The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Dr. Strange-glove, Or: How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Mitt
UPDATE: Graphic Via PCP

Posted on | January 16, 2012 | 32 Comments

by Smitty

Update: thank you, Political Clown Parade:

The title is inspired by a post at Legal Insurrection, quoting Andrew McCarthy:

I keep hoping to hear those three words [about RomneyCare]: “I was wrong.” But they’re not coming. Romney supporters on the right keep rationalizing that he is just doing what he must do to stay viable: resisting a colossal flip-flop that would be more damaging than all the others. The candidate, however, says no, and attests that he is defending Romneycare because he believes in it. I usually worry that politicians lie. I’m worried that this one is telling the truth

The recent circling of the wagons around Bain leads me to believe that the Republican Party and conservatives, or at least almost all of their most vocal pundits, are unable to see the reality of what is approaching.

This is at the heart of the Mitt contradictions: if he’s such a hard-nosed capitalist, why RomneyCare? Is he somehow a victim of Bain Dramage? Or is Mitt more of a crony capitalist than a laissez faire capitalist?

Via Just a Conservative Girl, we have Colberts “Americans for a Better Tomorrow Tomorrow” delivering “Attack in B Minor for Strings”:

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

Nicely done, blatant hyperbole. But can Mitt deliver? Our Federal government, metaphorically speaking, needs a few trillion $ worth of “Heeeere’s JOHNNY!”, right in the over-reach department.

Yet, as Darleen notes over at Protein Wisdom, emphasis original:

Romney has promised that he’ll grant a waiver to all states in regards to Obamacare once he becomes President, effectively killing the legislation. But such a waiver doesn’t mark Romney as committing to limited-government principles. Indeed, such a waiver granted while continuing to defend Romneycare on risible reasoning is highly suspect of future proposals from President Romney done for our own good.

It gets down to the point that the Progressive improvements for our own good in the last century are:

  • contrary to the spirit of individual liberty in the Constitution,
  • have proven suicidally unaffordable,
  • have had the unintended consequence of breeding a quasi-aristocracy in the form of Federal bureaucrats (warm folks, individually, parasitic as a whole), and,
  • have bred a generation of dependent fools of the sort who would think #Occupy is a boffo idea.

Finally, note Joel Pollak at Big Government:

I had dinner with several Democrats recently–some “leftist,” some moderate–and their views on the Republican primary left me feeling rather uneasy. The fact is that many Democrats are eager to face Mitt Romney in the fall, no matter what they might say in public.
. . .
4. Democrats don’t trust Romney because they believe conservatives don’t either. Though Democrats tell themselves Romney is extreme, they sense he lacks the full trust of the conservative base. Their explanation is not that Romney has taken positions to the left of his party, but that he is a “flip-flopper.” Right or wrong, the fact that conservatives seems to have doubts about Romney is seen as a point against him, not in his favor.

In summary, Mitt is about as opaque as Barack. If it proves to be the case that Mitt has the best campaign machine (money, grip on the state-level GOP, phalanx of offpsring to campaign for him) after the August convention, then fine. But the blogs are going to continue to support Not Mitt Romney in the overall Not Barack Obama effort, so long as he remains such a distant, unknown figure:

Update: linked at Daily Pundit.

Once we do understand them, we conservatives will probably have no alternative but to destroy the party and then rebuild it. I don’t think we’ll naively believe it can be reformed.

Yet, I’m still contending that this approach will be easier than starting from scratch.

Category: Mitt Romney

Comments

32 Responses to “Dr. Strange-glove, Or: How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Mitt
UPDATE: Graphic Via PCP”

  1. Anonymous
    January 16th, 2012 @ 8:29 am

    Smitty, why are comments closed here: http://goo.gl/xZxax

  2. republicanmother
    January 16th, 2012 @ 9:20 am

    Please read Confessions of a Monopolist by Frederic C. Howe explain the contradictions of those like Mitt and to explain progressiveness in both parties.

    It’s a free online book and is pretty entertaining. He tells the story of how he went from monopolizing his paper route as a boy to owning a political machine. 

