Saturday, July 07, 2007
MITT ROMNEY
I'm Really Comparable to Aaron Burr? Or Worse, the New York Times?
It’s nice to know that Hugh thinks I don’t have an ounce of bigotry in me, and that I’m merely comparable to Hamilton assassin Aaron Burr.
Hugh argues that pieces like my one on Romney’s odd factor are not the best use of time by center right pundits and that, comparing it to a warning about a gambling problem story, it was “not helpful.”
Look, I don’t wake up every morning asking myself, “how can I help Mitt Romney today”, nor any other candidate. And as for those who complain I’m not using my time as best I could, take a number and wait behind Mrs. Campaignspot, as she’s been making that complaint for a while now.
Hugh mentions his blurb for my book. You know who else blurbed my book? Mitt Romney.
I’d LOVE to have my book blurbed by the 44th President. But I can’t put my personal interest in a President Romney above my readership’s interest in the fullest picture of the 2008 candidates, including the flaws and potential weaknesses of the Republican candidates. If my readers wanted only happy news for GOP contenders, I would say McCain’s leadership on the immigration deal was hunky-dory, and that Sam Brownback’s voting for and against the deal in a span of thirteen minutes marked an inspiringly nimble and flexible approach to difficult issues.
Hugh suggests I have “made it more respectable to throw around anti-Mormon canards by worrying that people were going to throw around anti-Mormon canards.”
Look. If Mitt Romney gets the Republican nomination, a good portion of the political discussion in the 2008 campaign is going to center around, “Are Mormons normal?” It’s unfair, it stinks, and in a better world, it wouldn’t happen. But the opposition is going to push every argument they can to paint this faith as too strange for a President, and a significant chunk of the conservative message effort is going to have to be dedicated to refuting that notion. And the more time spent debating Mormon theology is less time spent on arguments about why taxes should be low, why our policies on terrorism should be aggressive, why the border should be secure, why red tape hurts small businesses, why we should get pork out of the budget, etc.
We’ve all heard the comment that in politics, “If you’re explaining, you’re losing”; I fear that in Clinton vs. Romney contest, the right would be forced to do a lot of explaining. (I actually think that if Barack Obama gets the Democratic nomination, he won’t play the Mormon card, as doing so would wreck his nice guy/uniter image. Plus, you know, Obama’s secretly a Muslim.)
(Note to Obama fans: That was a joke.)
Does the communications challenge of his Mormon beliefs disqualify Romney? Not to me. But it’s worth thinking about before the voting begins. Every candidate’s going to have baggage – for Rudy, the temperament and messy divorces; for McCain, the temper and fights with the base on key issues; for Fred, the questions on work ethic and lack of executive experience. Are those issues and baggage worse or better than Romney’s? That’s for GOP primary voters to decide, not me.
Anyway, on to Hugh’s questions:
Do you think the Times piece is of the same sort as yours of yesterday?
They’re light years apart, Hugh. For starters, consider the source. The New York Times has a long and well-established record of using any argument at hand to whack away at Republicans, including charging the Bush campaign of using subliminal messages in advertisements in the 2000 campaign. Would anyone in their right mind call me an unfair and relentless Romney-basher? In fact, I suspect one reason my piece bugs Hugh so is because I’m not a relentless Romney-basher, and that if I’m the one writing it, then maybe it’s worth taking seriously.
Forget the Aaron Burr comparison; it’s comparing my work to that of the New York Times that’s really out of line.
Beyond that, the Times is repeating charges that Jeri Thompson is a bimbo because she’s a) young and b) attractive, two things she has no control over. She’s also taken no formal role in his not-yet-campaign. Those factors make it a fundamentally unfair attack. The critique on Romney cites stuff like the dog-on-the-car-roof story, calling “Battlefield Earth” his favorite novel, hiring a director of operations who allegedly likes to impersonate police officers, etc. These are all decisions, things that Romney himself has a choice and some degree of control over. (Come to think of it, one of my praising comments of Romney – that I want to look that good when I’m 60 – that cites something he has no control over.)
And what do you think of Professor Bainbridge's post? Is it what you were worried about and anticipated, or did it surprise you?
Am I my brother blogger’s keeper? When I write something in the future, I have to first consider how other bloggers may react to it, amplify it, misquote it, or use it for their own purposes? I’m somehow accountable for a guy who calls the candidate “Mutt”?
Look, it’s no surprise that people who hate Romney liked my piece. And naturally, they either didn’t read or ignored my item from Friday that said the Mitt-should-have-fought-porn-at-Marriott criticism was strikingly lame. That’s the way a lot of people (and bloggers) are; they love stuff that reinforces their preconceived notions and disregard or attack anything that doesn’t.
I remember after the first debate in 2004, when Bush seemed tired and off his game. Several NR editors called it as they saw it, that Bush didn’t look his best. They found their comments cited everywhere by the left, including, naturally, the New York Times. When a conservative criticizes another conservative, some folks in the media are quick to turn the spotlight on it.
Is the answer to this phenomenon to never criticize another conservative? I don’t think so. I think you have to call ‘em as you see ‘em. With Mitt, I see a bunch of little stories that make him seem a little odd starting to coagulate into a potentially destructive narrative. Apparently some think we should all close our eyes to that, and hope that the opposition never notices.
Good luck with that.
07/07 01:13 PM
Share
