By Dan Kennedy • The press, politics, technology, culture and other passions

Why liberals should be rooting for Romney

In my latest for the Huffington Post, I argue that liberals should be rooting for Mitt Romney to win the nomination. If he fails, it could be disastrous for the country, for the Republican Party and even for the Obama presidency. I’ll be talking about my piece tonight between 8 and 9 p.m. with Ian Masters, host of the radio program “Background Briefing.”

Discover more from Media Nation

Subscribe to get the latest posts to your email.


A Thanksgiving tale

Next wins two major Web awards


  1. Andy Koppel

    Dan – What you say is all well and good, but it is predicated on the notion that a President Romney would behave like a responsible leader and not a craven panderer. I see no evidence for such a transformation.

    Therefore, his election would mean that he would appoint exactly the wrong kinds of people to his cabinet and to the courts. This is not a Republican/Democrat comment, but rather a lunatic fringe concern.

    The stridency of his spokespersons, notably the unspeakable Eric Fehrnstrom, recalls the vicious tone of Karen Hughes during the first George W. Bush campaign in 2000. It also suggests the post-election evisceration of anything associated with the environment, women’s rights, gay rights, etc. as he struggles to pander to the extremists in his party.

    So while I undertsand your point, and even made a similar one during his gubernatorial campaign, I see no reason to trust him — or those he trusts — to behave responsibly when in office.

  2. Pat Daukantas

    I’m also concerned that a not insignificant percentage of middle-of-the-road voters will say “under no circumstances” to Gingrich/Cain/Bachmann/Perry but will think, “Hey, I *could* hold my nose and vote for Romney.” And then we would get Romney for four years. Blech.

  3. Mike Benedict

    Besides the obvious concerns over Romney — he has no morals, no scruples, and no heart — there is this: Does he really want to run the country?

    I see Romney as the second coming (small “c”) of GW Bush, a man who clearly ran for president only because he wanted to compete with his father. We will be paying for that mistake for decades. Likewise, Romney, as governor, basically abdicated 18 months into the job. I see a guy who has a good head for making himself money and no vision, ability or desire to handle all the things little or big that make up the American Presidency. He just wants to top his father, who was a far superior businessman and human being. A Romney presidency would be an un-Mitt-igated disaster.

  4. Ed Morris

    I have come to the conclusion that the only way effective change will ever occur is:

    Elect a GOP super majority to EVERY branch of government for 16 years (4 presidential terms).

    After that, they would have shown their true stripes so completely that even the idiot tea baggers would be so sick of their outrageous acts and wants that they(and the rest of the world) would be ready to cut their heads off.

    I know that this is very cynical,but I feel that the corporations and Wall street have won.
    They control the message. 95% of all news is controlled by 5 corporations,and they call them the
    “liberal press”. How many corporations are “liberal”?

    They have lowered the public education standards to create a public of idiots. Look at the Gen Y apathy.
    They have dumbed down the public to where they think it is a good thing to be punished for bankers stupid greedy actions. I didn’t create the melt down/derivative/bank failure, so why should I pay for it?(capitalism??)

    off with their heads!

    Goebbels: “tell the lie,tell a big lie, and keep telling it”.

  5. Andy Koppel

    Ed – I would agree with you except we already had a mini-version of this experiment from 2002-2006, and the repercussions will be felt well beyond our lifetimes in the economy, the environment, equal rights, the Middle East, stem cell research, etc., etc.

    And while it was not technically a Super Majority in the Senate, it included governerships, judgeships, and state legislatures. I’m just not sure that people will see how ill served they are by the lunatic fringe on the Right and those who pander to them, no matter how long they spend in office.

  6. Al Fiantaca

    @ Ed
    The only problem with your idea is that after the 16 year period of Republican super majority status, things would be so damaged that we would never get it repaired. Think of the kind of Supreme Court we would have with 16 years of unstoppable conservative nominees. Also, think of the institutional actions they would take to create that permanent Republican majority that Karl Rove and his ilk have dreamed about. If people talk about the 1% today as opposed to we 99%ers, imagine the 99 and 44/100% of us in 16 years when it’s the .56% holding the country’s wealth and power.

  7. Ed Morris

    Guys. Thanks for the support and you are all correct. Sometimes I feel like it is time to start over. Your comments give me pause, and make me feel like there are people that are still positive about America. Keep up the great work.

    We liberals have to grow a pair and stand up to what is happening, and you and I are the first defense.



  8. Aaron Read

    Vote Republican! Be part of the problem!
    Vote Democrat! Don’t be part of the solution!


  9. Rick Peterson

    What a depressing series of comments. Maybe it’s me but a lot of people sure sound like they hate “the opposition” more than they love their country.

  10. Mike Benedict

    Rick: Your statement could (and does) easily apply to all Tea Partiers, all the GOP presidential candidates and legislators, and almost all the Republican apologists here.

    (Perhaps that’s what you intended?)

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén