Romney Arithmetic

AP reports that Mitt Romney spent $40 million of his own money in his presidential race and got 294 delegates (link). That pencils out to $136,054 per delegate. That’s very likely more than the average American family holds in net wealth, including bank savings, home equity, and pension funds (link). Wonder how things would have been different if he had just given 294 families an endowment.

Update: or for each delegate, he could have built half a dozen seats at the new Yankee Stadium.

Michigan GOP Exit Data

Shorter CNN: McCain leads among old guys who throw a rake at you when you walk across their lawn (link).

Yglesias Channels Buce!

Also Kleiman (link):

Mark Kleiman's with me that Mitt Romney would make the least-bad president of anyone in the field. Kevin Drum sort of agrees with us ... one thing a smart Republican apparatchik would want in a GOP president would be for that president to do a decent job and undue some of the damage Bush has done to the brand.

... The constant throughout Romney's career is a cautious, paint-by-numbers approach. He's running as a conservative right now, and that means that if he wins he'll govern as a conservative -- no use hoping for him to morph back into the moderate he was in 1994 or 2002. But that said, it seems very unlikely that he'd roll the dice on some hair-brained scheme if elected. He might do major harm, but I think it's relatively unlikely.

The whole piece also has some shrewd comments on McCain, and on Bush "cosnervatism."

And cf. here, here, and here.

That's The Ticket!

Am I the first to notice an eerie similarity between the guy at left and the guy at right? The one on the left is the man who watched his father march with Martin Luther King; the one on the right is Tommy Flanagan, pathological liar.

President Mitt (Metaphorically Speaking)

Nearly everybody and his aunt Maude is having fun with Mitt Romney saying he saw his father march with Martin Luther King, Jr.--metaphorically, right?--but I think the best comment is here. I know it is all of a pattern for a guy who calls his paid staff "super volunteers" (someone said that this makes my hooker my "super date."). Still, vanity impels me to recall that I weighed in on Romney's flexibility with the truth just last year (link).

Afterthought: for all that, I have to admit I stick by my view that Romney would be the least bad president of all the major GOP candidates. Mrs. B rolls her eyes when I say this, but I never said he was a good candidate--he still makes me want to take a bath whenever I'm near him, even on TV. Ironically, one reason I'm still on board is that I count him as the candidate most likely to screw his supporters. I.e., he, who has never had his heart in the religious right (he's a communicant at the first church of the MBA), is perfectly capable of throwing them out of the sledge.

True What They Say About...?

Okay, yesterday we had Mike Huckabee asking whether Mormons believe that Jesus and Satan are brothers (answer: sort of yes, but it's not like you make it sound). Today we have Laura Vozzella of the Baltimore Sun recalling her close encounter with Mitt Romney's underwear (Pendleton 34 boxers) (link).

Now is as good a time as any to recall my friend Joe, who claims he got thrown out of Jesuit High School for asking the sex education instaructor whether Mormon women make love with their socks on. I don't think he ever did get his answer.

Paul Waldman on the Gaffe Wars

There is hardly anybody in public life that gives me the creeps more than Mitt Romney does, but I have to say Paul Waldman is onto something in this account of Romney as a victim of "the gaffe wars." That's "gaffe" = the moment "in which a candidate violates the rules the press has established to separate acceptable from unacceptable behavior." Waldman elaboraters (link):

This week's ["gaffe"] perpetrator was Mitt Romney, who when asked in a debate whether military action against Iran's nuclear facilities would require authorization from Congress, quite sensibly said, "You sit down with your attorneys and tell you what you have to do, but obviously, the president of the United States has to do what's in the best interest of the United States to protect us against a potential threat." The response from his chief opponent, Rudy Giuliani, was predictable: Anyone mentioning "attorneys" must be some kind of sissy.

The press swung into action. "Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney's new smackdown," said Wolf Blitzer excitedly on CNN. "This time, the Republican presidential rivals are fighting over a so-called lawyers' test for national security." The rest of the journalistic village elders quickly made clear their contempt for Romney's impulse to at least consider the legality of a potential military action. "What are these, the Miranda rights for Iran?" asked Chris Matthews. "It sounded equivocal," said David Gregory of NBC News. "It makes him look weak." Margaret Carlson agreed: "You can't be too bellicose. That's why it was a gaffe." Asked by Matthews whether "we expect our future commander-in-chief to have a gut response as to presidential authority in wartime," Dan Balz of the Washington Post said, "We certainly expect him to have a different kind of response than Governor Romney gave last night." Indeed, because if the last seven years have taught us anything, it's that what we need in the Oval Office is less consideration for law and more "gut response."