    The main rule of business is this: get a monop0ly by letting society work for you.  A regulation that shuts down competition is worth more than a gold mine. (I’m paraphrasing the theme of the book here) 

    This is why Goldman gives to both Mitt and Barry, they’re both bankster boys.

  3. ThePaganTemple
    January 16th, 2012 @ 9:27 am

    Or is Mitt more of a crony capitalist than a laissez faire capitalist?

    Is Angelina Jolie more kinda good looking than she is an ugly bitch?

  4. smitty
    January 16th, 2012 @ 9:35 am

    Comments are set to shut down at one week, as spambots like to load up later.

  5. smitty
    January 16th, 2012 @ 9:36 am

    In the dark, what’s the difference?

  6. Blake
    January 16th, 2012 @ 10:22 am

    Mitt Romney takes two issues off the table for Obama: jobs and Obamacare.

    It doesn’t matter how Romney’s time at Bain is explained, bottom line, people lost their jobs when Romney was at Bain.

    So, Romney people, please explain how Romney will be able to draw a distinction between himself and the current president.

  7. Qualifications Versus Explanations | Daily Pundit
    January 16th, 2012 @ 10:31 am

    […] Versus Explanations Posted on January 16, 2012 7:30 am by Bill Quick Dr. Strange-glove, Or: How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Mitt : The Other McCain In summary, Mitt is about as opaque as Barack. If it proves to be the case that Mitt has the best […]

  8. richard mcenroe
    January 16th, 2012 @ 10:54 am

    In the dark, nothing, when your friends see you heading to the elevator, though…

  9. richard mcenroe
    January 16th, 2012 @ 10:57 am

    Mitt:  “Oh, yeah!  Well, I’m still better than Obama on foreigh policy!”

    Factory Worker Fired by Bain in Commercial: “Obama got bin Laden.”

    Mitt: “F***!”

  10. Blake
    January 16th, 2012 @ 11:17 am

    I laughed and cringed, because you’re absolutely correct.

  11. Tennwriter
    January 16th, 2012 @ 12:02 pm

    Mitt is electable. Rick Santorum isn’t.  Its like a natural law, or gravity, or something.

    Don’t question it, or you’ll look stupid.  And if you do, we’ll send an internet tough guy to your blog to threaten to punch you in the nose.

    Go Mittens!

  12. smitty
    January 16th, 2012 @ 12:08 pm

    Mitt is electable. Rick Santorum isn’t. 

    Haven’t seen a really good anti-Santorum argument yet.

  13. Quartermaster
    January 16th, 2012 @ 1:32 pm

    Smitty, the GOP is destroying itself in the same way the Whigs did, by sheer fecklessness.  The people that formed the GOP knew they could not take over the Whigs and rebuild it because the brand was irretrievably damaged. The same will apply to the GOP.

    Add in the fact that Whig’s party apparatus was pretty much owned by their establishment and you are left with nothing but starting over. We face the same problem with the GOP. You won’t be able to purge the ranks of the establishment creeps that have brought us to this point except by starting over.

    I understand where you are coming from, but I think you are being unrealistic. We don’t have time for a reverse Gramsciian march through the party. It is wholly owned by the establishment, and that will not change.

  14. Anonymous
    January 16th, 2012 @ 1:38 pm

    God Save the Queen!  Newt Gingrich!

    Mitt looks good compared to Newt.  And that is not saying much.  

  15. Tennwriter
    January 16th, 2012 @ 2:09 pm

    Neither have I, but the science is settled.  Any Anti-Mitt Deniers need to be carted off to some place overseas where we can forget to count their vote.

  16. Bob Belvedere
    January 16th, 2012 @ 3:39 pm

    That’s why I named it OPERATION: WHIG. 

    The time has come for the GOP to go the way of the Whigs.  The current structure is so corrupted that it cannot be saved.

  17. Adjoran
    January 16th, 2012 @ 3:42 pm

    How about:  NO qualifications of experience running anything bigger than his Senate staff, union stooge, big spender, and lawyer-lobbyist now.

    How’s that?

