Romney and Institutional Power

Andrew Sullivan recommends David Brooks' thoughts on Mitt Romney: "The leaders of the Republican coalition know Romney will lose. But some would rather remain in control of a party that loses than lose control of a party that wins. Others haven’t yet suffered the agony of defeat, and so are not yet emotionally ready for the trauma of transformation. Others still simply don’t know which way to turn." That seems about right. In the progressive blogosphere, this idea circulates under the heading "iron law of institutions" which posits that institutional leaders care more about their own power within the institution than about the institution's power in the world.

It strikes me as a largely accurate characterization of the choice.

That said, to give Romney the benefit of the doubt, one thing I can say about him is that there's some indication he might make an okay president. He ran a successful business. He managed the Olympics well. He took over a state that enjoyed a high standard of living and during his years of governor it continued to enjoy a high standard of living and he never tried to do anything crazy. He's taken a lot of repugnant stands in the campaign, but that's clearly because he's telling people what he thinks they want to hear. When he thoughts his constituents wanted to hear about gay equality and a women's right to choose he said that stuff, too. He's a giant phony. But also a technocrat with some record of competence -- basically a risk-averse guy who knows what he's doing and understands how to color between the lines. It's impossible to imagine him being a great president, but it's relatively easy to imagine him being an okay president.

The others in the field, not so much. Who knows what wars Rudy Giuliani or John McCain would start? And Mike Huckabee can't even fake knowing what he's talking about for fifteen minutes.

Comments

Romney is basically his father's son, and his father was the kind of liberal Republican who would be a liberal Democrat today, as his very liberal tenure as Secretary of Housing under Nixon demonstrated.

Posted by Steve Sailer | January 1, 2008 2:31 PM

> He ran a successful business.

A consultancy, especially a high-level "strategic" consultancy, is not a business: it is a racket. It destroys value in order to enrich CxOs and consultants. The sliminess and destructive nature of such an endeavor might still be good training for the Presidency, but it is not to be confused with a real business such as your local family-owned bodega.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | January 1, 2008 2:37 PM

Interesting stuff, but I just gotta say...

Andrew Sullivan recommends David Brooks' thoughts on Mitt Romney

Wow. The year is less than 15 hours old and I think Matthew may already have a winner in the "Most Easily Ignored Link" category for 2008.

Posted by Uncle Kvetch | January 1, 2008 2:57 PM

Uncle Kvetch:

Haha, very true. I wish we could, as a nation, take a collective resolution to completely ignore everything that all three of those people say.

Posted by Sam L. | January 1, 2008 3:02 PM

Was there some inscrutable (to me) reason for citing "The Iron Law of Institutions" as a google search instead of just giving Jonathan Schwarz of A Tiny Revolution a direct link?

It's an important (and counterintuitive) principle to understand (it strikes at the heart of why so much of both intramural and internecine politics is motivated by ressentiment and spite) and I'd think you'd wanna give the guy who started developing it his props.

Posted by dr | January 1, 2008 3:12 PM

Cranky's comment might be the least informed remark I've ever read on this blog, and that's even ignoring the fact that Romney's business experience mainly came from building and running a venture capital/private equity fund, not a consultancy.

Posted by right | January 1, 2008 3:13 PM

The leaders of the Republican coalition know Romney will lose. But some would rather remain in control of a party that loses than lose control of a party that wins.

Susbstitute Democrat for Republican, any generic wishy-washy centrist for Romney and doesn't this sound like a familiar criticism?

BTW -- it's not only progressives who talk about the iron law of institutions. Old fashioned conservative reasoning was -- (A) given the iron law of institutions, any instutions are a threat to liberty; (B) moreover, assume (somehow) that churches and corporations are not institutions but that government (an institution or collection of institutions) competes with them for power, the strengthaning of churches and corporations leads to increased liberty while a weakening of corporations and churches (due respectively to evil gummint -- a power hungry institution -- regulation and to the influence of teh evil secular librulz) leads to a decrease in liberty.

Jonah in the Whale's book is a residue of line (B), I reckon. But it's interesting now that the reasoning to (A) is considered something progressives would use? It's just so Burkean (whether that reasoning is conservative, btw, depends on who's trying to conserve what ... remember, e.g., Burke himself was a Whig and not a Tory) ... of course, how is this different than the selling of the Iraq war when Bush & CO used the same lines we progressives use in trying to sell progressive programs while we moonbats used ultimately conservative reasoning?

Nu? we all know what'll happen ... the rhetoric of Bush & CO will be used to prove (c.f. Jonah's book in considering the political orientation of fascists based on some of their word choices) that "Bush was a liberal". And this'll be used to sell further reactionary programs ("conservatism never fails, it only is failed" as some have put it ...) ...

Posted by DAS | January 1, 2008 3:16 PM

But some would rather remain in control of a party that loses than lose control of a party that wins

Oh, please.

Where's the evidence that the "leaders of the Republican party" would "lose control" of the party in the event that Giuliani or McCain won? What kind of asinine idea is that? In both cases, the leaders of the party would have just as much power as they have now.

