Mitt Romney's Ronald Reagan problem
Or is it Reagan's Romney problem?
By Mark Kilmer Posted in 2008 | Mitt Romney | Ronald Reagan — Comments (81) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
First, a disclaimer. I am not writing this in an attempt to rally the conservative troops against or for any candidate; rather, I'm expressing a concern, the reason for which has been evincing itself with regularity of late.
Talking to a very friendly Rich Lowry, substituting for Sean Hannity on FNC's Hannity & Colmes Thursday evening, Republican Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney was asked about his lack of foreign policy experience in light of the recent assassination of Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto.
Romney replied that he would consult a team of experts, get a broad range of opinion, and make his decisions that way. This reminded me of Ross Perot in 1992 during his many appearances of CNN's Larry King Live.
Perot, completely from memory:
You gonna let me finish, Larry. Larry, it's a pig in a poke. What you do, Larry, is you get a team of experts and sit them down in one room. Problem solved, Larry.
And he mentioned Ronald Reagan as an example of a President with no foreign policy experience, and he pointed out that Reagan won the Cold War.
But Mitt Romney is not like Ronald Reagan.
Read On...
From Reagan, you got it from his heart; from Romney, one cannot be sure from where it comes.
Here's Jennifer Rubin at the AmSpec Blog:
On Today he invoked Reagan as an example of a President without experience in foreign affairs. But of course, Reagan had written and given speeches for years on Communism-- the equivalent of writing and speechifying for years on Islamic terrorism.
This is no time to elect someone who's going to talk to a team of experts whenever a decision must be made, just as it is not good to consult a team of attorneys every time you might need to use military force.
Beyond that, this is another example of Romney's tendency to use President Reagan as an excuse for his own shortcomings. Another example of this took place last August, when FOX News Sunday host Chris Wallace asked Romney about his dramatic change of opinion on abortion. Romney tried to cover himself by insisting that Ronald Reagan as governor of California was "adamantly pro-choice." This was a bald-faced falsehood.
A candidate worth his salt should be able to answer all questions about his current views and qualifications without invoking another, let alone the greatest President of most living people's lifetimes. (Anyone remember Cal?)
Now, there is no reason that a conservative would not be able to overlook Romney's use of President Reagan's name for political purposes, but as someone who has admired and followed the doings of the man for longer than I care to admit, I am put off by this. Or am I fooling myself when I think of the Republican Party as the "party of Reagan"?
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | "You Fought for America, You Gave Everything...They Want More" — Comments (26) »
Mitt Romney's Ronald Reagan problem 81 Comments (0 topical, 81 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
After all, Clinton and Carter were governors. I'd want to go back and check, but I don't think many other Dems were governors that went on to be elected POTUS in the past century or so. Yep, those governors really make good presidents.
"Managers are who leaders hire." -- Fred Thompson.
Jeremiah 17:9.
15 Senators became President -- not 2 -- but I will just talk about the 4 that have been President in my lifetime.
Nixon -- mixed record -- very flawed regarding Watergate but all the same Nixon had his good points.
Johnson -- okay I am a Republican and he was a son of a bitch Democrat
Kennedy -- see above -- but at the same time Kennedy had his good points.
Truman -- Give em' hell Harry ---
If being a Senator was all the training Harry had -- then maybe being a Senator is enough.
I will also note that your logic is flawed. If we have only had 2 senators who became President -- you cannot make a statement that Senators don't make Presidents. We don't know whether being a Senator makes a good President or not ---
But all the same Truman was a good President, he made the tough decisions when the tough decisions had to be made.
between former sentor presidents.
other longest gaps
30 Harding-Truman
30 Harrison-Harding
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
Three of those four Presidents you list were Vice President before they became President. Only Harding and Kennedy went directly from the Senate to the White House.
No one of good character leaves behind a wasted life - John McCain
Romney's business model is famous. The Bain Model has taken on a life of its own. Romney is a chief executive. He delegates. He analyzes.
Every morning, the president of the US wakes up to a series of briefings. Information collected and analyzed by third parties. All presidents rely on briefings and input from the experts in their inner circle. What often makes a successful CEO is how they pick competent people, how they delegate, how the contrast input and how they implement input. Romney is a business man and would excel at this.
I love Bush, but he was too loyal. He wasn't good at holding subordinates accountable. Most politicians make lousy CEOs. They micromanage. They muddle issues. They lose focus.
