The Atlantic's McKay Coppins is out with the first excerpt of his highly anticipated biography of Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah), timed to the 2012 GOP presidential nominee's announcement today that he will not seek re-election.
Why it matters: Romney — the only GOP senator to vote to convict former President Trump in his first impeachment trial — was brutally honest about his Republican colleagues over the course of two years of interviews with Coppins, a fellow Utahn.
Highlights:
- On Jan. 2, 2021, Romney texted Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to warn about extremist threats law enforcement had been tracking in connection with pro-Trump protests on Jan. 6. McConnell never responded.
- Romney kept a tally of the dozen-plus times that Republican senators privately expressed solidarity with his criticism of Trump. "You're lucky," McConnell once told him. "You can say the things that we all think."
- Romney shared a unique disgust for Sens. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) and Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who he thought were too smart to believe Trump won the 2020 election but "put politics above the interests of liberal democracy and the Constitution."
- He also was highly critical of Sen. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio), who reinvented his persona to become a Trump acolyte after publishing a best-selling memoir about the working class that Romney loved. "I don't know that I can disrespect someone more than J. D. Vance," Romney said.
Zoom in: After House impeachment managers finished a presentation about Trump's efforts to pressure Ukraine to investigate the Bidens, McConnell told Romney: "They nailed him."
- Taken aback, Romney said Trump would argue he was just investigating alleged corruption by the Bidens — the subject of House Republicans' present-day impeachment inquiry.
- "If you believe that," McConnell replied, "I've got a bridge I can sell you."
The bottom line: Romney said he never felt comfortable at a Senate GOP conference lunch after voting to convict Trump in 2020. "A very large portion of my party really doesn't believe in the Constitution," he told Coppins a few months after Jan. 6.
"But I lay down with the dogs anyway."
C'mon man, he has been very outspoken! If you can't give Mitt some credit then you're just a hopeless partisan. Not everything fits an "all or nothing" moral view.
He’s outspoken because he knew his days were numbered and it didn’t matter anymore. It literally happens everytime a republican decides not to pursue reelection (or they have inoperable brain cancer). Suddenly they have a moral compass that was missing for decades of legislative work.
Romney is a pussy just like the rest of them. Too little. Too late. If you helped build the colosseum you don’t get to suddenly pretend to be shocked that they are holding gladiatorial games there.
Compare and contrast to Jeff Flake, who also knew his days were numbered but did nothing on the way out. Most are Jeff Flakes so a Romney is better than nothing.
Hell, an on-the-way-out-Republican brought us the the Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex speech. Was it lip service on the way out? Sure, but it's better than silently being complicit.
Oh some of them are vile shitstains and it doesn’t matter what their status is, they’re gonna be shitstains no matter what. Look at Lee Atwater. He was one of the founding fathers of the racist shithead GOP. Only when he had terminal cancer did he do an about face, claim to have found Jesus, and repent his many sins. But when he was dead and gone and they were clearing out his things they found his bible, it was still shrink wrapped. Dude must have had a crisis of conscience and wanted to either get right with his legacy or right with the lord. Whichever the case it was self serving bullshit.
I think that Mitt is on the more tolerable end of American fascism, but that’s not saying much. He was still instrumental in getting us here. That’s his legacy and people like me will never let the true story be altered. It’s like all the pro bush sentiment that started circulating during trumps presidency. Just because he wasn’t functionally retarded like a certain president doesn’t mean he wasn’t a war profiteering criminal.
You have to be careful about how people try to alter the narrative. Liz Cheney is another example of this. No one should be celebrating her because she had the smallest amount of common sense. Her actions have harmed millions.
I'm definitely not celebrating them, it's so bad that lip service is refreshing from a group that is incredibly rotten.
The Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex speech is a perfect counter example to your own point, because Eisenhower was the main drive to build the Military-Industrial Complex.
He was the reason the buildup continued past WW2, and then even accelerated the buildup when he became president. Then on the way out he was all "hey guys, there's this problem that I caused, I could have done something about it, but nope I'm out".
