Sound Politics commenter and Reagan Winger Michelle McIntyre thinks my recent mention of a column extolling Mitt Romney's telegenic appeal means I prefer charisma over substance. Um, no.
Based on her blog response and her comment at my original post she has missed the point about the "Mitt Romney is Bill Clinton with his pants up" line. Put aside for a moment Clinton's policy preferences. Ignore for a minute his personal foibles. This man is the greatest politician of our time. His combination of intelligence and magnetic appeal is unmatched in our era. If the man had an ounce of personal discipline he would have been a dynamic force as President (for good or for ill). The column in question was analogizing that Mitt Romney has Bill Clinton's strengths without the accompanying flaws. This is a bad thing?
Let me stipulate something. Michelle McIntyre and I will not soon agree on the best future course for the Republican Party. I can also say without fear of contradiction that I am no more likely to embrace her preferred candidate for President (Tancredo) than she is likely to embrace mine (Romney). Yet, her characterization of my position is simply incorrect.
What originally drew me to Romney was the depth of his issue agenda and the strength of his resume. Between that and the glowing reviews I read from people who had met with him, saying he was great Presidential material, I was sold.
Despite the flourish of partisan blogs, a tremendous number of less ideological voters still get much of their political news from tradtional news outlets, especially television. As such, why shouldn't Republicans - or Democrats for that matter - seek to find a candidate with a solid combination of policy smarts and media skills?
The charisma I'm talking about isn't the kind McIntyre refers to when she says women "are supposedly the ones succeptable to this Bill Clinton style charisma." I'm not looking for a candidate who makes women view their undergarments as unnecessary accessories. I'm looking for a candidate, like Ronald Reagan actually, who communicates effectively in the modern media while displaying the sort of understanding of the issues and leadership ability that can make for a great President. That's what I see in Romney.
Apparently others do to. Despite the whining one hears from some conservatives, he's received some key endorsements that validate his candidacy. Some pro-lifers complain he's only a recent convert to their cause. That didn't seem to bother Jay Sekulow, one of the more prominent national advocates on issues of import to social conservatives before the courts. It also didn't seem to phase James Bopp, Jr., general counsel for the National Right to Life Committee.
Meanwhile, other prominent conservatives are signing up with Romney too. This Los Angeles Times story details the trend (and notes Reagan himself only solidified his pro-life stance one year before he first ran for President). At the same time, one of the most well respected conservatives in the country, Jeb Bush, is not so discreetly sending support Romney's way.
People are going to have their various preferences for President in such a wide-open field. Yet, it shouldn't be too much of a reach for anyone to want to consider whether the person we support on the issues likewise has the other host of traits necessary to win the White House.
****
UPDATE: Romney showed some of that charisma today responding well to a heckler not pleased about him being a Mormon. I particularly liked how Romney playfully laughed at the guy with a smile on his face before giving a response that drew a standing ovation.
Posted by Eric Earling at February 17, 2007 02:21 PM | Email ThisRonald Reagan.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 17, 2007 02:12 PMIf, however, you throw something as "insignificant" as standards, principles, conviction into the mix, then Reagan wins hands down.
Posted by: Danny on February 17, 2007 02:44 PMNo, I doubt it. I don't plan on posting on the topic that much, though the '08 race is the most interesting thing in politics right now. Meanwhile, Stefan and Matt are Giuliani backers I believe so it certainly won't be a one-horse show.
Danny -
I don't dispute Reagan was a formidable politician, and certainly infinitely more principled than Clinton. But you have to give Clinton credit for coming from behind in the '92 primary with the deck stacked against him, then outfoxing the Republican Congress in both budget showdowns and impeachment. I don't think Reagan could match those feats.
Clinton is a horribly flawed individual, but his politic skills are amazing.
Posted by: Eric Earling on February 17, 2007 03:02 PMClinton didn't out fox any republicans. He rolled over after he saw the tea leaves. e.g., welfare reform
Posted by: Danny on February 17, 2007 04:00 PMUm, what about the fact Republicans are the ones who came out the worst of things after the budget shutdown, including losing the Presidential race and 8 House seats in 1996? What about them losing 5 more seats in 1998 even as Clinton faced an impeachment trial in the Senate? What about the fact by the end of impeachment Clinton was in better shape politically than the Republican Congress (which carried over into more Republican losses in Congress in 2000 as well)?
