And in this corner, there’s Romney
The incoming freshman senator from Utah, former governor of Massachusetts, and failed presidential candidate Mitt Romney wrote an op-ed critical of President Trump that appeared in the WaPo today. Trump’s retort was basically “I’m president, and you’re not.”
Here we go with Mitt Romney, but so fast! Question will be, is he a Flake? I hope not. Would much prefer that Mitt focus on Border Security and so many other things where he can be helpful. I won big, and he didn’t. He should be happy for all Republicans. Be a TEAM player & WIN!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 2, 2019
Actually, that’s a relatively restrained retort from Trump, who is basically saying “Get on board.” But what was Romney saying? He started by criticizing some of Trump’s recent foreign policy moves (a la Syria, for example) which appear to have alarmed him. But mostly Romney’s op-ed is about what he calls “character” but is more about what I’d call “tone,” although character is related to it:
After [Trump] became the nominee, I hoped his campaign would refrain from resentment and name-calling. It did not. When he won the election, I hoped he would rise to the occasion. His early appointments of Rex Tillerson, Jeff Sessions, Nikki Haley, Gary Cohn, H.R. McMaster, Kelly and Mattis were encouraging. But, on balance, his conduct over the past two years, particularly his actions last month, is evidence that the president has not risen to the mantle of the office.
It is not that all of the president’s policies have been misguided. He was right to align U.S. corporate taxes with those of global competitors, to strip out excessive regulations, to crack down on China’s unfair trade practices, to reform criminal justice and to appoint conservative judges. These are policies mainstream Republicans have promoted for years. But policies and appointments are only a part of a presidency.
To a great degree, a presidency shapes the public character of the nation. A president should unite us and inspire us to follow “our better angels.” A president should demonstrate the essential qualities of honesty and integrity, and elevate the national discourse with comity and mutual respect. As a nation, we have been blessed with presidents who have called on the greatness of the American spirit. With the nation so divided, resentful and angry, presidential leadership in qualities of character is indispensable. And it is in this province where the incumbent’s shortfall has been most glaring.
Compared to the usual NeverTrumper rhetoric, or the typical Two Minutes Hate of the typical Democratic critic of Trump, that’s tepid fare. Romey’s not a NeverTrumper, but why would he do this at the outset of taking office? Well, perhaps he’s positioning himself to primary Trump in 2020. But I don’t that’s what’s going on, although he certainly might end up supporting someone who does (depending on the person). I think Romney is just showing exactly what he doesn’t like about Trump and what he hopes will change. In the process, he’s also showing us what he thinks that he, Mitt Romney, would have offered America had he been elected in 2012: a gentleman president.
He’s right and he’s wrong. Yes, Romney would have been a gentleman president (had he won, which he did not, in part because he was such a gentleman), and Trump is most decidedly not a gentleman in the conventional sense. And I think that all the nostalgia demonstrated at George H. W. Bush’s recent funeral indicates a poignant yearning for a time when presidents were gentlemen, or at least appeared to be gentlemen.
But in much of Romney’s op-ed he reminds me of Horton the Elephant of Dr. Seuss fame:
And it should be,
it should be, it SHOULD be
like that!
Because Horton was faithful!
He sat and he sat!
Here’s Romney in the op-ed:
A president should unite us and inspire us to follow “our better angels.” A president should demonstrate the essential qualities of honesty and integrity, and elevate the national discourse with comity and mutual respect.
To quote the last line of another great literary work—Hemingway’s The Sun Also Rises—Isn’t it pretty to think so?
I think there’s something far more broken than that in the US today. I’m not even going to try to pinpoint exactly when it began—there have been many points of increase along the way—but I know that it’s been building and building and building for much of my lifetime, and I don’t believe that any Republican could set a tone that would actually unify or inspire us, because (as the attacks on Gentleman Romney himself during his candidacy demonstrated) anything and everything will be used against such a candidate, who will be perceived as weak. Whether a Democrat—with the help of the press behind him or her—could do some uniting is questionable, if only because such people are now dinosaurs who’ve been drummed out of the party a la Joe Lieberman.
So those days are gone, and Romney is dreaming. It’s a cliché to say it, but Trump is the symptom rather than the cause.
And right on cue, the WaPo itself demonstrates this, albeit in a somewhat subtle way. On the very day of Romney’s op-ed—which must have had them chortling with glee—they have also published this piece by their very own correspondent Philip Bump entitled “Timeline: Romney’s criticisms of Trump have always been moderated by his own ambitions.” It’s long and detailed, and must have taken some time to research; probably Bump was given the assignment as soon as Romney’s op-ed was received and the decision made to print it.
Bump’s piece attempts to show Romney as a craven opportunist whose stated opinion of Trump waxes and wanes depending on whether he needs him or not. In this, of course, Romney shows himself to be what he is: a politician. And the WaPo shows how it repays Republican gentlemen such as Romney.
Romney ran the weakest and most pathetic Republican presidential campaign since G.H.W. Bush ran for re-election. To be fair, any aggression against Obama would have instantly generated cries of racism.
Like McCain, Romney will have a -M after his name; a member of the Media party. Or maybe not, if the WaPo immediately poked a thumb in his eye.
_____
Other interesting news today, former insider Jill Abramson slams the NY Times. They’re biased against Trump; not news. The young “journalists” are itching to dispense with journalistic standards in their attacks; is news?
Yes, be a Gentleman and get your a– handed to you. Trump fights, that’s good enough for me.
Never forget papa George “Brainwashed” Romney.
Born in Chihauhau, because his own parents also lacked the presence of mind to avoid the Mormon colonization project in Mexico.
The Pratts and Romneys have been core Mormon stock since the pioneer days – absolutely salt of the earth people – but they appear to have always had a blind-spot for the Peter Principle.
Poster child for the genetic inheritance of determinitive mental characteristics.
Over at Legal Insurrection, William Jacobson has a scathing essay regarding Romney’s op-ed. Here is a former presidential candidate who was treated like a pinata by the press and yet takes sides with them and the Never Trumper’s much like a child supprots an abusive parent.
I think Jacobson’s headline hits the nail right on the head (wemphasis mine): “Mitt Romney casts a pathetic shadow . . . ”
The link:
https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/01/mitt-romney-casts-a-pathetic-shadow-in-his-wapo-op-ed-attacking-trump/
What sticks most in my mind about Romney’s campaign for president in 2012 was that debate with Obama when Candy Crowley and Obama pulled a fast-one, with her waving a paper “proving” Obama’s false point. Something right out of Trump’s playbook, come to think of it, and which would be applauded by Trump cultists today if he did it. But, oh, how we screamed about how bad a thing it was to do then. Good times.
Ted Clayton: It’s Chihuahua.
Ann;
Are you kidding me?
Candy Crowley, who waved the paper, is a newsperson who at that point was supposed to be an objective moderator of a debate and not insinuate herself into it. She also was incorrect in what she said. I wrote extensively about that debate and analyzed exactly what occurred. All you have to do is do a search on this blog for her name, and you’ll find my posts.
Trump is a politician, not a moderator of a debate. Your analogy is bizarre.
I was talking about the whole shady incident, not simply Candy Crowley’s part in it.
Ann:
That makes no sense. “The whole shady incident” was shady only because of Crowley’s part in it.
Poster child for the genetic inheritance of determinitive mental characteristics.
Mr. Romney is a centimillionaire who prospered in the private equity business. Among his accomplishments have been the supervision of one of the Olympic Games, a tour as Governor of Massachusetts and a near miss in a presidential election. He’s been married for 48 years and has 5 children and 20 grandchildren. How’s your life going?
