their designated polling place.

So what aspect of it am I missing that puts it in the same ballpark as election fraud, exactly?

Posted by Kagro X | January 11, 2008 2:18 PM

See the single white pixel at the center of each eyeball? How can you vote for that?

This is the funniest thing I have read all week. It sums up the whole campaign in a way. Thanks for the laff, MattF.

romney, the candidate...presents in a very positive way. for most americans.

Agree with frankie d here. You can easily imagine a scenario in which dems fumble away their enormous advantage - say, Clinton could lose to Romney. It would be her race to lose, definitely, but it's hardly impossible. I probably wouldn't bet against HRC in that situation, but you never know.

however:

i would always rather deal with a honest - or relatively honest - person who i vehemently disagree with [than a pathological liar like Romney]

I have to agree with MY here. The key concept is 'relatively honest'. A romney presidency would be no picnic, but at least he's not incompetent. I'd be much more scared by a really sincere Hucklebe or...well, he's the only really 'sincere' choice. Mitt has been, basically, a ridiculous figure. But Rudy and Saint John have been pretty shameless, too. IOW, Mitt has been more dishonest in quantity, not quality. If Romney were a real outlier, some preposterous characature of a politician in a field of respectable nominees, it would be different. But the Mittster merely *exemplifies* GOP disintegration.

Tancredo was sincere. Reagan was, alas, basically sincere. Carter was. The old rule of thumb is that a pol is doing OK so long as they lie only when they have to. One of the myriad 'groundbreaking' things about the current 'administration' is that they lie as a matter of course - the lie as an everyday, basic instrument of power. They don't start out with the assumtion that lying is inherently wrong and harmful. They lie when they really don't have to. Mitt lies because he feels he does have to, and it would surely be unfortunate for us if he were to win, and presumably govern to an extent on his current platform. But he doesn't believe this shit he says now anymore than he believed the old liberal shit he used to say. That is practially the definition of a 'moderate', in the Broder Sense. Not what I'd like to have, but better than the alternatives. IOW, why not have a *total* liar rather than a 65%/75% liar who's also crazy? Or a mostly sincere Christian Soldier? At least Mitt knows how to run an organization.

Some older folks voting in MI might reflect on the comparison of Mitt to George Romney, someone who didn't live in, nor complement, nearly as politically frivolous a time as his son does; back in the day when the protean Romney family was midwestern.

Posted by jonnybutter | January 11, 2008 2:21 PM

I think this is all dead wrong. Romney was elected in MA and would run the strongest general elction campaign out of all of the Republicans because we will run to the middle where is more comfortable and where he can actually point to his record. He looks foolish trying to run to the right in the primaries but that will go away if he makes it to the general. Vote for Rudy or Huckabee in MI if you want to pick your Rebuplican.

Posted by phg | January 11, 2008 2:56 PM

You know, this sort of deliberate manipulation of the other side's primary process is why open primaries (which otherwise seem like a good idea) have been found unconstitutional in the past in California Democratic Party v. Jones.

I don't know how Michigan's system is materially different, but from the look of things it's not different enough. I don't think that can stop the award of delegates, but wouldn't it be ironic if liberals forced a Romney win only to see it used against him later on down the road? McCain and Huckabee would surely love to paint Romney as the favorite candidate of liberals from Ann Arbor.

Posted by Trevor | January 11, 2008 2:58 PM

"So what aspect of it am I missing that puts it in the same ballpark as election fraud, exactly?"

Yeah, I had no idea I'd been committing election fraud by voting for moderate republicans against my religious right state representative in the primaries and then voting for his (unopposed in their primary) Democratic opponents in the general.

My only requirement as a Michigan primary voter is that I vote on only one side of the primary at a time. We don't have party registration here. Hopefully the pernicious bit of the primary, which awards the lists of people who voted in the public-financed election to the two parties and no one else, will be struck down by the federal courts in the lawsuit the ACLU has just filed.

I'm debating between voting 1.) Kucinich (right on the war, right on most things) 2. Romney (I agree. least pernicious Republican) 3. Ron Paul (because fuck everybody).

If I take option 2 or 3, it does amuse me that the Republicans will waste money sending me their mailings and such.

Posted by witless chum | January 11, 2008 3:22 PM

You have no reason to vote democrat. Hillary is running uncontested in Michigan, which means that her win means absolutely nothing to the nomination.

Vote Mit, screw the republicans by giving them 3 viable candidates who will spend a lot more money getting the nomination than they anticipated.

Vote Romney Michigan!

Posted by Vote Mit! | January 11, 2008 3:32 PM

but in a pinch you can say that the man has a track-record of managerial competence that Huckabee and McCain distinctly lack

If Romney had run on his track record (instead of disavowing his considerable accomplishments), I'd be voting for him.

Posted by Shinyk | January 11, 2008 3:33 PM

Kos and his truly stupid sports-CIA fantasy plan is another reason the "leaders" of the netroots are just the opposite.

What if you morons do put Romney in the WH? then what?

And yes, we're supposed to be above this sleaze. Why not just fix the vots if the Repubs do it?

Kagro X, you're a typical Kos stooge. Go troll-rate your Republican boss for going against the FAQ of his own site: to elect Democrats.

And Matthew, if you think this is some kind of neat-o plan, you should take a week off.

Yes, let's bring hope and inspiration and change to the WH -- by acting like Karl Rove.

Wake up.

Posted by christian | January 11, 2008 3:48 PM

Kaygro X a stooge or troll? BWAHAHA. I've found him to be shockingly penetrating about politics as it really is.

Voting in an open primary is not 'sleeze'. Actually thinking seriously about politics is not sleeze, and doing so doesn't make you Rovie. The only thing worse than being a troll, in fact, is not being a troll but *sounding* like one (I've noticed a lot of that these past several months). What you call 'above sleaze' actually has meant, in practice, political ineptitude and indifference. Amusing that you think Kos and his irresistable aura might put Romney in the WH. Are we talking about premature ejaculation or the 2008 election?? Democrats could blow this election - it's not terribly likely, but possible. Romney winning the MI primary won't get that done. Nominating HRC would do more to get us there than voting R in the MI primary. Pretending politics doesn't even exsist has proven to be a very effective way to lose, too.

Posted by jonnybutter | January 11, 2008 4:20 PM

And listening to a sociopathic hypocrite like Markos -- y'know, He Who Loves Reagan and Voted For Arnold (D)-- telling people to VOTE REPUBLICAN breaks the FAQs of his trollish site.

Not to mention the blowback this sleazy childish stunt won't inspire confidence in the HOPE CHANGE INSPIRATION that Obama supporters like Kos seem to love preachin'.

Trust me, Kos fucked up big time. Watch candidates distance themselves fom his smug petulant li'l libertarian ego. And it's all bout that litle boy's ego.

But you're right -- this is POLITICS, man!
So let's go steal some signs and throw burning dog poop!

Posted by christian | January 11, 2008 6:10 PM

Really?
I don't want any of them to win, but heck, I'll take the anti-torture McCain over "Double Guantanamo" Romney.
Posted by Joel

We have over 2,000 Al Qaeda captured in Iraq now in military jails there. In Afghanistan, there are also a few thousand terrorists at Bagrahm AFB detention facilities.

They are in prison mainly so they can't return to the field, as some early releasees did, and kill and maim US soldiers. They are enemy combatants, not criminals -

If we cut and run from Iraq, where do we put the AQ terrorists if GITMO staying open is unacceptable? NYC, where they have good access to ACLU types? San Francisco?

Mitt might have underestimated the problem. We may have to quintuple GITMO. We leave Iraq, those terrorist military combatants either get released to kill again, or are out on bail with their ACLU lawyers greasing the skids and crowds of Lefties adulating the poor Jihadis.

***************************
Jinchi - Romney seems to have convinced you and most of the left-leaning bloggers that he's the least-bad Republican running right now, despite his explicit desire to go to war with Iran, his open support for torture, his desire to ban abortion by Constitutional amendment, and his rejection of the rule of law.

1. Romney has no desire to go to war with Iran. You are thinking of McCain, Giuliani, and perhaps Christian Zionist HUckabee.