Sure, on a policy basis he had to move to the right after 1994. But politically he did quite well.
Posted by: Eric Earling on February 17, 2007 04:10 PMGeorge W Bush....
A deffinative NO
Posted by: Unkl Witz on February 17, 2007 07:09 PMI contend that Romney doesn't have much substance to his positions. He sticks his finger up in the wind to see which way it's blowing.
Recent convert? How conveniently timed! Jay Sekulow and James Bopp are well known in the pro-life community as sell-outs. James Bopp, for instanced help Republicans for Choice and Log Cabin Republicans to craft the "unity" plank in the national platform that gave the opt-out clause to RINOs (oops, sorry for the 4 letter word) to ignore the platform. If you want to judge a candidate's pro-life position strictly on endorsements, look to Phyllis Schlafly, Colleen Parro and Judie Brown.
Posted by: Michelle on February 17, 2007 07:36 PMI really don't want to judge candidates strictly on endorsements, including in determining credentials on pro-life matters or any other issue. I simply disagree with your assessment of Romney and was pointing out some of the flaws in what you allege. Moreover, your blog post wasn't as clear as your comment above in that it seemed to clearly disdain charisma writ large as too threatening of substance. Your position above is clearer, though I still disagree with it.
In the meantime, I'll keep in mind the National Right to Life Committee employees a "sellout" as its General Counsel. Good to know.
Posted by: Eric Earling on February 17, 2007 08:23 PMFor some, perhaps the same people, in fact, Mr. Clinton and Mr. Romney are the consummate politicians, Romney able to both win and then emerge from the Massachusetts Gubernatorial Seat still calling himself a Republican AND draw no laughter; Clinton, able to both sell 1/3 of the Federal Government to a coalition of Corporate Criminals, Movement Marxists and the Red Chinese AND convince American voters he was to the right of George the First and Bob Dole.
Charisma in both cases, but such a charisma that was INSEPERABLE from what Michelle called their "lack of substance," though, perhaps a clearer way to say the same thing is "lack of truth." Both men succeeded by the powers of the verbal chameleon.
"The era of Big Government is over." - Bill Clinton, State of the Union address 1996.
"I am pro-life." - Mitt Romney, Boston Globe Editorial, 2005
Both men were simply lying, but using weasel-words ("charisma" to some) to appease crucial constituencies.
Clinton was appeasing the American Electorate with the impression that he was for smaller government, but he could always tell his "base" he was just reporting on the status quo after the failure of his Socialized Medicine initiative. Romney was attempting to appease the conservative wing of the GOP (after the relative success of his Mass. Socialized Medicine initiative), but could point out to the GOP Left Establishment (Earling's employers) that he was just "personally" pro-life, like Mike McGavick and Rob McKenna and Pat Herbold and John Kerry and Ted Kennedy.
In my opinion, both Eric Earling and Chris Vance displayed their personal epistemological shortcomings in admitting admiration for this Clintonian ability to deceptively parse language and win support on both sides of a philosophical divide. But it is too late in history for this to work in the GOP. If it could be done successfully, Mike McGavick would be in the U.S. Senate. The internet has made it impossible to fool a majority of the Republican Party all of the time.
Romney, Clinton and Reagan all could acquit themselves well at a microphone, but what Reagan did was fundamentally different. To paraphrase William F. Buckley, Equating Romney and Clinton's skills with Reagan is like saying that someone who pushes an old lady in front of an oncoming bus and someone who pushes an old lady out of the way of an oncoming bus are both people who push old ladies around. Habitually using one's natural facility with language to obscure the truth does not quickly translate into the ability to uphold the truth for inescapable moral reasons.
So, once again we see it illustrated: what divides the GOP Left from the Reagan Wing of the Party is a different view of morality. The Left thinks of morality as a subjective and optional emotion, something to be skillfully manipulated. Conservatives understand morality to be objective, real and imperative.
I think the only thing worth noting here is that one can acknowledge Bill Clinton's formidable political skills without expressing any respect or support for his morality, judgement, and political choices.
I didn't think the point was that difficult to understand. But then again, I'm just a member of the "GOP Left Establishment." Silly me.
