Mitt Romney Doesn’t Give a Trump

Matt Hoberg

Matt Hoberg earned an A.B. in Philosophy from Princeton University in 2009 and resides in Minnesota with his wife and four children in a 19th century farmhouse; these opinions are his own. You can find him on Twitter @kinder_cons and his Substack Kinder Conservative Bulletin.

Related Post Roulette

60 Responses

  1. Damon says:

    “while insurrectionists were just one floor below and only seconds away.”

    insurrectionists? Oh dear god. Spartacus’s revolt against Rome was an insurrection. You could define the American Revolution as an insurrection from the perspective of the British. You COULD call the American Civil War an insurrection by the South. Calling a bunch of guys storming the Capital building for a few hours, with few if any arms, was not an insurrection. Nor was it a coup. Nor was it Treason.

    Several hundred people, all armed, marching on the Capital, with the intent to, or did, kill the reps, and install new members of Congress, THAT’ would be an insurrection-whether they succeeded for failed.Report

    • Philip H in reply to Damon says:

      Several hundred people, all armed, marching on the Capital, with the intent to, or did, kill the reps, and install new members of Congress, THAT’ would be an insurrection-whether they succeeded for failed.

      Because all the video showing them in tactical gear and chanting about killing Pence and Pelosi is so much ado about nothing I guess. Because the gallows they set up on the Capitol lawn was just new landscaping. Because dozens of statements on social media at the time about their intent don’t matter.Report

    • Dark Matter in reply to Damon says:

      We’ve got dead bodies. The heart attack and the stroke aren’t convincing but the cop who was beaten to death is.

      We’ve got beaten up law enforcement inside the Capitol.

      We’ve got legit politicians running away from the Capitol with a legit fear of being killed if they end up in the middle of it.

      This is far past “protest”. “Riot” would be fine except they were inside the Capitol and, no matter how far away from victory they were, they thought they were there to violently overturn an election.

      Dictionary says “insurrection” (noun): a violent uprising against an authority or government.

      Everything considered (including and especially wiki’s list of police injuries), I’m surprised we only had one person shot to death.Report

      • Brandon Berg in reply to Dark Matter says:

        Dictionary says “insurrection” (noun): a violent uprising against an authority or government.

        Until recently, the media were using “predominantly peaceful protest” to describe this sort of activity. Must be one of those irregular declensions.Report

        • Philip H in reply to Brandon Berg says:

          GIve it a rest. The whataboutism is beyond tiring.

          All of the people who went to the capitol were there to violently stop the certification of a legitimate election. All of them.

          Nearly all of the people who attended hundreds and hundred of social justice marches across the nation not only didn’t commit violence,but stood in opposition to violence by both the police and agitators while demanding deep social change.

          These two things are nowhere near the same.Report

        • Dark Matter in reply to Brandon Berg says:

          The country is not well served when the media describes “violent riot” as “mostly peaceful” because they agree with the ideology of the rioters.

          The bulk of BLM protests are non-violent (there’s one every day down at City Hall), the powers that be should come down hard on the violent ones. “Powers that be” includes both law enforcement and BLM organizers but whatever.

          Having said that, just because the media are sometimes idiots doesn’t mean I have to be. This was not the Right’s equiv of the 2017 Women’s March, i.e. a primal howl that “the wrong” person won.

          The Capitol Riot (TCR) was far over a lot of lines and pointing out that other groups cross lines doesn’t make TCR less ugly, less violent, or less of an attempt to overturn an election through violence.Report

          • Pinky in reply to Dark Matter says:

            Man, you nailed it with these two comments. The only thing I’d add is that I’m ok with calling this a “storming”, as it reminds me of the Bastille.Report

          • Brandon Berg in reply to Dark Matter says:

            I’m not defending the Occupy Congress rioters, just calling out the hypocrisy of the media and the left. Both Sides Deserve Ignominy.Report

            • Things that are different are not the sameReport

            • Stillwater in reply to Brandon Berg says:

              I’m not defending the Occupy Congress rioters, just calling out the hypocrisy of the media and the left.

