Mitt Romney created a stir over the weekend with his assertion that he speaks for “the Republican wing of the Republican Party.” ~Dan Balz
The magnificent dancing fraud is at it again with more reinventions of himself. In some ways, it imitates Dean’s own repositioning from reasonably competent centrist Northeastern governor to fire-breathing darling of the netroots, except that Romney is not receiving anything like the enthusiastic response from activists that Dean had. What is more worrisome for Romney is that he is echoing a phrase that was given some currency earlier this year by the failed presidential candidate and former Virginia governor Jim Gilmore, which shows just how desperate Romney has become. An insurgent candidate speaks of representing a wing of the party, because he has to show that he is a more pure and idealistic and less accommodating alternative to the “safe” or establishment choices. Insurgent candidacies thrive on energy and the promise of issuing a stiff, sharp kick to the party leadership that has hitherto failed the core constituents. Meanwhile, a confident leading candidate speaks of representing the entire party. Romney has resorted to this kind of talk (which is all the less credible coming from him) because he feels the walls closing in around him. He is treated by the media and pundits as a so-called first-tier candidate, and he has significant establishment support inside Washington, but he is gaining no traction nationally–hence the desperation gambit of claiming the high ground of true Republicanism.
Gilmore’s phrasing was obviously meant to mimic Dean’s insurgent rhetoric from 2003-04 that he used to set him apart from those Democrats who had effectively been on the GOP’s side, especially when it came to the war. Gilmore also pioneered the “Rudy McRomney” name and conjured in the minds of many conservatives a three-headed monster, so it is especially amusing that Romney has now adopted Gilmore’s claim to represent true Republicanism. As has been said in a different, but related context, it’s good if the town whore repents, but no one expects the penitent to preach the sermon.
Update: Dave Weigel has more.
Chris Orr has a Highlander-inspired response to the story.
6 comments
Comments feed for this article
October 15th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
Mark
“it’s good if the town whore repents, but no one expects the penitent to preach the sermon.”
What sincere, practicing Christian isn’t penitent? I’d be worried if my preacher weren’t penitent. This vapid and arrogant phrase. It may apply to politics, but its implication that it originates from a religious perspective should be embarrassing to Christians of all stripes.
October 15th, 2007 at 3:18 pm
Daniel Larison
The original context of the particular phrase was a meeting on politics and political philosophy. Perhaps I phrased it badly. The point is that it is not expected or desirable for the lately reformed sinner to stand in judgement and lecture others. That, I think, is pretty consistent with a proper Christian perspective. Something to do with humility and tending to the beam in one’s own eye.
October 16th, 2007 at 8:11 am
Mark
“The point is that it is not expected or desirable for the lately reformed sinner to stand in judgement and lecture others. That, I think, is pretty consistent with a proper Christian perspective. Something to do with humility and tending to the beam in one’s own eye.”
Granted. It does apply quite well to politics. I would still question it as a theological statement, though. (I guess this isn’t quite on topic for this post). Yes, we are to be humble and question ourselves before throwing the first stone. And I can see how it most would find it inappropriate (as would I) for a new Christian to be lecturing others on the tenets of the faith (even though many do). In that sense, I may have misunderstood the quote, as I perhaps took penitent too literally instead of contextually. Maybe the original phrasing was different; it seems quite plausible to recommend one learn about their faith before trying to lead it and quite implausible to suggest only the sinless or unrepentant should preach.
October 17th, 2007 at 4:11 am
Koz
The town whore thing, IIRC, that wasn’t supposed to be a religious thing at all, but an off-the-cuff remark from Terry Teachout about the number of ex-Marxists prominent in the conservative movement at the time.
About Romney’s riff on the “Republican wing of the Republican party” I agree with you Daniel but I’ll just add two other things.
1. The assertion is plain wrong on its face. FDT is the candidate of the RW of the RP. That’s the main reason I’m supporting him at the moment (and it also probably motivates a substantial fraction of his supporters).
2. Romney as an insurgent candidate fails in comparison with Dean among other reasons because the D’s base leveraged the Dean candidacy to discipline the party establishment, something that Romney is plainly not doing.
October 17th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
Daniel Larison
Koz is right about the origins and purpose of the remark. A version of it was also used at the 1986 Philadelphia Society meeting that marked the full development of the neo/paleo split (though the split really had begun some years earlier).
Your point about Thompson seems basically right to me. I have my problems with Thompson, as everyone who reads the blog regularly knows, but he certainly has a whole lot more credibility making the claim Romney just made. I also agree that Romney doesn’t fit Dean’s insurgent mould. He hasn’t the temperament for it for one thing. He’s at best a technocrat or manager, and does not cut the figure of a fighter or a populist or a true believer. His backing is largely derived from his party establishment and corporate ties.
October 17th, 2007 at 8:54 pm
Koz
I’m not quite as negative on Romney as you are, Daniel, but in the main I agree with you here.
One quibble, though. I don’t think he gets much from establishment or corporate ties. I think most of his support are from people who know him or his record in some detail, and those who support him as a visceral reaction against W and the gang who can’t shoot straight.
I’ve thought for some time that, since he flipped on immigration, gay marriage and abortion, the move for him was to campaign from the liberal or moderate side of the party. He can claim to have been pushed into those positions by the aggressive Massachusetts judiciary. That way he can leaven his reputation for competence in execution with some human empathy. As it is, I think he suffers a lot from being a perceived (or real) cardboard persona.