The (Liberal’s) Case for Mitt

November 15th, 2011 at 12:00 pm David Frum | 62 Comments |

| Print

Kevin Drum states it:

A few months ago I was pretty much rooting for a Perry or a Bachmann to win the GOP nomination because I figured (a) they’d lose big in the general election, and (b) their loss might push the Republican Party back toward the center sooner than otherwise. But it’s just too obvious now that Obama is genuinely vulnerable and someone in the Republican field might well be our next president. That’s why I’m now mostly hoping that the GOP base comes to its senses, holds its collective nose, and just nominates the Mittster. On a day-to-day basis, I suspect Romney would govern about as conservatively as any of the others. But in an emergency, he’s the only one who seems pretty certain of responding in a non-catastrophic way.

Recent Posts by David Frum

62 Comments so far ↓

  • armstp


    The paragraph you quote hardly makes the case for Romney and certainly not the “liberal” case for Romney. All that paragraph says is that Drum likes Romney over the Perry and Bachmann because a Rebublican might actually win. That is hardly the “liberal” case.

    By the way Obama is doing just fine in the polls. He is going to be hard to beat. Drum should stay with his original hypothesis.

    I see you have changed the title from the “liberal” case to the “liberal’s” case. Makes more sense now, as the case is really not all that “liberal”.

    • Ray_Harwick

      True. This is David’s fantasy prefaced upon the idea that Romney is somehow appealing to liberals when it is conservatives like *me* who will decide Romney’s fate. Romney doesn’t have a prayer and the only candidate on the right I’d entrust this country to, Jon Huntsman, is making right-wingers gag. I keep hearing how Huntsman is boring. That is undoubtedly the estimation of those who are being paid to say so by the Koch and Rove Cartels. He’s not boring. He simply isn’t in their pockets.

      • overshoot

        I keep hearing how Huntsman is boring.

        I spend a lot of time doing volunteer emergency medicine. Let me tell you: boring is good. For similar reasons, I don’t want an exciting President. I want someone so boring that the national and international news goes down to Page Four, behind the local PTA bake sales.

        I have lots better things to do with my life than spend the rest of it trying to keep a bunch of idiots from ruining the world my grandchildren will live in.

  • Houndentenor

    I know there are some in both parties who root for the candidate most likely to make a big fool of him or herself in the fall election. I am not one of those. Either major party nominee could become president. It’s in our best interest to have two candidates who are capable of executing the office of President. I might disagree with Romney (well it’s hard to know since he’s taken both sides of almost every issue at some point) but I don’t think he’d run the country off a cliff once he got in office. I can’t say the same about Bachmann, Perry or Cain. I cringe when I hear Democrats rooting for someone who could do serious damage to our country for decades to come because they think they will be easier to beat next fall. That’s a dangerous risk to take with our country’s future.

    • wileedog

      +1. I said as much to folks who were hoping Palin would run for that reason.

      You never know what kind of scandal or other bomb that could drop a week before the election and allow the unthinkable to happen.

    • overshoot

      I cringe when I hear Democrats rooting for someone who could do serious damage to our country for decades to come because they think they will be easier to beat next fall.

      Which of them won’t do serious damage? I mean, seriously — Huntsman and Johnson are non-starters, and unlike serious wingnuts they’re not going to get their 15 minutes at the top of the polls.

      • gover

        I wish I remembered who to credit with the line, ‘the out party is never more than a scandal or crisis away from power.’ On this theory, four years ago I voted for Hillary and rooted for Romney on the GOP side. He’s still the least dangerous after Huntsman, who, unfortunately, is irrelevant at this point. However, this year, I want Cain or Perry or Bachmann. And one of the other two as veep. The Republican Party has now gone so far off the rails that if Dwight Eisenhower were elected president, they’d destroy the country anyway.

        And medinnus, how are liberals striving to pull down the GOP’s house? We didn’t push any of these looney tunes forward.

  • nikhil_gupta

    Not exactly the most inspiring stuff ever.

