I’m sure this is precisely the kind of thing that will resonate with the anti-Hobbit crowd. But beyond that? Well, perhaps Romney’s plan is to turn voters hoping to appear sophisticated and, dare I say pragmatic, toward him by convincing them that any rhetoric beyond which he’s willing to go is by definition outrageous and “incendiary,” thereby setting the parameters for who comes to count as a principled Republican / “sane conservative” rather than, say, some fringe kook speaking in the crass and unhelpful language of the Visigoths.
We in the rhetoric field call that maneuver defining things down. And it’s precisely how “liberal” came to mean “progressive authoritarian”, “fairness” came to mean special dispensation, “tolerance” came to mean enforced conformity, and “conservative” came to mean, well, Mitt Romney — a man who favored state-run health care, a federal minimum wage tied to inflation, Wall Street bailouts, government-run “stimulus,” Cap and Trade measures, gun-control laws on “assault weapons,” and other things that, in the not too distant past, were precisely what marked one as anathema to conservatism and classical liberalism.
Kind of like how enjoying an Ann Coulter column once marked you as a rancid far-right ideologue.
Rush really laid into Romney over that bit of anti-Visigoth snobbery, noting that McCain at least waited until the general election campaign itself before declaring his intention to unilaterally disarm.
And don’t forget forcing Catholic hospitals to provide abortifacient pills:
http://bostoncatholicinsider.wordpress.com/2012/02/23/did-romney-lie-about-cardinal-omalley-to-the-nation-during-the-wednesday-debate/
“On December 8, 2005 Romney reversed the legal opinion of his own State Department of Public Health, instructing all Catholic hospitals and others to provide the chemical Plan B “morning after pill” to rape victims. He was quoted as saying, “I think, in my personal view, it’s the right thing for hospitals to provide information and access to emergency contraception to anyone who is a victim of rape.””
Please note that this was after his alleged conversion on the abortion issue.
So, it looks like the plan is for Romney to run on…the fact he was a businessman. An amiable businessman, dangerous to his would-be friends and harmless to his enemies.
Gad, not the old “I’m going to be polite, because that way, the press will be play fair with me” ploy.
I have to give Romney credit, though. Not many politicians can enrage the base and set themselves up to be surprised when they’re savaged by the press all in one sentence.
Hey Dale, if you don’t mind me asking, who’s the frog in your gravatar? (I assume it’s a frog —the uniform looks froggish to me.)
Yep, it’s a frog (I can hear my French teacher wife growling).
It’s Georges Picquart, the French Army officer who exposed the fraudulent nature of the charges against Alfred Dreyfus, despite being something of an anti-Semite himself (rather common in the circles he lived in, alas). He vehemently refused to back down despite pressure from his superiors to go along. He was court-martialled himself and resigned from the army (but not Dreyfus’ cause). He was eventually reinstated, and died before WWI at the rank of General.
Unbelievable. He’s saying is he doesn’t have the fire in his belly to win; he’s not willing to criticize Obama/violate his sense decency in order to win. No, that would just be too much.
McCain II.
Someone needs to ask him if he believes Obama will (or has ever) played by these rules to get elected.
I think we should spend the summer on the National Mall, testing out the incendiary nature of phrases such as “We hold these truths to be self-evident,” and “When in the course of human events,” and “We ain’t giving you crooks any more of our money!”
On a smaller, more personal note: there’s nothing like making a particularly “incendiary” quote at the lunch table, and when called on the outrageousness of it, to reply “I’m quoting James Fucking Madison, genius.” Those are good days.
So that’s Madison’s middle name!
Now you now why all the history books claim he didn’t have a middle name. Some things just aren’t fit to be taught.
It was nice though, I thought, to assure us he can live with losing.
I’ve been worried.
Well, if there’s one lesson to be drawn from McCain ’08, it’s that if you set out believing there’s such a thing a losing gracefully, you’ll likely show it.
Is it wrong for me to want a candidate who says, “We are teetering on the edge of the abyss; if I don’t win and drag us back from the cliff I will very much not be able to live with since it means we are well and truly fucked”?
“And, frankly, I am willing and able to set my hair on fire to win this thing.”
You know, I think I’m starting to get pissed at Paul Ryan for sitting this one out …
This is exactly why I’m voting for Obama if his paler doppelganger is the GOP nominee, while preparing for the Civil War. This country obviously needs an enema, “good and hard”.
I’m getting to the point where I might appreciate Romney’s loss in November.
He might hope a McCain maneuver improves his lot with Conservatives, by choosing Rubio to run as his Sarah Palin, but that just won’t work this time, not for me. These Republicans just need to burn off, and hope to have a phoenix-style rebirth.
I’m disgusted with everything GOP.
Ann Coulter is also rather critical on Santorum’s federalist creeds. I guess she is trying to suggest that Mitt has worked that social experimentation out of his system.
Who cares what Ann Coulter says? She cherrypicks, while somehow managing to miss Romney’s liberalism. She’s bashed every candidate not named Romney, going back to Sarah Palin, who didn’t even get into the race.
Screw her. And the bullshit niche opportunism that made her rich, but that she evidently never really believed, she rode in on.
Don’t hold back Jeff, tell us how you really feel [grin].