Posted by Al | January 1, 2008 3:21 PM

When I was a young man (and dinosaurs roamed the earth) I did many stupid things. Married my 1st wife. Was a conservative. Things THAT stupid.
Carried a worn copy of 'Conscience of a Conservative' everywhere I went.

Unless the Repubs are very very different than they were, which I doubt, there are lots of right-wingers out there happily anticipating the 'purity' of a Repub Party once the '08 election drives the riff-raff out. Hey--they looked dead in '64 but that was just a curtain-raiser for the Gipper. They are telling themselves, 'it can happen again'.

The thing is--for them conservatism is a 'movement' not an ideology or a clique.

Posted by JohnMcC | January 1, 2008 3:23 PM

Well, in Giuliani's case I think all of them would lose their jobs to make room for his sleazy friends and mistresses.

Posted by Ed Marshall | January 1, 2008 3:28 PM

Romney is clearly the least worst of the bunch. And, there are indications from insiders that if elected- he might not even pursue a counter-productive and evil neocon foreign policy. Oh, sure, he says he would, but like a lot of things...his convictions are paper-thin. This ain't Lieberman's McCain or Podhoretz's stooge Rudy. He has the support of the "Realists" (Bush #41, Scowcroft, Colin Powell). If he ran against Hillary, he might even be the lesser of the Two Evils.

Posted by Trevor | January 1, 2008 3:30 PM

This sentence from Brooks is golden:

And yet as any true conservative can tell you, the sort of rational planning Mitt Romney embodies never works.

He's still pushing the line that Oakeshottian conservatism means trusting you gut instead of planning ahead, last seen propping up the idea that it was a good idea to start a war in Iraq and not plan for the occupation.

Posted by Matt Weiner | January 1, 2008 3:34 PM

I am not in the camp that believes Romney is unelectable. McCain and sometimes Giuliani at his past bubble peak ran around showing "national polls" PROVING they could beat Hillary on their high name recognition and past national "branding" as America's Mayor/Mr. 9/11 or the Hero Who Suffered For All Of US 45 years ago.

But national polls a year out mean squat. Even August national polls that showed Dukakis with a 17-point lead over Bush Senior.

In a matchup with the 3 lead Democrats, Romney has a far greater record of past success and proven executive leadership....in fact, the Dem 3 have no record of executive leadership, and only Edwards as a trial lawyer achieved substantial success. Romney is more centrist than Edwards or Obama. Hillary is centrist but has all the strong negatives of key demographic groups, politics of destruction, past Clinton scandals, and public weariness with dynastic politics that will bedevil her campain if she is the nominee.

Romney has a near squeaky-clean personal life, abeit one wearing magical underwear, is articulate and polished in debate to the point people complain he is too polished and error-free.

If he is the nominee, the Presidency might come down to voters agreeing much is wrong in America, and which of the two candidates can be most trusted to fix the most problems. Romney can win that argument. I don't think Huckster, McCain, or Giuliani can. I think Thompson will be gone soon.

**********************
Cranky - consultancy, especially a high-level "strategic" consultancy, is not a business: it is a racket. It destroys value in order to enrich CxOs and consultants. The sliminess and destructive nature of such an endeavor might still be good training for the Presidency, but it is not to be confused with a real business such as your local family-owned bodega.

That charge didn't work when Romney ran for Governor nor when Teddy tried the "evil corporatist" line in 1994. After the Salt Lake City Olympics, Warren Buffett praised Romney not just for the Olympics performance but for "being one of the good guys" in the business community who invests in startups or failing companies and helps make them great - adding wealth that Romney and his VC group share - and creating jobs, lots of good jobs, on balance.
Others, like Buffett, who track Romneys business doings, admired & commended him for high ethics, treating workers with respect, and brilliance in problem solving, turnaround, and execution of business plan.
Romney is taught in business schools now - by Left and Right-leaning professors, as a good role model to study in turnarounds, VC investment tactics, ethics, crisis management, and non-profit executive management.
****************************
And Sullivan has had a burr on his ass about Romney ever since Romney came out against Sullivan's cause celebe` - gay marriage. Sullivan hates Romney more than he hates Hillary or Pastor Huckleberry.

Posted by Chris Ford | January 1, 2008 3:38 PM

The thing is--for them conservatism is a 'movement' not an ideology or a clique. - JohnMC

Indeed. I am still amazed how certain people really believe "conservatism is a movement; liberalism is an ideology", "government is an institution; my church is part of the natural order of things", "government is collectivist; a private business, even a corporation, is individualist". As if certain words ("ideology", "institution", "collectivism") are inherently bad and certain others are inherently good and that by associating bad words with liberals and government but good words with conservatives, churches and corporations, that proves the goodness of the latter and evilness of the former.

Is this what they mean when they say "conservatives believe words have meaning" and similar such things?

*

Al, c.f. Trevor @ 3:30. McCain and St. Rudy are both stand-ins for certain elements of the "conservative movement" in the same way, at some level, the Huckabee is. The powers that be have their own agenda, of course. And true believing whacko neo-cons may very well be as much of a threat to them as true believing fundies are.