No one can doubt that had Romney said something like, "If we need to attack Iran, we'll do so, and Congress isn't going to tell me how to defend America," the likes of Gregory, Carlson and Balz would have cheered enthusiastically, marveling at his manly willingness to ignore the Constitution.

Vide Gratiano in Merchant of Venice:

There are a sort of men, whose visages
Do cream and mantle like a standing pond,
And do a willful stillness entertain,
With purpose to be dressed in an opinion
Of wisdom, gravity, profound conceit,
As who should say, "I am Sir Oracle,
And when I ope my lips, let no dog bark!"

--William Shakespeare, Merchant of Venice I, i

The Party of Kick You When You're Down

[Update below.]

There's an old story about Charlie Lederer the writer, standing next to his Waspy/anti-semitic hostess, beside her highboy full of priceless China. "Admit it," said Charlie, "you don't really have a good reason for hating Jews, do you?" No, his hostess admitted, she really did not. Whereupon Charlie pushed over the highboy and said "now you do."

I have often wondered why I dislike Mitt Romney so much. Maybe now I know. But first, let me tell you a story about Dean Acheson and Alger Hiss.

I’ve lived long enough that I now believe—as I did not once believe—that Alger Hiss was indeed probably guilty of spying for the Soviets. But I remember few parts of the story more vividly than his relationship with Dean Acheson. Time Magazine recounts (link):

Hiss scarcely had time to post $10,000 bail and file an appeal before Secretary of State Dean Acheson set off the storm. At a crowded press conference in Washington, Acheson went to the defense of the former top State Department official whom a federal jury had convicted of perjury and thus found, guilty of stealing State documents to be sent to Russia.

"Whatever the outcome of any appeal which Mr. Hiss or his lawyer may take," said the Secretary of State. "I do not intend to turn my back on Alger Hiss."

By His Own Standards. Dean Acheson spoke in a voice weighted with emotion. "I think every person who has known Alger Hiss . . . has upon his conscience the very serious task of deciding what his attitude is and what his conduct should be," he said. "That must be done by each person in the light of his own standards and his own principles. For me, there is very little doubt about these standards or these principles. They were stated for us a very long time ago ... on the Mount of Olives."

In terms of sheer tactics, it was an epic blunder. Acheson met with near-universal denunciation, and established himself irrevocably in the pantheon of traitors. Less obviously, but no less truly, it established him as one who would not trade away his personal integrity for momentary political advantage.

Back to Mitt Romney. Today someone asked him what he thinks of his former Senate liaison, Larry Craig (link):

Once again, we’ve found people in Washington have not lived up to the level of respect and dignity that we would expect for somebody that gets elected to a position of high influence. Very disappointing. He’s no longer associated with my campaign, as you can imagine… I’m sorry to see that he has fallen short.

Shorter Mitt Romney: Larry who?

I used to wonder why I disliked Romney so much. I think I’m beginning to catch on.

Update: The Wichita bureau brings me current on news I had missed:

Romney's munchkins went back and altered previous information on his website to delete any reference to Craig being associated with the Romney campaign. ... Don’t know that they tried to edit him out of pictures, however.

Via a friend, Wichita adds:

The restroom in which [Craig] was arrested is outside security--so he had to leave and re-enter through security to make his connection (no pun intended) for Idaho.

Mitt and Lyndon and Doggiegate

Just realized one advantage of Romney and doggiegate; it gives me a chance to revive one of my favorite stories from the Johnson Administration. Anyone watching TV tonight will have been reminded that Lyndon Johnson used to pick up his beagles by the ears. “My momma used to pick up me by the ears,” said Lyndon in defense, “and nobody raised a fuss.”



But there was the case of Victor Borge, the Copenhagen-born pianist who gave the term “Scandinavian humor” real content. Borge said he went to the White House once; Johnson picked him up by the ears and said:

“You, sir, are truly a great Dane.”

Romney Creepiness Watch--Again

Maybe the dog will get an hour on Larry King. Meanwhile, there’s no way I can top the story of Romney lashing his dog to the roof, but it does make me remember the story of Angus who was showing a visitor around his little town in Scotland.