Romney is just being honest and his executive model works.
You would prefer a president who only listens to one side?
Even Scalia hires a liberal law clerk every term to bounce legal arguments off of (and to give him a head-start in sharpening his phrases to parry Stevens.) :-)
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
They definitely have partners who take managing-director roles, but the partners all have to vote on the deals they make.
But deals are usually championed by one or two partners. As in any partnership of highly ambitious individuals, they often fight dirty against each other.
For a business that thinks of itself as the ultimate risk-takers, I've never met so many systematically risk-averse people as I have in VC. I'll bet you if got together a bunch of entrepreneurs who have done VC (as I have), and asked them about the leadership qualities of your typical VC firm, they'd all laugh at you.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
my life leading scoffers/deniers.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
That's why most that work in it, and all that work in it at a tactical and operational level do so as a career through numerous administrations. The executive branch of government is about execution, not politics, which is why it needs a chief executive as Commander in Chief and otherwise.
Unless of course you prefer to politicize the executive branch of government and make it a political body.
"Honor is self-esteem made visible in action." - Ayn Rand, West Point, 1974
Before I make my point, I'm not sure Romney qualifies as a great CEO. He was given the leadership of Bain Capital when it was a tiny spinoff from Bain Consulting, and he did a lot of good things with it, so we know he's a good VC. Not knowing the man personally and never having worked with him, I'll have to defer to your knowledge of whether he also would be a great CEO.
But professional CEOs are hired to execute plans and to make tangible progress on a daily basis. You give a CEO the equipment to succeed at his job, which at the very least includes the power to say "I'm going there. If you want to go somewhere else, now's your chance to get out of the boat."
But a POTUS has to deal with Congress (difficult) and an administration full of professional turf-protectors (far more difficult). It's not a good match for the kind of personality who makes a great CEO.
But that's barely relevant. Because of the bizarre way we choose Presidents, it turns out that the most important personal attributes for the job are those that make one a good campaigner. Namely: mendacity, ruthlessness, a thirst for raw power, unctuousness, a pre-existing fortune, good hair and cheekbones for TV, and a tireless ability to ask people for money.
Not necessarily the qualities that make a great CEO or a great POTUS.
satisfied that stockholders will judge him on the bottomline. Bush's bottomlines have been good, and this stockholder is happy, but the American people need bold leadership and the rhetoric to match.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
I think you may be over simplifying the role of the CEO. He (gender neutral) not only executes plans, good CEOs have a vision for the company and develop plans to achieve the vision. They assemble a team of executives to advise and assist. They outsource to experts when needed.
And they are accountable to and have to work with a board of directors. They are also accountable to the public. The share holding public.
Through all of this, to be successful, they must be able to communicate the vision, inspire the faithful, and lead the organization through good times and bad. Change a few nouns and we could be talking about a senior military leader as well.
It all sounds relevant to presidential leadership to me.
I am now, and have been several times before. I've also sat on the other side of the table, as a director.
Everything you say is true. But you don't want me as POTUS. I'm too results-oriented. I need that daily (even hourly) fix of milestones reached, people motivated, sales completed. And I have the kind of personality I (at any rate) would want to see in any CEO.
Your point about military leadership, on the other hand, is interesting. I don't know the first thing about soldiering. (I've never even held a firearm in my hands, much less fired one.)
So perhaps it's the fascination of the ignorant at work, but I think great generals are in a totally different leadership class. And yes, I think that's closer to what a POTUS ought to be.
But, I've been close to several. Some like yourself and other s who were more hands off. Regardless of their style, the successful ones could delegate, build a talented team, and lead.
Obviously, someone with your style would be forced to moderate somewhat as POTUS, but I don't think a results oriented focus, such as you suggest, would be a negative. I think you may sell yourself a little short. My very humble opinion.
Romney likes to take on difficult assignments like the Salt Lake City Olympics, running against Ted Kennedy in Massachusetts and being a Republican governor in Massachusetts. He has probably never looked at any job and said, "That's too difficult for me."
Ann Coulter said today on Sean Hannity's radio show that Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney, having been forced to govern people who aren't conservative (people who live in New York City and Massachusetts), are not going to get any worse than they were in those jobs. But given that Arizona, Tennessee and Arkansas are full of voters who are patriotic and conservative, Coulter believes that when you represent those places, you should be able to get every vote right. So, Coulter concludes that McCain, Thompson and Huckabee can only get worse if they move on to the White House, given that their constituents are going to be more liberal than ever before (whereas with Romney and Giuliani there will be more conservative than before).