Indeed ... how long did McCain last in 2000 in spite of even being the darling of the Villagers? The attacks on him were very coordinated and sophisticated ... even though Joe Republican believes certain things about McCain and one might think that McCain imploded then 'cause, well, Joe Republican had his say ... well, how did Joe Republican get to know some very specific aspects of McCain's life (which were false) and personality (which seem to be true)? He knew because he was told! And by whom? and for what reason? Hmmmm ... not to be paranoid, but something tells me the powers that be in the GOP didn't want a true associate of the neo-cons in office in 2000 and, given the events since then, are even less likely to want one to be the party's Pres. choice now.

Posted by DAS | January 1, 2008 3:44 PM

Romney is also pro-torture, vows to "double guantanomo bay" (whatever that means), will continue the war in Iraq, and since he has no particular convictions of his own, will be more than happy to do the bidding of the worst of the worst among conservatism in order to maintain support.

It's really impossible to pick a least bad among the current crop of Republican candidates. All of them except for Paul would continue the war, and he'd be the last person I'd want running the federal bureaucracy.

Posted by mad6798j | January 1, 2008 3:53 PM

Planning the Olympics is qualification to the President of the National Event Planners Association maybe even Under Secretary of Transportation, but not President. His most relevant experience is, of course, his one term as Governor of Commonwealth. And he was a decidedly mediocre Governor. He not only accomplished little and made mostly sub-par appointments but had decimated his own party and overstayed his political welcome.

Brooks is right that Romney has the heart of a bean counter. The Presidency isn't about management so much as it is about leadership, and on that count Mitt Romney is a complete zero.

Posted by AJ | January 1, 2008 3:58 PM

The (pretty easy) job of the Democratic nominee will be to make the Republican nominee run not on his own record, but on George W. Bush's. Do that, and they're all toast. This includes Romney.

there's some indication he might make an okay president.

This is one of Matt's dumber bits of contrarianism. A Romney presidency would have next to nothing in common with the Romney governorship. As Governor of Massachusetts, Romney was allowed to be a moderate since that was the only way he'd remain politically viable. As President, Romney would be expected to fill his administration with hard-right hacks, as that is what the GOP is made out of now. If he wanted cooperation from the GOP congress he'd be expected to be a reliable partisan as well, and of course the Dem leadership could be expected to cave to him regularly given that he wouldn't be starting at 30% approval. No, he wouldn't be an "okay president."

Can't believe anyone would fall for that crap after being "surprised" by President Uniter-not-a-Divider's hard-right administration.

Posted by jimBOB | January 1, 2008 4:00 PM

It's unfortunate (and it was probably unnecessary) for Romney to 'contour himself' to the GOP coalition in the broadest sense, and it's true that this strategy won't work in the general election. But I think Brooks ignores the obvious point that if Romney wins the nomination, he will be able to run in the general election as, essentially, himself, and not a faux social conservative (just as whoever is the Dem candidate will run as a centrist). In the general election, Romney's track record of real accomplishments will trump the resume of anyone he faces on the Dem side.

Now it's true that voters may decide that a brilliant Republican who has had a phenomenally successful career in business and public administration -- and who, as governor of a blue state, implemented a universal health care program while Democrats were just talking about it -- represents the second coming of George W. Bush, but I doubt that. Romney's advisers have been loathe to be explicit during the primaries about the extent to which his intelligence and competence represent change, but they would feel less restraint, I'm sure, in the general election.

Posted by Fred | January 1, 2008 4:03 PM

personally, i'd be more worried about a politician like romney who has shown himself to be a lying, two-faced, sack of s**t who will do and say anything to win an election. if he would say and anything to win, why wouldn't he say or do anything to maintain and/or enhance the power he has attained?
such a person is infinitely more worrisome than someone who is at least honest about his/her intentions.
i would never minimize how scary someone like guiliani is, or how morally bankrupt mccain is (after trying to sell his soul to get back in the good graces of his party) but someone like romney is most frightening because he has gleefully revealed that he has no morals or principles and therefore can probably be convinced to do ANYTHING if he felt it would benefit him.
the idea that someone of that sort would all of a sudden morph into a mere competent manager once having attained the power he obviously lusts for is mindboggingly naive.

Posted by frankie d | January 1, 2008 4:26 PM

We can't afford 4 years with Willard, Rudolph, The Huckster OR Hot-Head McCain.

Candidate Research - KNOW Who You're Voting For ( The Easy Way )
http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/entry/candidate_research_know_who_youre_voting_for/

Posted by Winghunter | January 1, 2008 4:29 PM

If we don't live in End Times, then these will do until the real thing comes along. Over at The Washington Monthly, Steve Benen notes that Huckabee has faulted Romney for not executing anyone. Romney's pledge to "double Guantanamo" is, of course, his own vicious lunatic watermark. That there's no shortage of such cites is reason for bleak depression.

None of the TV media and few of the national "pundits" seem to worry about all this upping-the-ante blood lust. As if the sadism and bizzarria of the 30s and 40s happened without prelude. McCarthyism was checked, in popular memory, by Joseph Welch's famous questioning of McCarthy's lack of decency. A similar question to the Republican Party and their media enablers would be met with snickers and yawns. Decency? What's that?

