Utah Senator Mitt Romney Thread

[CJF]

The Wall Street Journal sees Romney as neither hero nor knave, just confused, but declines to delve into any motivation conscious or subconscious.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/james-m..._copyURL_share

And as it notes in the concluding paragraphs, Romney is also reckless. He has made it more likely that Sanders and a majority democratic senate will be elected in November, while blind to the specter of continuing politicized impeachment’s.

If the GOP loses some of their current Senate seats it’s because the current holders haven’t done their job. It won’t be because Romney voted with integrity.

[LVAllen]

And as it notes in the concluding paragraphs, Romney is also reckless. He has made it more likely that Sanders and a majority democratic senate will be elected in November, while blind to the specter of continuing politicized impeachment’s.

Wait... one of the rallying cries against impeachment has been "Let the voters decide." Any sins, misdeeds or attempts to sway the election should be decided by the voters, right?

If the GOP can't hold onto the Senate, it's because the voters decided that their GOP Senator wasn't acceptable. Screw'em. Pick a better candidate next time.

[PaloAltoCougar]

I hope Bloomberg emerges as the genius out of this horrible mess.

I'd be totally behind a Bloomberg/Klobuchar Dem ticket. I'd support them if they ran as a third party against Sanders and Trump. With Bloomberg's cash, they'd have an outside shot.

The Wall Street Journal sees Romney as neither hero nor knave, just confused, but declines to delve into any motivation conscious or subconscious.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/james-m..._copyURL_share

And as it notes in the concluding paragraphs, Romney is also reckless. He has made it more likely that Sanders and a majority democratic senate will be elected in November, while blind to the specter of continuing politicized impeachment’s.

It's interesting that with respect to a vote that's preceded by a sacred oath of impartiality, the guy who's getting the most critical attention is the only one out of a hundred who voted against party lines. And while I'm a Ben Saase fan, I was a little bugged by this line of his in the article: “You don’t remove a president for initially listening to bad advisors but eventually taking counsel from better advisors—which is precisely what happened here.” Not at all "precisely," Ben. He had many of his better advisors screaming at him from the beginning not to do what he was doing. It was months later, when news of the whistleblower got out and it was clear that Trump's actions were going to be made public, did Trump have his Come to Jesus moment. For that he should be censured.

[tooblue]

The Wall Street Journal sees Romney as neither hero nor knave, just confused, but declines to delve into any motivation conscious or subconscious.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/james-m..._copyURL_share

And as it notes in the concluding paragraphs, Romney is also reckless. He has made it more likely that Sanders and a majority democratic senate will be elected in November, while blind to the specter of continuing politicized impeachment’s.

The "opinion" offered in the article is an appeal to demonize the 'other.' Philosophically, that is a much more dangerous position to take. Further, nowhere did the authors state Romney is confused. They suggest his reasoning is not as nuanced as others, and then offer very little in support of their argument by deferring to 'perspective,' which in fact is an argument in support of alternative facts. That is reckless.

[creekster]

The Wall Street Journal sees Romney as neither hero nor knave, just confused, but declines to delve into any motivation conscious or subconscious.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/james-m..._copyURL_share

And as it notes in the concluding paragraphs, Romney is also reckless. He has made it more likely that Sanders and a majority democratic senate will be elected in November, while blind to the specter of continuing politicized impeachment’s.

You are adding adjectives the editorial did not use. They did not say Romney was reckless, they recognized that his vote might help the democrats but called that a 'shame.' That's far from reckless.

They also did not say he was confused. They merely offer Sasse's explanation as superior without actually condemning Romney's.

In the end, I am not sure why they are focused on Romney here. Trump was not removed. The battle lines are the same regardless of his vote and I fail to see how his vote moves the needle much on the likelihood of a Sanders presidency. If they can excuse Trump's apparent perfidy because he eventually releASed the aid, so there was no real harm in the long run, why are they worried about a vote from Romeny that likewise makes no difference in the long run?

[Non Sequitur]

Sanders certainly can win a general election. It all comes down to about five states that will be narrowly decided, and Romney’s speech brought Sanders closure to the White House. And you, my friend, are putting your tribal fielties above the best interests of the nation.

The best interests of the nation? If where we're at is what you're trying to preserve, then to hell with it. This version of America is not worth defending.

[tooblue]

You are adding adjectives the editorial did not use. They did not say Romney was reckless, they recognized that his vote might help the democrats but called that a 'shame.' That's far from reckless.

They also did not say he was confused. They merely offer Sasse's explanation as superior without actually condemning Romney's.

In the end, I am not sure why they are focused on Romney here. Trump was not removed. The battle lines are the same regardless of his vote and I fail to see how his vote moves the needle much on the likelihood of a Sanders presidency. If they can excuse Trump's apparent perfidy because he eventually releASed the aid, so there was no real harm in the long run, why are they worried about a vote from Romeny that likewise makes no difference in the long run?