That's what doesn't make sense to me. Thompson, McCain and Huckabee were governing conservative voters. Why did they feel the need to vote Left (i.e. McCain-Kennedy immigration, McCain-Feingold in the case of both McCain and Thompson, Pardoning criminals in the case of Huckabee)?
There is something to be said for grading on the Blue State - Red State curve. If we do that, Romney and Giuliani look much better while Thompson, McCain and Huckabee look worse.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
an administration full of professional turf-protectors (far more difficult). It's not a good match for the kind of personality who makes a great CEO.
CEOs deal with turf battles as well, corporate America is full of them. Homeland Security could use someone that knows how to make people work together with nothing other than their legal authority if that's what it takes.
"Honor is self-esteem made visible in action." - Ayn Rand, West Point, 1974
So two things blackheld:
1) when you measure up Romney's performance as a CEO, you cannot do so objectively without looking at his time at the helm of Bain Consulting (not Bain Capital). Bain Consulting was on the verge of collapsing, and Romney was brought in to head the company and turn it around, which he very clearly and obviously did. As you are clearly familiar with the business world, being a CEO yourself, I am sure you can see the obvious difference between a professional services firm such as Bain Consulting and a Private Equity firm such as Bain Capital. Also, you must include his stint running the Olympics in Salt Lake. The Olympics are no small potatoes in terms of P&L, personnel, objectives, public relations, and so on and so on. They are a major undertaking and a major enterprise that in many ways is more complex than similarly sized private enterprises because it requires the full involvement and integration of public service and governmental entities beyond that of the typical profit motivated private enterprise.
2) Bain Capital is not a run of the mill VC firm, which typically has a few partners and a small cadre of associates and industry specialists combing through business plans to collectively decide where to invest. If it were, your points (and those of others) on Romney as a VC would hold more water. As it stands, Romney not only proved his mettle as a successful venture capitalist, he acquitted himself on the executive leadership score by growing Bain Capital into one of the very elite, flagship private equity firms in the world. That doesn't just happen. It takes the right vision and a firm grip at the helm.
I'm not going to argue against any of your points, because as I said, I don't personally know Romney and have never worked with him.
My point was that the attributes that make a great CEO (whether or not Romney is one) aren't the ones needed in a POTUS, especially at a time of transformation.
A POTUS needs to be a lot more than just a good manager. He also needs to embody the hopes and dreams of the American people in ways they can closely and personally identify with.
Say what you will about their other qualities, but of recent Presidents, the only one who didn't fit this requirement was George H. W. Bush. In his case, even winning a popular war wasn't enough to get him re-elected.
For similar reasons, Bob Dole would have had a hard time getting elected in 1996 even if his opponent had been Marvin the Martian. He was useful as a Viagra spokesman back when Pfizer was selling it as an answer to a medical problem, but not when it became a lifestyle drug.
Can a man who connects deeply with the people be a successful POTUS without the strong business skills of a Romney, or even the mediocre ones of a Harry Truman or a Warren Harding?
We'll find out if Obama ever becomes President.
I think having been a CEO is valuable experience, but not a great qualification as the ONLY executive experience, because of the differences you mentioned.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Mitt's entire style is reportedly to get a bunch of experts to vigorously propose alternative approaches as he grills them all, tests their strengths and weaknesses, and from that vigorous testing sifts and charts a course ahead that maximizes benefits and minimizes detriments.
Mitt is right that Ronald Reagan had no "foreign policy experience" in the conventional sense when he became president. Reagan did, however, subscribe to a theory of foreign policy on how to defeat Soviet communist expansion.
Similarly, while Mitt hasn't gone around making speeches and pronouncements about a grand foreign policy vision, he has detailed on his website a certain Readers Digest version of his theory on how to go about defeating the global radical islamofascist jihadies. And Mitt has made it clear that he sees beating back jihadis across the globe as an important element of US foreign policy going forward because, as we are seeing in Pakistan, if we simply defeat them in one or two locations, they spread like a virus to other countries that they see as easier targets.
When it comes to "experience," I'm not sure that you can say that Mitt is wrong.
And, whether or not you consider Reagan to be "pro-choice" while governor of California or not, he did in fact sign pro-choice legislation.