The Demo attacks on Romney and other Republicans- which for the most part were meekly accepted- are what enabled Trump’s attack mode to be widely accepted. Mitt Romney and the Demos may not like Trump’s attack mode, but I for one rather like it. Turnabout is fair play.
Had Mitt Romney been more combative in response to the Demo character attacks on him- perhaps he would be President now, not Trump.
. . .and also Steven Hayward over at Powerlineblog.
The link:
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/01/in-re-romney.php
This may have been mentioned before but Romney and Trump remind me of two Civil War Union generals, McClellan and Grant.
McClellan/Romney tried to fight without wounding anyone. If they had an advantage, they never exploited it. After being fired/lost, they complained about who was in charge who really didn’t know how to run things properly.
Lincoln said of Grant/Trump, “He knows how to fight.” That’s what most of us want. Someone to fight for our rights and freedoms.
McClellan/Romney set themselves as unifiers, but really it was/is about their own egos. When discussing ‘presidential character’ I never thought Clinton or Obama really had much either. The media industral complex covers/covered for them that most people never saw it.
Thanks for the link, T, that’s a good piece. Sad to see this dumb move by Mitt.
eeyore — you put the tale on that elephant.
Apt.
I like Romney more than most people here. I’m not sure anyone, including Trump, could have beaten Obama in 2012.
But I am quite annoyed with Romney’s anklebiting since Trump won in 2016 and I am reassessing Romney on that account.
Huxley- My thoughts exactly. I used to have an enormous amount of respect for the man, but no longer.
eeyore – excellent comparison
I voted for both Romney and President Trump when they ran.
One of them gets to nominate Federal judges including members of SCOTUS. The other gets to write an opinion
piece for the Post.
I wonder which one will have a more lasting influence on the USA?
Mitt should have understood that before one can set policy he ( or she ) has to be elected.
Anyone who wants to be President, and who is willing to put himself (and his family) through this brawling, bare-knuckled, and arduous process is, by definition, someone with a huge ego, and a thirst for power.
But, in these times, being a gentleman, and professing to have “high principles”–especially given the opposition arrayed against you, and their “no holds barred” tactics–just won’t cut it. As the saying goes, “nice guys finish last.”
Perhaps Romney is a good man in the general sense, but the very stiff, stuffed shirt Mr. Romney lost because he appeared weak, he was a milquetoast: he did not have the fire and grit that we need in a President today.
Moxy is the last thing I would associate with Romney.
Now Trump, Trump has plenty of grit, attitude, and moxy.
That Romney should now attack the President who did have that fire and grit to get elected brings to mind the image of the obnoxious little kids in the balcony at a movie theater I observed, many decades ago, spitting candy on the adults seated below.
I donated more money to Romney than I have any other candidate. I was concerned when he didn’t defend himself on “Romneycare.” He could have pointed out that the legislature added paragraphs and overrode his veto when he tried to stop it. It seems he was proud of the whole mess.
T, the key paragraph of that Steve Hayward column is this.
It is not that all of the president’s policies have been misguided. He was right to align U.S. corporate taxes with those of global competitors, to strip out excessive regulations, to crack down on China’s unfair trade practices, to reform criminal justice and to appoint conservative judges. These are policies mainstream Republicans have promoted for years.
I boldfaced “promoted” because Romney has unwittingly provided the devastating argument against his style of Republicanism. Yes, it is quite true that nearly all Republican presidential candidates—and presidents—have promoted tax reform, lower regulation, getting tough with China, and appointing better judges (and add in moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem), if by “promoted” you mean giving lip service to the ideas.
None of them have delivered on these “promoted” ideas (Reagan excepted, of course).
Devastating criticism. Reagan, of course, had a Democrat Congress , which let him win the Cold War as long he did not stop their spending.
Romney has destroyed my former good opinion of him. Smugness does not suit you well Mitt.
Snow on Pine:
I disagree about the kids in the movie theater. Trump was the kid spitting candy on the adults. Romney was the kid begging them to stop.