              Are we in a media-analysis thread? I didn’t realize that…

              I’ll call out your hypocrisy in calling out the left’s hypocrisy by noting that 160 GOP CCers voted to not certify the election results, some only minutes after the insurrection at the Capitol, and that 44 GOP Senators (+/-) will cast votes effectively endorsing the type of violence you’re basing your BSDI analysis on. You’re interested in exposing hypocrisy. It’s a target rich environment. Why limit yourself to only “the media and the left”?Report

      • JoeSal in reply to Dark Matter says:

        Ha, a I’m with Damon on this one, if the people who know how to kill started shooting there would be more dead than you can count on the digits of your hands.Report

        • Dark Matter in reply to JoeSal says:

          We have the same problem here that we do when cops deal with the mentally ill.

          They’re not competent but they think they’re serious.

          The rioters really, really thought that the election had been stolen. They also thought that they were going to storm the Capitol building and fix things. Fixing things might include killing Pence and any other “traitor” who was willing to cooperate with a stolen election.

          Subtract the mindset and the confused thinking, and what we’re left with is stupidly and ineffectively attempting to violently overturn an election.

          Granted, if they’d been more competent we’d have had a lot more blood. But “be more competent next time” isn’t the message I’d like to send.Report

          • JoeSal in reply to Dark Matter says:

            The logical error i see is the:

            ‘They also thought that they were going to storm the Capitol building and fix things. Fixing things might include killing Pence and any other “traitor” who was willing to cooperate with a stolen election.’

            If that was the true intent the result would have looked completely different than a bunch of ‘good idea’ randos going into a poorly gaurded building and killing fewer people than a car accident. I don’t see where the conclusion you are drawing makes sense.Report

            • Dark Matter in reply to JoeSal says:

              If that was the true intent the result…

              That’s where the mental illness part comes in. I’ve been forced to deal with someone who is this crazy, and whenever I try to step inside her head I run into contradictions.

              The claims made don’t really match the actions. They also believe they were totally serious and they don’t see the conflict.

              Logic doesn’t apply. When otherwise sane people do this we’re typically in Religion territory.

              It’s a waste of time to ask “if they really believed that why didn’t they do X”.

              What you have to do is look at what they claim they believe, and what they actually did, and not try to step inside their heads.

              Typically this sort of fuzzy thinking isn’t combined with violence, but here it was. That the thinking was fuzzy doesn’t change the violence was real. “Attacking the Capitol to overturn an election” has an already agreed to definition.Report

              • JoeSal in reply to Dark Matter says:

                Damons main point was around the usage of insurrectionists. I know in this post modernist era of language the case can be made that anyone doing anything out of the ordinary in the capital CAN be called that. Yet that opens up the question of the sanity of people obscuring language to match their own fears.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to JoeSal says:

                “Insurrectionists” matches up really well with the dictionary.

                Granted, they didn’t understand that’s what they were or (like you’ve pointed out) they would have done a better job.

                They had a serious reality editor on and thought they were the good guys. They were going to non-violently storm the Capitol and non-violently beat Pence until he did the right thing.

                They didn’t need to bring more guns and use them because truth, justice, and the law were all on their side. All they had to do was stand up for the right thing and the rest of the country would follow because everyone understood that the election had been stolen.

                Thing is, if we apply objective reality to them we’re stuck with them violently storming the Capitol to overthrow an election.Report

              • JoeSal in reply to Dark Matter says:

                If the randos aren’t tasked, (even self tasked) and don’t know what they were, or what what they are supposed to do, how is this specific label appropriate?

                A flash mob would at least meet the threshold of knowing what they are and specifics of what they are to do.

                It’s like saying X was operational, without there being an operation.

                Even spontaneous ordering of the truth, justice, and law crowd doesn’t look at all like this, amd storming a building would require either resistance or a battle to re-acquire the building.

                It’s such a flimsy basis that a similar group of guys getting together in a huddle would indicate a football game happened and they are football players.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to JoeSal says:

                how is this specific label appropriate?

                Is it an uprising?

                I’d say an angry mob this large qualifies.

                Are they engaged in violence?