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | January 1, 2008 4:30 PM

The (pretty easy) job of the Democratic nominee will be to make the Republican nominee run not on his own record, but on George W. Bush's. Do that, and they're all toast. This includes Romney. - JimBob

I don't think it'll be easy. The Democratic nominee cannot speak to everyone directly. A large part of what the election will still be decided by what people hear about the candidates over the media. And the media talking heads will make the candidates run on who knows what. So unless the Dem. candidate smells like cigars and Aqua-velva, the Dem candidate's job will not be easy.

*

he will be able to run in the general election as, essentially, himself, and not a faux social conservative (just as whoever is the Dem candidate will run as a centrist). - Fred

Not necessarily. Remember that, to adapt McLuhan, the media is the message, not what the candidates say their messages are. And the media has this "we're a bunch of out of touch liberals, but real 'Murkins are social conservatives" shtick to which they are attached (which is good for the GOP as it perpetuates the useful "liberal media" meme). As such they will expect a GOP candidate to run as an "in touch with the salt of the Earth" social conservative and a Democratic candidate "not to be so liberal".

Tacking to the center is something Democrats have to do according to the script but Republicans ought not to do so much. And it's the job of politicians to know on which side their bread is buttered -- so they'll do what they think will keep the media happy with them as the media controls what gets out to the general public, even in this day and age of blogs, etc.

Posted by DAS | January 1, 2008 4:44 PM

Off-topic: Matt, I hope you're watching the Texas Tech-U.Va. game today. Tech's been going for it on fourth down more often than not, and having a great deal of success with it.

Sucks, because I'm rooting for U.Va., but I'm kinda glad that the Texas Tech coach is trying this approach - that somebody is, anyway.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | January 1, 2008 4:50 PM

I find it incomprehensible that anyone aware of Mitt Romney's responses to the Boston Globe questionnaire on executive power could say the man might make "an okay president." After the last 7 years? Are you kidding me?

On the basis of that one issue, alone, he is utterly unfit for the office. Hell, he's unfit for any job in the executive branch; much less the top one.

One might argue Romney's responses were, like pretty much everything the man says, just a case of telling the voters what they want to hear. It doesn't matter. Telling his voters what they want to hear on this issue continues the Bush/Cheney legitimization of the monarchical executive.

If he wins after having done that . . . God help this country. The fact that he "ran a successful business" could hardly matter less.

Posted by urbino | January 1, 2008 4:54 PM

re: Matt on Mitt "He's a giant phony."

Today Mitt continued his odd habit of issuing unnecessary seeming false notes during random speech.

He pretended to shocked to hear Shimon Peres was in favor of the Iraq war - He noted that Peres was on the left in Israel, so he just was assuming he opposed the war.

If Romney was new to politics this might have been a plausible error - But since everyone with a passing familiarity knew Shimon Peres was in favor of invading Iraq, it seems pretty likely that Mitt was lying when he said he assumed otherwise.

But it's puzzling why he would lie about something like this - What's the upside? This is like his false note about promising to resist those phantom forces in the GOP trying to get him to leave his Mormon church.

Tony Blankely likened that to Nixon swearing to keep Checkers from those liberals wanting to take the dog away from the kids.

Flashback -- Romney's dad was "brainwashed" to support Vietnam war.

Posted by Comment | January 1, 2008 4:58 PM

The Brooks article points to a larger story than Mitt's chosen strategy for the nominaton. Brooks takes into account where the party is, how it fares with independents, hispanics, etc.

The three-legged stool coalition needs to be studied more in depth. Two of the legs are ready to kill each other and leave the stool altogether.

I covered the article today. For anyone interested, here is the link.

http://thepoliticalpost.wordpress.com/2008/01/01/david-brooks-romney-is-a-road-to-nowhere/

Posted by SDthepoliticalpost | January 1, 2008 5:01 PM

"Brooks is right that Romney has the heart of a bean counter. The Presidency isn't about management so much as it is about leadership, and on that count Mitt Romney is a complete zero."--AJ

Regarding what AJ wrote, it is entirely possible (probable?) that Romney lacks the moral compass to lead effectively, but I worry about assertions that a candidate's alleged capacity for "leadership" should be the sine qua non for voters. The concept of leadership is nebulous, and celebrating it implies that people should be ready to trust a person's gut judgement rather than gauge his or her ability to hear alternative viewpoints before making a choice. In a way, there is something to be said for bean counters who don't trust their gut but tally up viewpoints, weigh their validity (and here, I admit, "leadership" is key) and THEN make a decision. Bush fancies himself a great "leader." He is, after all, THE DECIDER. So I sometimes wish he had the heart of a bean counter. I may have falsely reified the categories of bean counter and leader, but I think I understand Matt Y when he implies that a bean counter is not as inherently dangerous as a self-styled leader. Romney, in short, might be less dangerous than Rudy or others of his ilk.

Posted by Unreal Veal | January 1, 2008 5:06 PM

Coming up with a list of Romney howlers is easy, but boring.