And there were already people talking about how the growing Military-Industrial complex was a problem.
Not a counter to my own point, I called it "lip service" for a reason. What you are mistaking as praise is me saying they are on the better end of the rotten bunch.
My point was, it's never "silently being complicit" all of them are actively making things worse until they retire, then they're "concerned". But never concerned enough to help fix the shitthey actively worked to break.
Ok? I never said anything that it was marginally better than being silently complicit. I have no idea why you're acting like I'm saying they actually did anything else worthwhile.
Romney has been outspoken about this from the beginning of trump’s rise. That was about 8 years ago, which included a reelection campaign.
Did he switch parties? Did he lead the charge in calling for impeachment? Look I get it the guys the best they have to offer. But I consider the entire group domestic terrorists so in my mind it’s like defending Bin Ladens best lieutenant because he volunteers at the pet shelter. Dude ur still putting on your Al Qaeda hat and showing up to work.
That's your solution. Not his. He's a conservative, not a liberal, so why on Earth would he switch parties? I don't agree with the man's politics, but as far as integrity goes, neither party can offer much better.
I’m not saying he’s a hero but the idea that he only spoke up on his way out is not accurate.
If you consider half of the country to be domestic terrorists, then you should probably go outside and actually talk to real people.
I live in a very conservative part of Utah with a mixture of Trump supporters and Trump haters (something like 70-80% of my district votes Republican), and neither are particularly combative, even when I lament pretty much only having a single party to vote for. My family almost always votes R, and my parents ended up voting for McMullin in 2020 because they disliked Trump so much (but weren't willing to vote for Biden). Most think the people involved in the Jan 6 riot were scumbags or at least an embarrassment.
In my area, it's generally the people on the left who are combative, which makes sense because they're a minority who gets continually shafted by gerrymandering. I get it, the reverse was true when I lived in a majority liberal area and conservatives were the combative ones that always got shafted and liberals were the more down to earth people.
So get out and actually talk to people. I have neighbors (again, pretty much all conservative) with progressive views about gay marriage (usually they'll have a gay family member), trans rights (again, family member), etc. From my perspective, everyday conservatives just want to live their lives and largely ignore the political theater going on in Washington DC and whatnot.
So please, get out there and actually meet some everyday conservatives. I hang out with conservatives and liberals, and we all get along just fine, outside of the months leading up to an election where things can get a little heated (esp. in 2016).
Do I think half of them are domestic terrorists? Well debatable, but if you vote R you support domestic terrorists. Again THESE ARE THE TERMS THEY PROUDLY USE TO DESCRIBE THEMSELVES.
What’s the adage? If 9 people sit down at a table with a Nazi how many Nazis are there? There are 10 Nazis.
Trust me, Utah is right leaning but it’s not quite the south, the Mormon influence is it’s own monster so I don’t know that you’ve got the full picture. I do actually live in the south and know these people well. I see it everyday. This is a cult, there are die hard members and then there are a whole lot of people that hold their nose and vote and publicly support said cult. Again, if you don’t speak out against Nazis, that generally makes you a Nazi supporter by default. It’s not hard. This should be easy. These people are self proclaimed terrorists. If you support and vote for them, that makes you at the very least a terrorist enabler. We have imprisoned people for far less.
You need to stop making excuses for them. Call them on their shit. Get angry. Anything less is handing them the keys to the kingdom. I promise you if they get power one more time they won’t have to worry about losing it ever again. If you don’t believe that then you are probablyone of the people that said trump wouldn’t be that bad and to stop overreacting. You were wrong then, you’re wrong now. Any questions?
Jumping to conclusions much?
I argued with coworkers about Trump back in 2015 and 2016, and back then, most in my area didn't like Trump. Look at the 2016 GOP primary results in Utah and you'll see Ted Cruz (who has his own massive issues) beat Trump in a landslide here. Trump didn't even get a majority of the votes in 2016, when GOP candidates usually win with more than 60% of the vote.
My parents (not in Utah) are very conservative and refused to vote for Trump as well in both elections. I personally voted for Gary Johnson in 2016 (with McMullin, there was no way Clinton was winning) and Biden in 2020 despite Biden/Harris being my two last favorite Democratic Party candidates. I urged many people to vote either libertarian or independent if they weren't willing to vote Democrat to at least show disapproval of Trump. I consider myself libertarian and actively debated other self-proclaimed libertarians about Trump, arguing that if you see anything good in Trump, you're not a libertarian (accompanied with facts and whatnot). I have contacted state and federal representatives on key issues. The only things I haven't done is join protects or run for office, and that's because I have young kids that need my attention.
Trump is not the GOP and does not represent the average conservative. He has a very vocal base, but they're a small part of the actual party (and many when l are outcasts), and I firmly believe most conservatives are closer to Romney/McCain. However, he has had an uncharacteristic impact on the GOP, and the party is paying for it (Trump lost reelection, the GOP did a lot worse than expected in the midterms, etc). I expect the GOP to do poorly in 2024 as well.
I really disagree with this whole line of reasoning, but let's try a slight modification as a thought experiment.
If a Nazi sits next to 9 people at a table and they largely ignore the Nazi, does that make the other 9 people Nazis (i.e. are the others obligated to leave)? What if 9 people sit at a table with someone who has previously sat with a Nazi, but doesn't actually consider themselves to be a Nazi?
Trump isn't a Nazi, at least in the white nationalist sense, but he does seek their support. So the GOP is like my first or second example, depending on which GOP member you're talking about. Romney is like one of the above examples, except he vocalizes what others are the table are thinking by calling out the BS from the newcomer.
Trump is not a Nazi in the sense that he’s goose stepping and wearing Hugo Boss uniforms. Trump and the right wing extremists are every bit the neocon fascists of our time. Replace the swastika with maga hats and you have exactly the same presentation leading up to Hitlers consolidation of power. The same arguments floated around then. It won’t be that bad. They’re not going to do anything to the Jews. Ok so what if they have to wear stars it’s only fair because of what they did to our economy after the Great War. So what if they are moving them to relocation camps, it was our land to begin with.
Fascism is not a chasm you leap over, it’s a series of small steps that starts with xenophobic nationalism and ends with concentration camps. No one starts out supporting Nazis but they can be convinced to give little concessions here and there. It’s always easier to swallow in small bites.
I knew in 2015 if he won we were in trouble. All of that has come to pass and more . If they win again we won’t have to muse about whether or not they’re Nazis, we will find out quickly. They tried their version of a stupid beer hall putsch. Next time they won’t need to because all subsequent elections will be pre-decided. Rest assured trump was never my biggest concern. It’s the people who worked to put him in power and used his presidency to gut our institutions and sell our secrets to the highest bidder. As far as I’m concerned they are the biggest threat to our democracy and the world at large.
Lots of people tell me I’m overreacting, I need to get outside. Unfortunately I’ve been right so far about everything. I screamed it from the rooftops since 2015 and before and in spite of all the people telling me to calm down, it just keeps going exactly how we fear it will go.
As did I, which is why I actively debated friends about him. My main concern was that he didn't have a platform and instead was a populist, which is a clear recipe for disaster as it attracts the wrong sort of attention.
However, I still, to this day, don't think he is a fascist. I think he's dangerous and a fascist enabler, but I think he's first and foremost a narcissist that just wants people to remember and praise him. He's not like Hitler, who had a master plan, he just wants attention.
I think our institutions can survive Trump. However, if he somehow overturned the election, that would've set a dangerous precedent.
So I think we're largely in agreement, I just disagree with the urgency. He tried to do something stupid and is now paying for it. Many of his supporters that were present in DC are now in jail, and he's being tried on a variety of related charges. Things could've turned out differently, but they didn't. And I don't think they will, he just doesn't have enough support.
But there's no way I'm ever voting for him, and I have objected to him with friends (most of them conservative) every step of the way.
Would you rather he go full MAGA?
I mean come on now. It’s like saying well yes he’s a registered Nazi but it’s not like he’s in the SS!
Would you rather he go full MAGA?
It would not matter to me. They’re all maga as far as I’m concerned. There are no more moderate conservatives. A moderate conservative is just a democrat.
So do you just have a cartoon-villain view of everybody who doesn't agree with your politics? You can't see the difference between Mitt Romney and Lauren Boebert?
There's no GOP platform at this point other than bigotry, chaos, and fascism. There's nothing there. Anyone half as smart and experienced in politics as Romney knows this is true with certainty.
Romney once was and is now again a centrist classical liberal. He spent a while being something else, but maybe has come back to it. He's probably somewhere left of Joe Manchin if you believe in political spectra. Yet he INSISTS on identifying himself as a Republican because wearing that jersey is more important to him that good governance or sound philosophy.
He's a kid shoving a fork in an outlet and going "Look mom, this hurts!" Over and over. He could drop out of the GOP caucus and identify as independent RIGHT NOW if he really wanted to prove convictions and courage. He should've done in in 2015. He should've done it sooner than that. But he doesn't, because his convictions are secondary to him. He lost to Obama because the two of them were philosophically indistinguishable.
The criticism fits. He lays with the dogs.
Well, not anymore anyway. If you consider 2015 the turning point, then that means he chose to do one term under a party he no longer agreed with -- a term which he won before Trump was elected, I should point out.
Look, I'm no Rominad (... Romey? ... Mitten?) but it just strikes me as overly precious to complain that he did not step down any sooner. As far as public information suggested, he chose to step down despite good health and good reelection odds in the very same senate currently occupied by Mitch McConnel, a man who might be charitably described as a grotesque Weekend at Bernie's parody.
Allow me to preempt the obvious response: "The Republican party has always been detestable -- Mitt Romney would have to be an idiot to be blind to that up until now. This is nothing more than sour grapes from a big, dumb loser!" Yeah, maybe? People are dumb. People go their entire lives without critically thinking about their beliefs. A shocking number of them are politicians. At least Romney didn't double down... that's all I'm saying.
He's a politician - it's his job to lay with dogs. The Maga/Liberal belief that politicians should grand-stand and stick to their morals above all else is... wrong. Or at least unproductive.
Those "dogs" are other members of congress elected by the people to represent them whether you like it or not. They have the same legitimacy and authority as everyone else in congress. What we should want is for them to work together on things they can agree upon and compromise on things they don't. But then the ultra-partisans (who are growing in number) get all pissy about "It's just Biden cowing to his corporate overlords!" or "Mitt is bowing to Nazis!".
I don't share a lot of Mitt's policy views - but what I do appreciate is his respect for the unspoken rules of governance and statesmanship (statespersonship?). Being willing to compromise is a virtue for a politician. Because when you don't you get what we have in the House of Representatives right now - a party willing to "burn it all" so they can pass single-issue legislation.
This is why I like the idea of some of the rules that parliamentary systems tend to have around "no confidence votes" when certain key legislation can't be agreed upon. "We need a budget, if you lot can't do that then we'll find somebody who can" (yes yes, pros and cons and all that).
Oh yes, compromise.
One side wants to kill all the trans people and the other says that we should give them their basic civil rights. Since they can't agree, we should compromise because we're good politicians. We'll give them some of their civil rights and only kill some of them, I guess
There's plenty of room for political compromise on most issues. On some there are none. If you want to see what compromise looks like, look at the IRA. How many Republican votes did it get again?
They are not a real political party. They are just a force for evil.
100%. There are times to put a stake in the ground. But most often there are not. I see people on Lemmy all the time saying things like "I'm not going to vote for Biden because he didn't forgive all student debt". I mean - WTF?
