Wednesday, July 27, 2005
'The Holy Cow candidate,' Part II: Reader No. 1 has some quibbles with my quibbles on the Atlantic's Mitt story:
"Disclaimer: I haven't read the Atlantic Mitt article yet. I absolutely agree with your diagnosis on why he was elected. I also think he's been running for President for a LONG time - like, maybe at least 10 years if not his entire adult life - opening him to the charge of resume-burnishing.
"I can't speak for how the people of Utah would feel if he were Governor there. But I could infer that there would be a lot less abrasion/friction over social matters (eg abortion) and that he would almost certainly have more support from that state's legislature. Also, I can't possibly imagine Utah's most voiciferous citizens and op-editorialists would ask MORE from their state government than do citizens of our Commonwealth... expectations would be different. Most Romney voters probably don't think there was a whole lot he COULD do to keep the Beacon Hill crowd under wraps - he'd just try to apply the brakes faster than his competitor every would.
"I don't spend much time in the newsrooms or the city of Boston, but I haven't met anybody yet in the leafy suburbs who feels strongly either way to Romney running for President (discounting those who would not vote Republican under any scenario). It has something to do with low expectations..."
'The Holy Cow candidate': Here's an interesting piece on Mitt, appearing in the current edition of the formerly Boston-based Atlantic Monthly. ... While enjoying the article a lot, I think it seriously underplays the prime reason why Mitt was elected governor: to keep total control of the State House out of the hands of Democratic hacks. Mitt's campaign didn't take off until he finally embraced the block-and-reform mantra. ... Another small quibble is the failure to approximately pinpoint when Mitt started running for president. It wasn't, as Mitt's supporters suggest, after some of his proposals were shot down by Democrats, a line of logic implied in Mitt's own quasi-anti-Massachusetts rhetoric. The guy was clearly running by the fall of 2003, only nine months into the job and right after his first largely successful budget showdown with Dems. Remember how he laughably dispatched troops to California to "help" Arnie (only to be told to stay away after a certain relative of Arnie's wife was insulted by a staffer)? ... So what's the significance of his early presidential takeoff? It suggests that so much of what Mitt has been doing, saying and proposing as governor has been nothing more than resume building. I suspect, had he been elected governor of conservative Utah, there would have been the same level of local disenchantment with an elected leader who pined from the very start to lead somewhere else. ... (The Atlantic piece via, for some reason, Boston.com, which was blurbing the piece yesterday on its site.) ...
"Disclaimer: I haven't read the Atlantic Mitt article yet. I absolutely agree with your diagnosis on why he was elected. I also think he's been running for President for a LONG time - like, maybe at least 10 years if not his entire adult life - opening him to the charge of resume-burnishing.
"I can't speak for how the people of Utah would feel if he were Governor there. But I could infer that there would be a lot less abrasion/friction over social matters (eg abortion) and that he would almost certainly have more support from that state's legislature. Also, I can't possibly imagine Utah's most voiciferous citizens and op-editorialists would ask MORE from their state government than do citizens of our Commonwealth... expectations would be different. Most Romney voters probably don't think there was a whole lot he COULD do to keep the Beacon Hill crowd under wraps - he'd just try to apply the brakes faster than his competitor every would.
"I don't spend much time in the newsrooms or the city of Boston, but I haven't met anybody yet in the leafy suburbs who feels strongly either way to Romney running for President (discounting those who would not vote Republican under any scenario). It has something to do with low expectations..."
'The Holy Cow candidate': Here's an interesting piece on Mitt, appearing in the current edition of the formerly Boston-based Atlantic Monthly. ... While enjoying the article a lot, I think it seriously underplays the prime reason why Mitt was elected governor: to keep total control of the State House out of the hands of Democratic hacks. Mitt's campaign didn't take off until he finally embraced the block-and-reform mantra. ... Another small quibble is the failure to approximately pinpoint when Mitt started running for president. It wasn't, as Mitt's supporters suggest, after some of his proposals were shot down by Democrats, a line of logic implied in Mitt's own quasi-anti-Massachusetts rhetoric. The guy was clearly running by the fall of 2003, only nine months into the job and right after his first largely successful budget showdown with Dems. Remember how he laughably dispatched troops to California to "help" Arnie (only to be told to stay away after a certain relative of Arnie's wife was insulted by a staffer)? ... So what's the significance of his early presidential takeoff? It suggests that so much of what Mitt has been doing, saying and proposing as governor has been nothing more than resume building. I suspect, had he been elected governor of conservative Utah, there would have been the same level of local disenchantment with an elected leader who pined from the very start to lead somewhere else. ... (The Atlantic piece via, for some reason, Boston.com, which was blurbing the piece yesterday on its site.) ...