1. Pretending he wanted to fight in Vietnam
2. Pretending he had earnest views, one way or the other, on abortion policy.
3. Pretending to be a hunter.
4. Pretending to be really upset at John Edwards for saying there is "two Americas."
5. Pretending to wish he was not in France during the Vietnam war.
6. Pretending to be shocked and suprised that Shimon Peres was in favor of Bush attacking one of his nation's enemies (Iraq]/
7. Pretedning to resist secularists and politcial cynics who only wish to drag him away, for politcal opportunistic reasons, from the faith of his fathers - His Mormonism.
8. Pretending to feel more at home in the red states, than in Massachusettes.
9. Pretending to be upset about illegals.
10. Pretening his zero pardon policy was about protecting citizens from criminals.

on and on

Posted by Comment | January 1, 2008 5:08 PM

One other false note Romney shares with Kerry is pretending to be a Red Sox fanatic - Both mem could get away with being nominal fans who are too busy or too serious to care too much about the Sox - But both pretend otherwise. Kerry used to make a number of mistakes when he bragged about "his team," when he was running on '04. These were unnessary howlers - Romney also exaggerates his fondness for baseball.

Jacques Barzun said you have to understand baseball to understand America - But what to make for politcians who profess false baseball piety?

Posted by Comment | January 1, 2008 5:16 PM

I too thought that Romney might be the least bad Republican president.......until I read the Executive Power Survey done by Charlie Savage. Romney comes out as the most Cheney-esque of any of the candidates. This is scary because it was an under the radar issue that Romney didn't need to sound like a lunatic in order to appease Republicans.....but he did it anyway.

Now I'd say that McCain is probably the least bad Republican candidate. Only by process of elimination.

Posted by nathan | January 1, 2008 5:46 PM

Trevor on Romey - Oh, sure, he says he would, but like a lot of things...his convictions are paper-thin

One of the things that Romney has that he hasn't used was his "last minute checklist" from back in 1994 comparing his stance on every national issue, some 24 items, then under debate (80% still the same issues today because of our partisan paralysis) and the ONLY one Romney changed postion on was abortion.

People that knew Romney as a teen or young adult say he is the same person today they knew then. High energy, brilliant, simple tastes, dryly funny, with a serious moral compass and committment to civic service and faith.

I frankly prefer to have a leader capable of changing their mind and not sticking stubbornly with a failed subordinate or failed policy (Rumsfeld, Iraq occupation policy 2004-late 2006).
If changing ones mind automatically makes someone weak and an "untrustworthy flip-flopper" as true believing pro-life forces slam Romney for being, as a convert to their side? I want a President who will listen and adapt to the unexpected challenges and changing circumstances of the world and make reasonable changes in views as Reagan did when he went from liberal FDR Democrat to conservative or Arnold made changes needed to govern effectively rather than go down in Laissez Fair doctrinaire flames.

I want a President with a few central, ironclad committments but not a full platform of blind dogma or blind "moral purity" that serves America badly.

If the Religious Right seeks to blackball anyone that converts or pledges to appoint only strict constructionist judges to do the only real thing a President can do with abortion - seek Roes overturning so the matter is decided by State voters, why should someone convert and be blackballed. Why should Rudy be "unacceptable on abortion grounds" if he commits on his honor to that? Why then should anyone rush to people who's argument is "Abortion is bad, change your opinion and come to our side, then we will treat you like a pariah for flip-flopping and still favor someone who bought creationism and abortion being "baby-murder even at stem cell level - back in the 3rd grade..?"

And many Democrats face the same fury from anti-American Lefties if we see we are winning Iraq, we must still enforce each candidate swearing to run away because back in 2006 Democrats ran on it being a defeat?

To me, Hillary, Obama will honor pledges because they value their reputation for integrity. Edwards is a trial lawyer.
On Republicans, 4 of the 5 leading candidates will honor pro-life pledge to appoint strict constructists and no ACLU types because they too stick by commitments. Only John McCain has a history of disappearing in a back room with his "good friends" Ted Kennedy, Arlen Spector, John Kerry, Schumer, and Russ Feingold and emerging with a proposal that betrays & compromises his committment "in the best interest of Senate friendship and comity, and sacrificing some principles so things can move forward."

In the also-rans, Biden and Richardson, besides Edwards and McCain - have records of being duplicitous snakes.

Posted by Chris Ford | January 1, 2008 5:47 PM

> People that knew Romney as a teen or young
> adult say he is the same person today they
> knew then. High energy, brilliant, simple
> tastes, dryly funny, with a serious moral
> compass and committment to civic service
> and faith.

For some reason this "serious moral compass" (same type that Bush had apparently) never seems to point Republicans away from lying. For example, lying about one's record as Governor of Massachusetts. I thought lying was a flat-out sin? Or is there an exemption for lying used to gain a nomination or win an election?

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | January 1, 2008 5:56 PM

Re the 5:08pm comment

How about Romney saying that his sons' sacrifice for the good of the nation consisted of working for his campaign?

Posted by nbt | January 1, 2008 5:56 PM

Romney's throwback country-club Republican in a relatively benign fashion too. He's more like the generation before his own in the sense that he's not some scrofulous over-privileged a-hole. even his wife seems okay. I don't believe for a second that he'd be the kind of President the country needs, just that he ain't some scumsucking *man without idealism Don Rumsfeld.