  18. richard mcenroe
    January 16th, 2012 @ 3:47 pm

    Adjoran — How about, Rick held the GOP vote on welfare reform together on the House floor while Newt was getting mind-f***ed by Bill Clinton in their cozy little private meetings?

  19. Adjoran
    January 16th, 2012 @ 3:48 pm

    The Republican Party’s selection process is the most free, open, and democratic in the world – even more than the Democrats, who reserve 20% of their seats for party bosses and officeholders.  It is also more conservative now than it has ever been since the Great Depression.

    The reason conservative nominees don’t happen very often is that too many conservatives in the Party want to purge everyone who doesn’t agree with them 100%, or on their issue of the day.  Reagan, the former Democrat and Union leader who raised state taxes and spending and “invested” taxpayer money in private projects, would be rejected as “RINO” today.

    Reagan himself believed in a “big tent” conservative that attracts people in instead of driving people out.

    But it seems many of our conservative friends, having lost a free and open contest fair and square, would rather see Obama reelected than “betray their principles” by voting for the nominee we will select democratically.

    Acting like little children who lose a game and grab up their toys and run home to sob into Mommy’s skirt may seem the mature and wise thing to do in their eyes, but it could damage the country.

  20. smitty
    January 16th, 2012 @ 4:00 pm

    @yahoo-EU5DQWQTTHTPO4A4ZYSL3AAV2U:disqus IRT: How about: NO qualifications of experience running anything bigger than his Senate staff, union stooge, big spender, and lawyer-lobbyist now.

    Purely retrospective. How about criticism of, you know, his stated policy directions?
    Noted on the qualifications. Note, too: the qualification bar can be set so as to disqualify anyone, e.g. “Yeah, Mitt was governor of Mass., but screwed up too badly for re-election, ergo, incompetent.”  See?
    Lawyer-lobbyist. Now, was he supposed to #OccupyGOP until he ran for office? It sounds to me like he earned a paycheck.

    If you dislike Santorum, fine. Not asking you to knit him a sweater. You could have thrown in the Infamous Arlen Endorsement, as well. Santorum has paid his dues. For my vote, of the GOP slate, he strikes the best insider/outsider knowledge balance. He knows enough of the sausage making to be effective, without having quaffed so much kool-aid as to attain soullessness.
    Or I could be completely misjudging him.

  21. smitty
    January 16th, 2012 @ 4:01 pm

    @yahoo-EU5DQWQTTHTPO4A4ZYSL3AAV2U:disqus IRT: How about: NO qualifications of experience running anything bigger than his Senate staff, union stooge, big spender, and lawyer-lobbyist now.

    Purely retrospective. How about criticism of, you know, his stated policy directions?
    Noted on the qualifications. Note, too: the qualification bar can be set so as to disqualify anyone, e.g. “Yeah, Mitt was governor of Mass., but screwed up too badly for re-election, ergo, incompetent.”  See?
    Lawyer-lobbyist. Now, was he supposed to #OccupyGOP until he ran for office? It sounds to me like he earned a paycheck.

    If you dislike Santorum, fine. Not asking you to knit him a sweater. You could have thrown in the Infamous Arlen Endorsement, as well. Santorum has paid his dues. For my vote, of the GOP slate, he strikes the best insider/outsider knowledge balance. He knows enough of the sausage making to be effective, without having quaffed so much kool-aid as to attain soullessness.
    Or I could be completely misjudging him.

  22. smitty
    January 16th, 2012 @ 4:02 pm

    IRT: How about: NO qualifications of experience running anything bigger than his Senate staff, union stooge, big spender, and lawyer-lobbyist now.

    1. Purely retrospective. How about criticism of, you know, his stated policy directions?
    2. Noted on the qualifications. Note, too: the qualification bar can be set so as to disqualify anyone, e.g. “Yeah, Mitt was governor of Mass., but screwed up too badly for re-election, ergo, incompetent.”  See?
    3. Lawyer-lobbyist. Now, was he supposed to #OccupyGOP until he ran for office? It sounds to me like he earned a paycheck.

