The Romney discussion continues over at VFR in this thread where LA objects to James W.'s undeserved criticisms of Mr. Romney.
James W. writes:
Hopefulness is not a characteristic you display here [at VFR?] in abundance. While ordinarily hope is a risk that must be run, hope is something that also misleads us, and unraveling the threads of past error is your business here if anything is.
So I am surprised to see so much hope in you over Romney. I understand very well we are only asking for a Republican President that will not be ruinous, so it is not that we expect too much. But I am not hopeful over Romney, for what I have read and heard from his supporters in the Nevada caucus does not give me reason: He is the can-do guy, the successful manager of large corporate turnarounds, and the man who can manage the federal behemoth.
Managed is exactly what we do not want. Making it work is as bad as it not working. Or is it worse?
He will at best only make our masters more effecient in what they are doing to us, and then pass off the reins to a liberal who knows how to whip that horse until it collapses, awaiting another conservative trainer to get him ready for the next lap. Burke--The parties are the gamesters, but government keeps the tables, and is sure to be the winner in the end.
To which LA replies:
Of all the arguments I've heard against Romney, this takes the cake. There is no hope in him and we must oppose him--because he is a can-do guy and a successful corporate leader, as well as a governor of a major state. Romney just can't catch a break. I have never in my life seen so much undeserved hostility toward a politician as I've been seeing toward Romney. I don't know what the explanation for it is. Some people tell me they think it's envy of a man who has everything, intelligence, high abilities, success, looks, a great family, and a huge fortune that he earned. You could write a book about it.
In any case, I would not describe myself as hopeful about Romney. I've repeatedly expressed my doubts about him. But as I've also said, I'm impressed by his talents, and believe he's the best and only acceptable candidate for the GOP nomination. What I will do in November is an open question.
Now, I understand where LA's coming from when he says that James W.'s criticisms of Romney's success as a business man and his reputation as a can-do guy are undeserved. I certainly do not begrudge the man for these qualities. But when he denominates Romney's governorship of Massachusetts as simply "a governor of a major state," then he leaves out a very important aspect of that fact to some of us, namely that of a majorly liberal major state; a state hugely populated by liberals and leftists. Just how "conservative" can a governor of Massachusetts be, Republican or otherwise? If this is not an important consideration for conservatives to contemplate and investigate, then I must be very misinformed about what it is that conservatives should be looking for in a President of the United States.
1 comments:
That's pretty funny, given that Auster hated when people argued for Giuliani on the grounds that Giuliani would "ruthlessly push social liberalism". Auster argued that Giuliani's competence was not as much the issue as his convictions. If he was highly competent at pushing an anti-conservative agenda, then that would be a bad thing.
Now James W. expresses his belief that Romney would be highly competent at carrying out an anti-conservative agenda, but Auster opts to label reasonable doubts such as James W.'s "undeserved hostility". Not that dim-witted McCain-loving MSM pundits haven't made some unfair attacks on Romney -- I would admit that. But Auster then takes the criticism he's heard from those pundits, and uses it as a straw man to dismiss James W.'s concern.
Now if James W. replied and rightly said that Auster dodged his question, who can doubt that Auster would ignore the reply?
Post a Comment