Posted by: Eric Earling on February 17, 2007 10:34 PMFirst - you all have missed the Romney story almost entirely. HE IS AS SQUEAKY CLEAN AS HE SEEMS. Did we all forget that Corruption was a theme driving election choices last year. I know many Mormons and most are exactly what they preach. The are no whores in his life, no bribes, payoffs or mafia. He is not secretly gay, has no porn on his computer or steals just a little from anyone. He is the most devoted family man you can imagine, loves his wife and adores his kids.
What an asset.
No institution in America is more pro life that the Mormon Church. Period. Since they belief life on this earth is tied to a spiritual life with God - then conception and birth are very Holy indeed. Abortion is kin to shaming God and the progress into earthly life.
Very, very articulate. Has addressed crowds since childhood at podiums in church.
Not just telegenic, but masculine handsome. Never a negative in public appeal - the real deal.
You all are stammering and stuttering - kinda funny. His VP could be very important, for example the right woman.....Elizabeth Dole? A woman of color?
Dick Morris is warning Dems of Rommney - and so am I.
The Mormon thing will fade just as it did for Kennedy. Even better for Romney, Mormons believe very strongly that America is chosen land, blessed in every way by God. That is why Utah is filled with super patriots.
Take another look - He and he alone could give Hilary a real run.
Rudy has Mafia ties, and a bad temper, and is a male slut - it will all come out. Yuk.
Posted by: Marty on February 18, 2007 01:43 AMRomney? Naah. The Deliverance wing of your party will never buy this fellow. Find somebody that the religious kooks will okay who still has a chance.
Posted by: Gutless Pig on February 18, 2007 05:24 AMIt is too bad the WA caucus is so late in the nominating game that the nominee will be decided before we have a chance to cast our ballots, but if it wasnt I would be casting mine for the former Governor.
Posted by: Longview Republican on February 18, 2007 01:36 PMSECRETLY GAY
First, I must point out that no Republican Presidential nominee has ever been secretly gay or had porn on his computer. Those are all Democrat attributes. When the odd Republican is "outed" he is also turned out of office. The corresponding Democrat, whether connected to pedophilia (Studds) or gay prostitution (Frank) is, by contrast, re-elected. Repeatedly.
A LATTER DAY SAINT?
Second, I must point out that the "Mormon" church is not the most pro-life institution as you falsely claim. The church leaves open the door to some "approved" abortions, that is, if they are approved by the church hierarchy. That is, literally, the doctrine. Not to demean the church on the whole. I am a Christian Conservative and have worked with what bigots call the "Religious Right" for decades, and I have absolutely no problem with Romney's LDS membership. "Mormons" are a valuable, crucial part of the Reagan coalition. But he, himself, is, by contrast, demonstrably, unequivocally, pro-choice, a designation he would rather (right now) avoid but which he sees as compatible with his self-applied label, "pro-life." I trust that Romney's personal commitment to life is sincere, that is, he would never actually HAVE an abortion. But it is also clear he would never do anything to legally prevent someone else from doing the killing.
STEALING A LITTLE FROM EVERYONE
Third, your assertion that he doesn't "steal just a little from everyone" is laughable, particularly coming from a Democrat. Stealing from everyone is the center organizing principle of the Democrat's Party and Romney endorses the basic principle of "redistributing wealth." His Massachusetts Universal Health Care plan is precisely that, although it goes less to the communist model and more to the fascist model, profiting large corporations instead of indolent bureaucrats.
He spent most of his time talking about issues related to his faith and defending his flip-flopping - and what seemed like a pattern of multiple obvious panderings he thinks will help him get elected.
I didn't see much charisma. Maybe others did. The Mormon thing doesn't need to be a problem for him. But he needs to find a way to talk about something else to have a chance.
Right now the second identifier after Romney is probably: Mormon. The next is probably: newly very conservative.
Posted by: redflag on February 18, 2007 04:11 PMEric, I'm sure you meant that sarcastically, and I'm sure you really don't take seriously my accusation of Bopp as a sell-out, but you and your readers should know that their is growing disatisfaction with the National Right to Life in the pro-life community. For anyone who's interested in knowing the background on this, you might look at what the Thomas More Law Center has said, and others. Google National Right to Life and South Dakota ban, as well as National Right to Life and supporting pro-choice candidates, etc. You'll come up with plenty examples of this I think.