*Nixon's take on Rummy

Posted by Trevor | January 1, 2008 6:05 PM

Actually Chris, he changed positions on far more than just abortion. Gay rights, for example. And he changed all of these positions on the eve of running for president, which makes it obvious it was not not a matter of simply changing his mind.

Chris, you could probably get a job on the Romney campaign if you wrote more coherently.

Posted by James | January 1, 2008 6:09 PM

All of those Romney boosters here should keep in mind that, according to the GOP-leaning Rasmussen Reports, their wonderful man has negatives of 51%, which tops Hillary.

Posted by James | January 1, 2008 6:14 PM

"How about Romney saying that his sons' sacrifice for the good of the nation consisted of working for his campaign?"

Romney walked that back, but if you want to limit yourself to candidates who have kid risking his life for the country, you're down to McCain, aren't you? Chelsea's work for the good of the country is at a New York hedge fund, I think.

Posted by Fred | January 1, 2008 6:23 PM

It's inappropriate to bring up Chelsea or the Bush twins - There are different expectations about women when it comes to military service - There is still a greater expectation that men should serve in the military.
Romney, especially with his own record of draft dodging, should have STFU about his own children and war - He invited ridicule. It was unnesssary. No one was demanding they serve in a war they did not start.

Posted by Comment | January 1, 2008 6:31 PM

Romney's wife is very pretty - She is on c-span now. It might make good TV to watch her debate Mrs. Obama - a pretty intense character.

Posted by Comment | January 1, 2008 6:34 PM

Chris, you could probably get a job on the Romney campaign if you wrote more coherently.

Sure, up until the point he started writing campaign material denouncing Clinton's attempt to "jewify" America.

Posted by 23456 | January 1, 2008 6:42 PM

"It's inappropriate to bring up Chelsea or the Bush twins - There are different expectations about women when it comes to military service - There is still a greater expectation that men should serve in the military."

After driving ROTC off of the campuses of Ivy League universities and otherwise expressing disdain for the military, the Left itself has lessened the expectation that children of any wealthy New Englanders/Northeasterners should serve in the armed forces. This wasn't always the case, but it has been so for at least a generation.

Posted by Fred | January 1, 2008 7:01 PM

a brilliant Republican who has had a phenomenally successful career in business and public administration

Now I know where all those striking comedy writers have relocated to.

Posted by Col Bat Guano | January 1, 2008 7:02 PM

Sometimes it's not who you are; it's who you're not. Bill Clinton simply wasn't George H.W. Bush. In this case, Mitt Romney just isn't Hillary Clinton. And so it goes: http://theseedsof9-11.com

Posted by Peggy McGilligan | January 1, 2008 7:22 PM

Mitt Romney was, at best, a mediocre governor. He left office with a approval rating of 40%. He would not have been re-elected. He was followed by the first Democrat elected governor in the state in over 15 years.

Posted by mark | January 1, 2008 7:40 PM

Correct, Mark, and again, I point out that his negatives are very high, second only to Giuliani. And is positives are only 38%, the lowest of any candidate. People can just sense that Romney is a phony.

Posted by James | January 1, 2008 7:43 PM

"People can just sense that Romney is a phony."

This is my biggest frustration with Romney. When he tries to out-Huckabee Huckabee, he is being a phony. All politicians do this to some extent. Hillary Clinton -- particularly in front of black audiences -- is the most obvious example ("I ain't no ways tired...", saying Republicans are running Congress like a "plantation", etc.). The difference is that Hillary has to be phony because the real Hillary would be an unappealing candidate. The real Romney would be an appealing candidate though. The sooner he starts being himself, the better he will do.

Posted by Fred | January 1, 2008 7:58 PM

The real Romney would be an appealing candidate though. The sooner he starts being himself, the better he will do.

Apparently the "real" Romney is stuck in a hole in someone's basement since this one is the one we're stuck with.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | January 1, 2008 8:09 PM

But who is the "real" Romney? The moderate, pro-choice, pro-gay rights, anti-Reagan/Bush Romney of 1994 and 2003, or the Romney that emerged in 2005/2006? The problem is, nobody knows. Which makes me believe there is no "real" Romney. He is inherently phony.

Posted by James | January 1, 2008 8:31 PM

On Gay Rights in Massachusettes -- Romney never advocated for legalizing Gay Marriage in his campaign for govenor.

He did advocate for anti-discrimination laws in the work place and against hate crimes.

He also was critical of the armed forces stance on homosexuals (he didn't believe that don't ask don't tell was a workable policy).

Only on this last point has Romney changed his mind stating that it appears don't ask don't tell is working...

Posted by Claire | January 1, 2008 8:44 PM

The bottom line is this: the Republicans have one or two candidates who could win the upcoming general election, and Romney isn't one of them. The Dems would have a field day poking holes in this guy's storied flip-flops, and his lack of national security experience. McCain is the only one who conistantly beats the Dems in the polls, and has widened his lead on them over the past month. But the way things are going, Republicans seem to be leaning towards picking Romney, and in the process, electing Hillary. Lets hope they come around before it's too late.

Posted by Publius | January 1, 2008 8:52 PM

"The Iron Law of Institutions: It's an important (and counterintuitive) principle to understand (it strikes at the heart of why so much of both intramural and internecine politics is motivated by ressentiment and spite)"

I don't know if it's all that counterintuitive - not to me, anyway. Fits in rather nicely with my general Chimpanzee theory of human behavior: control of the troop is more important than whether the troop is doing well, although both are important.

Of course, my theories are "counterintuitive" to most people.

Meanwhile, back on topic, is this thread actually proposing that one of these candidates (other than Ron Paul, possibly, and I'm not certain about him) is really speaking his mind honestly, rather than making up positions he thinks will get him elected to more power?

Do tell.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 1, 2008 9:36 PM

For what it's worth: I'm from MA, and knew some people who hoped that Romney would be a good governor because at least he had serious business experience and knew how to run things. Not a one of them thinks they were right, in retrospect.

Posted by hilzoy | January 1, 2008 11:47 PM

Mitt Romney prevented tax increases by raising fees,
like increasing the price of birth and death certificates from $6 to $18. Don't give him credit for the Mass Universal Health plan, it was not his initiative, and he opposed certain provisions like
employer mandates that would have strangled the plan if adopted. Most people in Massachusetts remember the huge amount of time he spent out of state, often
making jokes about us. He might have a lot of energy, but his term as Governor wasn't an example of its application.

Posted by C, Stuart Andelman | January 2, 2008 1:00 AM

Defend him if you will, Matt; the man makes my skin crawl -- and not just because he and Giuliani seem to be the most enthusiastic candidates regarding both torture and the idea that the Constitution makes the President a little tin god. He is PERSONALLY creepy. He is eerily evocative of those SF stories in which the Presidential candidate turns out to be a robot.

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | January 2, 2008 1:02 AM

>>>>Cranky - "consultancy, especially a high-level "strategic" consultancy, is not a business: it is a racket. It destroys value in order to enrich CxOs and consultants. The sliminess and destructive nature of such an endeavor might still be good training for the Presidency, but it is not to be confused with a real business such as your local family-owned bodega."

You seem to be confused between Bain Capital and Bain and Co. Bain Capital was started as an offshoot and is NOT A CONSULTANCY. They invest (and you're probably thinking about just buying stock, but venture capital is a different dance - you buy companies to manage them).

So yes, it was a business, even assuming you're misguided comments on consulting are true.

By the way, if consultancy destroys value, why do the best of the best always hire the good ones? If Romney destroyed value, then why did the VALUE of the companies he managed grow so much?

Posted by Jordan | January 2, 2008 1:24 AM

"By the way, if consultancy destroys value, why do the best of the best always hire the good ones?"

The Atlantic had a great article on management consulting a year and a half ago: "The Management Myth". Your salient point is correct though, that Bain Capital was a venture capital and private equity company, not a consultancy.

Posted by Fred | January 2, 2008 1:42 AM

Romney is the US equivalent of Brendan Nelson the new leader of Australia's Liberal (actually the conservative party). Nelson has been criticised as a flip-flopper. Both can work the numbers to appeal to get a majority within their party but have zip chance of winning a real world election.

Posted by Geoff Robinson | January 2, 2008 2:13 AM

Romney would be a fine cabinet secretary in a republican administration - say Secretary of Transportation or Interior. Compare him to Fred Thomson, for example, in that regard. And, yes, perhaps he's the least objectionable of the R candidates.

Posted by otto | January 2, 2008 4:53 AM

"it's relatively easy to imagine him being an okay president."

I agree, but only if he were able to shake off the straightjacket of national Republican ideology. How could he, for example, violate the Republican catechism on taxes in order to balance the budget or fix entitlements?

Posted by bob h | January 2, 2008 7:38 AM

"How could he, for example, violate the Republican catechism on taxes in order to balance the budget or fix entitlements?"

Why not? Bush was willing to. Remember when he said "all options" were on the table with respect to reforming Social Security, and the Democrats chose to demagogue the issue instead of try to solve it? So why wouldn't Romney be willing to? After all, Reagan himself signed off on the doubling of the Social Security tax proposed by the Greenspan Commission.

Posted by Fred | January 2, 2008 8:12 AM

Remember when he said "all options" were on the table with respect to reforming Social Security, and the Democrats chose to demagogue the issue instead of try to solve it?

Fred, don't you think it's a little funny that you think it was Bush's job to put "all options on the table" and the (minority) Democrats' job to "try to solve it [solve what?]"? Does that make any sense at all?

it's relatively easy to imagine him being an okay president.

In a vacuum, this would probably be true. In reality, you, living in DC, must be aware of all of the I-hate-government right-wingers, anti-intellectual fundamentalists, and socially ambitious ignoramuses he would end up appointing at all levels of government.

Posted by Tyro | January 2, 2008 8:32 AM

"Fred, don't you think it's a little funny that you think it was Bush's job to put "all options on the table" and the (minority) Democrats' job to "try to solve it [solve what?]"? Does that make any sense at all?"

Tyro,

Don't be obtuse. Democrats had an opportunity to work with Bush to solve the looming fiscal problems with Social Security and chose to demagogue the issue for political gain instead.

Posted by Fred | January 2, 2008 8:52 AM

Nice set of talking points, Fred. It was Bush who was demoagoguing the issue. Don't spew your BS here over a fight Bush picked and lost.

Bush had no plan. He was simply hoping he could scare the Democrats into pre-emptively capitulating in favor of privatization. It was Bush who was demagoguing about inevitable crises and public rebellions is Democrats didn't listen to him.

As I said, it is simply absurd for you to claim that it was a sign of leadership for someone to simply say that "all options are on the table" and then expect everyone else to do something they had no desire, interest, or need to do.

You're either lying, right now, to everyone, to their faces, in which case you're insulting us, or you're really that much of an ignorant lemming that you fell for all the rhetoric (in which case I have a great car dealership I'd like you to visit).

Posted by Tyro | January 2, 2008 8:58 AM

I think Romney's got it wrapped up. That greasy, slicked back 80's hair is more than enough to give the "money" conservatives a boner. It's quite obvious (and highlarious), however, that he'll lose the general cause there ain't no way, no how, uh, uh, not gonna do it, that the "religion" conservatives are gonna vote for a Mormon. I don't care if Hilary is the dem's nominee, ain't no way the evangelicals vote for a "cult" member. Fun times!

Posted by Rihilism | January 2, 2008 9:23 AM

"That said, to give Romney the benefit of the doubt, one thing I can say about him is that there's some indication he might make an okay president."

Uh, I guess. As long as you think that being an okay president is comnpatible with supporting disastrous and dishonest policies like supply-side economics and genocide in Iraq.

Oh how noble and open-minded of you Matt. The only possible motivation for saying something so wrongheaded is that you are trying to kiss ass with the David Broder/Richard Cohen types.

You should be ashamed of yourself for saying this.

Posted by Junius Brutus | January 2, 2008 9:48 AM

"Bush had no plan. He was simply hoping he could scare the Democrats into pre-emptively capitulating in favor of privatization."

Bush had an eminently sensible plan proposed originally by a prominent Democrat (Bob Pozen) to progressively index Social Security benefits -- keeping them tied to faster-growing wages for lower income workers, and transitioning to indexing them to prices for higher income workers. Democrats could have agreed to this plan -- or offered a counter proposal of their own. They did neither, because they chose to demagogue the issue for political gain.

Posted by Fred | January 2, 2008 4:17 PM

Mitt has his faults, to be sure. He also is very intelligent, and has more private sector experience than any other presidential candidate. If he is viewed as being too "plastic", "phony" or whatever, show me what politician (anyone who has ever been elected to office) is not. One has to say over and over, "I'm just like you" to voters.

Of course, I don't necessarily want someone just like me if I'm having brain surgery. I want a brain surgeon. I don't care if he is likable or not, seems personable, etc. If he is the best brain surgeon available, that's who I would want to work on my head.

This (election) is not for the Golden Globes or the Oscars. Its not for student body president or prom king. This is for U.S. President.

I don't want the most popular person running the country, I want the best qualified person with the best compass. When you look at what Romney has done over the years (even more than what he has said), it is hard to argue with or against success.

Is Mitt the Messiah? Certainly not. Can he, will he do it alone? No one could. We'll need to elect better people to Congress. But out of all of the candidates, I'd pick someone who has been true to his wife over those who haven't been. I'd pick someone who runs overt negative TV ads (Romney) over one who won't shush anti-Mormon whisper campaigns (Huckabee), because they stand to benefit.

Also, I would not be smiling in a TV interview if my mother were spewing out anti-Mormon bigotry (regardless of her age), and repeat anti-endorsements of candidates, and then say they weren't making a personal attack (McCain)

Posted by diligentdave | January 2, 2008 5:50 PM

Mitt has his faults, to be sure. He also is very intelligent, and has more private sector experience than any other presidential candidate. If he is viewed as being too "plastic", "phony" or whatever, show me what politician (anyone who has ever been elected to office) is not. One has to say over and over, "I'm just like you" to voters.

Of course, I don't necessarily want someone just like me if I'm having brain surgery. I want a brain surgeon. I don't care if he is likable or not, seems personable, etc. If he is the best brain surgeon available, that's who I would want to work on my head.

This (election) is not for the Golden Globes or the Oscars. Its not for student body president or prom king. This is for U.S. President.

I don't want the most popular person running the country, I want the best qualified person with the best compass. When you look at what Romney has done over the years (even more than what he has said), it is hard to argue with or against success.

Is Mitt the Messiah? Certainly not. Can he, will he do it alone? No one could. We'll need to elect better people to Congress. But out of all of the candidates, I'd pick someone who has been true to his wife over those who haven't been. I'd pick someone who runs overt negative TV ads (Romney) over one who won't shush anti-Mormon whisper campaigns (Huckabee), because they stand to benefit.

Also, I would not be smiling in a TV interview if my mother were spewing out anti-Mormon bigotry (regardless of her age), and repeat anti-endorsements of candidates, and then say they weren't making a personal attack (McCain)

Posted by diligentdave | January 2, 2008 5:51 PM