The candidates lined up at the urinals, Giuliani next to McCain next to Huckabee, the rest all in a row. The debate was soon to start, so they were taking care of business -- and laughing merrily at the one guy who wasn't there. Poking fun at him, mocking him, agreeing about how much they disliked him. Then Willard Mitt Romney walked into the bathroom and overheard them, bringing on a crashing silence.
Romney was the guy on whom much of the smart Beltway money had been betting from the start. His resume was impressive . . . .
Romney was running a textbook Republican campaign. He had hired a squad of A-list consultants, pollsters, and media wizards. He'd raised more money than anyone in the field and had millions of his own to draw on. He'd courted the GOP establishment; worked to neutralize the most vocal potential sources of opposition; racked up oodles of endorsements; and carefully tailored his policy positions to appeal to social, economic, and national security conservatives, the three legs of the Republican stool.
But Romney's efforts to get right with the right landed him in trouble. For most of his life, he had been a middle-of-the-road, pro-business, pragmatist, unequivocally pro-choice, moderate on tax cuts and immigration. Running against Ted Kennedy for the Senate in 1994, he pledged that he'd do more for gay rights than his opponent, and declared, "I don't line up with the NRA" on gun control. By 2008, Romney had reversed himself on all of this, which quickly gave rise to charges of hypocrisy and opportunism. Even before he announced his candidacy, a YouTube video [see below] began making the rounds that captured him firmly stating his liberalish social views, comically juxtaposing them with his newly adopted arch-conservative stances. From then on, the flip-flopper label was firmly affixed to Mitt's forehead.
Unlike Giuliani, Romney had no reticence about slashing at his rivals. But the perception of him as a man without convictions made him a less-than-effective delivery system for policy contrasts. The combination of the vitriol of his attacks and his corelessness explained the antipathy the other candidates had toward him. McCain routinely called Romney an "asshole" and a "fucking phony." Giuliani opined, "That guy will say anything." Huckabee complained, "I don't think Romney has a soul." [emphasis mine]A few paragraphs later, the authors describe Romney's inability to see himself as others do. His reaction to the YouTube video highlighting his flip-flopping was simply, "Boy look how young I was back then."
I'm sure somewhere in this book I read where McCain, I think, said Romney was vicious but I can't find the exact quote as the edition I have doesn't have an index. Maybe I'm just projecting.
But politicians aren't anything if not fickle when it comes to their friends and enemies. A mere four years later on January 12, 2012 John McCain was the first to endorse the "asshole" and "fucking phony" (while mistakenly endorsing Obama for a second term). Giuliani followed suit and endorsed the "man who will say anything" in April and Huckabee jumped into bed with the man without a soul the next month.
Too bad they didn't stick to their original assessments because they were right on target in 2008. Ironically, the only one who has not changed his game is Mitt Romney, a pandering, lying, flip-flopping sociopath who, as we have seen this past week, is also a traitor to his country.
I'm not positive this is the same YouTube video the authors refer to in the book. If not, it's close enough.
Let us hope that this flipper has a much shorter run than the original Flipper.
ReplyDeleteMe and thee.
DeleteMcCain, I think, said Romney was vicious
ReplyDeleteMaybe he'd seen "the smirk" at some point.
Huckabee complained, "I don't think Romney has a soul."
This is a particularly telling remark coming from a religious fundamentalist like Huckabee, who presumably wouldn't say such a thing lightly.
When I see that rumor that McCain decided against Romney for his VP after he saw his tax returns, I thought no, McCain just didn't like him, period.
DeleteThat is pretty telling from the Huckster but I think Mitt is just amoral, if not immoral.
Romney wants to be of service to people of America the way Bernie Madoff wanted to be of service to his clients. Which is to say, it's not about them and their needs, it's only
ReplyDeleteabout him and getting what he wants. What's remarkable is how glaringly apparent it is. You'd think after having run for office so many times Romney would be better at camouflaging his selfish ambition as dedication to public service. His recent gaffe in referring to "business" when he should've said "country" made clear how ill-concealed his one core value and belief is.
Regarding McCain and expedient changes of mind, he has quite a history. In the 2000 primaries, Bush ran a vicious, underhanded campaign against McCain. In North Carolina, Bush's people (Rove, I'll bet) spread a rumor McCain's dark-skinned daughter was the product of an illicit relationship with a black woman. In fact, the girl was a Bangladeshi the McCains had adopted. Yet, at the 2004 GOP convention, McCain embraced Bush, literally — I thought at any second he was going to kiss him on the mouth — and proceeded to praise Bush as if he was the Second Coming of Christ.
Chris Matthews has a saying that rings true, "When it comes to their candidates, Democrats fall in love, while Republicans fall in line.
Matthews is right but I think there's a bigger difference. So many in the media today (Schieffer, Brokaw, etc.) are constantly telling their audiences that "Democrats do it, too." No, they do not -- a patently false claim that is never substantiated with factual references. Not only do Democrats not engage in personal assaults or false accusations against their Republican foes, they don't eat their own as the Bushies did with McCain during the 2000 primaries and the GOP did to each other during the 2012 primaries. There is a real mean streak within the GOP where the means justify the ends. The fact that they can kiss and make up so readily after brutalizing each other is just further demonstration of their lack of moral fiber.
Delete" The fact that they can kiss and make up so readily after brutalizing each other is just further demonstration of their lack of moral fiber."
DeleteWhere some have moral fiber, Republicans have an anything-to-win compulsion. Some would call it a discipline. It can be a stern master but also a very effective one.
They're certainly disciplined -- or maybe controlled.
DeleteNot sure who said it first, but these traits are in lockstep with those of abusive men in other relationships, too. All of a piece.
DeleteJHH: I alluded to that in a comment on my last post and have done so elsewhere. Without being able to see my audience I can pretty well sense, though, that they are crossing their eyes and going "tweet, tweet" -- an understandable reaction for people who haven't experienced abuse on any kind of regular basis or level.
DeleteWhen I saw that photo of Romney after he gave that press conference, I remarked to a friend, also a victim of abuse, that it gave me cold chills because it was exactly the kind of smirk that I would see on my ex's face after one of his verbal or physical attacks. It resonated with her and I bet it would with most victims of abuse. Are we crazy? Not at all(despite being diagnosed with PTSD and Stockholme Syndrome). Women who have experienced what we have very often develop fine tuned radar that picks up on certain signals: body language, speech, facial expressions, phraseology, and behavior being only a few of them. I've always felt McCain was an abuser and after reading "Game Change," I'm convinced of it. My ex had all the same sociopathic and pschopathic characteristics that Romney has as well as a complete lack of empathy for man or beast. I have a very hard time looking at that photo without cringing.
The Republican Party is fundamentally bound by authoritarianism. Authoritarian leaders and followers are the core. This is why they are so effective in their lockstep service to Big Money and its seizure of power over government and democracy.
ReplyDeleteThe Democrats can be effective when the unite in actual oppostion. We're lucky to see what we can of intra-party cooperation in these days of "no-compromise" authoritarian Republicans.
Sadly the corrupting influence of Big Money has too many corpo-dems dancing on its strings.
Huckabee complained, "I don't think Romney has a soul." Well maybe someone should remind him you cannot have two masters. He who serves mammon cannot serve God.
Matthew 6:24:
"No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon."
The Republican Party is entirely about serving mammon.
That great disconnect requires a massive amount of dishonesty to maintain. But they do a hell of a job anyway.
It kind of plays into what S.W. says: well disciplined. And all that money is able to build and buy a propaganda machine unequaled in recent history. They've been putting together a far larger but dedicated force than I think most of us have even realized until the last couple of years. Dishonest but massive.
DeleteI linked to this post, Leslie, because it's in line with what I put up on my blog today. Mitt Romney is not liked by his fellow pols nor the public. The base is more AGAINST Mr. Obama than they are FOR Romney. Not a good way to go into an election.
ReplyDeleteAn excellent piece and I left a comment addressing some of the issues that were raised by a few. I think the tide has turned since the conventions and since Romney made his unpatriotic remarks. Our real hurdle now is to get through all the voter suppression and election fraud that we're bound to encounter.
DeleteDave and others... you might like this passage on mammon and capitalism...
ReplyDeletefrom Stewart Davenport in his book "Friends of the Unrighteous Mammon"...
"Americans are and always have been some of the most voluntarily religious people in the world as well as some of the most grossly materialistic. In other words, Americans simultaneously and paradoxically subscribe to both the Christian ethic of humility and selflessness, and the American liberal-capitalist ethic of competition, success, and self-promotion. It is almost as if many Americans have gone about trying to understand themselves and their world with the Bible in one hand and John Locke in the other. Reconciling the two, however, has never been an easy task. One told them that "ye cannot serve God and mammon," while the other unabashedly encouraged them to pursue lives of material happiness.
That actually helps me understand why some (not all) of the most strident Bible thumpers I know are so mercenary. I don't know what the answer is or if there is one.
DeleteLeslie, like you, I am not sure I can come up with an answer... know this... most of my Christian friends south of the border instinctively understand this and most up north instinctively reject the ideas posited in this piece...
Deleted.
Thanks to holier-than-thou hustlers like Pat Robertson, an evangelical cult of "God wants you to be rich" has gained currency in America over the past 25 years. This cult has no misgivings about serving two masters, or about worshiping in megachurches so big and ostentatious they make Las Vegas casino resorts seem staid and stodgy by comparison.
DeleteIn the words of one evangelical in an excellent piece of writing (link sent via BJ):
Delete"If I could get one message through to my evangelical friends, it would be this: The greatest threat to evangelicalism is evangelicals who tolerate hate and who promote hate camouflaged as piety.
No one can serve two masters. You can’t serve God and greed, nor can you serve God and fear, nor God and hate."
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/15/my-take-its-time-for-islamophobic-evangelicals-to-choose/?hpt=hp_t1
Hey SW... as an evangelical and a resident of Las Vegas, I resent your comment... why are you so critical of the size of our casinos?
ReplyDeleteLOL.
Delete