What Mitt is trying to communicate is that the capability, competence, intelligence, values and track record of successful executive leadership are important qualities to consider when hiring a chief executive to handle ALL of the nation's affairs - including foreign policy affairs.
Ronald Reagan was not pro-choice and he did not sign pro-choice legislation. Read this post for the history.
Pre-Roe, Governor Reagan signed legislation not because he thought it would allow for more abortions but rather because "experts" had told him that it would help some people. The health of the mother exception was exploited by those we'd now call "pro-choice," and the governor was horrified.
Again, read this link.
Mark, you said:
"This is no time to elect someone who's going to talk to a team of experts whenever a decision must be made, just as it is not good to consult a team of attorneys every time you might need to use military force."
Your comment makes sense if Romney was asked whether he should attack Iran. However, since he wasn't asked that and instead was asked whether it would be constitutional for him to attack Iran without the approval of Congress, your comment is completely WRONG.
"It is not good to consult a team of attorneys every time you might need to use military force."
I stand by that statement and extend it: It is nver good to consult a team of attorneys every time you might need to use military force in defense of this country.
But remember, this is my opinion. You are entitled to disagree.
And I'm pretty sure that every president who has ever waged military action probably disagrees also - considering that the Attorney General was likely consulted before such an attack was waged.
Military action is a weighty event. Consulting a team of attorneys probably should not influence whether or not it is taken, but it might should have some affect on timing and steps taken ramping up to military action.
The American people would likely look more favorably upon a president who does sufficient planning - including legal as well as logistical - heading into armed conflict.
Your suggesting that, as president, you wouldn't even be curious to know if there are any legal ramifications before ordering troops headlong into armed conflict? That seems an irresponsibly cavalier position to take.
Ronald Reagan signed legislation that allowed more babies to be killed. That is irrefutable.
Today that act might be considered a restraining of abortion rights in comparison to what we have today, but, even according to your very own post (which you helpfully linked), at the time it was an attempt to slightly liberalize the state's abortion laws on "compassionate" grounds.
And you conclude yourself that it "was not a pro-life amendment."
Your basic argument is that Reagan was pro-life but was duped. I'll accept that, but it doesn't change the actions that Reagan took.
I am very happy that Reagan became more fervently pro-life and learned from his mistakes as governor to become much more leery of "compassionate" abortion laws seeking to liberalize the practice.
to allow abortions. He opposed abortions then as he did when he was President. When he saw that the law he had signed was being used to legalize abortion with a flimsy "medical" excuse, he was heart-broken.
He learned from his mistake instantly.
The actions Reagan took were not intended to promote abortion. That they had this effect is secondary to what was in his mind; it was what was in his mind which determined his stance on abortion.
Ronald Reagan was neither "adamantly pro-choice" nor even "pro-choice."
Governor Romney has always opposed abortions himself. His previous position was not advocacy of it, it was whether the government can interfere with the choice of a woman and her body, much like whether they can take away your gun. It also a deeply held religious conviction of his that free-agency is a top priority. It also dealt with the all-or-nothing absolutists like yourself that think the issue is so cut and dry. Romney believed and still does that abortion ultimately rests on the shoulders of the woman if her life is in danger, incest, or rape. Freedom of choice is a powerful thing and its limits have been argued since the inception of this country and beyond.
If you were at all intellectually curious and honest, you would find that much criticism is floating around the internet that a member of his church left his church when he strongly counseled her to not abort her baby for morality issues.
Tell me Mark. Is abortion an easy issue if your wife's life is in danger from having the baby? Or how about a rape? Get off your holier than thou stool that you sit on to write your blog posts and think about what it is like to be a leader and make decisions. You don't have black and white answers to everything and nobody does on some of these issues.
for an idiot comment like this! Chaddie-boy, you need to apologize to Mr Kilmer.
========
Considering where the good doctor's head was, when practicing medicine, is it any wonder that the man has issues?
...about having us turn your account back on.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
I was discussing then-Governor Ronald Reagan and his signing the Therapeutic Abortion Act in California. He was not pro-choice when he signed it.
You elected to call me names.
Moe gave you 24 hours to think about it. Next time, it's over.
The actions Reagan took were not intended to promote abortion. That they had this effect is secondary to what was in his mind; it was what was in his mind which determined his stance on abortion.
