Glimmers of Intellect from Mitt Romney

It’s intensely interesting that candidates have to play dumb to get votes in the Republican what-passes-for-a-primary-so-far. But read this statement by Mitt Romney, on why he won’t sign a “pro-life pledge”:

The pledge also unduly burdens a president’s ability to appoint the most qualified individuals to a broad array of key positions in the federal government. I would expect every one of my appointees to carry out my policies on abortion and every other issue, irrespective of their personal views.

Emphasis mine. “Undue burden” is the rubric used by the Supreme Court to evaluate the constitutionality of restrictions on abortion ever since Casey. And, that decision came out well after Mitt graduated law school in 1975. We talk about dog whistle racism, but what about dog whistle intellectualism? Mitt’s a smart guy, we know; maybe this is his nod to supporters that, even though he can’t act smart, he actually knows what he’s talking about. Whether he’d act that way as President, well…



  1. Romney’s abortion position is solid, mainline conservatism and I daresay that the majority of us on the Right mirror what he said in his remarks. It’s also completely consistent with the position he has staked out for himself as the establishment candidate. If the best offense you have is to make cheap remarks about how he’s smart but pretending not to be smart (with the implication that the Right prefers dumb candidates) then maybe you all don’t have much of a gameplan afterall.

    The funny thing about the primary season is that since liberals have nothing to do for the next 12 months they are going to spend a year throwing potshots at the Republican candidates. I’m sure some of those potshots will be good but if ‘dog-whistle intellectualism’ is your opening salvo – you might completely discredit yourself by next May.

  2. Dog-whistle anything is a vacuous idea unworthy of being taken seriously.

  3. Let me expand on that: the whole idea of “dog-whistle” whatever is that the only people who know about it are the ones who understand the secret code. So… how’s someone to tell the difference between 1)identifying something as “dog-whistle” whatever, 2) paranoid jumping at shadows and imagining the whatever, and 3) deliberately and knowingly leveling false accusations of whatever with unverifiable claims of “dog-whistle” whatever?

    It’s a conspiracy theory, plain and simple.

%d bloggers like this: