We have all heard today (March 3), I am quite sure, Mitt Romney’s verbal assault on the
character and political policies of both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, with
nearly all of his gunfire fixed on Trump. We have also heard or read various
responses to Romney’s action and words. I shall be brief.
Running through memory, I cannot recall a former President or party Presidential nominee offering such a blistering attack on his Party’s frontrunner during the nomination process. A distant relative comes to mind: when Theodore Roosevelt, one term out of the White House, went to the Republican convention that chose Taft as its nominee for his second term. Roosevelt bolted from the Republicans, and ran on his self-created “Bull Moose Party.” The action split the Republican votes, and gave the election of 1912 to New Jersey’s governor, Woodrow Wilson. Roosevelt loved power, and was convinced that he did a better job than his former protege, Taft, and deserved the party’s nomination. (Note: although TR was known as the “trust-buster,” it was actually Taft who far more effectively broke up business monopolies. In time Taft was named to the Supreme Court, and remains our only ex-President to serve on our highest Court.)
Romney’s charges against Trump’s character and temperament as “unfit for the Presidency” would seem to make it impossible for him ever to support Trump if he should win the nomination. Indeed, Romney and other political bosses in the Republican establishment have been busy burning bridges this week in their assaults on Trump. Verbally, Romney shredded Trump and his policies. One can watch the speech or read the script online. Can Humpty Dumpty be put back together?
If Romney truly believes all that he said—in effect that Trump would be a political and moral disaster if elected President—what took him so long to denounce a man whose endorsement he eagerly sought four years ago, and who praised Trump’s business acumen at that time? Why didn’t Romney deliver his attempt at character and political assassination last summer, soon after Trump entered the race? Did he just assume, as so many pols did, that Trump would quickly fade? In that case, during the fall and early winter, when Trump became the front-runner, why did Romney not “spill the beans” on such an evil man, as Romney implied he is? Surely Romney knows better than I do the effects Trump has had galvanizing a sizable part of the electorate that had been politically disengaged as a result of Republican policies and failures. Or does Romney not see what has been happening in the electorate? Are the “political insiders” really as blind as they seem to be? And why discredit the political responses of millions of Americans at this time? What is gained? The whole Romney affair today has the appearance of being an act of desperation by the wielders of power in the Republican Party, who refuse to allow power to slip from their hands. In this case, Romney is a tool or pawn of Establishment forces. To be honest, I thought that Romney was a good and descent man, beyond letting himself be used as a would-be political assassin. Apparently, he is a serviceable tool of hidden political forces. And who exactly are these men who may have sent Romney out to do their dirty work?
Has Romney’s attack been effective? Or, has he proven as ineffective in destroying Trump’s candidacy as he was in winning the 2012 Presidential election? Reactions from various sources so far are suggesting that devoted Trumpians are unmoved, although one can measure the effects better in several days, when phrases and charges by Romney filter down to more voters—charges such as “a con man,” “a fake,” “a liar,” “a phony,” “a fraud,” “playing us for suckers,” a “business failure,” a man of poor character “with too much to hide,” unworthy to be President, whose policies would most likely bring about “a recession,” and so on.
It is interesting to consider a few of Trump’s policies that earned special denunciation by Romney: building a wall on the southern border (rejected by implication); limiting immigration, and especially observing Muslims desiring to enter as possible terrorists; limiting free trade by policies intended to keep jobs in America. In a word, it is Trump’s more nationalistic policies, distinct from Republican and Democratic sponsoring of absolute free trade and “open borders,” that Romney attacked. Trump’s desire to protect the populace from illegal and destructive drugs (such as heroin) was not mentioned. In fact, nothing positive or good about Trump was mentioned. Romney’s attack was utterly one-sided, and delivered with a pious smile on his face. He executed his attack far more cogently than anything he ever unleashed on President Obama. Why?
Finally, as others have noticed, for political strategy, Romney favors supporting one of the three candidates in a given state in order to deny Trump state victories (most of the remaining primaries and caucuses are “winner-take-all.”) The likely result would be a convention without anyone having sufficient delegates in advance (just over 1200 delegates). So I assume that the “powers that be” in the Republican Party want an “open convention” because it most assures their ability to manipulate, to cajole, to buy off delegates with benefits—in a word, to maintain their power; and hence to assure that a candidate malleable by them, and to their favored economic and political policies, would be designated. The Party leaders want the kind of man they have in the Bushes and in Romney: someone who does the bidding of the leaders and behind-the-scenes power brokers.
Here is a prediction: If Trump gets the nomination, and if he wins the election, he will not feel beholden to the Republican Party, and would have around him men and women deemed undesirable by the Party, and probably be drawn from both Parties, and from outside of both of our major parties. Trump would embody an independence from political establishments unlike what we have seen in the Presidency for many years—at least since Eisenhower, perhaps not since before we had political parties. And why not? What has the Republican Party done for Trump and his movement? If he should “play ball” with one party’s leaders, he would be betraying the trust of the voters, many of whom probably support him precisely because of his relative party independence.
A major political party is unravelling, and it has been doing for some years now. Romney’s action may be seen as a late, desperate gasp by the Party’s elite to keep control of people who are spinning out of their control.
Running through memory, I cannot recall a former President or party Presidential nominee offering such a blistering attack on his Party’s frontrunner during the nomination process. A distant relative comes to mind: when Theodore Roosevelt, one term out of the White House, went to the Republican convention that chose Taft as its nominee for his second term. Roosevelt bolted from the Republicans, and ran on his self-created “Bull Moose Party.” The action split the Republican votes, and gave the election of 1912 to New Jersey’s governor, Woodrow Wilson. Roosevelt loved power, and was convinced that he did a better job than his former protege, Taft, and deserved the party’s nomination. (Note: although TR was known as the “trust-buster,” it was actually Taft who far more effectively broke up business monopolies. In time Taft was named to the Supreme Court, and remains our only ex-President to serve on our highest Court.)
Romney’s charges against Trump’s character and temperament as “unfit for the Presidency” would seem to make it impossible for him ever to support Trump if he should win the nomination. Indeed, Romney and other political bosses in the Republican establishment have been busy burning bridges this week in their assaults on Trump. Verbally, Romney shredded Trump and his policies. One can watch the speech or read the script online. Can Humpty Dumpty be put back together?
If Romney truly believes all that he said—in effect that Trump would be a political and moral disaster if elected President—what took him so long to denounce a man whose endorsement he eagerly sought four years ago, and who praised Trump’s business acumen at that time? Why didn’t Romney deliver his attempt at character and political assassination last summer, soon after Trump entered the race? Did he just assume, as so many pols did, that Trump would quickly fade? In that case, during the fall and early winter, when Trump became the front-runner, why did Romney not “spill the beans” on such an evil man, as Romney implied he is? Surely Romney knows better than I do the effects Trump has had galvanizing a sizable part of the electorate that had been politically disengaged as a result of Republican policies and failures. Or does Romney not see what has been happening in the electorate? Are the “political insiders” really as blind as they seem to be? And why discredit the political responses of millions of Americans at this time? What is gained? The whole Romney affair today has the appearance of being an act of desperation by the wielders of power in the Republican Party, who refuse to allow power to slip from their hands. In this case, Romney is a tool or pawn of Establishment forces. To be honest, I thought that Romney was a good and descent man, beyond letting himself be used as a would-be political assassin. Apparently, he is a serviceable tool of hidden political forces. And who exactly are these men who may have sent Romney out to do their dirty work?
Has Romney’s attack been effective? Or, has he proven as ineffective in destroying Trump’s candidacy as he was in winning the 2012 Presidential election? Reactions from various sources so far are suggesting that devoted Trumpians are unmoved, although one can measure the effects better in several days, when phrases and charges by Romney filter down to more voters—charges such as “a con man,” “a fake,” “a liar,” “a phony,” “a fraud,” “playing us for suckers,” a “business failure,” a man of poor character “with too much to hide,” unworthy to be President, whose policies would most likely bring about “a recession,” and so on.
It is interesting to consider a few of Trump’s policies that earned special denunciation by Romney: building a wall on the southern border (rejected by implication); limiting immigration, and especially observing Muslims desiring to enter as possible terrorists; limiting free trade by policies intended to keep jobs in America. In a word, it is Trump’s more nationalistic policies, distinct from Republican and Democratic sponsoring of absolute free trade and “open borders,” that Romney attacked. Trump’s desire to protect the populace from illegal and destructive drugs (such as heroin) was not mentioned. In fact, nothing positive or good about Trump was mentioned. Romney’s attack was utterly one-sided, and delivered with a pious smile on his face. He executed his attack far more cogently than anything he ever unleashed on President Obama. Why?
Finally, as others have noticed, for political strategy, Romney favors supporting one of the three candidates in a given state in order to deny Trump state victories (most of the remaining primaries and caucuses are “winner-take-all.”) The likely result would be a convention without anyone having sufficient delegates in advance (just over 1200 delegates). So I assume that the “powers that be” in the Republican Party want an “open convention” because it most assures their ability to manipulate, to cajole, to buy off delegates with benefits—in a word, to maintain their power; and hence to assure that a candidate malleable by them, and to their favored economic and political policies, would be designated. The Party leaders want the kind of man they have in the Bushes and in Romney: someone who does the bidding of the leaders and behind-the-scenes power brokers.
Here is a prediction: If Trump gets the nomination, and if he wins the election, he will not feel beholden to the Republican Party, and would have around him men and women deemed undesirable by the Party, and probably be drawn from both Parties, and from outside of both of our major parties. Trump would embody an independence from political establishments unlike what we have seen in the Presidency for many years—at least since Eisenhower, perhaps not since before we had political parties. And why not? What has the Republican Party done for Trump and his movement? If he should “play ball” with one party’s leaders, he would be betraying the trust of the voters, many of whom probably support him precisely because of his relative party independence.
A major political party is unravelling, and it has been doing for some years now. Romney’s action may be seen as a late, desperate gasp by the Party’s elite to keep control of people who are spinning out of their control.
