In Defense of (Mitt Romney's) Hypocrisy

Just for fun, change "Romney" to "Clinton" and "McCain" to "Obama". Works remarkably well. DK didn't explore the relationship between "authenticity" and "merit", but it might make for interesting reading. You'll recall Obama has "some merit" based on Harvard, the Illinois state house, a really good convention speech, and half a tour in the Senate. Of course we all know the Naval Academy is not Harvard, Hanoi is not rough and tumble Springfield, and winning the New Hampshire GOP primary pales next to wow-ing drunk Democratic delegates. But McCain has done OK in the Senate so that may just be enough to grant him "some merit". Klein and Sullivan praising authenticity esoterically undermines the claim. So too w/ Geffen and Oprah?

Daniel Koffler cannot contain his contempt for Mitt Romney and will not say why. There are many visceral accusations which are backed up with nothing at all as if Romney's hypocrisy, his ineptitude and his fraudulence were self-evident.  These are conclusions that are not documented.  Holding beliefs that are "dangerous and crazy" is another allegation waiting for specificity.

That Romney is allegedly "inauthentic"  and fails to command respect are more allegations based in nothing except the power of raw contempt.

I will repeat the case for Romney one more time.  Daniel is free to state why the facts are somehow wrong and this would require a whole lot of effort and not simply angry words.  Romney earns the respect of everyone through his business accomplishments and the personal respect of his devotion to his religious faith, his admiration of American core values, his sterling family life and marriage and his political acumen. He was governor of a horrible blue state and acted as a conservative by lowering spending, improving the educational system and following through on his promises.  Alas, he was not afraid of ruffling the feathers of liberal editors and this is to his credit.  He managed the Olympics with great skill and he has organized a good campaign by staying in front of issues and has not been afraid to be the first to speak out on critical issues,, such as the war against Islamacists, the need for tough enforcement of immigration laws, his strong support for Israel, his commitment to lowering taxes, etc.

The principle selling point concerning Gov. Romney is his ability to lead and push and stay with an agenda.

In comparison to the rest of the field, Romney looks darn good and comes out as the leader, now at the top of the polls nationally.  Romney suffers from the accusation that he is slick, like a car salesman.  It is true the accusation is there.  But what is it based upon?  He is rather handsome and this bothers people, he speaks well, he is practiced and polished in a debate.  These things, I submit, are not bad things.

By contrast, please indicate why we might respect Hillary C or Barack Obama?  Have they run honest businesses?  Do they have any executive experience?   What makes them respectable and not Romney?  Without a clue to your standards, except the seat of your pants, how can we tell if you have a valid point at all?

As for the contention that Romney is a hypocrite because he has changed his position on abortion and gay rights --you are not explaining yourself.  Romney said he was for gay rights and then changed his mind while in office in Massachusetts and took heat over the change.  His conversion to the pro-life cause is sincere and many conservatives believe him.  Here is the agreed upon and definition of a hypocrite--someone who professes one thing and does another--for an advantage.  Romney is pro-life in every current context.  He obviously takes no money from the gay lobby.  By contrast, Hillary says she is more marriage when it is expedient and then in front of the moneyed gay rights group with the disgusting name (the so-called Human Rights campaign!!!) she is as gay friendly as she can be.  That is the definition of hypocrisy and it is right in your face.  Speak, Daniel, speak.

KB: Once again you're missing the point. There isn't any relationship between "authenticity," whatever it is supposed to mean in the political context, and experience-based merit. In this post I am not making any claims at all about either the quality of McCain and Romey's prior experience or its relevance to the presidential race. As far as I can tell, that's basically a wash. In my post about Obama, Clinton, and experience, I was observing that Sean Wilentz's analogy of Clinton to Gore and Obama to Bush doesn't hold up because Obama and Clinton's prior experience is a wash relative to one another. And in that post, I specifically noted that Obama gets a lot of positive press for unjustified reasons. Similarly, in this post, I note that the justification for the glowing coverage of McCain is pretty weak, and that Romney gets a bum rap.

Which brings me to David: Whom are you arguing with? You and I clearly have very different views, but the point of this post is to defend Romney (hence the title). If you want an example of a crazy, dangerous belief of Romney's, I point you to his pledge to "double Guantanamo," whatever that means. Perhaps you think such a promise is neither crazy nor dangerous. Fine, that's your right. But surely you've noticed that Romney has managed a complete 180 on every Republican wedge issue that neatly coincided with his entry into the Republican race. That's what makes him a cynical hypocrite. Which, in the scheme of things, makes him my preferred Republican candidate. I don't mean that facetiously. If it's Romney against Clinton or Edwards in the general election, I'm voting for Romney.

KB: It occurs to me that the basic issue you're taking is with my prior claim that Bush wouldn't have amounted to anything if he weren't George Bush's son, and/or that Obama has had just as much of a free ride. Let me note, tangentially, that one credible objection to affirmative action, though by no means decisive, is that it lends, well, people like you an unfalsifiable claim that any successful black person owes it all to affirmative action.

But in any case, Bush's and Obama's cases are completely disanalogous. Bush didn't partially merit anything that he has received; from Andover to Yale to HBS to Arbusto and the other businesses he ran into the ground, to the losing congressional campaign, to ownership of the Texas Rangers --- Bush has failed and failed miserably at everything he attempted prior to 1994, and been bailed out by his father and his father's friends. Obama, on the other hand, has succeeded at everything. To say that he had help along the way, which is undoubtedly true, whether ot not it had anything to do with the color of his skin, doesn't make him a lifelong failure with a lucrative name.

Might you really believe that Mitt Romney wants your support if you believe him to be a cynical hypocrite?  You obviously favor Obama so if the situation presents itself and the election is between Hilary and Romney, I really look forward to your vow that you will vote for Romney, the man you believe is a cyncical hypocrite.

Your lone example of "crazy and dangerous"  seems hardly crazy or dangerous. Gitmo surely took a really bad rap from the NYT and the libs, Romney's response to the crazy notion that we might want to close down that facility was to look them in the eye and say"no way" and that he would just as soon double it.  Doubling it means that we are ever more successful in capturing and arresting terrorists.  Is it really dangerous to capture the terrorists?  Obviously, it is carzy and dangerous to NOT capture and arrest terrorists.  A client of mine is a congressman from the NE, a moderate Republican and he travelled with a delegation to Gitmo about 3 years ago.  He reported to me that some of the Dems went in very dubious and almost everyone came out fully impressed--proving that there was a huge amount of bias in the liberal reporting. If you want to stand behind "crazy and dangerous" it surely seems you need another example and this is not merely because I disagree with you it is because your example makes no sense on its face.

Romney was villified as GOP Governor in Massachusetts for a reason--he is a conservative and is willing to take and hold consistent conservative positions.  Your claim that he has done a 180 on almost every wedge issue comes down to only two--which I have already discussed and he has talked about extensively.  He is now pro-life and feels good about it.  Sooner is always better than later but at least he is on the right side and his conversion is real. Regarding gay marriage--he took that stand while he was Governor.  What other issues do you have?  Where is there any hypocrisy?

Huckabee never said he was wrong about immigration when he was Governor--he tries to have it both ways and that is hypocrisy.  Romney frankly admits he was wrong about abortion.  Hillary takes so many positions about her support for the war it can make one's head spin.  She changes her mind so quickly--one cannot figure where she actually stands on anything while she is running for office and we know she is a true blue socialist when she is in power--that is hypocrisy.  A hypocrite cannot look a person in the eye and say it straight.  Everyone deserves a change of mind over time but trying to argue both sides at once is the issue and the problem with hypocrites. Hypocrisy is simply not the problem with Romney.  Some Republicans do not like the fact that some 4 years ago, he supported abortion rights and now he has changed his mind.  He now says pointedly that he was wrong.

I can accept that and in fact, there is nothing wrong with new converts since they normally have something at stake in proving their conversion.

You have not provided very little to back up your sensational accusations but I thank you for at least responding in some way.  I invite you to try again.

DK: I didn't miss your point. It's an obvious one. I hoped my question might have elicited something more interesting.

 As for Bush, Obama and relative merit-

What is this "eveything" at which Obama's succeeded? Graceful matriculation, a perfectly respectable, if brief,  public service legal career and victories in statewide election. An unsurprising, and uninspiring, career path for a man of Obama's background and talent. 

Bush's path was likewise typical for a man of his background an talent, and just as boring.

 My point is not to inflate GWB's pre-2000 accomplishments or to diminish Obama's thus far. Neither of them has much to brag about. Rather it is to warn against facile comparisons

It bears mentioning as well that while you did not note, you have certainly demonstrated another of affirmative action's perhaps not entirely unintended consequences: the self-serving and, as it were, unfalsifiable claim that playing the "liberal" game the proper way (kiss ass at the right school, get a job w/ "civil rights" in the title, whoop it up on stage w/ talk about hopes dreams) constitutes "accomplishment".

above