Liberals argue intentions are what matter (what they believe, what's in their "mind" and hearts), not results. Conservatives don't make those arguments. Please stop digging.
"Honor is self-esteem made visible in action." - Ayn Rand, West Point, 1974
exception. This was back in the days before we realized that judges had usurped the Liberty of We The People to govern ourselves.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
This was post Miranda. So, I don't know if I buy the "this was before the advent of judicial activism" argument. Why can't we just admit that Reagan made a mistake in signing that law? And that he was right to realize that he had made a mistake?
"Flip-flop" is a negative term that can describe someone who is humble enough to admit a mistake and try to avoid repeating that mistake. It's to Reagan's credit that he did this regarding the California abortion law.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
Reagan was always pro-life. Reagan wrote the following article in 1983 while serving as President (NRO printed in 2004 with permisson of The Human Life Review).
http://www.nationalreview.com/document/reagan200406101030.asp
I get pretty tired of Republican politicians either saying that "I'm like Reagan" or "He's not like Reagan", etc.
I'm a pretty big Reagan fan. But he was a one of a kind -- and he's dead.
Using him as some kind of measuring stick is just stupid. We live in a different time with different challenges. I think we can and should do that without relying on simple hagiography.
I'm a lot more interested in a candidate's general outlook on matters than their "experience" (which, IMO, is overrated).
If you vote for experience, you always vote for the encumbant in a presidential election. What job prepares anyone to be President besides being President?
As great as Reagan was, didn't Carter have more experience after a term in office?
"This is no time to elect someone who's going to talk to a team of experts whenever a decision must be made, just as it is not good to consult a team of attorneys every time you might need to use military force."
I'm certain that Romney has made plenty of executive decisions on his own -- with or without consultations as needed for each circumstance.
As for the comment of consulting attorneys, this is a gross misquote. The original statement made by Romney was in response to a hypothetical posed during a debate a few months back in which he had 30 seconds to give an answer. The question was whether or not a President Romney would have the authority to attack another nation without notifying congress.
I personally would prefer to have a president who consults with experts and then makes a calculated data-based decision instead of being rash. Wouldn't you agree?
First, your public and vociferious disdain of Mitt Romney in the past doesn't lend you too much objectivity on this issue.
Second, yes, Romney sounded dumb when he said he would consult with lawyers - that was a terrible answer, but I'd be willing to bet that White House attorneys are present and have input during such decisions.
Third, Romney is not a conservative ideologue in the mold of Ronald Reagan - nobody running this election is, except perhaps Fred Thompson. That being said, I trust Romney to govern as a conservative and be strong in foreign policy. Projecting strength has been a key feature of his foreign policy proposals.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
since this, and the post speaks for itself. It is wholly objective. I have spelled out for you the main reasons why I will not vote for Mitt Romney.
My main concern is the use of Reagan's name. This consulting with a team of experts every time a crisis hits is a bit much. It's great that he wants a wide variety of opinion, but I want a president who can hear the facts, speak to his advisors, and make a decision. I'm not saying that Romney cannot do this. I wish he would emphasize that he can. I wish he would emphasize himself instead of trying to drop Reagan's name.
Dismissing Ronald Reagan as a mere "ideologue" is a mistake. He has proven that he was not.
"Objective" defined - expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations.
You may want to re-read your post and see if it REALLY fits that definition.
So you objectively explained your "person feelings, prejudices, and interpretations" of what you present as fact. That's an interesting redefinition of "objective" and not a strict constructionist definition of the word, I don't believe. LOL
And just so I'm clear, is disagreeing with your characterization of your own post considered "trolling?"
before he became President. At the very least, his views on foreign policy issues had been widely disseminated for more than a decade before he became President. He was a well known spokesperson against Communism, and was known nationally as well as internionally for his views on Communism. For example, he met with Margaret Thatcher before he ran for President to discuss ways in which the West could take on the USSR. The meeting was not a photo op. It was substantive.
Reagans views on foreign policy manifested themselves in a wide variety of writings, presentations, and debates before the 1980 campaign. He crushed Robert Kennedy in a debate. He gave a great speech at the 64 convention, a speech that included thoughts on foreign policy.
Nobody in the current field is Reagan. Making comparisons to Reagan is NOT a way to attract supporters.
In many ways, foreign policy was THE motivating factor for the Reagan presidency.
his presidency than is commonly realized
Some examples:
- fought takeover of SAG by Communists in late 1940's; not exactly bad training for the Cold War
- played major role in 1964 presidential campaign, when Vietnam was a looming issue
- As governor of California, he had to deal with both federal and state authorities in Mexico. Also, California was networked early into the globalizing economy, then led by Japan.
-ran for president in 1968, when Vietnam was a hot issue.
- ran for president in 1976 when the policy of detente had become wildly controversial. The "experienced" Ford won the nomination and then committed one of the most celebrated gaffes in election history with his statement that Poland was not dominated by the Soviet Union.
- debated Bill Buckley opposing Jimmy Carter's 1978 Panama Canal Treaty. While Carter/Buckley won the day, who was right in the long-term? Would we have had to invade Panama in 1989 had the treaty been rejected?
Okay, so Reagan's experience was that he was:
A) Had dealings with international trade as the governor of California
B) Ran for president 3 times
C) Fought communists in a union
D) Debated foreign policy issues
And yet, Reagan was better on foreign policy than the more "experienced" Gerald Ford.
Likewise, Romney's experience is primarily of a commercial nature and he has staked out and articulated an aggressive anti-islamofascist foreign policy.
Like Gerald Ford in opposing Reagan, the "more experienced" John McCain is against waterboarding, while Mitt Romney has refused to take it off the table when necessary.
Mitt Romney appears to be just two presidential races shy of being more like Reagan on foreign policy.
developed for more than 30 years before becoming president.
Consistency is not Mitt's strong suit. He has good points, but that is not one of them.
You mean, like: “Go see Cal, go see Cal, go see Cal.....” And his “dog” “Spot”!?!
Brilliant!!!!!
Sorta coincides with the Three-Ring Dog and Pony Show theme, actually.
Hebrews 11:8
Jeremiah 33:3
It's sounds like an excuse for his shortcomings. I don't remember Reagan using others to distract attention from his lack of experience. As a point of fact, I remember Reagan making a personal effort to educate himself further on each issue.
A perfect example is the issue of abortion. He honestly and with sincere clarity articulated why he reached his conclusion. President Reagan did not demur or search for historical parallels as an excuse. He stood up and told you why he felt that way and what would be done to show his comittment.
Besides distorting history, at this point Romney does not even belong in the same sentence with Reagan.
"Nec Aspera Terrent"
bene ambula et redambula
Contributor to The Minority Report
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
Sheesh, I mean what's next a seance?
"Nec Aspera Terrent"
bene ambula et redambula
Contributor to The Minority Report
"experience", the value of policy position NOW, and the dynamic of competition.
McCain and Mitt's respective lists of transgressions against conservatism are long. McCain responds to criticism of same with "experience", but no substance and no apologies.
Mitt admits past mistakes and promises to to be THE conservative in the future. I think he kept promises in MASS and I think he knows that the Bush41 lesson means he will in the future.
McCain makes no promises for the future.
But he has "experience."
No, Mitt is not Reagan, but he, unlike McCain promises to advance Reagan-like polices.
McCain's record cannot and must not be forgotten because of the timing of surges and polling. He must be stopped. Why?
Because while I am certain SC will reject Huck, they might go with a perceived winner if McCain wins in NH.
more later
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
Romney governed in a liberal state, and did so in a manner that was more conservative than his electorate. McCain represents a conservative state and votes in a manner more liberal than his electorate.
Romney in Mass is his worse case scenario as a conservative. McCain's record of representing Arizona is his best case scenario as a conservative. I'll put my chips on the former.
"Honor is self-esteem made visible in action." - Ayn Rand, West Point, 1974
meaningless. Experience at what?
I can't even answer it.
I know that I would take a conservative 35 yr old neo-phyte over an experienced liberal.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
What makes Romney keep this lame comparisons with Reagan?
I voted for Reagan for 4/5 times. Mitt Romney is no Ronald Reagan. I'm positive about this.
It's starting to sound ridiculous.
It is crazy for Mitt Flip Flopper Romney compares himself to Reagan. As the article stated, Reagan was an expert in fighting commies going back to the 50s in Hollywood. Mitt Flip Flopper Romney as stated in his 1994 debate with Ted Kennedy "Is not trying to return us to Reagan Bush". Whether you like The Flip Flopper or not HE SHOULD NEVER COMPARE HIMSELF TO THE BEST PRESIDENT IN THE LAST 60 YEARS
IMWITHMCCAIN
Let's amend the Constitutional requirements to run for election as President stipulating these rules:
For the Republicans Thou must mimic Ronald Reagan's policies from the day they were born, give continual thanks and praise his name over and over or else they Cannot run. And if at any point in ones life they did not support pro-life measures but changed their minds may they be burned at the stake.