                Breaking down doors, beating a cop to death, etc suggests yes.

                Against the government?

                It’s against the basic gov functioning, i.e. the certification of an election. It’s inside the Capitol.
                It’d made various high level politicians run for their lives.

                If the randos aren’t tasked, (even self tasked) and don’t know what they were, or what what they are supposed to do…

                They’re attempting to overthrow the election. They know that, they assumed Trump knew what he’s doing and this is a big part of a big plan.

                I see nothing in the definition of Insurrection which suggests you need any thing more.

                Did they have the ability to overthrow the government? No. However most insurrections fail and have no chance.

                Did they want to, and take violent action to do so? Yes. Could they have killed high level politicians? Not technically part of insurrection so we don’t need political blood on the floor.

                How many dead bodies inside the Capitol during official business do we need before we can move from “attempted insurrection” to “insurrection”?Report

              • JoeSal in reply to Dark Matter says:

                The burden of the definition likely pivots on what may qualify as a revolt or rebellion. The question remains of where are the bright lines between the actions of a angry mob and a revolutionary (or rebel ) faction.

                That politicians run for their lives is not even new to the last year or so.

                In the end it doesn’t matter, the political class will be scared of their own shadow and they should be.

                I guess my measure would be in bodycount and how far away chunks of a building were relocated. YMMVReport

    • Stillwater in reply to Damon says:

      “Several hundred people, all armed, marching on the Capital, with the intent to, or did, kill the reps, and install new members of Congress, THAT’ would be an insurrection-whether they succeeded for failed.”

      Stuff like this is exasperating. The intent was to prevent Congress from certifying the EC votes which determine who the next President will be. Evidence suggests there was intent to kill VP Pence to achieve that goal. Also, I’m confused why you think “installing new members of Congress” is a condition on the applicability of the term. Seems like you’re grasping. But assuming you’re serious, why, in your opinion, doesn’t an attempt to “Install new President (same as the old President)” count as an insurrection?Report

      • Mike Schilling in reply to Stillwater says:

        Killing enough Democrats would have flipped the House. Representatives, unlike senators, can’t be appointed to fill empty seats; special elections would be required.Report

      • Damon in reply to Stillwater says:

        It was just and example.

        “The intent was to prevent Congress from certifying the EC votes which determine who the next President will be” Yes I I know that. “installing new members of Congress” I suppose I should have been clearer by saying install THEMSELVES AS THE NEW REPRESEATIVES of Congress, because, they had just killed the existing rep.Report

    • Slade the Leveller in reply to Damon says:

      That crowd could not have cared less about who was in Congress beyond how much obeisance they paid to Donald Trump. They were there to install him as president, nothing more, nothing less.Report

  2. Jaybird says:

    “I didn’t leave the party, the party left me.”

    Well, saying such things has a long tradition.

    Personally, I find third parties less odious but Mittler seems a man of something vaguely in the ballpark of a spongy integrity so maybe he can improve the Democrats.Report

    • Stillwater in reply to Jaybird says:

      He could declare as an Independent, decaucus from the GOP.

      Mitt Romney, free range Senator from Utah.Report

      • North in reply to Stillwater says:

        He’d win too. I don’t exactly disagree with this article but it probably bears noting that Romney is not taking a very big political risk with his stances, at least in terms of being reelected to his Senate seat.Report

      • Oscar Gordon in reply to Stillwater says:

        I hear Free Range Senators are a lot happier in the time they have, before the slaughter.Report

      • Jaybird in reply to Stillwater says:

        The Anti-Bernie.

        He can caucus with the Republicans but hover above them.

        Periodically, he can run for president… at which point we can bring up the binders full of women and the dog on top of the car again.

        Seriously? Willlard? Hey guys! The Republicans are running a Willard!

        Report

        • North in reply to Jaybird says:

          I honestly doubt that Romney would run again. I think he, himself, is clever enough to know that the GOP is absolutely nowhere near the policy brand of Ryanomics he pushes and that he’d never have a shot at the nomination.
          Frankly I don’t think he’d go independent unless he lost a nomination fight for his seat which, considering we’re talking about Utah here and the LDS community was luke warm on Trump to begin with, I think is unlikely.Report

          • Jaybird in reply to North says:

            The point of running isn’t to get the nomination.