I agree with the point about “promoted.”
The mainstream GOP was unwilling to fight for the things they said they wanted. So far, Trump is willing to fight for those things.
As a resident of MA I lost respect for him when he ran against Teddy Kennedy for Senate. Kennedy was under a lot of pressure to say something about Chappaquidic, which he did in a very mealy mouthed indirect way at the beginning of one of their debates. Rather than using that as an opening to jump down Kennedy’s throat and start bashing him for being a drunken coward and murderer, a man who should have gone to prison instead being a US Senator, Romney smiled and let him go.
I was angry when he started word smithing Obama and Crowley about Benghazi instead of going after both of them, but it was par for the course for him. I turned off the tv and knew that he had lost at that point because he turned wimp again when the going got rough.
Ulimately, Romney wants to be in with the in-crowd, admired and loved, but won’t muss his tie to get there.
Just got back from an alternate universe: Maybe the Romney criticism could do us some good. He could be the Republican spokesman to criticize Trump’s tone while getting the more moderate reps in congress to support him more strongly on issues. He could be the person who gets suburbanites to listen to the issues and say if Romney supports them, I can too. Gosh, when even his RNC Chair niece is saying we have to form a team, Romney could be the good cop to Trump’s bad cop to win over the center. Look how good Lindsey Graham has been for us.
Maybe that alternate universe was only a dream.
Mike K:
I discussed that very thing at the time, and the dilemmas Romney faced trying to defend his Romneycare record and attack Obamacare at the same time. here:
expat:
It could pan out that way. I tend to think it won’t, but I agree that it’s a possibility.
Mitt wants to return to the gentle days of yesteryear, when a black and his party could insult the hell out of him, and he would take it like a “gentleman.” Where are your gentlemanly ways now, Mitt? Where did they get you in bare-knuckle politics? You are trying that game on, now, for what? You are and have been a coward in the face of the enemy.
We have some stupids and immorals out West. Jeff Flake is one, Donna Shalala and Moonbeam Brown are others. And then there is Mitt!
What a shmuck
The present battle is not about style, tone or decorum. It is about fundamental principles of moral behavior, so the conflict can not be resolved by a compromise. There is no middle ground between traditional, Judeo-Christian moral on which USA was founded, and total nihilism and paganism of the contemporary Left. One of the parties to this conflict must be completely defeated for a new normal being established.
I knew a man who worked for President Reagan. Most people considered Reagan to be an amiable, likable person. And he was – not a mean bone in his body. He was also well spoken. But what only those close to him knew was that Reagan had a stainless steel spine. He was willing to stand up to his opposition and was not afraid of the MSM or the USSR. That’s why he got things done. He had a bed rock conservative philosophy, knew what he wanted to do, and worked to put it into action.
Contrast the lovable, respected George H. W. Bush with him. A nice man and a gentleman of the Ivy League school, but afraid to take a stand against the MSM and his progressive detractors. Read his book, “All the Best.” Reveals a very nice man. As Leo Durocher said, “Nice guys finish last.”
W. had more sand than his father, but he was still too nice to stand up to the MSM. They savaged him and he took it like a noble gentleman, not wanting to stoop to their level. A mistake in this day and age.
Oh, that Trump had the style of Reagan. He has his backbone and doesn’t fear the MSM, but his shoot from the lip style puts off those who think style more important than winning. As does dear old Mitt. The McClellan/Grant comparison is apt. As well as the observation that you have to go into the political trenches with the President you’ve got. We’ve got a fighter and he needs our support.
neo on January 2, 2019 at 3:15 pm at 3:15 pm said:
Ann;
Are you kidding me?
Candy Crowley, who waved the paper, is a newsperson who at that point was supposed to be an objective moderator of a debate and not insinuate herself into it. She also was incorrect in what she said. I wrote extensively about that debate and analyzed exactly what occurred. All you have to do is do a search on this blog for her name, and you’ll find my posts.
