Is Mitt Romney Setting the Bar Too Low?
I was watching C-Span last week and caught a little bit of Mitt Romney (and his wife) speaking at a conference for conservatives. My impression was that he did his best to establish himself as enthusiastically conservative. His wife spoke and made it clear that they are approaching a landmark marriage anniverary (something like 37 years) and that they have ten grandchildren.
I’ve pondered some of the things I heard and it appears to me that as a competitor for the Republican candidacy, in response to the people he is competing with (most notably McCain and Giulani) the Romneys might be setting the bar too low. We need a lot more from a president than someone who merely claims to be staunch conservative (a claim which isn’t all that convincing) and has kept his marriage together for an extended period of time. Those two characteristics may appeal to a lot of Republicans and may cast him in a better light than some of his competitors - but these characteristics don’t guarantee that he’ll be the best leader for this country or demonstrate that he’ll really make things better.
On the same day, also on C-Span, I caught a good part of a speech by Barak Obama. He spoke well - in my opinion, better than Mitt Romney. He came across as having concrete and constructive aims and he seemed sincere about his political beliefs. From what he said and the way he presented himself, I was really impressed with him.
Frankly, in comparing these two men, I think Obama might have a greater purpose in running for the presidency. I suspect that by running for the presidency, Mitt Romney is serving his own ambitions and interests more than any particular constituency. I’m not necessarily convinced that Mormons or conservatives have a huge stake in Romney winning the election. On the other hand, I think Obama has a widespread constituency of minorities who really have a lot to gain by him winning the election - and he represents them well. He also strikes me as someone who could inspire the whole country, on a lot of levels.
Having said that, I have one concern about Barack Obama (and about the presidential candidates in general). If he were to win the primaries, I don’t know who his vice presidential candidate would be and I really don’t know much about the political team that is behind him. These are factors that are also very important.
About The Author
Glad to read your subjectivity and apparent bias for Obama. If you, I and the rest of America are fair and honest in our evaluation of all the candidates, taking into consideration a wide range of basic presidential characteristics such as skills, experience (both public and private sectors), intellect, character, eloquence, appearance, etc., NONE of the candidates is on the same level as Romney! And that’s the TRUTH!
Ken, I was biased in favor of Romney until I watched him on C-Span. In fact I had the same opinions about him that you are expressing. Honestly, he wasn’t that impressive or inspiring a speaker.
I haven’t made a final decision yet on who I will vote for - but I tend to be conservative and vote Republican … just so you know where my biases have been in the past.
I think that Mitt Romney’s Mormon faith will be an obstacle to him getting any widepread support in the 2008 presidential race, regardless of his politics. Personally, I don’t care about it, but a lot of Evangelical Protestants would probably make an issue out of it.
I won’t completely disagree with you, but I will say that you have to consider: 1. the audience, and 2. the goal/obstacle of winning the primary. I don’t think, if Romney somehow wins the election, he will pass a law that makes his anniversary a national holiday or anything; I think he was trying to present himself to CPAC as the most ‘family values’ candidate, and emphasizing what is an obvious contrast between him and his two main Republican opponents. Although, I must admit that I have been less and less impressed with Romney in the last month or two, for some of the reasons you mention. However, you gotta keep in mind that he has to pander to the religious right in order to have any chance of coming out of the primary.
Amy,
I think a lot of evangelicals would ultimately prefer Romney to some of the other Republican candidates, despite his being Mormon. [Of course, I'm writing this being a Mormon myself]
Nar,
Like you say, Romney is working to emphasize his ‘family’ side, since other major candidates have been through divorces. I don’t have anything against families. I just am concerned that it’s too dominant an issue when other considerations should also matter.
Obama is indeed very impressive. Of the democratic candidates I think he has the best message, and the least baggage. He opposed Iraq from the beginning (even though he was not yet a U.S. Senator), which tells me that he has good judgment. Iraq is the most critical issue for me. His initial reaction (back in 2002 or 2003 before the invasion) to the proposed Iraq debacle has proved to be right on the money. He has a charisma much like Bobby Kennedy in the sixties after JFK’s assassination, and his own rise to political power.
I like some things about Romney; but, he clearly is pandering to the hard right wing of his party. His support for the Iraq war is simply wrong, and unbelievable given Americans’ current mood on that endeavor. Romney is losing some of his appeal for me. But, I’m still open as there is a great deal of time left before the real ‘08 season kicks in.
Guy,
I’m still not sure who I’ll ultimately support though I’m fairly sure I would not cast a vote for McCain, Giulani or Hillary Clinton. I’m not wild about Mitt Romney but I might end up voting for him - I’m just not sure. I do like Obama better as a personality. He just seems more real and honest. My concern is that I might ultimately disagree with his political positions on things and vote for a candidate I like less (as a person) for that reason. But I’m currently undecided and I can certainly imagine myself ultimately voting for Obama. I’m just thinking about it and I’ll be thinking about it for awhile.
My question is whether others will win the respective party nominations or not and who those candidates will ultimately choose to have around them.
I myself am actually in the small camp of people who do not think it was a mistake to go into Iraq. At least I don’t think it was a mistake initially (though there are plenty of mistakes that happened afterwards). Overthrowing Saddam was a long overdue idea and I’m grateful he and his regime are gone. Stability by totalitarianism is not worth it and I think a failed experiment with democracy in the Arab world is better than no experiment at all. I am not even entirely sure the experiment failed, yet. I still remember the purple fingers of all those brave people. Only time (maybe five or ten years) will ultimately tell will tell us whether these efforts to hold elections will ultimately bear fruit and lead to a more ordered free society.
Obviously, right now, things are a real mess.
I am getting really, really tired of the Romney pandering card. Other than Iraq, admittedly a huge issue, the things he is pandering about are not the things that are 1- likely to change or 2- going to make a real difference in our lives if held by the president.
Where Romney’s real strength is, is in getting things done. He was able to take big business, a democratic legislature, healthcare advocates all to the table and Iron our a universal Health care plan that everyone could live with without making is so called socialized medicine. This is a gargantuan accomplishment and as a doctor, I can say it is of no small importance to our economy and quality of life. Romney can get things done and can work with people to do it. All this whining about his nuanced approach to abortion depending on audience will not make any difference. Gay marriage will be a political fight but not something that really, really affects our daily lives.
You know after the primaries any and all candidates will be running back to center as quickly as possible. Romney is someone who quite clearly can live there. He won’t need to pander to the majority moderate/independant American voter.
Iraq may end up biting him though. I can see him coming up with an actual plan. What I don’t see him doing during the election is saying the status quo is great.
Danithew,
That’s a good sign that you are open to considering a candidate such as Obama, given your Republican leanings. Keeping an open mind is usually a good thing. Likewise, I have not completely written off Romney; but, I am much less enthusiastic than I was say a year ago.
On the war, obviously we have a fundamental disagreement on the use of American military power. I believe it a fundamental abuse of that power, and most importantly the lives of young Americans to “overthrow” dictators who are not threats to American security. I know of no legitimate argument to suggest Saddam was ever such a threat.
As for the purple fingers–that’s great; but those purple fingers should not be bought and paid for with American blood. If they want purple fingers, and what that symbolizes, then they need to do what it takes to make that a reality.
Doc: I’m pretty tired of Romney pandering. He should be himself, not what he perceives the far right wing of his party wants him to be. I agree he is capable of “getting things done.” His foray into the health care field was excellent, and something that is a big plus in my mind. We should be overhauling our current delivery system with the money we are wasting daily over in Iraq. But, Iraq and all its surrounding issues must be dealt with first. Any candidate who supports this war and the concepts which brought it to us demonstrates such a serious lack of judgment, that whatever other ideas he or she might have cannot make up for that lack of judgment.
Guy,
I feel that installing democracy in Iraq isn’t merely an issue for Iraq but an issue for an entire region that has suffered for so many centuries under kings, dictators, etc. I feel that for democracy to ever have a chance it had to be established in a significant country by an outside power and by force.
It’s obvious that none of the local powers seem to have any interest in establishing democracies themselves.
I completely understand that the blood of American soldiers is precious and obviously, since I haven’t gone out and fought myself, I have less of a right to discuss such things. However, I still hope that the blood that has been lost has not been wasted.
I feel that this whole effort has been an important and necessary experiment. Even if it fails, it takes away from the entire Arab world the opportunity to say that we have not tried to support freedom in the Middle East (though I’m perfectly aware that we are supporting a dictatorship in Egypt and a monarchy in Saudi Arabia).
Honestly, I hope for a day that the dictatorships and monarchies of the region melt away and are replaced by something much better. And I certainly am NOT talking about sharia - an oppressive system of non-divine and non-prophetic law for which I have nothing but disdain.
I agree with you, Daniel. I just hate the weenieness, the practiced smile. Mitt bothers me. I know you don’t hate, but I agree with what you say.
I really like Obama, really a lot. What makes me nervous about that is I liked Clinton. I don’t trust my instincts anymore.
I found Romney’s CPAC speech to be the most rousing and demonstrative of his policies: http://www.mymanmitt.com/mitt-romney/cpac/index.asp?part=1
If that one doesn’t get you, I kind of doubt anything will.
Additionally, there’s a *terrific* book out on Romney, which despite the knee-jerk title, is actually quite substantive in content. (The title is only a lead in to a constitutional argument that there ought not be a religious litmus test for the public office.)
Sorry. Forgot to mention the book!
A Mormon in the White House?: 10 Things Every American Should Know about Mitt Romney