            It’s to Bernify the party.Report

            • North in reply to Jaybird says:

              Sure, I guess, ol’ Uncle Bernie speaks for a modest but real fraction of voters and he did succeed in moving the Dems in a more economic left direction.

              Romney would be speaking for a majority of Republican wealthy plutocrats and libertarian think tankers but no significant constituency of actual living breathing voters. Alas for them the current political system still doesn’t assign actual votes to dollars. I don’t think Romney running, in that scenario, would move the GOP in his direction. If anything, his running would further illuminate how bereft republitarianism is in term of actual voters and likely move the party -away- from the ideals Romney espouses. Sortof a Jeb! redux.Report

    • Kazzy in reply to Jaybird says:

      …Mittler…???Report

      • Jaybird in reply to Kazzy says:

        Back in 2012, he was terrifying. Quite honestly, the scariest representative the Republicans could have possibly put forward. He was sexist, racist, and, for all intents and purposes, representative of the barely disguised Nazism that represents the Republicans as a whole.

        He put his dog on top of a car and drove cross-country. What kind of person would do that?
        He said that he had “binders full of women”. Maybe it was time for women to be unbound.
        He said that 47% of the country would never vote for him. He was obviously wrong because Trump proved that it was possible to make inroads to minority constituent groups.
        He said that he “liked” being able to fire people in the middle of the worst recession we had seen since the 80’s.

        So.
        Yes.
        Mittler.

        Mittler Rommelney.Report

      • greginak in reply to Kazzy says:

        It’s trolling Kazzy.Report

  3. Greginak says:

    The bargaining going on behind the scenes must be fascinating. Romneys proposal can fit into what the Ds have already put on the table. Romneys vote means Manchin is potentially less valuable. Combined with the D prop this could be a game changer for policy but what are the trades they are talking about. It would make sense for the Ds to give a lot to get his vote.Report

    • North in reply to Greginak says:

      I’m all for the Dems negotiating with Romney but he and his party’s history says that any such negotiations should be a side game while the Dems figure out exactly what will be required to nail down Manchin and Sinema’s votes.Report

    • Michael Cain in reply to Greginak says:

      From the descriptions I’ve read, it’s pretty much a straight gift from blue states to red ones. Fixed per-child amounts go much farther in low cost of living states. And the new credits are paid for by eliminating the SALT deduction (raise taxes in blue states) and getting rid of TANF (red states can presumably immediately get rid of their maintenance of effort spending, something they have objected to since TANF was created in the 90s). It’s a crappy swap for CA and NJ, a good one for TX.Report

      • greginak in reply to Michael Cain says:

        Tanf going away is fine as I understand it with this plan. I imagine the salt issue will be a big negotiating point but I’m sure there ways around it if that is the sticking point.Report

        • Michael Cain in reply to greginak says:

          TANF has problems, but many states also take advantage of the flexibility it provides. I can be convinced, but you’re going to have to show me how a state that uses a portion of its TANF money to provide assistance to some disabled adults comes out whole when assistance is now doled out on a per-child basis.Report

  4. LeeEsq says:

    Replaying to Damon above. The reason why the Video Games Freikorps did not end up more deadly was the numbers of people in it. There does seem to be a core group of competent people that knew what they were doing and came prepared and equiped for it. Their problem was that they got overwhelmed by the larger amount of Q’Anon incompetents in the Video Games Freikorps. These Q’Anon incompetents were great for helping to get into the Capitol but ended up frustrating the entire exercise when there.Report

    • Stillwater in reply to LeeEsq says:

      I’m not sure that’s true. The insurrection had a couple of identifiable goals. The first was to disrupt the certification process, which they did do. The second was to kill Pence and some other CCers, and they failed in that attempt not due to incompetence so much as the actions of Capitol police and congressional aides getting people to secure – or at least securer – locations. Recall the Rudy voicemail left on Mike Lee’s phone: the purpose of all the disruption, including his exhortation to Tuberville to object to every motion presented in order to drag the process out, was to allow time for DOJ to accept Rudy’s evidence of voter irregularities in 10 states and formally open an investigation of those vote counts.

      The QAnoners did their job, seems to me. They delayed the process, but not for long. Mike Pence gaveled the Senate back into session later that night and finished the certification process in defiance of Trump’s desires.Report

    • Damon in reply to LeeEsq says:

      There are two types of people in a real insurrection / civil war. The core actors and the suckers. The suckers are the cannon fodder. These guys couldn’t even control the group storming the Capital. More evidence that, if anyone in the crowd actually did have do achieve the goals they stated, that were crappy at it. More likely there were no real “insurrectionists” but just Video Games Frekorps.Report

      • Philip H in reply to Damon says:

        “Video Games Frekorps” got 5 people killed.

        Video Games Frekorps got hundreds of cops injured.

        Video Games Frekorps got the then sitting president impeached again.

        Seems to me that Video Games Frekorps did a lot of damage.Report

  5. J_A says:

    I’m going to hijack this thread from the discussion that murder attempts do not count if the attempters are klutz that don’t know the first ting about trying to murder vice-presidents and members of Congress, into a discussion about Romney.

    Between Romneycare and the junior senator from Utah’s proposal for child benefits there’s a long stretch of Romney the flipflopper, eager to say anything that he though could help him win Republican votes, starting by calling himself as “severely conservative”

    The number of issues Romney flipflopped about is enormous -and there’s a Wikipedia page all about them ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Mitt_Romney ) if you have hours to waste. But his newfound interest in his legacy, instead of in accolades from Fox News, is very recently found, or a recent flopflipping.

    Romney is not so much quitting the party as he was booted out of it by Donald Trump in 2017 . After writing a scathing op-ed in 2016 against Trump, no amount of wining, dining, and begging for forgiveness got him back -unlike Cruz- into those allowed to fawn and praise the Glorious Leader and bask in his greatness. But then, much as he tries, Romney was never a good fliflopper.

    I don’t know what Romney really thinks about healthcare or child care, but I won’t be surprised to see Romney walk back every single word of his newfound ideas if he thinks it will help him get one more vote. I guess Romney’s legacy will be whatever idea he supported five minutes before he draws his last breath. Plenty of time for him to be for and against child welfare many timesReport

  6. J_A says:

    Comment did not appear (probably a link to Wikipedia )Report

  7. J_A says:

    COMMENT WITHOUT THE WKIPEDIA LINK

    I’m going to hijack this thread from the discussion that murder attempts do not count if the attempters are klutz that don’t know the first ting about trying to murder vice-presidents and members of Congress, into a discussion about Romney.

    Between Romneycare and the junior senator from Utah’s proposal for child benefits there’s a long stretch of Romney the flipflopper, eager to say anything that he though could help him win Republican votes, starting by calling himself as “severely conservative”

    The number of issues Romney flipflopped about is enormous -and there’s a Wikipedia page all about them ( htt ps://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Mitt_Romney ) if you have hours to waste. But his newfound interest in his legacy, instead of in accolades from Fox News, is very recently found, or a recent flopflipping.

    Romney is not so much quitting the party as he was booted out of it by Donald Trump in 2017 . After writing a scathing op-ed in 2016 against Trump, no amount of wining, dining, and begging for forgiveness got him back -unlike Cruz- into those allowed to fawn and praise the Glorious Leader and bask in his greatness.

    But then, much as he tries, Romney was never a good fliflopper.

    I don’t know what Romney really thinks about healthcare or child care, but I won’t be surprised to see Romney walk back every single word of his newfound ideas if he thinks it will help him get one more vote. I guess Romney’s legacy will be whatever idea he supported five minutes before he draws his last breath. Plenty of time for him to be for and against child welfare many timesReport

    • North in reply to J_A says:

      One more vote for what though? I have no particular love for Romney but I am dubious that he has much in the way of ambitions beyond being Senator Romney now and he’s probably pretty secure in that perch from the left or the right.Report