Sunday, July 12, 2009

Why Is Mitt Romney A Solid Contender, But Sarah Palin A Liability?

Even before Sarah Palin's surprise resignation, Republican elites kept echoing basically the same line that the vile Left was spewing: Sarah Palin is a lightweight. Unable to discount her popularity among the party base, the Beltway Republicans kept telling us how she has potential. If she studies up on the issues she could someday be a player. Look, I am a dude and one is isn't particularly sensitive to the whines of modern feminism. However, the "Sarah needs to study" mantra is nothing but sexism. I have never heard such comments made about any male candidate who aspired to the Presidency, no matter how idiotic and asinine they were. She has accomplished more and has more executive experience than our current President and could read a teleprompter if that is the sign of being informed.

Mitt Romney is the name most often mentioned as the GOP front runner in 2012. Therein lies the disconnect between what Republicans say and what Republicans do. Currently, the GOP is fighting like mad to stop ObamaCare from being passed by the Congress this summer. As the Wall Street Journal pointed out in a Friday editorial, Romney left an absolute mess in Massachusetts with his version of government-run health care which is eerily similar to the plan being pushed by congressional Democrats.

So, we have Palin who was a source of energy for an impotent McCain campaign and who is an inspirational leader in the Conservative tradition. Then, we have Romney who looks like a President and appears to lack sweat glands. He had several conversions "on the road to Des Moisnes," as candidate Mike Huckabee pointed out, which made him palatable to Conservatives. His record as governor does not appear to be impressive and he built a state-run health care fiasco that should petrify potential voters. But, Palin is a Barbie doll who needs to bone up on serious things and Romney is a front runner.

We don't need another country club establishment stuffed shirt taking the party over the cliff. Bush 41 blew a second term by abandoning Reagan. Bob Dole got his turn and no amount of Viagra could have put life into his campaign. Dubya won twice, but embraced much of the Left's Statist ideology and did much damage to the country and to the GOP by giving them what they wanted so that they could run on the right side of the fiscal responsibility debate. Sure, they are phonies, but they could legitimately smack the Republicans with eight years of their own spending foolishness. If the GOP had been fiscally responsible and respected federalism, 2006 and 2008 would not have been so unpleasant. Then, it was John McCain. Or was that Bob Dole redux? A tired old Senator who had no political core. In fact, his lack of a political anchor was his greatest selling point. Mr. Bipartisan. Mitt Romney is an ex-governor, not a Senator, but he is still 100% establishment.

I don't know if Palin is the right candidate for 2012 or not. I do know that many of the arguments used against her would not be used against a man. It is also clear that a charismatic Conservative like Palin is much more likely to energize the party and draw in Conservative Democrats than will a central casting politician like Mitt Romney. If you start thinking Mitt is the guy for 2012, just look at the health care debacle he created in Massachusetts and ask yourself if this is really the guy to lead the resurgence of Conservatism.


  1. The Republican establishment wants Romney to be the nominee in 2012 because he can be trusted by the greed is good crowd just as George Bush was. They want Sarah Palin to run so that she can split the social conservative vote with Huckabee, knocking him out of the race. What they don't seem to understand is that Romney would have less chance against Obama than John McCain did. Only Huckabee can put up a fight against Obama, because people know he is for the middle class, not the fat cats.

  2. You label those as sexists for degrading Palin for the "needs to study" comments, and then in the next breath you claim Romney, "appears to lack sweat glands", and "We don't need another country club establishment stuffed shirt taking the party over the cliff".

    Sorry, but are you not being just as prejudice and superficial about Romney's appearance as those attacking Palin being a woman?

    Health Care in Massachusetts is debatable as to how successful it was, but then again you can argue that Palin oversaw a system of welfare where every Alaskan would receive a check in the mail just for having residence there.

    The difference between what Romney did and Obama is doing is that he is proposing health systems for individual states to decide. He has never suggested that the entire nation should adopt universal health care as the Dems are doing.

    But, please. Quit with the, "I'm holier than thou", and then use prejudice against Romney only moments later.