For the Democrats, thou shall support any and all liberal and socialist ideologies, and if a candidate DARES to utter an idea of fixing Social Security may he be burned at the stake.
One can only imagine what it would look like if George Washington or Thomas Jefferson were running today. What if a candidate today compared themselves To Washington, Jefferson, or Adams? Would everyone attack saying they are stuck in the past etc..etc. or just laugh them off the stage?
the politicians of today are sad parodies of the statesmen which founded this country. We've come a long way baby!
It is monarchical and aristocratical government only that requires ignorance for its support.
- Thomas Paine, Rights of Man, 1792
Seriously they are parodies. We have taken something they founded, fought, and died for, something so grand in all of the world and we have flushed it right down the toilet.
It goes without saying blame can be assessed for this in a bipartisan way.
I wrote a little piece on this a while back on my blog, www.blogusablog.com.
I'll just cut and paste from it, but the point is, if you want to be consistent and logical, you need to look at ALL of their qualifications...to get history's real story. Sure Truman WAS a senator, but don't forget he was also a VP!
...let’s look at the presidential field from the past 100 years or so.
George W. Bush—Former Governor (TX)
Bill Clinton—Former Governor (AK)
George H. Bush—Former Congressman, Vice President
Ronald Reagan—Former Governor (CA)
Jimmy Carter—Former Governor (GO)
Gerald Ford—Not elected. Assumed office “under extraordinary circumstances.” Former VP.
Richard Nixon—Former Congressman, Senator, VP
Lyndon B. Johnson—Former Senator, VP
John F. Kennedy—Former Congressman
Dwight D. Eisenhower—Commanding general of European forces during WWII. (University pres. of Columbia)
Harry S. Truman—Former Senator, VP
Franklin D. Roosevelt—Former Senator, Governor (NY)
Herbert Hoover—head of Food Administration, Secretary of Commerce under two former presidents.
Calvin Coolidge—Former Governor (MA)
Warren G. Harding—Former Senator and Lieutenant Governor (OH)
Woodrow Wilson—Former Governor (NJ) (University pres. of Princeton) (1913-1921)
What’s the common thread? The vast majority of these men served as either VP or Governor. 75 percent to be precise. Of the four that did not, one was a commanding general and the other a Lieutenant Governor. The remaining two, John F. Kennedy and Herbert Hoover, were elected due to (what seems to me) an unusual sentiment characteristic of the time, i.e., they can be thrown out as “bad” data.
What is the point of looking for a President who has or has not been a Governor, or a Senator, or a CEO? How that person acted while in those positions is the real question.
Are his stated positions consistent with his actual record? Does he appear to change his positions too frequently for it to just be an evolution in his thinking? Is he decisive or does he appear to stick his finger in the wind first? Does he appear to be a person of conviction and good character? Or has he been caught in mis-statements frequently? --(I won't call them lies).
Reagan was a great President because he was a great LEADER, not because he had been a governor. He made decisions based on principle, not polls.
Kennedy was a LEADER (though I disagreed with many of his policies) and was able to inspire people to achieve more than they ever thought they could. Eisenhower, too, was a LEADER, not a manager. Truman was a LEADER, not because he had been V.P., but because he was LEADER by nature.
Jimmy Carter and Lyndon Johnson were both "managers", not because of the positions they once held but because that is
the kind of people they were. Can anyone doubt that they were two of the worst Presidents in history?
Don't look for an administrator or manager to be President.
Managers and administrators are all over the place, some good and some not so good.
LEADERS are rare birds, because you cannot teach someone to become a leader! They are leaders because that is what they ARE! And when you find one who is also honest, truthful,
and principled you grab onto him.
And if that same person also has a great depth of knowledge about how government works as well as security matters and foreight policy, then you VOTE for him as President.
Today, right now, we have the opportunity to vote for such as leader as I have desicribed.
His name is Fred Thompson.
