This is an old cartoon, so don't forget the "Pro-Communist Health Care" and "Anti-Communist Health Care" podiums:
Posted on 11/25/2011 4:36:12 PM PST by neverdem
Romney: The Castor-Oil Candidate
Republicans are finding the prospect of nominating Mitt hard to swallow.
Nominating Mitt Romney is sort of like taking Grandma’s castor oil. Republicans are dreading the thought of downing their unpleasant-tasting medicine but worry that sooner or later they will have to.
By any logical political calculus, the former Massachusetts governor is an ideal presidential candidate. Ramrod straight, fit, and well-educated, he knows all sorts of facts and figures and comes across like a cinematic chief executive.
At any other time, an informed technocrat like Romney would seem a dream candidate. Yet in the run-up to this election, Americans are completely turned off by Washington’s so-called experts, such as Energy Secretary Steven Chu, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, Attorney General Eric Holder — and, increasingly, Barack Obama himself.
As a former governor and presidential candidate, Romney has been fully vetted. In these racy times, Mormonism is viewed as more a guarantee of a candidate’s past probity than a political liability. So there is little chance that a blonde accuser will appear out of Romney’s past, or that in late October 2012 the New York Times will uncover a long-ago DUI charge.
The calculating Republican establishment believes Romney has enough crossover appeal to independents to beat a shaky Obama. It still has nightmares of tea-party senatorial candidates Sharron Angle and Christine O’Donnell, whose 2010 primary victories led to inept campaigns and Republican losses in the general elections in Nevada and Delaware, respectively.
Although conservatives dub Romney a flip-flopper for changing positions on abortion, gun control, and health care, the base knew all about those old reversals in 2008, when it nonetheless praised Romney as the only conservative alternative to maverick moderate John McCain. Apparently the party has moved to the right since then. Tea partiers worry that, once in office, a moderate President Romney would prove a reach-out centrist — spending borrowed money like George W. Bush did on No Child Left Behind or the Medicare prescription-drug benefit, thereby ruining for good the now-suspect Republican brand of fiscal sobriety.
The result of those worries is that Romney has become the process-of-elimination candidate. The Hamlet-like governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels, hemmed and hawed and bowed out, as most knew he would. The charismatic and controversial Rudy Giuliani and Sarah Palin decided they were making too much money to go through another nasty political race.
If finger-pointing magnate Donald Trump was going to bet a campaign on Obama’s reluctance to disclose official documents, he would have done better to demand the release of the president’s mysteriously secret college transcripts and medical records rather than his birth certificate. In the debates, the audiences liked what former Sen. Rick Santorum had to say, regretting only that it came out of the mouth of Rick Santorum.
Rep. Michele Bachmann once soared as the anti-Romney and then crashed when 90 percent of her statements seemed courageous and inspired — but 10 percent sounded kind of weird.
Then came the most promising Romney alternative, job-creating Texas governor Rick Perry. He looked as presidential as Romney but immediately proved even more wooden in the debates. His “brainfreeze” moments were made worse by occasional goofy explanations that seemed most un-Texan.
New Jersey governor Chris Christie and Florida senatoor Marco Rubio were always crowd favorites, and they’re certainly hard-charging conservatives. Yet at some point, both realized that their scant years in office were comparable, in theory, to the thin résumé of Obama when he entered the presidency clueless.
Rep. Ron Paul’s shrill talk on fiscal sobriety is as refreshing as his vintage-1930s isolationist foreign policy is creepy. Former Utah governor Jon Huntsman is a sort of weak Romney doppelganger, raising the same paradox that money, looks, polish, and moderation this year are cause for suspicion, not reassurance.
Many like businessman Herman Cain’s straight-talking pragmatism. Yet more are worried that he might not know that China is a nuclear power, or that we recently joined the British and French in bombing Libya. By now, former speaker of the House Newt Gingrich knows almost everything about everything. But lots of Newt’s original — and now abandoned — positions were as liberal as Romney’s. And not all that long ago, he seemed as brilliant and glib — and recklessly self-destructive — as his contemporary and antagonist Bill Clinton.
To beat an ever-more-vulnerable Obama, Republicans keep coming back to someone who resembles a Romney, with strengths in just those areas where Obama is so demonstrably weak: prior executive experience as a governor, success in and intimacy with the private sector, a past fully vetted, and an unambiguous belief in the exceptional history and future of the United States.
In short, if Republicans are happy in theory that Mitt Romney could probably beat Obama, they seem just as unhappy in fact that first they have to nominate him.
— Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and the author, most recently, of The End of Sparta, a novel about ancient freedom. © 2011 Tribune Media Services, Inc.
This is an old cartoon, so don't forget the "Pro-Communist Health Care" and "Anti-Communist Health Care" podiums:
I voted for Goldwater, and I would have voted for Dr Paul last time but Fla would allow a write-in but would not count Paul—so I voted Chuck Baldwin.
I’m not an R, nor a D, but I’d vote Paul as an R, but preferably as a 3d...
I can understand Rs problem w/Romney, though.
Seems to me most Rs would then go with Perry, considering that most compromise on anything/everything...but I just don’t understand people...or maybe I do, just don;t accept them.
;)
Semper Watching!
*****
” ... an informed technocrat like Romney would seem a dream candidate.” Silly me. I thought jokes were for the funny papers.
I'm comfortable with thinking of Mitt Romney as castor oil:
"Although castor oil may be used for constipation, it is not a preferred treatment, because it can produce painful cramps, fecal incontinence and explosive diarrhea. Its action can go on for hours, sometimes unpredictably and powerfully causing an involuntary bowel movement at inconvenient locations and during sleep."
I'm not read for four years of that side effect! Not with my money and my government.
Bears repeating!
“I am big time in the ABO crowd...I have my deepest criticisms for Huntsman. Cannot stand him.
But I will run, not walk, to vote for him if he is the nominee.
My theory is this: all of the Republicans are flawed...but all of them love America. Hussein is not just flawed, but willingly so—and he hates America.
This is one reason Hussein is a worse President than Carter. Carter, inept and feckless, at least loved this country...Hussein doesn’t.
I’ll take a flawed person who loves America over one who hates our nation.
So yes, I question his patriotism.”
So, what do you kids want, a Mormon or a Muslim? A failure to vote for the Mormon is effectively a vote for the Muslim. Me, I’ll take the Mormon.
Sounds a lot like what we’re stuck with now as pResident.
I will not vote for Romney - ever.
I voted for McLaim last time ONLY because of Sarah.
I will not vote for RINOmney, no matter who the VP would be.
If there is a third party conservative candidate, I’ll vote for them.
If there is not third party candidate, I’ll go fishing.
Cain!
VDH doesn’t understand Paul’s foreign policy which is not “isolationist.” On trade, the pro-free trade Paul is probably more of an internationalist than VDH.
I was a Goldwater Girl in high school and I would never vote for Paul. I don’t support people who continually make excuses for terrorist leaders, never has seen an enemy of the US and taken them seriously. He may have some good economy policy ideas, however his view on national security leave much to be desired.
I have another, similar thought. Ultimately Republicans are pro-business and Democrats are anti-business, regardless of all else.
For must of us we spend 1/3 of the time sleeping, 1/3 of the time working and 1/3 of the time recreating. Given this reality it's HUGELY important to go with the pro-business party.
I really didn't think that McCain would wind up the choice last time. It's what we get for allowing open primary elections. That's why we fixed all that this time around..............Oh, wait......
This kid doesn’t want a socialist whether they are mormon or muslim. I will not vote for Romney because he is a liberal - it’s that simple.
I have lived in Texas for almost thirty years. Things are not perfect, but I’m satisfied. I never want to live in Massachusetts.
That said, IF Romney gets nominated, I'll probably hold my nose and vote for him. Better than the Bamster. That is the main thing, GET RID OF OBAMA.
Hopefully Romney won't even get nominated.
“A failure to vote for the Mormon is effectively a vote for the Muslim. “
... logic like that is why we keep ending up with RINO candidates - weak, milk-toast, stunted, deformed, stillborn candidates.
If they run, they are picked off easily - Dole, McCain, etc. If they win, they are not equipped to govern and lead as
conservatives and damage the country and party.
By NOT VOTING FOR A RINO, I am communicating that they better do better to deserve my vote, or they don’t get it. Maybe next time they’ll listen. Maybe the country will learn by destruction. They are certainly going to tee up the ball for a third party
run by a conservative candidate.
There is a stench that hangs over Willard that will not be perfumed or washed away. He is a liberal, self-centered,
guy who wants to be worshipped on earth before he gets a planet of his own.
You can nominate him via your false choice. He will not win and if he does, you will get another Obama in policy and
a crippled party and a crippled country. My goal isn’t to slow the train down as it goes toward a cliff. It is to turn
the stinkin’ train around. Nominating and electing RINOmney is the same as watching a the same train wreck in slow
motion.
I may not be able to stop it with my one vote.
I refuse to participate in it.
Oh my.
I had to stop reading. It was around the line where he wrote we don’t have to worry about Romney being exposed for having a DUI charge.
Actually, he has a DUD charge: Driving Under Dog. Putting the sick pooch on the roof was an uncommonly heartless act.
But it doesn’t approach protecting the so-called “right” to kill a baby.
We have enormous reason to reject Mitt Romney. Mine don’t include Mormonism, or an aversion to well-educated candidates (is he? really?)
Yes, he is vetted. And found wanting. Wanting of core, of principles, of integrity.
Unfortunately, I’m going to have to hold my nose and take the full dose of your article, Mr. Hanson. Because now I have misgivings about you!
Logical political calculus? How about ideological concerns?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.