Mitt Romney, the GOP's Anti-Visionary

I'll admit it: I'm not entirely sure what to say about Mitt Romney's convention-capping speech tonight, in part because Mitt Romney appears not to have been sure what to say either.

It's kind of amazing, actually. Romney managed to say even less about what he would do as president than he usually does. Despite Republican Vice Presidential nominee Paul Ryan's promise earlier today that Romney would discuss his plans for the country in "granular" detail, Romney offered almost nothing in the way of a governing vision, much less specific legislative goals. Instead, he criticized Obama for running up too much debt, and, in practically the same breath, for cutting spending on Medicare and the defense budget. Vote Republican! 

The closest Romney got to a specific policy promise was his declaration that he'd set North America on the course for energy independence by 2020 as part of his jobs plan. Which sounds pretty awesome, I agree. But it would have sounded much more awesome if he had also promised to feature dragons, centaurs, and unicorns at the National Zoo by the same year, and been just as plausible. But it hardly matters, because that's not what the GOP actually stands for in 2012. The party barely stands for anything. And Romney, the man who once declared himself a non-partisan Republican, a moderate whose views were "progressive" is not just visionless but is at this point actively anti-visionary. Republicans are against Obama, and not a whole lot else. That's something. But it's not much. 

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.

  • Caleb Turberville||

    Romney gave a speech tonight? I was too busy watching Clint Eastwood videos.

  • Killazontherun||

    Dyin' ain't much of a livin', boy.

  • Caleb Turberville||

    What about the rights of that little girl?

  • Killazontherun||

    It is my considered opinion that rat #4 is sitting inside that cat.

    Ha! Stilted acting from early in his career, but great line.

  • Caleb Turberville||

    A classic from the Sci-Fi Channel years.

  • ZacJ||

    All MST3K references are immediately awarded 10,000 points!

  • Killazontherun||

    Paint Your Wagon is in there at 4.09, wtf?

  • Caleb Turberville||

    "Here comes Lee Marvin: He's always drunk and violent!"

  • General Butt Naked||

    My hands down favorite:

    "Deserve got nuthin to do with it"

    From Unforgiven.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Just about every line from the last third of that movie was eminently quotable.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Oh yeah. I love that movie; could and have watch it over and over again.

  • Killazontherun||

    That's something. But it's not much.

    You can't really say that's not much. Not with this president. Even the Greens have that much going for them this year.

  • BakedPenguin||

    ...it would have sounded much more awesome if he had also promised to feature dragons, centaurs, and unicorns at the National Zoo...

    Suderman, you know Manticores are the Republican chimeras.

  • Peter Suderman||

    Should I know what a Manticore is? I'll have to google that.

  • BakedPenguin||

    No, you really shouldn't, but your nerd cred is vastly diminished.

  • geo1113||

    Yes. You should know it was the record label for Emerson, Lake, and Palmer.

  • Killazontherun||

    That's more artfag cred than nerd cred.

  • Killazontherun||

    Would not be surprised if my Monster Manual and ELP vinyl collection were in the same storage closet in the old house.

  • Restoras||

    Mine are.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Emerson, Lake and Palmer... that was some sort of spaceship or something. Right?

  • geo1113||

    I saw them when I was tripping so yes.

  • ||

    No. "Yes" was a different band.

  • Killazontherun||

    Or, some show that never ends. I'm hazy on the details. Like Welcome Back Carter, I remember watching it, I remember the characters, I remember their catch phrases, but I don't remember a single damn episode. I'm thinking, 'please tell me that a young Killaz identity character was Epstein and not Horshack.' I think so, 'Mister Cartah, Mistah Cartah' still annoys me after all these years.

  • Killazontherun||

    Wait, that was Kotter, not Carter. President Kaplan, terrible president.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    You're blending Welcome Back, Kotter with Carter Country.

  • Killazontherun||

    Lol! Best laugh I've had this 24hour cycle.

  • geo1113||

    Freddie "Boom Boom" Washington: Mister Kah-taire

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Horshack passed away last week. I am sad.

  • GILMORE||

    Its a law firm specializing in brain surgeon malpractice suits

  • Cenotaph||

    I hope the shiscabobs are fat and juicy at the cocktail parties this weekend, Peter. If you're half as harsh on Obama next week as you've been on Romney the Beltway elite will ensure you'll be eating them out of the trash from now on.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Yeah! Pete should get down on his ever lovin' knees and spit shine ol' Romniac's taint like our good buddy Ceno here does!

    And cocktail partier, HURR!

  • Cenotaph||

    If Peter Suderman rips Obama to the same extent next week I'll be content, even though there's a lot more to rip from a liberty loving perspective when it comes to Obama. Otherwise it will be clear to all the world that PS is a shill of omission.

    There's a happy medium between fellating and pulling out every nitpick in the book to selectively crush morale.

  • General Butt Naked||

    I'd venture to say that Pete has probably written more articles slamming Obama than Romney, but that doesn't matter to you.

    And frankly who gives a fuck about republican's morale? Not me, and not most of the readers of Reason magazine. If you wanna fluffer for Mittens I suggest that you are uniquely qualified for the position and should send in a resume.

    Any person that doesn't think the writers of Reason hammer the Dems as much as the Reps is so wrapped up in their own paranoia and victimhood as to be dismissed outright.

  • Killazontherun||

    I would venture to say I have written 10,000+ more negative post on this board than Cenotaph has, but he thinks i have a D beside my name.

    What makes his little post count of Reason criticism of both sides disingenuous is that he treats a libertarian complaining about phony cuts in entitlement spending is treated exactly the same as a democrat claiming Ryan's planned cuts in the rate of growth for those programs will kill children and senior citizens and give Susan Fluke the clap that the poor girl can't avoid on her on. That is bullshit, straight up.

  • Killazontherun||

    I would venture to say I have written 10,000+ more negative post on this board than Cenotaph has slamming Obama, but he thinks I have a D beside my name.

  • Cenotaph||

    The effect is the same. An important component of any election strategy is demoralizing the other side's voters to keep them from voting for the other side. Obama knows he's not getting the libertarian vote this time around so he'll settle for the next best thing.

  • General Butt Naked||

    You cannot seem to get that we don't give a fuck if republican or democratic voters are demoralized. Fuck 'em. If they won't get out to vote for their mormon messiah because of a Suderman article, I say, "Yer doin' heckofa job Pete, keep it up."

  • Killazontherun||

    Yup, never heard that one before. Did I get anything even vaguely in my interest as a libertarian when I voted for Bush in 2000? Nope, but does that stop Democrats from blaming the economic crises on a laissez-faire, free market and deregulatory environment that did not exist? Of course not. Call me again when you have something worth my time, worth the shitscreed you two party establishmentarian types hurl at us. Otherwise, you're just fucking around, wasting my time.

  • Cenotaph||

    Did I get anything even vaguely in my interest as a libertarian when I voted for Bush in 2000?

    Yep. Heller and Citizens United. Unless you think Gore would have replaced Rehnquist and OConnor with libertarian justices.

  • Killazontherun||

    I see your Heller and raise you Kelo, and I see your Citizen's United and raise you the Obamacare ruling, and then I pull out Gonzales v. Raich for a straight flush. The Supreme Court will be packed with instutionalist over constitutionalists until the day the two parties are wiped from the face of the earth. How is it you haven't figured that out yet?

  • Cenotaph||

    None of Bush's appointees voted in Kelo or Raich, the majority opinions for both being written by that lion of the liberal judiciary John Paul Stevens. Gore appointees wouldn't have helped anyway.

  • Killazontherun||

    None of Bush's appointees voted in Kelo

    Souter was a Bush appointee. Stevens was a Ford appointee. Kennedy was a Reagan appointee. Notice a pattern? I pointed out the full name of the Gonzales v. Raich case to allude to another fact about Republicans having zero interest in advancing the cause of liberty. They brought the Goddamned case up in the first place!

    Republicans have controlled the White House far more years than not since Truman lost, but their picks for the bench somehow turn to uphold the legacy of exponentially grown government. How is that?

    I hope they pay you well for your troubles, shill.

  • MWG||

    Why wait til next week. All you have to do is click on his name and you can see all the recent articles he's written.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Kinda off to the side, but sorta on topic:

    The only person I have ever talked to that has mentioned attending DeeCee cocktail parties is the ultra-conservative and notorious misspeller(sp?)commenter John. And I have relatives living there that are mid/high ranking gov people.

  • MWG||

    Do conservatives not hold cocktail parties? It's always HitRepublicans; who accuse Reason writers of wanting to attend DC cocktail parties. Next time there's an anti-obama article I'm going to accuse the writer of the same thing.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Thing is, the liberal readers think that the Reason crew only goes after democrats. You can't win.

    That's why I drink at home, alone.

    "Don't invite me to your stoopid party, see if I care. I'll give your commode the upper deck treatment next time, chump."

    -Nick Gillespie

  • Agammamon||

    Nowadays the conservatives just go to strip clubs - on the down-low of course, got to keep up appearances.

    In the old days the dems used to have sex parties but now they think having fun is evil so they're the one's with the boring cocktail parties now.

  • Cenotaph||

    Are you claiming there are no cocktail parties in DC?

  • MWG||

    No. I'm questioning whether or not they're only held by the left.

  • Cenotaph||

    Considering DC is 90% Democrat, there's an awfully good chance of that.

  • MWG||

    Sure, the city in general is. However, I doubt they're holding cocktail parties for our overlords in the slums. The people living in the city associated with the media, the legislative, and executive branches of the federal government are probably a little more mixed in terms of their politics, don't you think?

  • Cenotaph||

    Nope. Look at Obama's vote totals in the collar counties.

    NoVA was lopsided enough to win the whole friggin' state.

  • MWG||

    Well then it sounds like you're right. There are no conservatives anywhere in the capital holding cocktail parties. No conservative media organizations, no rightwing think tanks anywhere in the city. Cocktail parties are an invention of the left.

  • General Butt Naked||

    You're only sayin that so you keep getting invited to deecee cocktail parties.

  • Cenotaph||

    Yeah, those wonkish, off-news-cycle articles from the spring of 2011 totally counteract a barrage of smears during Mitt's launch week.

    Sort of like a woman would forgive her husband for calling her a bitchasswhore during their wedding reception because he was so nice to her that one day a year earlier.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Yeah, what's up with these news people writing about people in the news?! Fuckin' commies!

    Goddamn you are one paranoid bastard.

    Also:

    "LEAVE MITT ALONE ON HIS SPECIAL DAY!"

    *sobs*

  • MWG||

    Actually the articles go back to last month.

    Smears? I guess to someone wearing Red shaded glasses they would appear that way.

  • MWG||

    "There's a happy medium between fellating and pulling out every nitpick in the book to selectively crush morale."

    Whose morale?

  • Cenotaph||

    Liberty lovers who are doing what they have to to defend liberty, even though they aren't proud of the act itself.

  • MWG||

    Lol... That right, Romney and Ryan (who's voted for every massive increase in government over the last 12 years) are 'liberty lovers'... whatever.

  • Cenotaph||

    I wasn't talking about them. They're both in it for themselves.

    Ironic, isn't it, that the fans of the free market are the ones insisting that the right thing can only be done by a pure soul, rather than just making it profitable for the craven to do the right thing.

  • MWG||

    What makes you think either Romney or Ryan will 'do the right thing'? Ryan voted for TARP, the Auto Bailouts, Medicare Part D, etc. Romney supported TARP and signed RomneyCare.

    Did you not hear his speech tonight? The guy is for endless war. He's attacking Obama for 'cutting' defense!