“You see that house?” said Angus. “I built that house. Designed it and built it myself. Selected the timber, cut it all to fit, set in the insulation, tapped down the shingles on the roof. Tightest house in town. In fact I built all the houses in this town. Every one snug. But do they call me Angus the house builder? They do not.

“And you see this fine stone wall? I built this wall. I clawed the stones out of the dirt; I rolled them downhill and uphill again, and I rolled them into place, and I tamped in the mortar. Look around you, miles around. All my walls. Best walls you can imagine. But do they call me Angus the wall builder? Ah, no…”

[Portentous pause.]

“BUT IF YOU **** JUST ONE SHEEP!—“

Romney the dog lasher. Hee.

Why Romney Gives Me the Creeps (again)

I sometimes wonder why it is that Mitt Romney gives me the creeps, seeing as how (I have to concede), of all the major Republican candidates, he might make the least calamitous President. Still there's something about him that makes me feel like Bill Murray in Ghostbusters when he says (I quote from memory) "I think he just slimed me."

But maybe this is a reason:

[Romney] never granted a single pardon in his four years in office, a fact he is enormously proud of today and repeatedly raises in his speeches.

Read the whole story and tell me if I'm not right (link).

Afterthought: Be sure to punch through to the original Roger Simon story, to understand the kind of case in which Romney thinks a pardon might be okay (link).

Romney's Null Set

The Blogerati are having fun with Mitt Romney ‘s misuse of the phrase “null set” (and, oh yes, his egregious indifference to the truth about the war) (e.g., link). They seem to be treating it as a failure of math knowledge, and I concede it does offer an interesting insight as to what it takes to be valedictorian at Brigham Young.

But I offer a different perspective. It seems to me the root of this problem lies not in the math department but in the business school. The first-tier B-schools are littered with scholars who sprinkle fancy jargon over an audience that couldn’t care less. Some of the scholarship is quite extraordinarily good—pay B school wages and you can hire some first-rate talent. But it has nothing to do with the agenda of the students, who are just Hell bent on finding the shortest route to the Maserati dealership. Couple this with a second problem: you go to B school, you study marketing. And the purpose of marketing education is to develop your touch for the level of acceptable falsehood. You learn, not that truth is relative, but that truths are, and that over a great range of possible assertions, truth just isn’t very important. Blah blah zero sum game blah blah blah Nash equilibrium, blah blah null set, doesn’t matter whether you know what they means or not, the function is only decorative.

That may explain a lot about my own feelings of creepiness around Romney—who, I have to admit, would probably make a lot less cataclysmic president then most of the others in the Republican Pony Show. It would also explain why he is so easily blindsided on the matter of his capacity to do a political triple lutz on just about any issue whenever he finds it convenient. It’s not that he is too dumb to know when he is uttering falsehoods. It’s just that he is too tone-deaf to care.

When Stupidity Is Not Enough

Eugene Robinson seems to think Al Gore is smart, in the sense of braniac (link). Greg Mankiw counterpunches with the proposition that Gore’s college grades fell lower than George W. Bush’s, and that if you want a braniac for president, there is only one valedictorian in the race (hint: think Brigham Young) (link). I think they both miss the point, or a lot of points.

First, re Gore, and whether he is smart. I recall that back in 2000, someone asked Al Gore his favorite novel. He answered, Charterhouse of Parma.

What a lunk-headed answer that was. In fact, Charterhouse of Parma is a great political novel, perhaps the best. But for a politician to say it is favorite novel—now, that is really stupid. It means either (a) you are sincere but clueless; or (b) that you are a pretentious jackass. On this front, I have never quite made up my mind about Gore. I tend towards (a) (sincere but clueless). If correct it could well mean that Gore is indeed a serious reader and thinker, but yet ill-equipped to exercise the kind of leadership that we should want.

[As a semi-aside--I am not much troubled by the fact that Gore had one bad semester. Hey, I bombed out of college altogether and look at me.]

But for Mankiw to rebound with Romney’s supposed superior cortical power—you know, that is pretty rich from a party that has spent most of the last eight years telling us that brains didn’t really matter in a president and that we were much better off with the good-natured but dopey W than his truly brainy predecessor.

[I admit I cant find enough evidence to lay this trip on Mankiw personally, but it certainly has been part of the running dogs’ mantra.]