The point is *not* as you suggest to imply that BECAUSE someone was a VP or governor, they will make a good president; rather it's to look at any political trends apparent in history. And that is certainly not a useless exercise. Pundits seem to spew all sorts of useless rhetoric without ever really looking at the past. If we're interested in knowing the future, I think understanding the past is the first and best place to start.
I'm not talking about the quality of presidential candidates. I'm talking only about their electability. As you have pointed out, the two are most definitely different.
And I'm going to forward this article and a copy of your earlier piece on Ronald Reagan inre: Abortion to Romney's campaign today.
First of all, let's get something out of the way right now:
Any candidate in this race who allows themself to make comparisons to Ronald Reagan and intends to use those comparisons as a basis for soliciting support from Conservatives and Republicans had better do their homework better than this. You had better make sure that you dot all the i's and cross all the t's and not let your candidate get out there in front of microphones and say things that are incorrect. Romney's statement about Reagan once being "adamantly pro-choice."
Of course, he might be forgiven for saying that, since one of the sources of that statement was Kate O'Bierne at The National Review, in her January 29, 2007 piece entitled:
"Join the Club: Mitt Romney and Pro-Life Conversion."
Excerpts from that piece are available on Mitt Romney's website, including this statement, describing Ronald Reagan as a "convert":
Pro-lifers' faith in the power of persuasion has been rewarded, and their political clout increased, by important converts, including Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.
So who didn't do their homework, here? Kate O'Bierne at National Review or the Romney campaign in believing Kate O'Bierne and using her words on their website? Or is Kate O'Bierne correct, in contravention of what you say, in that Reagan was actually pro-choice and was a "convert" to pro-life? (See below) It seems to me that there are a lot of conflicting interpretations floating around out there in Conservativedom, to say the least.
On Reagan's alleged "inexperience" in Foreign Policy, Romney should be similarly careful and circumspect. It is true that almost every governor running for President has had to face the stigma that they are weak on foreign policy issues, but Romney needs to be very careful about his choice of words when he makes that comparison to Reagan, not least because of some of the things you cite. Reagan had very strong anti-Communist convictions when he was elected and he did assemble an unprecedented team of people to help him act on them once he was elected. If Romney is going to make any comparisons between himself and Reagan, he'd better make sure that fact is crystal clear.
I don't see either of Romney's statements being fatal to his campaign but he should take my advice, and heed your warning, that his campaign needs to put someone with a lot of perspicacity in charge of their press releases. The Governor himself needs to take several hours and hash this whole thing out for himself on every possible issue -- pronto. He needs to make a phone call to a reliable historian of Ronald Reagan and keep that number in his Blackberry, if he hasn't already done so.
He needs to make sure that whenever he invokes Reagan again, the comparison is both historically accurate and apt. Sloppy research (and sloppy writing) isn't going to cut it, least not as an excuse in this campaign. Ronald Reagan is rightfully a titanic and heroic figure in the Republican Party and any candidate who invokes his philosophy, experience, legacy or history had better get their facts straight. Needless to say, I believe your interpretation of Reagan's abortion stance is the correct one.
Thanks for the report, Mark. I take it in the spirit you wrote it, as a Romney supporter -- as constructive criticism.
Steve Smith, are you listening? I hope so. The Romney campaign needs a person with a very detail-oriented personality to fully vet all of the materials they publish and all the arguments this canididate makes. If you don't do that, you're going to continue to get in trouble of this kind. There's nothing wrong with making an allusion to Ronald Reagan -- but for Pete's sake, make sure you've got the words correct and the facts straight. You can't afford slipups of this kind.
by many libertarians here that Reagan wasn't a rabid pro-lifer in the 1980 campaign and as president. He was. He wrote a book on abortion while President; he made it a point to speak on it every quarter at least; he lobbied for the HLA; he demanded reg changes and enforcement of parental notification; prohibited baby doe killings and tried to get originalists on the bench.
I have behind me now Reagan's book A Life in Letters and I may go thru that later to find letters where he spoke of abortion to get his personal views before Roe.
BUT, it is technically correct to say that since he signed that Cally law, even though it's intent was to only allow life saving and other rare abortions (the health exception was turned into a Mack Truck by judges), he was pro-choice to a certain extent, and so I think Mitt deserves a pass.
Why, beacuse I think Reagan would not sign that same law now, as neither would Mitt.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
Gov. make presidents. Senators do not. We have only had two senators become president. If romney is taking heat because he lacks then let him point out the facts. Some how this nation has done alright without senators becoming presidents