  • Cenotaph||

    The incentives are different now. As long as liberty lovers don't get picky as Reason and others would have us do.

    If we refuse to support anyone who doesn't want to balance the budget immediately, etc, we're making our support irrelevant and removing any reason for politicians to give a damn what we think. Sort of like refusing to buy any liquid laundry detergent will result in your having no influence on the color of the bottles they come in.

  • General Butt Naked||

    If you think spamming for Mitt on a libertarian web site is defending liberty then yer not only a moron, but a delusional moron at that. Sorry.

  • Homple||

    Ron Paul will save us yet!

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    If you aren't proud of the act, you should re-consider doing the act. Many a crack whore is not proud of blowing creeps in alleys for crack money, but hey, gotta' get that crack.

  • Cenotaph||

    Getting crack is the same as defending liberty?

    I would blow creeps in an alley to defend liberty. And you should too.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    The thing is, it's so much about an inherent bias as it is laziness -- as much as Reason likes to talk about partisan responses and such, they have their own hair-triggers and pre-programmed responses to things, as well. There's a template when it comes to libertarians talking about politics, and sticking to it is the path of least resistance.

    Talking about how Republicans and Democrats are always the same is a generalization that is easy to champion, and which requires no additional evidence or thought. It is easy to use the template to jot down a quick blog post, and much harder to look realistically at what the candidates are stumping for and how they differ from each other and from the Libertarian candidate.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    The thing is, it's so much about an inherent bias as it is laziness -- as much as Reason likes to talk about partisan responses and such, they have their own hair-triggers and pre-programmed responses to things, as well. There's a template when it comes to libertarians talking about politics, and sticking to it is the path of least resistance.

    Talking about how Republicans and Democrats are always the same is a generalization that is easy to champion, and which requires no additional evidence or thought. It is easy to use the template to jot down a quick blog post, and much harder to look realistically at what the candidates are stumping for and how they differ from each other and from the Libertarian candidate.

  • Proprietist||

    It's not lazy or unrealistic. If both parties are planning to grow government, they have little to offer libertarians but table scraps.

    The fact that one of the parties pinky swears that "this time will be different" after a trail of broken promises makes them all the more reprehensible.

    To libertarians, the Democrats are like douchebags you know to never trust. The Republicans are like the alcoholic, philandering wife beater who promises every time that he'll stop beating and cheating on you only to do it again the next week.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    OK, sockpuppet. Why would I commit shameful acts to defend liberty, when I can commit honorable acts to defend liberty?

  • Cenotaph||

    It's not either or, it's both and.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    You're a motive consequentailist. Blah... Go sell it on a different website.

  • Calidissident||

    yeah, the real liberty lovers support a guy who supports higher spending, more debt, raising taxes on lower and middle class people, Romneycare, the Patriot Act, NDAA, the War on Drugs, the War on Porn, more real wars, playing world policeman, etc

  • califernian||

    there's a lot more to rip from a liberty loving perspective when it comes to Obama.

    Have you read the GOP platform? They are going to go after the PORNZ now. They are fucking anathema to all things liberty.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Well, Mitt signed that bill that gave the cops the liberty to take away your guns, so there's that. Hmmm.

  • Cenotaph||

    I'll take an ineffective War on Porn over the crap the Dems are doing to cordon off liberty any day.

    Obscenity prosecutions were the #1 priority of the Bush administration, and they got what, 2 convictions in 8 years? The same period during which the porn industry experienced its biggest spurt in history?

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    the porn industry experienced its biggest spurt in history?

    Nice one. ;-}

  • Russell||

    Who's going to vote fora tea totalitarian cigarette snuffer who couldn't be trusted to take the bra off a debutante?

  • ||

    he'd set North America on the course for energy independence by 2020 as part of his jobs plan. Which sounds pretty awesome, I agree. But it would have sounded much more awesome if he had also promised to feature dragons, centaurs, and unicorns at the National Zoo by the same year, and been just as plausible.

    WTF??!

    First why is this awesome? Last I checked the law of comparative advantage shows that trade is good and allows us to be wealthier. Why is trade in energy so magically different?

    Second how again is this implausible?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    It's holy writ among DC liberals that America can't possibly produce its own oil and natural gas because doing so is icky.

  • Proprietist||

    I mean, having the capacity to be energy independent is undoubtedly beneficial for national security. Especially since most of our energy comes from nations that hate our guts.

    Then again, trade with Saudi Arabia is the only reason we haven't gone to war with each other.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Off topic:

    I just discovered bump fire stocks today and want one real bad. I'll need an AR or AK first, but goddamn they're cool.

    If you haven't seen one before, check it

  • Agammamon||

    It took me a couple of seconds to realize that you weren't talking about some sort of new-fangled financial instrument.

  • califernian||

    I think my favorite part of this election so far is how fervently the democrat voters I know are convinced that Romney is some kind of evil antithesis to the Obamessiah.

    Good grief they are fucking indistinguishable.

  • Agammamon||

    ". . .North America on the course for energy independence by 2020 as part of his jobs plan. Which sounds pretty awesome, I agree"

    Are you serious?

    Why in the hell would that be a good thing? And why would it be a good thing compared to say manufacturing independence? I mean wouldn't we be so much better off if everything in the US was made here? Comparative motherfucking advantage - how does it work.

    And by 2020? In less than 8 years? What's his plan - paper the country with windmills and photocells (and the backup generators to supply the actual power)?

    Its bad enough the man has a jobs "plan" that is anything other than getting the fuck out of the way.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    "Why in the hell would that be a good thing? And why would it be a good thing compared to say manufacturing independence?"

    How can you have manufacturing independence when you are dependent on the energy required to manufacture?

    "And by 2020? In less than 8 years? What's his plan - paper the country with windmills and photocells (and the backup generators to supply the actual power)?"

    If you really gave a shit about Romney's energy plan, it's not difficult to find. But, I'm sure it's much easier to just make up something and appear aghast at your fantasy.
    http://www.mittromney.com/issues/energy

  • ||

    Think you missed the sarc on the manufacturing independence. See, people who aren't retarded don't give 2 shits about manufacturing independence, or energy independence, or baby diaper independence or cell phone independence, because they understand that that's not how free commerce works.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Why would Romney be specific about any plans? What would work would be to jettison a lot of 'green' crap, get out of the way of oil drilling, and let a couple of the dumber banks fail (and I say that as someone who might get dragged down with them). None of that would do him any good in the election, although if he did it while he was President he's probably get good approval ratings. Attacking Obama, who has been visibly out of his depth since his third day in office, is a much better strategy.

    If he wins, he's going to win because the electorate is sick to the teeth of Jug Ears.

    Vision in a President is overrated anyway; grand plans have grand bills.

  • Barack||

    I realize energy independence, cutting business taxes and making trade policies that stand for something, (thereby increasing real American JOBS) plus repealing ObamaCare is next to nothing to some of you...

  • BMFPitt||

    Instead, he criticized Obama for running up too much debt, and, in practically the same breath, for cutting spending on Medicare and the defense budget. Vote Republican!

    I could have saved time by telling you that Romney would give that speech at least a year or two ago.

    I'll be able to lay out the main themes of the DNC and RNC conventions in 2016 by mid-November of this year.

  • Aresen||

    he'd set North America on the course for energy independence by 2020

    As a Canadian, I'm don't like the sound of that.

  • Francisco||

    Romney offered almost nothing in the way of a governing vision, much less specific legislative goals. Instead, he criticized Obama for running up too much debt, and, in practically the same breath, for cutting spending on Medicare and the defense budget. Vote Republican!

  • Ardelle||

    The closest Romney got to a specific policy promise was his declaration that he'd set North America on the course for energy independence by 2020 as part of his jobs plan.

  • jason||

    Mitt Romney is playing blame game till now he have not giving the right solution to these economic conditions.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement