this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2023

160 points (97.1% liked)

United States | News & Politics

7217 readers

348 users here now

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

160

Retiring Romney unleashes on GOP colleagues (www.axios.com)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

64 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 68 points 1 year ago (3 children)

“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."

[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

I'm definitely not celebrating them, it's so bad that lip service is refreshing from a group that is incredibly rotten.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Romney has been outspoken about this from the beginning of trump’s rise. That was about 8 years ago, which included a reelection campaign.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

I’m not saying he’s a hero but the idea that he only spoke up on his way out is not accurate.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

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).

load more comments (4 replies)

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (4 children)

He’s outspoken because he knew his days were numbered and it didn’t matter anymore.

Would you rather he go full MAGA?

load more comments (4 replies)

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

He lays with the dogs

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).

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

There’s plenty of room for political compromise on most issues. On some there are none.

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 are not a real political party. They are just a force for evil.

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

You want compromise in politics? Only one “side” is doing so. The other isn’t, and that’s Romney’s.

But Romney did...

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

He lost to Obama because the two of them were philosophically indistinguishable.

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (10 children)

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.

load more comments (10 replies)

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

That's the dognhe should've strapped to the roof of the car.

[–] Dkarma 1 points 1 year ago

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?

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 year ago (2 children)

As a Utah resident, I like Romney, and I'm glad to see him go. I like him because he's the best senator we've had in years. He took Orrin Hatch's position, who had been around for decades, and Mike Lee replaced Bennett, who I think is actually worse than Lee.

I'm not a fan of Romney in isolation, but given the options we tend to get, he's pretty good by comparison.

[–] htrayl 3 points 1 year ago

Yup, absolutists don't realize that, despite his shortcomings, he definitely a fairly reasonable representative given most the actual alternatives that Utah is willing to offer.

[–] Dkarma 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Y'all need help. Your reps are trash.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Yup, they suck. I try voting, but it really doesn't matter when my district votes like 70-80% GOP. It's probably a little less now because they gerrymandered SLC to avoid getting another Democrat rep after McAdams won (was a great rep too).

[–] mercano 20 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I respect that he realizes he’s getting to old to run again. I wish some of the other politicians, on both sides of the aisle, would agree. He’s one of the most moderate Republicans. I worry about who might replace him.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We here in Utah are going to give you a real doozy. I can guarantee that. From the state that brought you Mike Lee…

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Fortunately Chaffetz and Stewart are gone, but we still have Owens and Moore (Curtis is okay imo).

I'm not sure who will run, but surely they'll be a disappointment.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Almost guarantee it will be Sean Reyes.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Ew. Unfortunately, that's probably pretty likely. At least we'll get to spin the wheel and maybe get a better AG...

[–] eran_morad 16 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Oh, the irony. The ever malleable man, nay, tofu golem, Mitt Romney, panderer to the masses, who massacred “God Bless America” at the behest of insipid political strategists, who disavowed his own legislative achievements on gay marriage and universal healthcare, this, this… flip-flopper extraordinaire, populist marionette of yore… Mitt Fucking Romney finally comes clean and summons, with a final, dying determination, the strength to unmask the traitorous republican beast, the most heinous superorganism, to the extent even of dissecting its composition and naming its ugly organs. There it lies, for all to see.

Mitt Fucking Romney.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago

Its amazing how critical republicans are of Republicans... after they retire and remove themselves from the power structure

Fucking self serving pieces of shit.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I have glad to see him go. I will always remember him as Bain

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Don't forget about his binders and dog on the roof of the car.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I don’t remember the binders but now that you mention it. I remember the dog incident.

ETA: I googled the binders. Holy crap I don’t even remember that.

[–] Bytemeister 1 points 1 year ago

In a post "Grab 'em by the pussy" world, "Binders full of women" just doesn't have the same staying power.

load more comments