They share power with you though - you can't simply ignore them. Some are a lost cause to be sure. MTG and Bobert are clowns who don't understand statecraft or even basic governing. But if you write off people like Mitt because "he lays down with dogs" then you're going to be cutting your nose off to spite your face.
EDIT: To clarify the first point - we're at a point where "both sides" (yeah, yeah, but your're virtuous and they are evil) are putting stakes in the ground over everything. And now threatening to just destroy it all unless they get their way (more the GOP but the hyper-partisans on the left sound very similar). Even if your cause is just it doesn't mean it's worth the cost of, say, destroying the nations credit rating.
I could tell you are a bothsideser, but thanks for being transparent about it so it wasn't just me speculating.
What are the stakes Democrats have laid down, again? Let's give a few examples here where the Democrats are being clear about having a no-compromise position. Is it just that they don't want to let McCarthy and McConnell endlessly change the agreed upon Congressional budget by threatening national default if they don't 100% get their way every year?
I make compromises ALL THE TIME. I voted for and defend voting for Joe Biden, after all. Most of the left is willing to make INTENSE compromise. But it's never good enough for the right. You meet them half way only to see their backs as they sprint away. And Romney is part of that. If he wants to claim he's not, there is a straightforward way to do it -- either change party or call them out and leave politics. He's doing the latter, so he gets credit from me there, but it's not nearly enough to undo the harm he has wrought by helping keep a veneer of normalcy on a radical right that has none.
You want compromise in politics? Only one "side" is doing so. The other isn't, and that's Romney's.
But Romney did...
I don't think he's a classical liberal, he's just a moderate, old school, big government conservative.
When I think of "classical liberal," I think of Jefferson and the other founding fathers who wanted actual small government. Romney just seems to want restraint in growing government, he doesn't actually want a small government.
That's absolutely a fair point. I was actually excited for the 2012 election when he won the primary, but he absolutely changed in the general election to pretend to be more conservative than he was. I think he did poorly because people didn't really understand what he represented, because primary Romney and general election Romney felt like two different people entirely.
So since he didn't have a clear direction, he mostly looked like Obama, but with a conservative flavor. Obama was already quite moderate, so two moderates running didn't make for an exciting election so Obama won by inertia of being the incumbent.
But to be fair, that has been the case for some years, and the stark split is pretty recent. Look at Bush, Clinton, McCain, and Kerry, there wasn't a huge difference because they're all pretty moderate. But these days, we see more extremes imo. Biden is pretty moderate, but the field for 2016 had a lot of progressives who got a lot of support, and one of the most extreme conservatives got the nomination.
Worth also pointing out that all those progressives doing well in the dem primary had a BIG effect on Biden and the direction of the party. It made it very clear that a few issues must be on the table to get progressive votes -- climate and inclusion being the two most obvious. And go figure, Biden has the most diverse administration ever and passed the biggest climate bill ever.
Similarly, all these hard right and straight-up fascists doing well in GOP primaries have had a similarly profound effect on that party... in this case for the worse. Romney and McCain both lost likely directly because of it. Bush was probably the last moderate Republican anyone will ever see in a major position of political power, and even he has (rightly) gone down in history as a warmonger and fool.
Eh, "ever" is a strong word. I think the GOP will self-correct once Trump is out of the picture, and people like Boebart and Greene will likely just revert to the mean, just like AOC did recently on the Dem side.
I see the Trump thing as a fad like most cults of personality are. However, it's not over until Trump is done, so this next election will be very important.
I personally don't care much about partisan politics, and I largely dislike both parties. I guess I dislike the GOP more these days, but that's because of Trump, not because of anything Inherent in conservatism. I consider myself libertarian and I tend to vote on all sides, depending on the position and the candidate. My ballots are often ~50/50 GOP/Dem with some third parties and independents here and there. I think picking a side is stupid. I am currently registered libertarian, but I switched last election to Republican to vote in the primaries against Mike Lee (he courts libertarians, but he's far from it).
I hope I'm right and that this Trump storm will blow over, but he either needs to go to jail or lose spectacularly for him to truly be finished.
It won't blow over. There's a clear direction the GOP is been moving. They are worse every cycle and the next generation of Trumpist loons are lined up ready to take his place. Trump did not start this ball rolling and him leaving the picture will not change its inertia. They've been going further to the religious, police state, anti-civil rights far right for multiple generations. At least since Nixon. Even the supposed "moderate" staple Republicans like Kemp are invested heavily in the culture war over good governance at this point.
The Democrats were in a bad place within my lifetime, but there's also a clear direction they are moving. There's little left of the hawkish neoliberal bullshit in them and I see less of it every cycle.
Conservatism is not the philosophy of fiscal responsibility and light touch government. That's what the liberals and progressives do. Conservatism is about preserving traditional social hierarchies and morals. The GOP is conservative, not libertarian. They only invoke libertarian identity when it's convenient to prevent social progress.
If you are into fiscal responsibility and light touch government, read up on Chuck Marohn and Strong Towns. That's what it looks like done right. But they get arbitrarily labeled as some hippie dippy far left progressive group because that is how fundamentally broken American "conservatism" has become.
I hope you're wrong about the GOP's direction, for all our sakes.
And yeah, I've known the GOP wasn't actually in favor of small government for at 10+ years now, back when I switched my party affiliation to Independent. I'm only registered Libertarian now because I hope that communicates to someone that the two party system is broken. I disagree with a fair amount of the Libertarian Party lately, especially since the Mises caucus took over and seems to be turning it into some weird GOP alternative.
I don't know much about Chuck Marohn, but after looking into it, he sounds up my alley. I'm a huge fan of dense towns and people-focuses transit, instead of sprawling suburbs and stroads everywhere. I watch Not Just Bikes on YouTube and generally agree with the presenter. I think people would be more happy if the US worked more like the Netherlands than the Western US.
Maybe I'm a hippie, IDK, I just want smaller government, which means fewer laws, simpler services, and more transparency. The GOP is against at least two of those, and my impression is the Democratic party is as well.
He's outspoken about dogs with fleas, but lay down with them anyway.
I don't know about you, but I don't count that in his favor.
You don't have to like politics. Most people don't. It's a nasty business of deals and compromise.
But that's how it works.
You have two people trying to decide on where to have dinner. One wants a vegan restaurant because "beef is murder" and the other wants a burger place because, I dunno - "strongly held belief here". If they can't pick a place they both starve. What the hyper-partisans want is for all of us to starve rather than cave. "Better dead than red" as they said in the '50s.
I'd rather end up with a mediocre salad with "turkey sausage" (the worst of sausages) than nothing at all. That's politics.
What you're arguing for is, essentially, enlightened centrism. An enlightened centrist will view one side wanting to kill 1000 people and another side wanting to kill 0 people and say we need to meet somewhere in the middle. You can see how that's actually not good, I trust.
Oh - we get to just straw-man each other?
In that case, what you're arguing for is, essentially, fanatic partisan terrorism to get your own way justified by your self-righteous beliefs.
Whatever you need to think to be able to sleep at night dude. You were arguing for enlightened centrism which doesn't work and isn't good nor ethical.
And you're arguing for fanatic partisanship that will lead to the decay of our democracy. 'night!
You're arguing that Nazis are good people who should be heard. C'mon man. Even you can't think that.
I'm not - and if you think I'm arguing that then you're not arguing in good faith. You're just arguing against a straw-man.
You're arguing for enlightened centrism. Sorry you don't like your ideology under scrutiny.
Whatever you say 🙄
It is perfectly reasonable and fair to judge someone's character by the company they keep. Particularly if they know the company is disreputable.
That's the dognhe should've strapped to the roof of the car.
Right? This feckless little greaseball weasel was ok with it helping entich himself and now he's Pontius pilate washing his hands of the mess he helped create?
What would Tyler durden do?