Palin & Romney: Heart & Head? More Like, Heart & Soul…less
October 22, 2009 / 2:02 pm • By Dr. Melissa ClouthierMatt Lewis wrote a thoughtful piece about the Republican party and what the two leaders mean for the future of the party:
The most often repeated template is for Republicans to select the person whose “turn” it is to run for president. That’s how the Grand Old Party opted for Richard Nixon, John McCain, Bob Dole — and even George H.W. Bush. The other, less frequently employed model, says: “If you’re going to send up a long shot candidate anyway –perhaps a ’sacrificial lamb’ — why not go with your heart?” That’s how the GOP chose conservative firebrand Barry Goldwater as its standard-bearer in 1964, a decision that guaranteed a landslide victory for Democrats.
Today, the perfunctory, “next in line” theory suggests that the most likely GOP nominee will be former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. While Romney dropped-out of the 2008 campaign earlier than Mike Huckabee, most conservatives concede that Romney finished in secondplace – and that is certainly the view held by the McCainiacs. So, by the logic that led to the nominations of McCain and Dole, it’s Romney’s turn. Even if rank-and-file conservatives find him less than perfect concede that he’s paid his dues.
But what about the other model? Who is this year’s Goldwater – and, just maybe, our Reagan? Who is the person movement conservatives really want? It sure ain’t Mike Huckabee. And it might be Sarah Palin.
Further, he says this [and yes, I'm heavily quoting, go read the whole thing]:
With three years to go, predictions are a risky business. Palin may not even run. And perhaps someone such as Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour will emerge as the conservatives’ darling. If recent elections are any guide, the Republicans’ heads will tell them to choose Mitt Romney. Their hearts whisper something else. Is “Sarah” the name of this siren song?
There is an implication in this analysis that nominating Romney would be a “smart” thing. I would suggest, that is false. Mitt Romney, it should be remembered, lost to John McCain. Anyone who lost to John McCain should be discounted, in my opinion. John McCain was a weak and flawed candidate and everyone knew it. The Republican primary voters felt that the other candidates were weaker and/or more flawed.
Voting for Mitt Romney in 2012 would not only be not using one’s head, it would be outright stupid. Sure, he’s got the economic turnaround thing going, but he has the look and feel of someone a person just can’t trust. He is, dare I say it, unelectable. And everyone, but the most devoted Romney-ites knows it.
As for Sarah Palin being the luring conservative temptress, bidding the GOP to crash into the shoals of death, pain and panic…now, that is wrong, too. While the verdict is still out on Sarah Palin, she could be a very good or a very bad choice. How can anyone know that yet?
Sarah Palin has to delineate herself from not only McCain’s policies, she has to define herself as a Republican. Or is she going really rogue and starting her own party? We’ll find out soon enough.
Right now, I don’t think Romney makes sense on any level. Really, I can’t think of one Republican candidate for president who would be a good choice. But it is early yet. Strange times can lead to stranger candidates. These are strange times.
6 Responses to “Palin & Romney: Heart & Head? More Like, Heart & Soul…less”
October 22 2009 / 2:32 pm
Reply
Melissa,
I agree with everything you said except “he’s got the economic turnaround thing going.” Really? What’s that mean?
Romney was for the Wall Street bailouts before he was against them, he called for DC to help the Big 3 automakers when campaigning in Michigan, he supported ethanol subsidies in Iowa, and let’s not forget RomneyCare, which is basically ObamaCare without the public option.
Yet for some reason, Romney is considered an economics whiz.
October 22 2009 / 2:33 pm
Reply
That means that Romney enjoys the aura of knowing what to do in a sick economy. I disagree with that notion, by the way. I’m just saying.
October 23 2009 / 5:08 am
Reply
While the verdict is still out on Sarah Palin, she could be a very good or a very bad choice. How can anyone know that yet?
There are people who watch what policies are implemented and monitor the results, intent on figuring out what’s wise and unwise; and there are other people who analyze the emotional reactions to things, mostly from those they consider to be peers, to see what generates the most positive excitement. Palin is among the rare candidates who manage to bridge that gap, and hold some appeal for both. That’s what Reagan’s real accomplishment was.
Romney? He just has a talent for not messing up too badly. He’s six feet tall, has most of his hair, and can wave. It translates into an ability to morph on the issues without being punished too badly…Palin, on the other hand, has a much stronger ideological identity. Name an issue, and it’s pretty easy to state where she’s going to be on it in eight years.
It’s supposed to be devastating that Katie Couric engineered the talking point that Palin’s a moron — that this managed to take hold. What’s seldom inspected is: Why did the left have to resort to that? They’d much rather have orchestrated something that says Palin’s a warmonger, a homophobe, a typical conservative who wants to banish to an island anyone who isn’t exactly like her. But they had to go the “stupid” route instead. There is much evidence that the left is afraid of her; there is no evidence that they have anything to fear from Romney.
So I know she is a very good choice the way I know it was wise to put Gen. Grant up against the Confederacy, and Gen. Patton up against the Nazis. Choose the champion your enemy honestly fears the most, and don’t look back.
October 23 2009 / 10:00 am
Reply
With Romney… remember RomneyCare and governed like a liberal.
No thank you.
He’s got nice hair though.
I’ll say “ditto” on what Morgan said.
October 23 2009 / 9:25 pm
Reply
Well, Morgan, she’s not going to be a real good choice as a candidate if she doesn’t learn how to not sound like an idiot when she’s talking.
Saying that it’s the interviewer’s fault is too weaselly for words.
Palin has to learn to articulate her beliefs on a big stage with bright lights before ANY political party can have her head a national ticket.
October 25 2009 / 12:18 am
Reply
Romney — once a weasel, always a weasel.
And even if he wasn’t, his advocacy of the disaster of health insurance “reform” in Massachusetts is a permanant disqualification.