  3. I love when outspoken folks named "anonymous" post. Let me educate you, my friend. My point about Palin is that she is treated differently because she is a woman. The condescending reactions to her are never applied to the weakest male candidates. My point about Mitt Romney had nothing to do with his appearance. It is simply that he knows how to look and sound the part. In other words, he is simply a typical modern politician. I could list dozens of others who fit that same bill. But, yes, I guess you can say I am "prejucided" against people who seem to want power for power's sake and lack a central core that is hooked into American history, law, and traditions.

    You want to compare Alaska's dispersal of shares in the state's oil wealth to Taxachusetts' forced medical system? That is ludicrous. In Alaska, people are given a dividend for the wealth created by their tremendous natural resources. In Massachusetts, income is stripped from the people in exchange for massive government welfare programs. By most measures, the state health care program is an expensive dud.

    We know this about Romney's political instincts: Governor Romney and Candidate Romney appeared to be two different people. His record and his rhetoric are contradictory and we are now watching how that movie plays out. Again, I think Huckabee's "conversion on the road to Des Moines" comment was a great summary.

    No apologies here for my "prejudice" against politics as usual. That is a form of bigotry we all need to embrace.

  4. edgycater,

    You're right, because anything done that is normal by a politician like Romney is wrong by definition, right?

    You are judging Romney's character by his wealth by using "country club" and "stuffed shirt". Those are YOUR words, my friend, and that is prejudiced plain and simple. Discrimination by race, gender, religion or wealth is still discrimination no matter how you slice it.

    So Palin jumping ship and abandoning her state is perfectly admirable because it is abnormal, and not "politics as usual", right? This is the problem with Palin supporters, they judge her the same way that the Obama supporters judge him - because he's a rockstar and he/she's different, instead of on principle.

    If the ethics violations charges were costing Alaska millions, and the prosecutors were doing it under false pretenses, the RIGHT thing to do is to go after the prosecutors, NOT abandon your state.

    I'm sorry, but her reasoning that she stepped down to save money for her state just rubs against every conservative principle. If SHE was in the right, then her constituents would have fought for her to the end.

    Doing things differently than "politics as usual" does not always make it the right thing to do. You're judging Romney based on his wealth and his social status, not based on his experience and principles.

    And that's another thing, name one thing Palin has done or said since losing in November to Obama that has helped further the Conservative cause? Can you name a blog she's written? Can you name a speech? What about CPAC? She was missing there too, wasn't she. I'm sorry, but if this is Sarah Palin's idea of not being a part of "politics as usual", you can count me out.

    Romney has been everywhere since November, raising money for conservatives, giving speeches, writing, attending CPAC, and making appearances to counter Obama. THIS is a leader. Palin (and Huckabee) has been missing in action since then.

  5. edgycater,

    Another thing.

    Who do you think you are saying Romney has a "lack a central core that is hooked into American history, law, and traditions. "?

    Let's look at core here:
    Romney has 5 wonderful sons who are married with several beautiful grandchildren. Isn't Palin the one who can't keep her daughter from sleeping around, but acts like a saint? Who really lacks more core here?

    Lets talk about "History". How much does Palin know about it? I guess not enough to understand that Africa isn't a country, or that you can't see Russia from her house.

    Can you name where she got her education about "American History and law"? Romney got his at BYU, and Harvard as Valedictorian and Suma Cum Laude respectively. Yes, please EDUCATE ME on Palin's great knowledge.

  6. CF,

    You are evidently a Romney supporter so you are taking this personally and are unable to process the argument. Either that or there are some literacy issues.

    At no point have I questioned Romney's personal character. My reference is to his brand of politics. It is typical modern Republican pablum. He may personally hold Conservative principles, but his public political principles have wavered considerably. I would apply the same "stuffed shirt" and "country club" "insults" to both Bushes, Bob Dole, John McCain and many of the others who have managed the Republican party over the cliff. If Romney has differentiated himself from their losing propositions (I don't mean simply elections, but long term impact)please enlighten me.

    I'm not sure where you got the idea that I am leading a "Palin in 2012" campaign. Again, you created a series of strawmen that do not reflect what I said. She is a strict construction Conservative. She has governed as a Conservative. She did inject life into McCain's funeral march. She does inspire people with her personal story.

    I really don't see how her resignation "rubs against every conservative principle." That is silly. You may disagree with her choice and, from a political standpoint, it may not have been a good one. However, saving the citizens the time and money of contiunous frivolous complaints seems like it is in the interest of the people. It is counterintuitive for a politician to do something that doesn't obviously advance their power climb, so folks like you have a hard time understanding.

    Really, you are making my point. Romney is checking off the candidate grocery list. Write an editorial here. Give a speech there. Be seen. I'm sure he has been shucking corn in Iowa and sucking down maple syrup in New Hampshire. He has money to spend and time for travel. That doesn't mean Romney has anything to say; it demonstrates he wants to be the GOP candidate in 2012. Can YOU quote any great ideas from a Romney speech?

  7. CF,

    In your last post, you trot out all of the shrill, hateful ad hominem attacks on Palin (thank you again for making my point). Again, I am not talking about his personal core. I have not attacked, nor do I have reason to attack, his family. I am sure he is a decent guy and they are wonderful people.

    My point is that he just comes off as a guy who wants the next level of power because it is there. I have never heard him make great defenses of the Constituion, the rule of law, federalism, or any of America's founding principles. He is a manager who seems to believe Big Government is a fine thing as long as it is under Republican control. That is what I mean by lacking core political beliefs.

    By the way, why does it matter where they graduated from and with what degree? Obama is referred to as a "constitutional professor", but I, a humble teacher with a B.S. from a state university, could shred his scrawny tail in a straight debate on the content of the Constitution. Knowledge and wisdom cannot be measured in sum laude, cum laude or oh lawdy!

    Romney may be capable of the greatness you seem to believe he has. If so, I hope he shows it before 2012.

    By the way, don't quote Tina Fey--she isn't running for anything.

  8. edgycater,

    Again, your prejudice and low brow attacks shine through with the first words out of your mouth. You assume that I am "unable to process the argument. Either that or there are some literacy issues". What's that supposed to mean?

    This is pretty telling at the kind of person you are. You hit hard below the belt, before judging on principle and experience. A good debater, who feels secure with himself doesn't need to attack someone personally to win an argument.

    You use the slippery slope argument, basically saying:

    "Just because Romney has done a lot since November and just because he has a lot of experience and education doesn't mean he is saying anything important or isn't doing it for power". At the same time you "qualify" Sarah Palin because she HASN'T done as much as Romney.

    So, by your logic, saying and doing little to nothing (as Palin has demonstrated) must mean that she is really smart. It's just a ridiculous argument.

    I used the phrase, "rubs against conservatism", because conservatism stands for personal responsibility. Shirking it because you can't take the heat, as Palin demonstrated as Governer, proves this.

    I'm not going to post every speech and Op-Ed piece Romney has done since November since you can find them yourself. His CPAC speech was great. His column on Obama owning the Auto-industry and foreign policy were awesome as well. He has also done quite a few appearances/fundraisers with Conservative incumbants and candidates for 2010.

    Anyway, I'm still waiting for you to educate me with evidence of Palin's knowledge of "American History or Law". Give me something she has written or done to prove this.

    And I'll ask again, please stop with the superficial personal attacks both against me and Mitt Romney when making a point.

  9. edgycater,

    I have a real problem with this idea that because you work your tail off for something, you get labeled as power-hungry. Gosh, maybe he learned how to work hard and that's how he got to where he is today. I thought that was a Conservative principle?

    I just don't understand the swooning by many conservatives when they see Palin "out fishin". Does that suddenly qualify her as "genuine"? Will fishing and hunting help her solve the budget crisis?

    This is why I liken Palin's appeal to Obama's. They both are getting attention because they "lack" experience. They are adored because they do what common people do. The problem is that people automatically believe they will be good at, "the other stuff" like fighting wars and helping the economy.

    A lot of Conservatives think that we've got to get a "rock-star" like the Democrats have to be able to win elections. I think we need to stick to our principles and find people who are proven successes. I don't think it's up to us to judge as to whether they got that way because they were power hungry.

    The exact argument could be reversed on Palin. Maybe she's just lazy. Maybe she hates doing the "hard" work like balancing budges and only wants to hunt and fish and "relax".