2. He has no open support for torture. He does support tough interrogation to save US and allied people's lives.

3. He has no desire to push a Constitutional Amendment against Abortion. He said it would be nice for people like him, but would never pass the Amending process and the country has bigger problems. All while he says he supports it as a matter of principle with him, but it "will never happen on our lifetimes". Romney wants the matter turned over from unelected, unaccountable judges to states.

4. The "rule of law" bullshit is pushed by those believing that the courts rule over the White House, the States, and Congress.

Posted by chris ford | January 11, 2008 8:03 PM

Chris, I don't even consider your defense of "tough interrogation" (aka torture) and against rule of law worth responding to anymore.

However:

He has no desire to push a Constitutional Amendment against Abortion.

He's on the record supporting the Republican platform plank calling for a "human life Amendment" to the Constitution.

Top Romney advisers insisted yesterday that their candidate's statements on abortion this month were consistent with each other. They said Romney supports a two-step process in which states get authority over abortion after Roe v. Wade is overturned, followed eventually by a constitutional amendment that bans most abortions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/22/AR2007082202863.html

Posted by Jinchi | January 11, 2008 9:35 PM

I listened a bit to the ABC conservative cabal today, they had a full day jihadette against the flaming liberals called McCain/Lieberman, and I got the impression the Limbaugh/Hannity/Levin Republicats of the church of Reagan want Romney. I jotted down a bit of what I heard in this comment on TPMCafe.

I know fur sure they don't want McCain or Huckabee, that came through loud and clear, it was a frenetic attack, attack, attack McCain and then pause for a quick attack on Huckabee, then back to the "uberliberal" McCain. they are panicked by the possibility that either one gets more wind.

So I don't know if this is such a good idea for Democrats to do.

Posted by artappraiser | January 11, 2008 11:19 PM

This is a terrible idea.

As much as I hate the Republican party, this is essentially attempting to disenfranchise Michigan Republicans. I am very sensitive about this issue.

Also this would help Hillary Clinton avoid the humiliation of losing to "uncommitted." That wouldknock her down a few pegs and help Obama.

Finally, I would very much enjoy seeing Mittens go down in flames and become the 1st major contender to drop out. The man has no soul. This might just bring him back and there is nothing that Rush/Hannity/Hugh Hewitt would love more.

Posted by Jamilla | January 12, 2008 12:31 AM

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/12/23/romney/index.html

Come on, kids.

Posted by John Stephen Lewis | January 12, 2008 9:13 AM

P.S. to my comment above.

Really, I think people will be assisting the Reaganites/Limbaughites if they do this. Just read Levin's essay. They want Romney and they want McCain and Huckabee out and they are working hard at it right now.

...My fingers are crossed that at the next debate, either Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney will find a way to address McCain’s record. (Mike Huckabee won’t, as he is apparently in the tank for him.)

from The Real McCain Record Obstacles in the way of conservative support. By Mark R. Levin in National Review Online.

Posted by artappraiser | January 12, 2008 9:46 AM

artappraiser is right.

Listen to the fight between the social and corporate conservatives. Social conservatives hate Giuliani. Corporate conservatives hate Huckabee. McCain is considered a RINO. The man they can all agree upon is Romney. He is their compromise candidate.

You think he's the easiest to beat, but if you hope that a large faction of Republicans stay home in November (or vote for the Democrat), Romney is your absolute worst strategy.

Posted by Jinchi | January 12, 2008 12:50 PM

Romney represents proven competence, which will be a big deal after the most incompetent administration in American history. As governor, he passed health care. He was a highly successful business executive. Now 40% of all business executives think we are heading into a recession. A recent poll of all states comparing them with all countries' students showed Massachusetts' students ranking very high in math and science while Romney was governor. If he gains the Rep. Pres. nomination, he will probably move to the center. Do you really want to run against this guy. Anyone uncomfortable with a woman or an Afro-American might be able to live w/"competence". In addition, with his own money, he will also attract Wall Street cash. I think the Democrats may be very sorry if they have to run against him. Remember the law of unintended consequences.
Better to run against a real conservative, like McCain or Huckabee.

Posted by politicod | January 12, 2008 9:39 PM

Democrats for Romney

Comments (50)

Search

Books by Matthew Yglesias

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Weekly Archives

Categories