Posted by: Michelle on February 18, 2007 04:45 PMHe may have some charisma, but don't see him as being a political animal like BJ Clinton. Ronald Reagan had charisma, but Mitt Romney is no Ronald Reagan. Rudy Guilliani for one, has more political saavy than Romney.
Posted by: KS on February 18, 2007 08:57 PMI'm well aquainted with the culture of a typical Mormon family as well, and I mean that in a good way. Many of these families are large (because they see children as a blessing). As a Catholic and being around many families of my own faith who are blessed with many children (and who actually believe what our Church teaches), I often hear people assume that they are either Catholic or Mormon. They value God, family and country. They are known for having an endearing clean and wholesome sense of humor, a necessity without alchohol and caffeine at family gatherings and parties.
I can tell you that Doug and I have both taken part in discussions on life issues with people of different religions. Recently, a local well-informed Mormon who is active in politics said the following was "the official policy of the LDS Church":
Generally speaking a woman is not to have an abortion. A man is never to encourage a girl to have an abortion.
Abortion is not murder, but is like-unto it.
A woman who became pregnant as a result of rape or incest; or if the mothers life is threatened by a pregnancy or if the fetus is not viable outside the womb, then an abortion might be permissible. This is not blanket permission to have an abortion. A woman seeking an abortion should prayerfully consider the question, consult with her local religious leaders (Bishop), and only after both she and her Bishop have both received an answer in the affermative, from God to have an abortion, then and only then would it be permissible to proceed.
I think that and other information that Doug has received is where he gets the idea that there is "an official policy of the Mormon church to approve or not approve whether an individual has an abortion." But upon further examination, it seems that your statement does not contradict what this local Mormon said or what Doug said. It sounds like there is a general principle for Mormons to follow (and it does not seem to expand to the rest of humanity), but it really may vary from Mormon to Mormon and their individual circumstances as well as whether or not they have "received an affirmative" along with their bishop, on whether or not it is acceptable to have an abortion.
This does however, contradict the notion that "No institution in America is more pro life that the Mormon Church." While it may be true that the majority of Mormons live their lives open to the blessings of children, are indeed "personally" pro-life, as is Mitt Romney. But the LDS Church really leaves open the door for "choice" on the matter, making it very comfortable for politicians like Romney to have a different point of view on this that can change at any time, without much warning. This makes a very comfortable situation for "pro-choice" Republicans if a politician can simultaneously appear pro-life and assure them at the same time that abortion "rights" are safe. This is quite different than the teachings of the Catholic Church for instance, though there are pro-abortion Catholics Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Mike McGavick, Nancy Pelosi, Rudi Giuliani, Maria Cantwell, Patty Murray, etc., etc., etc. But not without a huge amount of repremand from Catholic laity and sometimes the Catholic hierarchy. The fact is, Catholic moral doctrine says their souls are in dangerof eternal punishment for being in manifest grave sin. And the temporal punishment of being on American Life League's "deadly dozen". It doesn't sound to me like the LDS Church has such enforcements in place.
Posted by: Michelle on February 20, 2007 01:40 PMHere's what I found there (under frequently asked questions, "what is the Church's position on abortion?"):
"The Church opposes abortion and counsels its members not to submit to or perform an abortion except in the rare cases where, in the opinion of competent medical counsel, the life or good health of the mother is seriously endangered or where the pregnancy was caused by rape and produces serious emotional trauma in the mother. Even then it should be done only after counseling with the local presiding priesthood authority and after receiving divine confirmation through prayer."
How is that different from anything that I said? This policy as it is written applies to members, not the rest of humanity, thus leaving public policy open to other standards, not to mention that not all unborn children (even children of Mormons) are protected by this policy.
I have never opposed Romney on the basis that he is Mormon. In fact it makes me cringe when I hear people dismiss his candidacy strictly for that reason. I think it's possible to be a Mormon and be politically pro-life, regardless of the fact that the LDS Church leaves the door open on the political position, but Mitt Romney is not.
Posted by: Michelle on February 20, 2007 10:02 PM First of all I think what you wrote in 25 was inappropriate to put out in a public forum such as this. But I had to respond anyway. I know that you think you know all about the Lds church but you don't.Anyway I will not do this here anymore.
If you want to meet and talk about this in a civil manner I'm open to doing so. Just email me and let me know.