The childish anti-Romney prejudice that could lead to the nomination of McCain

The below comment, rejecting Romney because he is “well-dressed, well-spoken, slick-haired,” is a perfect example of what I’ve been talking about and arguing against for months. It appears after a Hugh Hewitt article at TownHall:

The Cincinnati Kid writes:

The Case Against Mitt Romney

The Fat Lady hasn’t sung yet, but I can hear her warming up off stage right now….Republican voters everywhere—especially conservative ones—need to wake up and smell the coffee. John McCain is not a perfect conservative by any stretch of the imagination. His opposition to the Bush tax cuts, his initial support for amnesty in the immigration reform debate, his support for campaign finance reform, his support of global warming measures by the federal government, his opposition to oil exploration in ANWR, and especially his wavering of support on Justice Alito are all serious and legitimate causes for concern among conservatives. However, Mitt Romney is hardly a convincing choice as a standard-bearer for conservative principles and values. Romney did a great job as governor of Massachusetts, and we can all agree that because of the political environment he was in, he had adopt some anti-conservative positions (pro-choice on abortion and pro gay rights). I’m willing to forgive him for that. What I worry about is his recent “born-again” conversion to conservatism. It seems to me that Romney has changed his positions on a lot of issues more than John Kerry changed his position on the Iraq War during the 2004 campaign. For me, Romney just looks like the well-dressed, well-spoken, slick-haired guy who shows up to a party late and tries to “fit in” as one of the “cool guys.” It’s just too little, too late. It doesn’t ring true. John McCain may be on the wrong side of many conservative issues, but Mitt Romney just doesn’t feel right as the guy can legitimately call him out on it.

Consider Cincinnat’s thought process. He adds up the entire case against McCain which is substantive, serious, and, to most conservatives, profoundly disqualifying. But then he turns to Romney and what does he see? Romney has converted to conservatism recently. Romney is too well-dressed, too well-spoken, he’s not “cool.” And for these amorphous, subjective reasons, the commenter cancles out Romney’s good qualifities and refuses to support him, even though his objections to McCain are far more serious.

This is madness. I say to people: look at the totality of these men. Look at what a McCain nomination would mean versus a Romney nomination.

Here’s a commenter at the TownHall thread who replied to Cincinnati, followed by a couple of more comments:

RightTeacher1 writes: Thursday, January, 31, 2008 9:39 PM

No Cincinnati

You are part of the problem. Romney’s conversion involved him acting on his “new found” convictions as governor. Does it matter as much as you claim if he campaigned as pro-choice if every decision he made as governor on the issue came out pro-life? You can’t pin pro-gay rights on him until you account for the despicable decisions of the Mass Supreme Court. The comparison with Kerry seems to fit McCain more than Romney in such areas as immigration (oh, now he is “enforcement first”) and tax cuts (he was against them before he was for them). If you’re against flippers, I guess you’re out of luck. Your only choice is to vote on who’s positions you agree with right now. I’ll bet they aren’t McCain’s. Not on the environment and not on immigration and not on campaign financing (first amendment). Ultimately you don’t like Romney because he is too slick. Well, maybe we can get Romney on your side if we put him on Letterman and allow him to muss up Romney’s hair the way he did Edwards. Is that what would make you bring you back from the dark side?

Dee writes: Thursday, January, 31, 2008 9:29 PM

Not McCain!

I left the Republican Party last summer after John McCain met with Ted Kennedy to put together a bill rewarding invaders of this Country. When it appeared that McCain had no chance of the Republican nomination, and Romney was a choice, I went back to the Party to vote for Romney. If he doesn’t receive the nomination, I will become an Independent again—in search of a Conservative Leader. McCain will make it a Moderate Party. My friends, I refuse to go to the polls, hold my nose, and vote for the lesser of two evils.

I don’t trust McCain to build what he termed the ‘GD’ fence. One wonders if his hotheaded temper or his conciliatory attitude will take precedent when dealing with any issue—especially with leaders of other countries.

‘Straight Talk’ McCain is not honest. How honest is it to say that you are a Conservative, and then put together the McCain-Feingold attack on free speech?

How honest is it to say that you are a Conservative, when you want to ignore the rule of law and make millions of illegal aliens into legal citizens?

How honest is it to say that you are a Conservative, when your best friends in Washington are liberals, and you often find fault with the Conservative Republicans; when you join with Lieberman to try to enact a ‘Climate Stewardship Act?’

How honest is it to say that you are a Conservative, when you support federal funding of human-embryo stem-cell research; when the Gun Owners of America give you an F minus grade for 2006; when you are against drilling for oil in Anwar; against the repeal of the death tax; and FOR the closing of Guantanamo Bay, thus allowing terrorists into the US Court System?

We can’t trust his choices for the Supreme Court, because we know that all along he plans to meet with Ted Kennedy to reach a bipartisan consensus!

I WONDER IF MITT ROMNEY MIGHT RUN AS A THIRD PARTY CANDIDATE?

kim writes: Friday, February, 01, 2008 1:17 AM

McCain Teeters Like an Old Man

I love Hugh Hewett’s article—he’s always has common sense, even though we are losing our sensability as a nation. I watched a video today of John McCain walking with Rudy Guiliani and Arnold Swartznegger. He teetered like a very old man—it was amazing. Rudy and Arnold had to slow down so McCain could catch up. I have researched Mr. McCain for a year now and I am embarrassed by him. I could go on and on about his unconservative stands on issues but you know all about those. He is riddled with scandal and the Dems will bring that up later. His wife was caught stealing drugs from her own charity. The McCain’s have not fared well when it comes to past choices in their lives, not to mention dealing with pressure. How in the world can he possibly debate with the brilliance and articulate speech of either Barak or Hillary? He is not a very bright man. Sometimes passion is mistaken for intelligence. He was at the bottom of his class at Annapolis and when he speaks I cringe—he sounds like Popeye!! We were told by the polls years ago that Bob Dole was the man to beat Clinton—what a joke that turned out to be. I am afraid we are in for more of the same this year. We aren’t learning from past mistakes.

Sage McLaughlin writes:

To go with your criticism of Steyn’s tepid support for Romney, Lisa Schiffren commented today that,

“This little bit of body language reinforced whatever it was that McCain’s people meant recently when one of them was quoted saying, ‘Mitt Romney is the kind of guy that John McCain used to beat up at school.’ (That’s a paraphrase.)

“I found the remark obnoxious (as you would expect a grown woman to) at the time. But when I watched the interaction described above, I knew what that guy meant. And the fact is, you don’t want to vote for the bully, but you don’t want to vote for the goody two-shoes either.”

This strikes me as an incredibly puerile and, dare I say it, girlish remark. I think Schiffren’s sentiment is unfortunately one shared by a lot of American women. In this era of unbridled nastiness and incivility, they see gentlemen as weaklings, and gravitate more naturally to bad boys. (Recall that she was also an avid Giuliani supporter, whose absolutely beastly treatment of his wife and family seems not to have diminished him in her eyes—at least he wasn’t a goody two-shoes, after all.) If Schiffren and others like her are not inclined to vote for someone because he is decent and polite, that’s hardly to their credit. From her comments here, it isn’t even clear whether she regards being a bully or being decent the greater demerit.

Steve R. writes:

It is true that staunch conservatives found Romney strange. But their tardiness in coming to support him was due in greater part to their hope that Fred Thompson might succeed in South Carolina. This was true for Rush and others. This factor, in conjunction with a custom not to endorse a candidate early in the primary, accounted for their failure to help Mitt. Only after Florida did the major endorsements begin for McCain. Then did the staunch conservatives have no choice but to try to stem the tide.

As is often the case, we conservatives just couldn’t imagine that so many Republicans could be so obtuse (that they could be deceived by one as despicable as McCain). Very depressing.

Jon W. writes:

Repelled by McCain, distrustful of Huckabee, and disappointed by Thompson’s showing, I confess I’ve been leaning toward Romney after Thompson folded.

Reluctantly, I forward the attached document which paints a picture of Mitt Romney that is startling and depressing. The several links and citations I clicked on to sample the impressive documentation supported the thesis. Nevertheless, I hope to find this is a hit job. Absent that, I’ll find myself voting for Huckabee, putting aside what Jimmie Carter has taught us about voting for a Christian cloak that has found conservatism yet leaves you uncomfortable.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at February 02, 2008 05:38 PM | Send