Mitt Romney, the Liberal Swine Conservatives Love

Romney is making flip-floppers of the entire conservative movement.

Nothing like a general election to give people a bad case of amnesia.

A few months ago conservatives were bashing Mitt Romney with such vigor they made a Mongol invasion look genteel. To Deroy Murdock of National Review, “Willard Mitt Romney’s latest flip flop” reminded him of Andy Warhol’s quip: “That’s not fake. It’s real plastic.” Compared to Romney, Murdock wrote, “I have seen mannequins in less empty suits.” Mona Charen, another National Review regular, spoke on behalf of all right-thinking people when she said positions such as Romney’s “make our hearts sink.” Victor Davis Hanson, also of National Review, termed Romney the “castor oil candidate.”

At TownHall.com – a clearinghouse of conservative opinion – Ben Shapiro compared Romney to Harold Hill, the “big city con man” of musical fame: “Romney has somehow suckered much of the conservative world into believing that he is a solid fiscal, social and foreign policy conservative” when, in reality, Romney is an “all out liberal.” Romney is “about as strong a social conservative,” he went on, “as RuPaul” – the country’s most famous drag queen.

On the same site, you could read “The Conservative Case Against Mitt Romney,” which argued that the Mittster “is a deeply flawed candidate. . . . this IS NOT someone conservatives should want” as their nominee. “You can’t fall in love with a weathervane,” agreed John Hawkins of Right Wing News, who offered “7 Reasons Why Mitt Romney’s Electability Is a Myth.”  “Romney is not a conservative,” declared Rush Limbaugh. “He’s not, folks.”

What a difference a nomination makes.

Limbaugh recently confessed Romney is still not his idea of an ideal nominee. But that hasn’t stopped him from sticking up for the GOP’s standard-bearer. For example, he says Romney’s speech to the NAACP left the listeners unimpressed because it was “over these people’s heads.”

Other conservatives have fallen in line, too. As Romney was wrapping up the Republican nomination, The Washington Post helped solidify Republican support by running a hit piece about Romney’s youth. “New ‘Scandal’: Romney Pulled Pranks, Bullied Someone in High School,” scoffed Guy Benson on TownHall.com – along with just about every other card-carrying conservative in the country.

Some conservatives have gushed so effusively about the candidate they make North Korea’s news agency sound like a model of restraint. Romney's views on immigration are “wildly popular with Americans,” according to Ann Coulter.  “In his passionate affirmation of the American can-do spirit,” ran a piece last week on TownHall, “Governor Romney is a man who has found his moment.” The noble greatness of our heroic champion inspires tears of boundless joy in all the people.

Romney is “all about winning the future,” according to Kathryn Jean Lopez of National Review. Just “take a look at his successful business decisions, his ‘turnaround’ of the scandal-crippled Olympics, or his time in Massachusetts.” His undying feats will live on in our hearts forever.

Some of this is to be expected. Politics is a team sport, and cheerleaders are supposed to root for their team regardless of the starting lineup. Still, politics also is supposed to have some meaning beyond merely racking up wins – and the sudden, marked shift in tone on the right has about it a certain whiff of “We’ve always been at war with Eastasia,” no?

True, not all conservatives are writing mash notes to Mitt. The rest of them are dashing off screeds denouncing the perfidy of Barack Obama or defending Romney from the “demonic” left (“Romney Fights Back” – Victor Davis Hanson, National Review; “Target: Ann Romney” – ibid).  Likewise, those liberals who aren’t busy glorifying the record of their own Dear Leader are obsessing about what’s hidden in Romney’s tax returns.

Visit any political website these days, and you’ll find a cornucopia of news and commentary aimed at exposing just how terrible Those People are. As Jonas Kaplan, a professor of political psychology, puts it: “In the political process, people come to decisions early on and then spend the rest of the time making themselves feel good about their decision.”

Conservatives aren’t going to vote for Obama. Therefore they have to vote for Romney. Ergo, they need to find a reason to. That isn’t easy. And it’s especially hard because it requires them to do the one thing they most revile Romney for: change positions for the sake of political expedience.

“Willard Mitt Romney” is making flip-floppers of them all.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • $park¥||

    politics also is supposed to have some meaning beyond merely racking up wins

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! *gasp* HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

  • fish||

    Not funny Sparky.....politics is supposed to have some meaning beyond racking up wins.

    Let's not forget the dividing of the spoils.

  • ||

    Correct.

  • Blueman||

    "And it’s especially hard because it requires them to do the one thing they most revile Romney for: change positions for the sake of political expedience.

    “Willard Mitt Romney” is making flip-floppers of them all."