Trump is a politician, not a moderator of a debate. Your analogy is bizarre.
” Mr. President, it doesn’t require an ongoing investigation to determine why you went to bed instead of ordering in military assets.”
McClellan Mitt couldn’t say it
Grant Trump would have had no problem
There’s plenty to dislike about Trump, but there’s one thing he’s not-an outlier. Pondering a few of his predecessors-JFK was a profligate philanderer who lied about his health and was woefully unprepared for the Presidency, as seen in the Vienna summit that led to the Cuban Missile Crisis. LBJ was almost comically corrupt, and, as Robert Caro documented, likely would’ve been forced to resign the Vice Presidency had Kennedy avoided Dallas. Nixon was Nixon, Clinton Clinton, and even George HW Bush BS’d us with his sole campaign pledge (taxes). Obama lied about being a moderate and a racial healer on the trail, and the fabrications continued when he assumed office. Trump is all too typical.
Here is another take from NRO’s Corner.
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/mitt-romney-jeff-flake-future-of-republican-party/
Neo–I think your take on the kids in the theater analogy is the more correct one.
Bottom line, politics right now is a vicious, bloody, bar room brawl, and Romney is just way way too sophisticated, well bred, and gentlemanly to stoop to such things and besides, he might get hurt.
Trump, on the other hand, is in the thick of the brawl–the fists, bottles, and chairs flying–and I just hope that he has a pair of brass knuckles or a sap on him, and where he can get to them.
“There is no middle ground between traditional, Judeo-Christian moral on which USA was founded, and total nihilism and paganism of the contemporary Left. One of the parties to this conflict must be completely defeated for a new normal being established.” Sergey
This…
Though the real question is whether a new normal can be established without a horrific amount of bloodshed.
Francesca: Thank you. I normally don’t try to wing it without a spell checker. 😉
“to be what he is: a [untalented] politician”.
FIFY. As you know from my previous comments in 2012, I’ve always regarded Romney as one of the most untalented politicians around. And rather than advance whatever he may be dreaming of, he has just committed political suicide. WaPo, CNN, really? A huge percentage of the Repubican party base will despise him, and who will ever trust him after this? “Mitt Romney has always been there when he needs you” sums it up perfectly.
Chuck:
IMHO Romney was finished even before this move, in terms of aspirations any higher than the Senate.
Ann is a troll.
And we will see how that goes. I’m curious what the reaction will be here in Utah. Romney rode his religion and name into the nomination despite the obvious carpet bagging, and I expect those still have a lot influence. It isn’t like Trump is very popular here. OTOH, CNN and WaPo? It is going to be a long six years.
I’ve always regarded Romney as one of the most untalented politicians around.
If he were ‘one of the most untalented politicians around’, he would not have performed so well in Republican primary and caucus donnybrooks, would not have been elected Governor of Massachusetts, and would not have been able to rescue the Olympic games. Unlike in re Obama, you can’t make the argument Romney was spam-in-a-can marketed by the likes of David Plouffe.
If he were ‘one of the most untalented politicians around’, he would not have performed so well in Republican primary and caucus donnybrooks, would not have been elected Governor of Massachusetts, and would not have been able to rescue the Olympic games. <
Romney was a talented businessman and made a lot of money. His political skills were enhanced by a willingness to say what people wanted and a lack of commitment to principles. In Mass he was pro-abortion and pro-single payer.
As a GOP nominee, he was the opposite although he never really made an argument about why Romneycare was not Obamacare. I supported him but thought he took a TKO in the second debate.
He is now getting a lot of blowback from his op-ed, which will be seen by a lot more people than he realizes as treason to the party.