In fact, I think the running dogs were in principle right on the character issue. Brains are on the list of important qualities for a good president, but they are not at the top of the list. Richard Nixon may be the brainiest president of the 20^th Century and look what that got us. Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover and Jimmy Carter are three presidents who let their brains get in the way of doing a good job. Bill Clinton was actually a pretty good president, but his fabled brainpower was only one of the reasons, and not the most important.

In fact, good character has not been in plentiful supply among 20^th Century presidents. Eisenhower probably makes the cut, and Truman, and Coolidge. I’ve always had a soft spot for Gerald Ford—you gotta love a president who cooks breakfast for his wife—although I have to admit it grieves me to think of him as the man who gave us Don Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney.

But the trouble with W is not his weak brainpower, but his utter lack of character—his narcissistic self-absorption and his utter indifference to received institutions and the rule of law.

I don’t think Gore would make a great president because I think he lacks the essential political schools. He may be the kind of braniac that Robinson has in mind, I’m not sure. He almost certainly scores higher on the character chart than W. Where exactly Romney fits in this calculus, I don’t really know; I find him creepy but I doubt very much that he as insistently evil as the incumbent. My immediate point is to try to get the agenda straight: brains can be overrated. Without decent character, even stupidity is not enough.

Mitt's First Date, And Some Automotive History

Mitt’s first date, as recounted by Ron Kessler (link):

When he picked up Ann Davies for their first date, Mitt Romney left nothing to chance. He arrived in a red Marlin, a new fastback model made by his father's American Motors Co. Mitt had cleaned and polished the car until it gleamed. He brought along a bottle of sparkling Catawba grape juice and two chilled glasses.

Mitt took Ann, then 15, to see "The Sound of Music."

More than four decades later…

I’m having a bit of trouble with the dates here, but Mitt was born in 1947. “More than 40 years ago” would be before 1967. I’m assuming she’s younger than he is, and if he was driving, I assume he was at least 16. So, 1963-66.

Romney’s father was, of course, once president of American Motors. In fact, quite a good one: he developed the high-visibility “Rambler” line—fuel-efficient economy cars whose only real problem was that they were 20 years ahead of their time (Wiki has some good history).

But Romney left Rambler in 1962 to run (successfully) for governor of Michigan, a post he held from 1963 to 1969 (a period that bracketed his unsuccessful run for president in 1964). Conceding that conflicts standards were more relaxed in those days, I assume he was not involved in AMC management during that period. I haven’t any idea how much stock he continued to hold.

The Marlin was in large measure the brainchild of Romney’s successor, Roy Abernathy, one of those guys—there seem to be a lot of them in the car business—who loved cars too much and balance sheets too little. It was a success d’estime among car fans, but Abernathy’s grand strategy came near to destroying the company before he was ousted by Roy Chapin, Jr., in 1968.

So Romney’s story is—well, not really a lie, on the order of saying you’re a lifelong hunter when in fact you never owned a hunting license. But it’s a bit of marketing. The Marlin was really not the product of his father’s car company, and his father had reason to be glad of it.

H/T Pearlstein

Clarification: In the sentence that begins "So Romney's story is"--I first left out the "not" between "well" and "really." This was an editing error of mine, which I have corrected, although it was perhaps obvious what I meant from the context anyway.

Department of Now Cut That Out

Okay, I admit I’m not for Mitt Romney: he reminds me too much of Robert Morse in “How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying.” But I kinda liked his father when, for a moment, back before most bloggers were born, it looked like he might become the non-Goldwater—that is to say, back before he destroyed himself in a radio interview with an ill-chosen word.

But I have to say I don’t share the current outrage over discussions of the Romney family history—outrage not just from the usual suspects but from people who ought to know better. It’s not exactly breaking news that Romney is a Mormon. And I share the general amusement at Kate O’Beirne’s quip that he may be the only GOP candidate with only one wife. But that’s the point: we are all products of our history, and history is irony. It’s a fascinating story, Mormonism, and knowing how Mormons became what they are is just as much a part of the story as the story of what they are today. And it’s not as if the family has been hiding anything; there is a Pratt Family Society, with a website, where you can find a list of Parley Pratt’s twelve wives (one of them is named Hanahette Snively, which is just too cool for words).

It’s a great story, and should not be off limits. But I’m still leaning to Chuck Hagel: I’ve got to feel good about the only candidate who doesn’t smile.