  • jamesj

    Haha. Well this certainly is the case from any thinking human being for preferring Romney (or possibly Huntsman) in the primaries. Out of all the primary candidates, they’re the only ones you can have any confidence to respond to situations in “a non-catastrophic way”.

    I don’t know whether to laugh or cry since that is the closest a former Republican voter like me can come to giving any kind of compliment to any of the current Republican primary contenders. Apparently Liberals are also so terrified at this point that they’re dropping political concerns and praying for the sanest of the bunch for the sake of this country’s future.

    • Shotgun314159

      “Apparently Liberals are also so terrified at this point that they’re dropping political concerns and praying for the sanest of the bunch for the sake of this country’s future.”

      Liberals are pissed, yet not insane.

      • Houndentenor

        Because liberals (who are mostly really moderates these days) are not radicals who’d rather destroy the world than allow a Republican to be president for a term. The same cannot be said for the majority of Republicans who I think would rather we all go down in flames than have another Obama term.

        • jamesj

          Sadly the debt ceiling debacle, the nature of the debate between congressional Republicans and the President over the last couple years, and the mindless hatred I see from right wing colleagues and family over the last two years are proving your point in a big way.

  • salvatore

    That’s a very foolish position to take and I suspect the author of that paragraph didn’t pay very close attention to the recent foreign policy debate. Mittens is for war with Iran, for torture, for unilateral action and for increasing military spending. It took only 8 years for an arguably less militant president to destroy the country’s finances and reputation with the kind of reckless actions Mitt aspires to emulate.

    • overshoot

      It took only 8 years for an arguably less militant president to destroy the country’s finances and reputation with the kind of reckless actions Mitt aspires to emulate.

      Everybody has to have some ambition, and once Mitt has reached his (being President) he’ll need a new objective. Beating W’s record could be it.

  • medinnus

    Huntsman is another GOP candidate who would not drie the country off a cliff – of course, its precisely those reasons – his intelligence, his executive branch experience, his foreign policy experience, his sanity – that have him trailing so bad.

  • TerryF98

    John Cole has it sussed.

    “At this point, Mitt Romney is like the ugly person at the bar, totally willing to put out and do anything, winking and flirting as hard as he/she can with the GOP primary voters while yelling “I’m so wasted! I’m so wasted!”, but there are still a few hours left before closing time, so the voters are still weighing their options.

    It’s a pathetic spectacle, really.”

  • Watusie

    When I switched my voter registration from D to R last year, it was with the intention of having the joy of voting for Palin in the primary. Didn’t pan out, of course, but I was content with the idea of ticking the box next to “Bachmann” with almost equal relish. Now that it looks like I’ll be getting to choose “Gingrich” and might actually, possibly end up with him foisted upon you all, I am ecstatic.

    • Fart Carbuncle

      Newt is factually brilliant, and would eat up Obama in any debate.

      However, if he were getting close to being the nominee, the Dems would undoubtedly attack his moral values as they’ve done with every other threat to their Messiah. He does have some weakness there.

      • Watusie

        Newt is a flatulent gasbag who is wrong on the facts more often than he is right…even though he does usually manage to speak in grammatically correct sentences, which in this field, is really something. But more to the point – what on earth about his debate performances thus far makes you think he’ll somehow magically transform into something approaching even effectiveness next year? I mean, even Fox News says he’s kind of sad. And no, being one of the best clowns in this car does not mean he’ll look good in a different setting.

      • icarusr

        I am amused that someone who can describe Newt “Clinton forced me out the back door” Gingrich “factually brilliant” – “factually” presumably meaning “provable in fact”, though only in a sort of Humpty-Dumptyesque sense – talks of “their Messiah”.

        To this fatuous and flatulent “factual” affirmation one can only respond, “yeah sure, you’re right, of course, naturally” with a measure of bemused condescension.

      • think4yourself


        I’m trying to decide which of your two points are the most funny; that Newt is factually brilliant or that he (of the GOP Party of Evangelicalism) has some moral weaknesses.