SeattleUte is a postmodernist I guess

[BlueK]

The Wall Street Journal sees Romney as neither hero nor knave, just confused, but declines to delve into any motivation conscious or subconscious.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/james-m..._copyURL_share

And as it notes in the concluding paragraphs, Romney is also reckless. He has made it more likely that Sanders and a majority democratic senate will be elected in November, while blind to the specter of continuing politicized impeachment’s.

I'm not seeing the connection between Romney's decision and Sanders winning the election and the dems winning the Senate. Can you explain your reasoning behind that?

[SeattleUte]

I'm not seeing the connection between Romney's decision and Sanders winning the election and the dems winning the Senate. Can you explain your reasoning behind that?

Your professed ignorance is not entirely in bad faith, since I am myself very skeptical that this impeachment whatever you want to call it is really going to affect many if any votes.

[SeattleUte]

The best interests of the nation? If where we're at is what you're trying to preserve, then to hell with it. This version of America is not worth defending.

Very easy for us well-fed elites to sit on our perches and say the country is so fucked up it's not worth saving, isn't it. But poll after poll shows that working class and people of color, who intuitively know how jobs are created, are more conservative than the left most wing of the democratic party, which are urban whites, and fueled this impeachment thing. Lawyers, media and academics are furious that people less educated than they make more money--it's all about equality and condemning billionaires now--and indifferent to or even contemptuous of the plight of labor.

[SeattleUte]

It's interesting that with respect to a vote that's preceded by a sacred oath of impartiality, the guy who's getting the most critical attention is the only one out of a hundred who voted against party lines. And while I'm a Ben Saase fan, I was a little bugged by this line of his in the article: “You don’t remove a president for initially listening to bad advisors but eventually taking counsel from better advisors—which is precisely what happened here.” Not at all "precisely," Ben. He had many of his better advisors screaming at him from the beginning not to do what he was doing. It was months later, when news of the whistleblower got out and it was clear that Trump's actions were going to be made public, did Trump have his Come to Jesus moment. For that he should be censured.

Ben makes a good point. This is all Giulliani's fault. Trump needs a lawyer to keep him out of trouble. Instead he got one who appealed to his worst prejudices and instincts and marched him into trouble.

[BlueK]

Your professed ignorance is not entirely in bad faith, since I am myself very skeptical that this impeachment whatever you want to call it is really going to affect many if any votes.

I don't want Sanders as president with the dems holding both houses. But I think all of those together are unlikely to happen. If the party moves too far to the left then I think enough of the GOP Senators (Collins, Gardner, McSally, etc.) who are most vulnerable probably hang on for the Senate not to turn because voters in the swing states will be scared of Sanders. Not to mention that Sanders is not nationally electable anyway. If a more moderate candidate comes out of the dem primaries then I think it's a real possibility the dems sweep and flip just enough seats in the Senate. To me this is the ideal scenario for the next two years because it might force the GOP to return to sanity.

[BlueK]

Ben makes a good point. This is all Giulliani's fault. Trump needs a lawyer to keep him out of trouble. Instead he got one who appealed to his worst prejudices and instincts and marched him into trouble.

I wonder if Trump ever listens for very long to those who keep him out of trouble. Seems like almost all of those are gone now.

[Eddie]

Let's not act family members of politicians and famous people don't get placed board of random companies in similar situations. That's the norm. It's a sleazy practice, but it's not out of the ordinary.

Surely you don't cosign on falefal's statement about the Bidens being "dirty as hell"?

Your biases are showing here, Frank. I don't want to put the effort into an actual search, but I would be absolutely SHOCKED if you haven't said bad words about at least 100 things Trump has done that would qualify as "That's the norm. It's a sleazy practice, but it's not out of the ordinary." And when others have said that that is how politics operate - YOUR response has essentially been that just because someone else has done it or just because it isn't illegal that doesn't mean it should be OK.

But now Biden is OK? Because you think it's common?

Nah - it's dirty. Whether it's legal or not, it's definitely dirty.

[Northwestcoug]

I have a record of being somewhat hard on Romney, mostly because of how his Mass governor and running for president selves were starkly different. But I'm solidly on team Mitt now. Like Creekster said, there is no benefit for him to vote for impeachment. It would have been the easiest thing for him to do to hem and haw about how inappropriate Trump was, yet it didn't rise to the level of impeachment. He would have taken some arrows on both sides for that, but he wouldn't have to worry about his vote come primary time. Mitt's a good man. Like I saw on Twitter the other day, the wrong Republican got the presidential medal of freedom.

I am continually amazed at how Seattle Ute bucks the apostate trend. You're supposed to go more liberal SU, not become a Benson acolyte!