Thursday, January 26, 2012

For Mitt

First, let me say I will not vote for Willard "Mitt" Romney in the Primary.  I absolutely refuse.  However, over at the Ace of Spades HQ (link in my side bar), a brawl has been going on over Mitt vs. Newt, and I thought I would illustrate my point here.  My point is that Mitt Romney has run, from the beginning of this race, as if he was entitled to be our nominee.  He was aloof and stand-off-ish, he was a "cold fish," and he ran only on his "electability," a quality which does not, apparently, mean the ability to win multiple elections.  Somehow.

Now that he's no longer the clear front-runner, he and his supporters are getting nasty.  If you don't support Mitt, it can't be because of anything Mitt has done, or because of Mitt's ever-changing standpoints, or anything else- no, it must be because you are flawed and/or you want Obama to win another term.

Well, ladies and gentlemen, that's not a winning tactic.  You don't insult those whose support you need, you woo them.  You explain why your guy is so much better than the other guy- and I've never once heard any argument that Mitt is better than anyone else- simply that they are also flawed and he polls better.

So, since they obviously don't understand my point, I thought I would illustrate by posting what I think Mitt and his supporters should have been saying from the beginning.

1) Mitt is a highly successful Capitalist.  He made millions of dollars providing real value- in the form of greater efficiency- to real companies that then saw real profits.  Those profits were then turned into new investment- often in personnel (that is: jobs).  The net jobs created is very, very difficult to calculate, because such results are often only distally related to Mitt's actions- but the causal relationship still exists.

2) Mitt, as a successful Capitalist, understands that the government cannot create jobs- and to speak as if it can is delusional.  He knows, instead, that the Government can simply create an environment which is either conducive, or harmful, to job creation.  To do this, he proposes to lower taxes generally, especially corporate income taxes. **I would do more here, but I frankly haven't heard very many details of Mitt's economic plan: which is yet another problem with his campaign**

3) Mitt's experience with Health Care in Massachusetts has shown him that Government Mandates don't work.  They may be marginally better than pure socialization or requiring all employers to provide coverage, but they're still not effective.  Real world, private sector based solutions are the answer.  Reducing regulation and coverage mandates would allow for an "a la carte" approach to insurance coverage- which would be the first step in reducing the general cost of health insurance.  Removing the ability for people to avoid paying for health care (no longer require any hospital or doctor to treat "regardless of ability to pay") would also reduce the instances of people using the Emergency Room as their Primary Care Provider. ***I don't think Mitt even believes this, but he's the one who has the example he could use 'We tried it this way- it doesn't work!'***

4) Mitt, as a successful Capitalist, understands that government, generally, is too big and it's reach too great.  Meaningless, redundant bureaucracy and "red tape" not only make it harder for businesses to operate, they ensnare our people in a web of laws such that one can't avoid breaking a law at least sometimes.  Cutting through that redundancy will not only allow businesses and the People to operate more freely, it will reduce the costs of compliance and enforcement.

I could go on, but that should be enough to get them started.

I'll also point out- I believe that if Mitt Romney actually believed this stuff, he would already have been saying it.  So, as for wooing me, he's lost his chance.  But, hey, it may work with others, and I'm certainly under no illusions about the reach of my blog here.  So they could at least give it a try.


  1. The biggest thing that wears me down about this whole primary season is that I don't find myself truly wanting to rally behind anyone. I was a Perry guy because of his track record, but now that he's gone... I just don't have any enthusiasm for a candidate. It's anecdotal, but I'm not seeing a helluva lot of excitement for Romney either. That's what scares me most about the election--if the only enthusiasm we have for this election is a "don't elect Obama again! I don't really think our guy is great or anything, but just vote against Obama" scenario, I just don't know if that's enough to win the election. I mean, hell, look at the machine that was brimming with excitement, enthusiasm, and a "historical election" that was behind Obama in '08. And look at how little he won by. I think that we're overestimating how badly people want to vote against Obama, in all honesty. We need to focus on giving somebody a person to vote for, rather than relying on them to vote against Obama.

    Just my $0.02

    1. Like I said: I'm not a Romney Guy. I'll never be a Romney guy (unless something major changes). I'll pull the lever for him in November, if I have to, but he gets no actual support from me.

      That said- you're right: we need a reason to support whoever the eventual candidate is, and Romney (nor his supporters) just isn't getting that job done. As Ace over at the HQ says- he's just not closing the deal.

      I'm not much more enthused about Newt, but he's just a smidgeon better, in my estimation. So get's my (somewhat tepid) support.

  2. Re Newt, he's nowhere near an ideal candidate, but the RNC idiots are so intent on losing this election that he is the best choice (and that is damning with faint praise). His only redeeming grace is that he just might shake up the Washington establishment, something that Mittens would never do!

    OT, but can you offer more login options? I refuse to use Google for anything, including search, and there are other account types (Yahoo mail, Hotmail, etc.) and right now I am too broke to afford a domain registration.

    1. I'll see what I can do. I'm running with Blogger defaults, and I'm not sure if it allows OpenID (which should accept Yahoo and Hotmail, among others).

  3. There is an Open ID option in the profile, but it seems to ask for a URL not an email address.

  4. Allen (sp?):

    Just wanted to de-lurk for a moment and tell you I enjoyed reading through your recent posts. I'm a long-time AoS lurker, but today was my first visit to your blog. Keep up the good work!

    P.S. Didn't you post once that you are in the North TX area? I'm in Arlington... I hope nothing important got washed away in all the rain.

    1. Yep, I live in Arlington (may as well be Mansfield).

      Me? I'll take every ounce of water God wants to send us. If that means my stuff floats away, so be it.

  5. The header on this piece comes across as an editorial endorsement while clearly it is not your intent, though maybe I'm not giving enough credit for double entendre.

    I would agree that it is getting ugly @ AoS regarding this sorry choice but it's better than no choice.

    You put your arguments together like someone well familiar the construction trades. Good stuff.

  6. Here's the deal: We expect you to be bright enough to understand already what Romney brings to the table. You guys just want to focus on what he doesn't, so we end up hashing those things over and it gets heated.

    Same with any candidate--we know Newt offers platters of red meat served sizzling and we understand the visceral desire for more each day. We just don't think we can win that way.

    I live in a purple area with one of the 5 best congressmen in the House. He wins his seat every time by 52-48, around there. If Newt is our candidate this congressman is a goner. It's that simple. This is a wealthy area, women vote, the Olds vote like mad. Newt cannot even place here and many areas like this and he'll drag the rest of the House with him.

    I wish this was not the case but I believe it is.


    1. That's your assertion; it (by definition, since it posits the future) has no evidence. What we do know is that Newt Gingrich won far more elections that Mitt Romney, and that he fires up the base more.

      And the fact is, we don't know what Mitt brings to the table, because we don't know whether to trust his record (which is liberal) or his rhetoric (which is mostly conservative-ish). He talks (and, therefore, probably thinks) like a bureaucrat who believes that power flows from the Government to the people, not the other way around.

      Most of the time, at least, Newt doesn't do that. Even he screws up sometimes, though.

    2. Here's two things we both accept as facts that neither one of us can prove: Tenther: Romney believes power flows from gov't to the people. Spongey: If Newt's our nominee we'll get killed downticket.

      Now let's assume we're both right--are you really so convinced of your premise that you believe Mitt will do more damage than handing Obama all 3 branches?

    3. Yeah, but I don't accept that. I believe that Newt fires up the base- and it's base turnout that wins elections. Yes, we don't want to "turn off" the independents, but I see no evidence of that happening.

      The corollary to that is that I believe Mitt does depress conservative turn out.

      It's all pure speculation, and I don't begrudge anyone supporting Mitt, at this point. I just want the various Mitt supporters to understand that most of the reason we don't support him is, well, him.