Thursday, September 04, 2008

Romney's family less prolish than Palin's

Half Sigma has taken some grief for his explosion of posts about 'tabloid' stories on the Palin family. I'd just like a brief summation once everything has been sorted out, since she may become one of the most powerful women in the world in a few months, but people have to do that sorting, and it's nice to know a mind as sharp as HS' is on it. Reiterating themes from his blog, he pithily explained why it should come as no surprise that he doesn't like the Palin choice:
I don’t know why people are surprised about my take on this subject. My blog has always been against unmarried teenage pregnancy, against low class behavior, against women being given special special consideration (there’s no way a man this inexperienced would ever have been selected), and against the Evangelical Christian influence on the Republican party.
The alleged prolish behaviors of the family brings into focus what in retrospect seems obvious to me about my natural affinity for Romney* over the other candidates in both parties--he both epitomizes upper-middle class values and has been quite fertile (he has five successful sons). There are few celebrities able to simultaneously manage both.

Sarah Palin has been fertile, but the perception I'm getting from HS is that she is a better looking version of Roseanne Conner. McCain, with an irascible streak and a divorce in his background, is in the same boat (although by marrying up he's now an adopted blueblood). Obama's family is a whiter one, despite being black--Barack and Michelle had a couple of daughters in their mid- to late-thirties. Joe Biden lost his wife and a child in a car accident, remarried, and now has three surviving kids. Not too shabby. Amazingly though, after serving in the Senate for 35 consecutive years, he may be worth less than I am.

Romney represents an American ideal that creates success instead of merely seeming to transfer it or leverage it by pointing to the suffering he has endured. His speech, my favorite of the convention (I've only read transcripts, not watched video, so I'm not referring to delivery, just text), shows why he embodies what is strived for in Steve Sailer's Affordable Family Formation strategy--unfortunately, he's a rich Mormon, so it wouldn't work out.

* As a 'celebrity' politician, not as a legislator or an executive.


Anonymous said...

I agree with all the sentiments about Romney and his family. I like Sarah Palin, however. Acceptance of Sarah doesn't mean rejection of the the Romney ideal. I desperately wanted Romney to win and was in a rage when he was rejected. Yet, I believe the people need to be given a little more credit. The idea that prole behavior has won out this election is a bit overwrought.

Remember this: Candidates running for the Republican presidential nomination NEVER win the first time. Democratic candidates ONLY win the first time. Simply put, it was McCain's turn, no matter how wonderful Romney was or could have been.

Audacious Epigone said...


"Candidates running for the Republican presidential nomination NEVER win the first time. Democratic candidates ONLY win the first time."

Interesting, I wonder how strongly that holds up.

I probably wouldn't have voted for Romney, although I'd have given him more consideration than McCain (I have a feeling I'll be throwing my vote away on third parties until I'm in the grave). But his personal story is great, the best of the crop on both sides this time around.

Audacious Epigone said...


But Bush won his first and only run in the primaries, in 2000...

Anonymous said...

It is so heartening to see that you don't think Palin is fantastic. I can't believe how sooooo many sensible people like ziel of lying eyes love her.

SFG said...

Actually, Romney was my favorite Republican. I don't agree with him, but he seemed competent--a 'president with an MBA' who actually was a competent businessman.

Audacious Epigone said...


I would've preferred Pawlenty or Romney. You?


His personal story is the most inspiring. He epitomizes the popular Republican ideal of an enterprising capitalist and competent businessman with high executive function, turned 'public servant', all while raising a large, intact family. Epitomizes it excepting the Mormonism, I suppose, which is unfortunate, since he's an exaggerated but not really atypical Mormon.

Whiskey said...

You don't get it.

Palin is a successor to a long line of "Western" and unconnected politicians: Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, James K. Polk, come to mind.

What you don't get, is that the struggle for political power in the US has always been between the Eastern elites, and the Western small-holders.

I like Romney, but his business success alienated him from the "small holders" aka small businessmen, working/middle class white voters, etc. He had a lot of problems connecting to voters as a guy who would look after their interests.

No, people are not "in love" with Palin but over the moon that someone with their social background and mores is in the #2 slot. It would be as if John Quincy Adams picked Jackson as his #2 in 1824.

Government has huge influence in either making or breaking "small holders" so it's not surprising that the voters in that segment look for people who take care of their interests -- Palin's "one big thing" is cutting "wasteful" spending and pushing back key spending decisions to voters.

Romney (a guy I voted for) just didn't have that record. Voters are not looking for the smartest guy in the room, just the person who will hurt them with spending/regulation (same thing really) decisions the least.

Audacious Epigone said...


Interesting take. Alaska though, in spite of it's libertarian political leanings, receives the most 'pork barrel' per capita spending in the US.

Romney lost because he's a practicing Mormon, the number of Republican primaries that are all-or-nothing, and because Huckabee stayed in.

Justin Halter said...

A.E., I don't know why you Romney guys can't see this, it is absurdly obvious: he didn't lose because he is Mormon, he lost because he has ZERO charisma. The more money he spent ($40 mil of his own cash!!!) and the more face-time he got, the less people liked him.

Palin is great in the end not because of her biography, which is cool, but because her charisma. She comes off as both powerful and likable, which is a hard but winning combo. You gotta admit, whatever else his strengths (intelligence, competence, etc.), Romney did not come off as very likable or powerful.

Audacious Epigone said...


Polls, no matter how they were worded, consistently showed greater voter resistance to Mormonism than to being black, Hispanic, female, or aged. John McCain isn't particularly charismatic either, although I guess his story is 'better'--performed near the bottom of his class, crashed a few planes, suffered mightily in as a POW, divorced, adopted a couple of kids, remarried into wealth, adopted another kid, and here he is. Spicier than raising five kids with the same woman, making it big in capital management and pulling off the Olympics, and winning as a Republican in the smartest state in the union.