    Oh, I don't know about him MAKING them flip-floppers, it just highlights the fact that they are.

  • o3||

    a gop friend said to vote team romney because romney's "anything u want him to be, whenever u need it"

  • fish||

    Finally Triple Anus brings something other than poor spelling to the table.

    Well done.

  • ||

    Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

  • fish||

    Then this makes him much more like a broken calendar....Triple Anus might be right once a month.

  • ||

    "anything u want him to be, whenever u need it"

    This makes me miss Clinton.

    Best snake this county has seen in my lifetime.

  • Dan Bongard||

    Saying conservatives "love" Romney is a stretch. They want Obama gone, and Romney isn't Obama.

  • Jeff||

    I think so, too, but only because I refuse to believe that anyone could be genuinely enthusiastic about Giant Douche Mitt Romney.

  • fish||

    Why did you cross out Mitt Romney and retype Mitt Romney?

    Oh wait....

  • Robert||

    OK, but as long as they can convince someone that that's possible, they might get that someone to vote for him.

  • freeforall232||

    *citation needed

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    Did you read any of the stuff cited in the column?

  • freeforall232||

    Yes. But it doesn't change the fact that Obama and Romney agree on just about everything.

  • wareagle||

    if that were a fact, you might be onto something. But I don't hear Romney championing higher taxes for anyone, more regulations, another round of stimulus, or enlarging the govt payroll.

    There are things where one can find fault with Romney. You did not bother to mention a single one.

  • Pippers||

    You haven't been paying attention to past actions. As with everything in life, it's not what people *say*, it's what they *do*. Romney has a long history just waiting for you to look over and research.

  • triclops||

    very important point that cannot be restated too often.

    obama and romney stress certain things in speeches, but they will abuse executive privelege, conduct foreign policy, spy on citizens, further us down the path of crony capitalism, and innumerable other things in an almost indistinguishable manner.

  • wareagle||

    well, pippers and tri have convinced me; nothing else can possibly go wrong by staying on the Obama horse.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    That's my holdup. I kind of want things to go as wrong as possible so that liberalization will have a better chance sooner rather than later. The crying would be sweet if Obama lost the election. But I'm worried that Romney will draw out this sorry shit even longer.

  • Hooha||

    I was of Rock and Skull's mindset until the SCOTUS upheld obamacare.

    It's all about the long game - a Romney presidency will allow the liberals to rally around a lame republican once more ala the era of GW, while Obama would struggle to do any more damage in his second term with a republican house (senate? I always get the halves of the Leguislative branch mixed up) keeping him -somewhat- in check.

    Now, however, I believe that Obamacare may be so absolutely destructive that the price of allowing it to galvanize for four more years is just too high; Roberts threw a wrench in the risk vs. reward equation, and now I'm pro-Romney on the off chance that he'll redact at least some of Obamacare.

    Laying the groundwork for a Libertarian POTUS will have to wait; I can imagine scenarios where Obamacare actually causes the nation to implode in a violent manner.

  • Pippers||

    The Corporatism of Obamacare is not going to cause the nation to implode in a violent manner. It's going to certainly line the pockets of the upper class, but not much else. People need to look past the hyperbole of this and realize that it's just more fleecing. People who choose not to have kids already pay thousands more than those that do. People who aren't currently going to school are paying more taxes than those who are. We are penalized for so many thing in this country for things we choose NOT to do, than for what we choose to do.

    You can call it anything you want, but with or without it, your money is going to someone else.

  • Libr8r||

    That isn't "conservatism." That is tribalism. That tribe is bad so the other tribe must be good. The old "Two Party System" scam.

  • ||

    Yes...they are deluding themselves.

    And in November the majority of voters will be doing the same thing.

  • Gadianton||

    Realistically, what do you expect them to do? Keep pitching Gingrich, Santorum, Bachman, or Caine? This is how the game is played every election cycle in all parties. You demonize Candidate X in the primaries and then (once he has enough delegates to carry the nomination) you nominate him for sainthood. If you don't, you risk handing the election to the opposing party and exiling yourself to the party's version of Siberia in the next cycle.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    I see Romney as chemo to Obama's cancer. Chemo's no fun and you certainly wouldn't seek out the opportunity to experience it, it's going to make you sick, and it might not even save you, but cancer is worse.

  • T. Durden||

    That suggests Romney might correct the damage Obama has done when Romney largely agrees with him.

    Romney is just a type of cancer you are more likely to survive for four years.

  • Robert||

    And that's what fighting a fatal disease is all about: delaying death.