  • ottovbvs

    Now Kevin Drum is Frum’s go to guy for Romney approval? This is piece is baloney but I guess the inspiration isn’t always there.

  • Fart Carbuncle

    Mitt is just so darn slimy. I mean, he refuses to take a hard stand on anything, lest he offend an opposing side. No guts. Typical pol.

    However, if he’s the nominee, I’ll have to hold my nose and vote for him.

    • medinnus

      That is because you and he share the same levels of personal integrity.

      • Fart Carbuncle

        You’re improving. No profanity, but the ad hominem personal attack is noted.

        • NRA Liberal

          “…Mitt is just so darn slimy. I mean, he refuses to take a hard stand on anything, lest he offend an opposing side. No guts. Typical pol.

          However, if he’s the nominee, I’ll have to hold my nose and vote for him.

          And here we have the current state of play in American politics.

          We’re so polarized that both sides would vote for John Gacy, were he their duly selected nominee, rather than hand a win to the opposite party.

  • dante

    Nope. No way I’m putting “Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran v2.0″ into the drivers seat as Commander In Chief…

    Come primary season my (protest) primary vote is going to either Perry or Cain since either of them will get HAMMERED by Obama. If Romney gets the nomination and loses, we’re in for another 4 years of “if only we’d nominated a REAL conservative he/she would have won”. No thanks. Let’s have an open and honest debate in this country about what direction we should be headed in. When the Tea Partiers *lose* that debate, then and only then will the Republican party be able to have an actual discussion about the future of the party and the country as a whole…

  • think4yourself

    It’s tough being Frum. As a stalwart Republican, honor bound to vote for the GOP nominee, what to do? You can vote for Huntsman who hasn’t a snowball’s chance in hell of winning the nomination or vote for Romney who does have (just) a snowball’s chance in hell – but only if unemployment stays high.

    Unfortunately for Frum, the Presidential Candidate that most closely aligns to Frum’s Conservative values is Obama.

    • overshoot

      The key test is to ask someone (DF being just one) to name a Republican that they wouldn’t vote for. And listen for the silence.

      At which point, it’s the old story of “and you wonder why you get this field of clowndidates?”

  • Frumplestiltskin

    I would agree if the article were about Huntsman, but Romney has no core and no real base of support outside of Wall Street and Mormons (Huntsman being younger at least will appeal more to the post baby boomers)
    I think Romney might even be a much bigger disaster than Perry, who is nothing but a crony Capitalist of whom we can know what to expect. Democrats neutralized Bush the last two years so should be able to do the same to Perry creating a clearly defined sense of equilibrium. Romney, however, will flip flop all over the place making everyone nuts.

  • cdorsen

    The reason that the more centrist candidates are not getting more traction is no that the GOP is a fringe party that just wants to watch the world burn as liberals seem to presume. The problem is that none of the centrists are inspiring or have much personality. Chris Christie is very much a centrist Republican. Doesn’t anyone remember the GOP scrambling to try to get him to run? Let’s face it, Cain and Perry have more personality and are more likeable figures than Romney or Huntsman. The only somewhat happy medium would be Gingrich who is very intelligent, would not drive anything over a cliff, and if he could get past his…well past, would make a very formidable opponent to Obama.

  • bdtex

    Romney has been a fish out of water for 5 years. The way he responds to anything depends on which way the political wind is blowing. Yet,he will be the GOP nominee next year. Gingrich will make a run at him like all the other anti-Romneys have but he won’t win. If he is the one GOP donors and party bosses want to win then he never would have struggled with fundraising or staffing his campaign. This is really hilarious stuff to watch.

  • sparse

    the (liberal’s) case for mitt really boils down to the (liberal’s) case against the rest of the field, and nothing more.

    speaking of gingrich- i did not hear any commentary on this, but at the time his polling started to rise, some reporter (can’t find the link right now) asked him about what happened last spring, when his campaign imploded. he had significant debt, was not paying his bills, then everyone quit. remember that? in the interview gingrich laid the blame for the unpaid bills on his staff, saying he kept tabs on his cash on hand, which was in positive territory, and did not realize that he was actually in debt. so when everyone quit, he realized how feckless they had been, he said he didn’t know they had not been paying the bills.

    all ideology aside, this was, for me, a total disqualifier for the presidency, and, i think, an excellent example of the kind of fears liberals, centrists and a growing number of conservatives have about the quality of the republican field. either he could not be bothered to look beyond the bold-face portion of his accounting spreadsheet or he is lying and scapegoating. neither works for me.

  • Graychin

    In this election cycle, many of the Republican presidential primaries are open primaries. This means that pro-Obama Democrats will have a voice in picking the Republican nominee. (There appears to be no Democrat opposing Obama, so no Democratic primaries are likely.)

    The only candidate against whom Obama appears truly vulnerable is that elusive “generic Republican.” Nevertheless Romney, as clearly the most credible candidate, the best chance of defeating Obama. How would a man like Romney with no core beliefs and no guiding principles govern? He might be a capable manager, but he would never be a leader. In other words, he would be a disaster as president.

    Democrats have a difficult decision voting in Republican primaries. Should they: 1) vote for Romney, and take the risk of the lesser disaster of a Romney presidency, or 2) vote for Perry / Cain / Gingrich / Bachmann / Paul / Santorum, and take the smaller risk of that candidate winning and bringing greater disaster.

    I don’t know for sure what I would do. Probably vote for the non-Romney, because the non-Romney is sure to repulse Independent voters. Romney might draw independents, but the Republican base would be crippled by an “enthusiasm gap.”

    What would other commenters here do?

    • overshoot

      Look at the polls and don’t bother voting for anyone not in one of the top two slots.

    • LFC

      I’ve never voted for the worst candidate of a political party and at my age I can’t see really starting to do so even though the current GOP scares the s*** out of me. At this point I really can’t think of much that they aren’t crazy enough to do. Plus I can’t see them ever taking responsibility for their actions or grasping reality when it comes crashing down upon our nation.

  • medinnus

    I think that being in favor of candidate X because he’s the easiest target for Obama is reprehensible, even if it is, perhaps, a smart tactic. I would rather support Huntsman because I agree with him on most policy positions, and I wish the Liberals would work to strengthen their own house, rather than strive to pull down the GOP’s.

    • rbottoms

      Let me get this straight, your choices on the Republican side are so reprehensible that voting for one of them is participating in bringing down the GOP?

      If you didn’t already start of with 30% of the party being homophobic, nihilistic, gun crazy, anti-science, anti-contraceptive anti-evolution, religious nuts then none of your “bad” choices would stand a chance of becoming the nominee in the first place.

  • rbottoms

    Somewhere there’s a 13 year old girl whose mother has condemned her to getting cervical cancer because Michelle Bachmann thinks getting elected president is more important that telling the truth about a cancer preventing drug.

    [blockquote]Michele Bachmann is still defending her opposition to the vaccine that prevents HPV, the leading cause of cervical cancer. At a campaign event in Sheldon, Iowa on Monday night, she sympathized with a mother who believes her daughter Jessica, now 16, has been debilitated by headaches, pains and seizures brought on by the vaccine three years ago and can no longer attend school.

    “Michele, on behalf of myself and a lot of other mothers that have a child that’s sick from the Gardasil vaccine, I would like to thank you for the attention that you brought to it,” Julie Wepple said, according to the Des Moines Register.

    Bachmann thanked Wepple for bringing up the vaccine issue. “Parents have to make that decision for their kids because it isn’t the schools that are going to follow up with Jessica,” she said. “It isn’t the schools that live with Jessica every day. It’s Jessica who’s having to have her body live with the ravages of this vaccine.”

    The GOP is off the frigging charts with their crazy rhetoric on a good day, now the mob is cheering advocates for letting girls die horribly and needlessly all for the sake of a soundbite. Disgraceful doesn’t do the party justice.

  • ottovbvs

    Next stop for Frum? Michael Moore?

  • MSheridan

    HERE is the liberal’s case for Mitt, penned by the inimitable Hunter over at Daily Kos (and part of a much longer piece well worth the read):

    I’ve got two things to admit to you, my Republican friends. Mitt Romney is the guy that we non-Republicans fear most, from your side, because his ability to take all sides of all issues means that, come the general election, he’ll be able to plausibly claim some brand new public-friendly stances and nobody will really be able to prove he’s lying about it. Hell, Mitt Romney changes positions between breakfast and lunch; by the time the general election rolls around, he might be tying a bandana around his head and proclaiming himself the second coming of Jimi Hendrix.

    But Romney is also the guy that scares us all the least, because his inability to follow any distinct ideology means that he may be the only candidate, among your current crop, who would not destroy the entire goddamn economy, nation and planet if he managed to get elected. Would it suck? Oh, sure. Would he govern as a conservative? Absolutely. But he would not be nearly as likely to nuke the wrong country because he couldn’t remember the name of the country that he originally wanted to nuke, or to institute nationwide Christian Sharia in an attempt to protect us all from homosexual Muslims, or grind the entire U.S. economy into a North Korea-like state of enforced government incompetence coupled with rampant, unapologetic cronyism. We might nosedive into another Great Depression on Romney’s watch, sure, but if Bachmann became president I give it exactly three months before we’re using human ears as a form of currency. Sure, maybe Eric Cantor would say “you know what would be fun? Let’s throw every senior citizen in America into a giant pit full of bears, and see what happens,” but Mitt Romney is the guy who would at least think about it for a few minutes before giving his thumbs up. That’s about all the credit I can give him, which is, I admit, not much.

    That said, does Mitt Romney represent your party? Well, no. Of course he doesn’t. We all know that. The other guys represent your now crazy-ass party, which is why you’d rather go with the national sales tax sex-assault guy or the resigned-in-disgrace guy or the guy whose staff counts it as a good day when he remembers to put on pants for his debate appearances. They’re all loudly fighting for your attention, with Mitt Romney being the guy in the back of the room that you are trying not to make eye contact with, because you just know he’s going to ask you to dance and you do not want to be seen with him.

  • jjv

    Well, as long as sticking your finger in the wind produces a “non-catstrophic” result in all emergencies I agree with Kevin Drum. If the prevailing conventional wisdom does in fact lead to a catstrophic result it is guaranteed under Romney.

    The liberal case for Romney is “our guy is going to lose so which of my opponants is less likely to either seek to enact or unlikey to obtain conservative results in the Congress, judiciary and executive? Oh yes, its Romney I’m for him!”

  • TJ Parker

    The liberal case for Newt: he’s Newt! Brainy brainy for a Republican – brain as big as his testicles! Um, testicles as big as his brain! Something like that!

    He’s not a Dick, Rick or Mitt! He’s Newt!

  • Shotgun314159

    If you think for a minuet the 99% will vote for a Corporate Shill like Mittens.
    Your kidding yourselves.

  • valkayec

    According to Pew’s typeology, I’m a typical liberal, although I would argue against such a label. But if I can be considered a liberal, then here’s my thinking.

    Cain, Perry, and Bachman are downright frightening because they lack the intelligent insight in to domestic economics and foreign policy. Just because you think you’d enjoy a beer with someone running for president of the most powerful nation on earth at a backyard barbeque does not mean that person would be a great president. The last time the nation voted that way, we got GW Bush…and the worst economic and foreign policies in my 65 year old lifetime. And believe me, I remember Eisenhower’s first term. No matter how many voters disapprove of Obama’s handling of the economy, I don’t believe middle of the road voters will choose any of these candidates in a general election for president.

    Gingrich is gaining favor as the latest anti-Romney candidate, but he has a history of going off the track and saying truly dumb things. Amongst the GOP, Gingrich is praised as a great thinker…but is that really true? Much of what he says appear to me to be warmed over conservative mantras, only made new sounding via his ability to spin the argument. He’s been shown to be ego-centric and narcissistic, lacking in moral and ethical values, introduced the worst ethical policies into the House (i.e. pay to play selling of committee seats), and advocated denying the voting franchise to non-property holders (i.e., renters shouldn’t have a vote) After nearly 150 years of denying votes to some people, all citizens now have the right to vote, regardless of their station in life or their wealth. Yet, Gingrich would set back liberty for all by 50 years. His are hardly great ideas; most are or have been an affront to liberty, justice, and democracy for all.

    Huntsman sounds like the most centrist candidate but that’s because he doesn’t garner much of the media’s spotlight. Yes, he does believe in science, i.e. global warming and evolution, but it must be remembered that he also said he supports the Ryan budget. He said he would sign it into law, if as president, it landed on his desk. That’s hardly the views of a centrist who recognizes that the wealthy have made out extremely well over the last decade or so. While the middle class saw an average of ~$1.50/hr wage increase throughout the Bush years, wealthy Americans saw an increase of $10,000/hr increase. Yet, Huntsman would give the wealthy even more while asking seniors and all other income classes to pick up the financial tab. I grew up believing in a classless American society in which the tax code was considered a moral document that asked those who had prospered the most from our democratic system to give back the most to support the needs of the country; that each person had an equal opportunity to succeed or fail based on each person’s abilities (but the system needed improving to ensure those accepted societal values via better education and proven anti-poverty measures); and that there was a balance between the needs and desires of business and workers which the government helped to insure. It’s obvious the Ryan budget discards those time tested values which makes Huntsman’s approval of the Ryan budget all the more alarming. Plus, I’ve yet to see an analysis of how Utah fared after he left office. Remember he left office early in the Great Recession. Have his policies mitigated the worst effects of the Recession in Utah? What are the poverty and unemployment rates in Utah? In other words, what are the current results of the policies he put in place?

    Romney is…well, who knows. He governed as a liberal in a liberal state; and says he’s a conservative now that the GOP has gone utra-conservative. He appears guided by polls, not by beliefs. The reason I chose to vote against Hillary Clinton was because she appeared to choose policy positions based on polling data. I don’t want a president who blows with the polling data winds but one who has a core belief system based on logic, reason, and what is best for all American families and businesses. Essentially, someone I can trust to care about and look out for me, my family, my community and my state…while preserving the essential constructs of the Constitution and the ideas set forth in the Declaration of Independence.

    The GOP may end up choosing Romney because he most probably is the one leading candidate who can garner support support amongst less ideological voters, but he is also an unknown quantity. As President, will he be swayed by the furthest right wingers of his party in Congress and sign into law policies that inevitably will harm our economy and our international standing? Has he the backbone to stand up to obviously inferior and destructive policies put forward by Congress? Will he demand policies that level the business playing field so big businesses do not have special benefits or tax breaks that smaller businesses are incapable of enjoying? Will he continue to protect the wealthiest investor class over average middle income workers? Will he care about leveling the tax and regulatory playing field so no person or company enjoys special benefits? Will he put America and her interests first over any other country, regardless of the pressure to do otherwise? Will he treat all other nation’s people’s and governments with an equal hand, remembering the special status that our Constitution and Declaration of Independence play in the minds of people the world over? Can he assure American families that our precious children will not become more cannon fodder for more noble foreign wars? Will he be able to acknowledge the people’s right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, regardless how of race, creed, gender, economics, or consensual adult relationships? Will his desire to be elected for a second term trump all moral, ethical, and policy considerations to give greater weight to moneyed interests who would use the political system to their own advantage regardless of the consequences to the country? Does anyone know?

    As that Pew labeled liberal, I ask all these questions because I’m concerned about our nation and our people heading further into a globalized 21st century wherein the US probably will not be the world’s largest economy but can still retain the global leadership position based on how we behave now and how we interact with other people’s going forward. Regardless of where you go in the world, the US occupies a special position in people’s minds. That position is of a nation always working towards more equality and opportunity, where even the lowliest can rise to the greatest of heights if he or she has the talent and works hard, where we still believe the inscription on the Statue of Liberty:

    “Give me your tired, your poor,
    Your huddled masses, yearning to breath free,
    The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
    Send these, the homeless, tempest tossed,
    I lift my lamp beside the golden door. ”

    Beyond all else, I believe these words – the yearning to breathe free and the golden door of opportunity – led my ancestors in the early 17th and 18th C to these shores. If we choose to slam those doors closed now to aid and protect the most wealthy and, thereby, decrease opportunities for all to succeed according to their individual abilities, we have violated our ancestors beliefs in our nation as well as the beliefs of the peoples of the world.

    Can any GOP candidate for Congress or President state unequivocally that they believe in the words inscribed on the Statue of Liberty and in the hopes and dreams of our forefathers for equality of freedom and opportunity, regardless of wealth or power? If so, I’ve not seen it.

  • Candy83

    The field of Republican “candidates” are a joke. One has to wonder, “Is it on purpose?”

  • HighCountry

    The whole chain of GOP “flavors of the month” has been horrifying. Sarah Palin, Donald Trump, Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry, Herman Cain. It has gotten so bad that they are actually coming full-circle and resurrecting Newt Gingrich (but of course he’ll go right back to wherever he came from as soon as the voters are reminded of what a d-bag he really is–shouldn’t take more than a couple weeks).

    And meanwhile all Mitt really has to do is stand by and watch, and try not to screw anything up too badly.

  • redpetunia

    I hope all Mitt has to do is not mess up. There is a strong group fighting Mitt on every turn. Every word he says is suspect. Every move he makes. I don’t know if anyone can beat these people they are so very vicious. I understand why the left hates us. These far right people who are fighting Romney are completely without morals.

    Some help getting Newt to blow his top and say the stupid stuff he always says would be very helpful about now. If Newt keeps pretending to be the elder statesman he could win.

    • LFC

      “I don’t know if anyone can beat these people they are so very vicious.”

      And remember that these are the same people who want Obama to fail so badly that they’re willing to destroy the economy and our country to see it happen.

  • laingirl

    We just need to wait for Newt to profess his great love for this country; it will mean he is getting ready to trade in Callista for a newer model.

  • mittens

    I am so disappointed with the Republican field, two, Romney and Huntsman, might be presidential material, but are exceedingly weak in many areas. The others are just jokes, parodies and hypocrites. Without question they are making the party a laughing stock to most moderate Americans.

  • Rob_654

    Romney is ready to take the United States into a war with Iran if sanctions fail (however he decides to define that) – seriously? Now we are going to war with Iran?

    We keep hearing that these wars will be over in a few weeks, they won’t cost the taxpayers any money, we won’t lose many if any American lives – and yet it never seems to work out that way when we take the leadership role of bombing, fighting and waging that war…

    Romney has 5 sons – all of military age – none of the serve or have served – will they step up and join up and go wage war with Iran if their dad decides to do so? Or will we see yet another leader who wages war with other parent’s kids while his own kids stay nice and safe at home?

    • ottovbvs

      “Now we are going to war with Iran?”

      Don’t worry… Romney is just lying again.

    • SGCleveland

      You actually believe that? If you listen to his whole answer from the debate, it contains so many carefully worded hedges that it really isn’t so alarming. In order for deterrents to have an effect, people have to believe you’ll use them. Nixon fed the North Vietnamese a whole lot of misinformation about how crazy he was and how he was eager to get a whole lot more severe with them than he did (and even that was appallingly severe at times), in order to get them to negotiate.

      Romney was the one GOP candidate (with the exception of Paul) back in 2007 who refused to say he would have gone into Iraq knowing in 2003 what he knew in 2007. Although clearly hawkish, he’s hardly an adventurist.

      The real blunder wasn’t his hawkishness, it was the guarantee of preventing an Iranian nuke. If they get one, and he’s POTUS, he’ll end up with a fair bit of egg on his face.