    If you dislike Santorum, fine. Not asking you to knit him a sweater. You could have thrown in the Infamous Arlen Endorsement, as well. Santorum has paid his dues. For my vote, of the GOP slate, he strikes the best insider/outsider knowledge balance. He knows enough of the sausage making to be effective, without having quaffed so much kool-aid as to attain soullessness.
    Or I could be completely misjudging him.

  23. Adjoran
    January 16th, 2012 @ 4:10 pm

    I love Santorum.  He isn’t qualified to be President.  He isn’t a fiscal conservative at all, he has been a union stooge in office.

    That you think a guy whose sole experience is in Congress is qualified means YOU are part of the problem.  Mouthing the proper phrases to get a cheer from an audience doesn’t prove you could manage yourself out of a sweater vest.

  24. smitty
    January 16th, 2012 @ 4:21 pm

    Lighten up, Francis.
    I wouldn’t accuse anyone of being “qualified” to deal with our current foreign/domestic mess, mont Santorum, not Gingrich, not Olympic-Bain-BigDig Romney.
    They’re all more or less equally unqualified, as individuals.
    Then again, if you have some magic wisdom from on high, maybe you should be targeted for election.

  25. Values UPDATE: Santorum Calls On Mitt To Release Tax Returns : The Other McCain
    January 16th, 2012 @ 4:51 pm

    […] see how he manages his own economy,” Santorum said.It isn’t clear what exactly Dr. Strange-glove buys through obscurity here. Are we going to discover Romney paid for Kenyans to attend Columbia, […]

  26. ThePaganTemple
    January 16th, 2012 @ 7:06 pm

    I’ll vote for either one of them, Newt or Rick. I’m not so sure I can vote for Mitt. I’ve honestly tried to like that guy, but no sooner do I get halfway there than I hear or see something about him that pisses me the fuck off.

  27. Quartermaster
    January 16th, 2012 @ 7:07 pm

    You outline why Reagan could not be considered a Conservative. I see nothing new there.

    It’s not really about 100% purity, but about actually being a conservative, something that we haven’t gotten in the nominating process since Goldwater. Even Reagan was not a conservative, but he was better than anyone that’s occupied the office since Coolidge.

  28. Quartermaster
    January 16th, 2012 @ 7:11 pm

    It’s really no unfair to state that man is not qualified to be POTUS until after he’s actually occupied the office for awhile. Frankly, I can’t remember anyone in history that was qualified before he got there. The trick is finding someone that has the basic tools.

    The problem that last sentence raises, however, is the simple fact that most people who run do all they can to obfuscate their record. The ability to find good people, as I have observed, is not a wide spread skill, and few have had the chance to actually have to make such choices. Often those who have have to hide the context because there are always aspects of the finding process that are not well received politically.

  29. ThePaganTemple
    January 16th, 2012 @ 7:13 pm

    Romney was involved somehow with the Big Dig? There, that fucking does it. Fuck him.

  30. Anonymous
    January 17th, 2012 @ 1:13 am

    There is a perfectly good reason for the lack of enthusiasism and mistrust about Mitt Romney. He isn’t capable of connecting with the public at all.
    And this is what the national Republicans believe is their “chance” to defeat Obama. How out of touch could they get?

  31. ThePaganTemple
    January 17th, 2012 @ 7:27 am

    Its not that they’re out of touch. In fact, they are perfectly in touch. Here’s the problem, as I see it. They know most Republicans despise Barak Obama with the heat of a thousand suns and would do anything to get him out of office. Because of this, they are arrogant, and so full of themselves they are one hundred percent sure that, despite the moaning, despite the bitching, when push comes to shove conservatives will line up in support of whichever candidate they decide they want to force-feed us. Then, once the nominating process is over and done for, they’ll give us a sop in the form of a constitutional conservative VP candidate to make us feel a little bit better and make sure we rally behind their main man. Hey, why not, if they win, what kind of power does a VP have?

    Yeah, they understand what a disaster that was the last time around, but they’re sure it will work this time because of how disgusted we are now with Obama and his actions in office.

  32. Janhumbert
    January 17th, 2012 @ 2:29 pm

    Pagan, great response…..but we still need to vote the 535in and out of office on a regular basis. Not just mine, yours, as well.