  • KPres||

    Funny comment, given that last night I was listening to some radio program where some hippie was claiming that nobody dies from cancer, they all die from the chemo, which is the real enemy, and that everybody should take natural remedies which, of course, have been squashed by Big Pharma.

  • jacob the barbarian||

    yup, that worked out real well for Steve Jobs

  • Pippers||

    Actually, it would be akin to coming out of remission.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Well, that might be a bit of an overstatement. More like a really mild chemo that is not going to really kill the cancer, but just kind of leave it in check.

  • Robert||

    As opposed to a rx which makes us immortal?

  • Anonymous Coward||

    This election seems different from previous ones, not in that "OMG! It's the most important election of our lifetime! Barry's last birthday in the White House! Mitt will save America!" but it appears, at least to me, that the voters I observe are either completely apathetic, or have gone full TEAM-tard and no matter how many strikes you line up against their guy, they'll still vote for him because he is on their TEAM and therefore on the side of the righteous.

    It's like watching Manichaeism in the political sphere.

  • Skip||

    Its the same as always. A while back I went to Free Republic and checked out an old thread from the 2000 primaries and the majority of them were criticizing Bush and seemed to be Team Gary Bauer all the way.

  • wareagle||

    all the conservative blowhards were championing for some fire-breather to take the electorate by the balls, but each would-be self-anointed descendant of Reagan proved lacking. Still, the article illustrates something interesting: folks on the right are always eager to rake even those who largely agree with them over the coals; those on the left, meanwhile, will go into unbelievable contortions to justify their worst choices.

  • T. Durden||

    BREAKING: Politics is a shallow business that dirties everyone involved!

  • TechnoPeasant||

    We can't discuss Mitts foreign policy for fear he has none.
    We can't discuss Mitts personal finances for fear he's taken privileged advantage.
    We can't discuss Mitts governorship for fear he looks like Obama's best pick for Veep.
    We can't discuss his business experience for fear he personally pioneered outsourcing for profit.

    Romney isn’t capable of fixing the economy because it's people just like him that brought us to this point in the first place.
    During the financial crisis, Citigroup hired Bain Co to determine how to separate its commercial and investment banking operations.
    They concluded "tax considerations" made a breakup "inefficient".

    "The untroubled self-confidence of the psychopath seems almost like an impossible dream ..."
    http://www.cassiopaea.com/cass.....hopath.htm

  • Bill Dalasio||

    I can think of a few reasons to not like Mitt Romney.

    That he successfully managed to hold an actual job managing an actual business is not one of those reasons.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    "taken privileged advantage"

    The way the Kennedy and Gore families did, you mean?

  • fearsomepirate||

    I didn't know Bain Capital wrote the tax laws that made a breakup inefficient.

  • Brandybuck||

    My mother is a staunch social conservative. A few months ago she hated Romney for many reasons: Mormon, liberal, Romneycare, etc. Now she is solidly behind him because he's religious, conservative, will roll back Obamacare, etc. My mother is typical of many Republicans. The ideology is important, but still takes a back seat to TEAM RED mentality.

  • wareagle||

    The ideology is important, but still takes a back seat to TEAM RED mentality.

    The color is immaterial.

  • Libr8r||

    Exactly. AKA, tribalism.

  • Robert||

    No. What's material is getting the best from the choices that are available.

  • ||

    alt.text:

    "When I'm done being president, you're going to feel like you were fucked with a dick this big."

  • CampingInYourPark||

    "Romney is 'about as strong a social conservative,' he went on, 'as RuPaul' – the country’s most famous drag queen."

    Pissing off So-Cons is an asset as far as I'm concerned.

  • Skip||

    If true, then the single issue So-Cons are idiots. Romney has been married to the same woman for around 40 years and his kids all seem to be well behaved, employed and haven't knocked up any chicks out of wedlock. What more do they want?

  • wareagle||

    they want a guy who's NOT Mormon. Some of them will even say it out loud though most won't. Romney is not interested enough in folks' personal lives to suit the so-con wing, which is basically the flip side of the authoritarian coin from the liberals.

  • Killazontherun||

    If you are not feeling apathetic about Romney, you are trying too hard.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    The best case I can make for Romney:

    In 2008, the Bush administration drove the economiy into a ditch. So, we called Obama Repairs and Towing to help us out. They showed up. But, rather than making use of their winch to pull the economy out of the ditch, they proceeded to pound on the engine with sledgehammers. The rusults were predictable - parts flying all over the place, important components of the engine bent all out of shape, hoses knocked out of their nozzles spilling fluids all over, fan belts broken. Now, we're offered an option. We can stay with Obama Repairs and Towing or switch to the Romney Automotive Repair Service. Now, honestly, I don't think the Romney Automotive Repair is going to do much to fix even the damage done by Obama Repairs and Towing, let alone get us out for the ditch (remember the ditch). But, I do think that he's a lot more likely to STOP BREAKING SHIT.

  • jacob the barbarian||

    The best case I can make for Romney? He is not Obama. Change IS good. The last choice was McCain and the Messiah. Ok. Hated the choices. Neither had ever been president, or done anything worth a damn.

    We now have four years of bowing, clueless wonder. Can we at least get an adult this time? Yes. Romney will suck.

    The current guy sucks so bad, he is taking the chrome off the trailer hitch. I want someone who might have a chance in hell of knowing what the trailer hitch is really for.

  • fearsomepirate||

    This. At this point, a repairman who just stands there, smiles, and has nice hair would be a huge improvement.

  • Ayn Random Variation||

    What are conservatives supposed to do, talk up, and vote for, Obama?
    Realistically speaking, the only hope I have for a candidate is that he/she won't actively try to fuck up the economy even more, and that the press will actually call him/her on his miscues. (Hey, maybe with The One not in the White House, the Times, Post, Networks, etc. will actually say something about domestic drones and the costs of the WOD). How about someone who is not continuously insulting and demoralizing the achievers and job creators.
    Can you imagine what Obama would say and do if he didn't have to worry about reelection? With the media cheering him on all the way?
    I wish Paul had won the nomination or that Johnson had a chance in this rigged game, but I live in the real world and Obama has to go.

  • Libr8r||

    I thought this was a libertarian site. We have a couple of great candidates. We already had our convention.
    If so-called conservatives don't like the GOP choice, they can support someone who shares many of their principles, if they have any. Otherwise, the establishment vote just encourages the bastards and you will get more of the same next time.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    It IS a libertarian site. It's obviously not FreeRepublic or Daily Kos.

  • Robert||

    Oh, sure, the Establishment lusts after that tiny percentage of the vote LP-only candidates get -- which to get, they would have to throw away most of the big vote they actually do get.

  • TingRooo||

    Sometimes you jsut gotta throw them hands up in the air, like you just ddont even care!

    www.Anon-Go.tk

  • fearsomepirate||

    Here, I'll jump in the shark tank. I'm pro-Romney. After the first big round of eliminations, it was either Romney or Paul or not voting for me.

    I don't have to tell you why I favored Paul, but I'll tell you why Romney made it past my "I'm not voting" cut. Yes, Romney is a liberal. But he's a liberal capitalist, like JFK. When Romney actually displays some genuineness and passion, it's when he talks about capitalism and profits. I believe he believes in that because he's lived it.

    Don't get me wrong, I disagree with Romney on a lot. His vision of capitalism is a blue-state capitalism. But here's the thing...it's STILL CAPITALISM.

    Obama, by contrast, loathes capitalism. I really believe that, in his core, he finds business and profit sort of disgusting. Of course, like any leftist, he makes special exceptions for rich leftists and campaign donors.

    Let me put it this way--I see Romney as a fellow-traveler in the Great Western Experiment of liberal capitalism. He takes a different side than me in a lot of those debates, but they're debates about and within liberal capitalism, about what it should look like, not about whether or not it's a basically good thing. Obama simply has nothing but contempt for that experiment.

  • kbolino||

    That is perhaps the best case for Romney I've heard yet, but it still doesn't serve as a strong case against Johnson.

  • ||

    Where is Shrike again to tell us how in the tank Reason is for Romney?

  • Robert||

    But this is just the normal operation of politics. If you're not going to settle once you try to influence your selection, then what purpose do political parties have?

  • Azathoth!!||

    NRO was in the tank for Romney from the get-go. So was Coulter. Mona's piece was a line in a puff piece FOR Romney, as she's been for him as well.

    Deroy still can't stand him. Likewise VDH, and Rush.

    And a whole lot of people.

    In fact, I'm really not seeing any 'flip-flopping' in your article--not even if you're suggesting that a Republican voting for the Republican candidate offered is a 'flip-flop'.

    The people you show as 'for him' were supporters from the start--and defending someone against leftist dirty tricks doesn't constitute hearty support.

  • KRoyall||

    So 4 more years of Obama is the best outcome? You're all idiots.

  • Johnimo||

    Get over it. We're making do with the better of two evils. As the Judge opined on this site, "Just whom do you trust to appoint better Supremes?"

  • rogerfgay||

    Mitt Romney is a self-destructive Democrat
    http://www.libertarian-examine.....ocrat.html

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement