August 21, 2005
Atlantic Monthly: Mitt Looks Better When Viewed From D.C.
Bostonist has been saying for a while that Mitt Romney, eyes firmly focused on the District of Columbia, has given up trying to please Massachusetts so as to curry favor out of state. What we've been wondering, though, is whether the conservative Republican powers that be will embrace his new-found conservatism or find it suspiciously opportunistic. Won't they look at his history here in Mass., we ask ourselves, and doubt his commitment to the cause? Maybe not: it seems like when people look at Mitt from Washington, they just don't notice his meandering ideological record here in Massachusetts. Case in point: No sooner has the Atlantic Monthly announced its departure from Boston for the warmer climes of D.C. than it produces an article that practically gushes about Romney's presidential chances.
Now, maybe we're being overly cynical, and heaven knows, writing from this bluest of states, we don't have the best insight into the workings of the political mainstream, but don't Republican power brokers prefer someone a little more dyed in the wool? After all, even Senator Arlen Specter and Justice Anthony Kennedy have lately been assailed as insufficiently conservative. The Atlantic addresses and dismisses this in short order, calling it one of Romney's two "M" problems (i.e., that he's from Massachusetts, so he must be liberal). The magazine also brushes aside the other "M" issue, based entirely on the opinion of Ted Kennedy(!), who says, essentially, that religious bias is a dead issue in this country. Bostonist hates to be the one to tell this to Ted (and Mitt), but that's just not true. Still, with national politics being largely a spectator sport for Massachusetts these days, the Atlantic article serves as a nice scorecard and program, offering some insight into how the rest of the country will see Romney as he vies for the Republican nomination.
| 
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
email this
add to facebook
add to del.icio.us
[ report this ]
Oh, I meant to add this in the name of historical accuracy, but couldn't work it into the post: If you read the Atlantic article, don't come away with the notion that the only thing that scuttled Mitt's dad's presidential hopes was his comments on Vietnam. He was also (as the article does mention but doesn't explain thoroughly) born in Mexico, which makes him ineligible for the presidency (the Constitution requires that candidates be U.S.-born, not merely citizens; sorry Alexander Hamilton (West Indies) and Arnold Schwarzenegger (Austria)). Not that this fact has anything to do with Mitt, but it was bothering me.
[ report this ]
The constitution requires no such thing. It requires that PRESIDENTS be natural-born citizens, meaning a candidate can be born outside the US - See John McCain, Panama Canal Zone, and in fact, a candidate doesn't even have to be a US citizen. If he wins, though, he can't be president.
George Romney could have been president, as he was a natural born citizen if the US, as his parents (at least one of them) were US citizens.
[ report this ]
OK, I stand corrected. I seem to recall that there was some concern when George Romney was running as to whether he could, legally, hold the office, and the matter has never been tested in court (since no one born outside of the US has yet been elected), but federal law, at least, says that "natural-born" includes those who get their citizenship by dint of having citizen parents. And, while I'm on the subject of ways that I'm wrong, Alexander Hamilton could have been president too because he was a citizen at the time if the adoption of the Constitution. So basically I'm an idiot.
[ report this ]
Hey, I never said you were an idiot. You run one hell of a weblog. You just need to work on the subtleties of constitutional law.
[ report this ]
Better you should have called me an idiot! Usually, I swear, I'm pretty good at the subtleties of constitutional law. Let's just chalk this up to a momentary lapse of legal reasoning (or, more precisely, a complete lack of research), occasioned by my being on vacation, far from the madding lawyerly crowd. That way I can preserve the illusion of my own professional competence. Anyway, thanks for keeping me honest.
[ report this ]
mitt romney is an richass blueblood elitist carpetbagging spineless flip-flopper with a stupid name.
[ report this ]
Washington, DC is much more than the home of George W Bush. It's a city that is approximately 90% Democrat. So if Washington DC is looking at Mitt Romney (and neither the city or the Republican political establishment that lives out of our hotels really is), we're just as disgusted as you are.
[ report this ]
Latest news I'm hearing from a friend of mine on the Hill is that Bush has quietly approached a few prominent politicians about a possible appointment to the Vice Presidency. Very likely that Cheney may go prematurely before 2008. A good source tells me he talked to Romney, and Romney actually turned him down . . . interesting. Would Romney turn down the VP is he were serious about running for President in 2008?