I believe that Scott Adams is correct in saying that we are watching two movies – The one where the Orange Man is Bad, and the one where Our President Trump takes on the evil Powers that be. And in my personal opinion that split occurred during the aftermath of the 2000 election when Al Gore refused to concede to George W. There are still democrats who, to this very day, believe that the election was stolen from them. This in spite of at least three audits by news organizations showing George W. having more votes than Al Gore. They also ignore the fact that if Al Gore had bothered to campaign in his “home state” of TN he may have been able to pull it out.
I agree that the anger and hate by Democrats began in 2001 when Bush was elected. Some of this I blame on Karl Rove who should have advised Bush to disclose his drunk driving story early in the campaign. He could have spun it as the moment when he got religion.
Coming as a September surprise, it hurt him badly with Evangelicals. I did not like Bush in 2000 and volunteered for McCain in the primary. I voted for Bush but was not that concerned about Gore, who I thought was a sensible Democrat in spite of his loony ideas about global warming. I think Gore went psychotic over losing. The Democrats did, too.
They obstructed Bush’s appointments until 9/11. At the time of the attack, Rumsfeld had one appointment filled at DoD. Bush was treated as badly as Trump but did not fight back like Trump. I supported the Iraq invasion but now think it was a mistake. Most of the mistake was Bremer and State.
Molly Brown said:
“Ann is a troll.”
That’s giving her too much credit. Ann isn’t an outright opponent. That takes, you know, guts. She’s an “ally”. Nothing brings out Ann’s monomania like Trump’s tone and language.
And few things annoy me like the Concerned Gentle-people who refuse to face front and fire at the enemy. Or at least just get out of the damned way and keep their mouth shut. They are concerned about tone, about language, about fair play. Concerned about all of these things when the enemy arrayed against you wants to make you and yours extinct. Hell, if given the chance, they’d make half of their own side’s ‘wrong thinkers’ extinct.
An enemy that doesn’t give a damn about their tone or yours, unless its useful to them. An enemy that doesn’t give a damn about language, unless its useful to them. An enemy that never plays fair but expects the rest of us to.
Here’s a question Ann: Can you offer a constructive method for fighting an enemy like that in an existential fight-and make no mistake, this is existential-a method that is fighting fair and nice and polite?
Former Education Secretary William Bennett said it best when asked to describe the Trump Presidency. He said, “sometimes we need Mother Teresa and other times we need Dirty Harry”
Mitt..ens has always played the Mother Teresa part. Unfortunately the other side isn’t, so in my opinion Dirty Harry (Trump) is appropriate at this time.
“Make my day”….
Coming as a September surprise, it hurt him badly with Evangelicals.
It was a late October surprise, and I doubt it cost him 10 votes among politically-committed evangelicals. If it cost him, it was among a small corps of swing voters who hadn’t made up their minds. James Neuchterlein’s take on these types: they cast their vote based on observations like ‘she reminds me of my first wife’. Lawrence Walsh was playing to the same corps of voters with his bogus indictment of Caspar Weinberger in 1992.
I’ve a family of partisan Democrats and I cannot remember one of them remarking on the November-December 2000 imbroglio after it was over. The chairman of the local Democratic caucus in the small town where I was then living was a personal friend. I cannot recall it was taking up space in his head, either. I have a suspicion that at the source of the intense hostility to George W. Bush was a generational shift in the Democratic Party and the media, especially the media. Gen-X cohorts are now replacing Boomer cohorts as organizational chieftains, but it hasn’t had a discernible salutary effect; if anything, things are worse.
It was a late October surprise, and I doubt it cost him 10 votes among politically-committed evangelicals.
The Democrat activist lawyer published the story in September. You certainly have the right to your opinions.
A 2% shift would have avoided the Florida problem.
If you say so. The news articles I’m locating have dates on them around 3 November 2000. Here’s one:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/nov/04/uselections2000.usa4
Art Deco, you are correct about the date. I remembered an earlier date but I think that was the date Connolly learned about it. He held the story until the last minute. I still blame Rove although Karen Hughes apparently had a role in covering it up, as well.