    We can't judge people like this. For me, I'll err on the side of success rather than failure (or quitting in Palin's case).

    In other words, give me a power-hungry "winner", than a humble "loser" to lead America.

  10. CF,

    You start a post with "prejudiced" and "low brow" and then whine about how I have addressed you and St. Mitt of Romney? I'm sure you are a well-meaning soul, but either you do not comprehend well or you simply enjoy constructing straw man arguments. In no way have I denigrated Romney the person. I have simply stated that he has not demonstrated a great affinity for conservative principles and I stand by that.

    You need to research the term "slippery slope." Your use of the term does not fit the argument. However, you constantly construct strawmen. For instance, at no point have I claimed that Palin's lack of nationwide speaking engagements "qualifies" her for the White House. I simply said that Romney talks a lot, but none of it tells us anything more than he wants to be President in 2012.

    You seem to confuse personal responsibility with being stubborn. Your words convey a belief that she should have spent the next two years fighting childish battles with the Left, mostly funded from outside Alaska, to prove she is "tough." She did what she felt was right for the state. It is fair to dispute whether this was a good political move, but it hardly interferes with conservative principles.

    I don't know how she would fair in an AP U.S. History class, but Palin's knowledge of American history and law was seen regularly in her speeches as v.p. running mate. She understands the Constitution places limits on the federal government. The federal government cannot do whatever it wants just because some segment of voters has a particular desire. She understands that we have a federal system, not a national government. She understands the proper roles of the branches of government.

    The difference between a Palin (or a Ron Paul or a Duncan Hunter or a Haley Barber or sometimes a Mike Huckabee) and a Romney, Bush, or McCain is that the former group operates from an understanding of the Constitution and its underpinnings while the latter accepts the Left's premises while promising to provide Leviathan with better management.

  11. Romney is working hard in the same way Barack Obama worked hard. Every move, every action is aimed at gaining power. That is not the same as working hard to build wealth for oneself or working to take care of one's family. This type of work is aimed at convincing people to surrender power over their lives. That is a different sort of hard work. That is why the individual's driving principles are so important.

    Again, you seem dismissive of a politician living like a regular person. Palin's fishing or her ability to field dress a moose does not indicate any grand governing expertise. It does, however, say to folks that she is not that different from them and will not have to fake it or hire consultants to explain how the common folk live.

    "Experience" in government is overrated. That being said, Palin has been a utility regulator, a mayor and a governor. Romney has a term as governor. Obama had a couple of terms in the Illinois Senate and part of one in the U.S. Senate. It comes down to what they believe in. We know Palin believes in the Founding Fathers. We know Obama believes in Marxism. We know Mitt Romney wants to be President.

    You are touting success, but what is Romney's success? Remember, this started with an article that exposed the latest problems with HIS version of government run health care. In other words, he bought the notion that government has the responsibility for individual health care and believed he was wise enough to make it work. He was wrong in principle and in practice.

    By the way, your "winner" got thumped by a tired old war horse last year. Big success, huh? Obviously, Romney has one giddy fan. If he can convince me he is a man of the Constitution who will fight against the federal beast rather than provide it with new management, I will jump on board. From what I have seen, I will not hold my breath.

  12. ObamaCare is NOT like Romney's reforms in Massachussettes despite what a deceptive editorial in the Wall Street Journal claims.

    Romney's reform in Mass was to make their system CONSUMER DRIVEN, rather than bureaucrat driven. If you really want to know the truth about Romney's reforms, read this article.

    Yes, the editorial does point out a bad aspect put in by the democrat congess, but making healthcare consumer driven was such a good change that it overcomes some of the crazy things democrats in that state like. Some of which, were already part of the system before the reform.

    When your average Mass resident can get the same insurance post-reform for half the price, and with half the deductable, that they would have paid before, it's hard to argue that it wasn't a success.

    If Mass wants to double their premiums, double their deductables, take money from consumers and give it to bureaucrats to spend, reduce the number of people covered by health insurance, reduce their choices, and again face a health care budget crisis, then they can easily repeal Romney's reforms and go back to the way things were.

    Or, they could get rid of some of the quirks congress has put in and have an even better system.