Conservatives Believe Romney Should Have Passed Up Chance to Make $10,000

Last updated on: December 12, 2011 at 5:31 pm by Timothy Dalrymple

Conservatives Believe Romney Should Have Passed Up Chance to Make $10,000 2011-12-12T17:31:27-04:00 Timothy Dalrymple

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

There are many options for the worst bet this primary season. “Rick Perry’s no flash in the pan.” “Herman Cain will never give up.” “Newt Gingrich will stop offering at least 50 unrealistic ideas per speech.” But some are making the case that Romney’s $10,000 bet (offered with an extended hand to Rick Perry in the recent ABC debate) is the worst bet of Romney’s career. Not only that, but it’s a horrible, rotten, no-good thing to do. It shows how tone-deaf Romney is, they say, to the suffering of the average man. It’s amazing how quickly the crowd that supported Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich became raging populists when they thought it would help them defeat Mitt.

You might call it twisting the knife, but many are hoping this is the proverbial “fork,” the long-awaited sign that Mitt Romney is finally done, over, cooked. So you have the likes of Erick Erickson and Ben Domenech saying that Romney should have been more sensitive to the fact that $10,000 is, you know, a lot of money for most people.

I think it’s ridiculous. Next thing you know, these Guardians of Conservatism are going to start telling Mitt Romney that he needs to finish his dinner plate because of those starving children in Ethiopia.

So, while I don’t usually respond to the little backs-and-forths of the new cycle, I want to respond to this.

Perry was claiming that Romney wrote, in the first edition of his 2010 book, No Apology, and then cut from the paperback version, that his Massachusetts health-care program should be a “model” for the federal plan. Romney offered to bet Perry $10,000 that Perry was wrong. Perry demurred, saying that he was “not a betting man.” Romney clearly believed that he had won the point. One debate post-mortem gave Perry credit for having “successfully goaded Mitt Romney into one of the worst moments he’s had in a debate so far.” Apparently one gets credit for telling a lie long enough that the opponent gets frustrated and asks you to put your money where your mouth is.

What are the facts? As usual, Perry is confused on the details. In his hardcover version of the book, Romney wrote: “We can accomplish the same thing for everyone in the country, and it can be done without letting government take over health care.” In the paperback version, the portion written in italics above is deleted. Romney has the facts on his side. He did not delete from the second version a claim that the Massachusetts plan should be a model for the nation. In fact, his statement explicitly opposed a government takeover.

This is part of what makes the faux anxiety over Romney’s bet silly. It’s not a gamble when you know the answer. I would never be willing to make a $10,000 bet on a coin toss, because I don’t know the outcome of the toss and I’m not that wealthy. But I would be completely willing to bet $10,000 that I just drank a Venti Chai-Creme Frappuccino. Why? Because I’m a wealthy man, born to wealth, who has no ken for the suffering of the proletariat? No. Because I want to make $10,000 and I know it will only cost me a handshake.

So, paradoxically, people who are chiding Romney for being too wealthy — Republicans, mind you, believers in the free market, who want everyone to be rich — are saying that he should never have tried to make $10,000. He would show his understanding for how badly most Americans need to make money by…well, by refusing to make money. That makes sense!

Don’t be fooled by the criticism. Romney’s support was never predicated on an experiential understanding of the plight of those who live on $30,000 a year. And you know what? I don’t think people who make $30K a year really care. They just want a guy who can turn around the economy. They don’t want someone who knows what it’s like to be jobless; they want someone who can create jobs. And Romney is a consummate turnaround artist. That’s a large part of why I support him. His competency and skills are off the charts.

Now, there was a change between the hard-cover and the soft-cover versions of the book. That’s true. Romney has, in speeches and interviews, used the phrase “model for the nation.” That’s true, too. But the question at issue in the bet was whether Romney had removed a line from the book about his state solution serving as a national model. It’s demonstrably false. All you have to do is look at the two books.

Furthermore, when you look at Romney’s comments on this in context, his point is that the way in which Massachusetts solved the problem can be a model for other states. Other states, too, should look thoughtfully and creatively at the problems and resources within their states and craft the solutions that work best for them. That’s why we call the fifty states “laboratories of democracy.”

I understand why he removed the phrase he did. It was easily misinterpreted. When you talk about “the country,” are you referring to the states or to the federal government? He’s been clear on the reasons why his state solution does not make sense for the country. But when you’re running for office, you have to consider how your opponents are going to twist your words. That’s why he removed the phrase, wisely or not.

I’m biased. I’ve been public about the fact that I am a supporter of Mitt Romney. But this is silly. I don’t think that Romney is perfect, and I sure don’t think that the Romney campaign has been perfect. But we should be focusing on who has the experience and the expertise to turn this country around economically, and who will represent our social and political values well. For reasons I’ll explain more in the coming weeks, I think that guy is Mitt Romney. What we should not be wasting our time fighting over is whether a $10K bet, when you absolutely know you have the facts on your side, is insensitive to the plight of the poor.

Mitt Romney

Previous Post

December 12, 2011

Moving Right is Sometimes Wrong: Why Ken Ham and Shelby Spong Are Equally Destructive

Next Post

December 14, 2011 Four Reasons Christmas Matters

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Abortion Abortion adoption Africa Aging AIDS America Worship American history Americolatry An Open Letter to a College Freshman animals Apologetics art Atheism Authors Barack Obama Bible Biblical Scholarship Billy Graham Blogging Bono Book Review Books That Change Lives Breakfast Links Bulletin Board Business Children Christian Approach to Politics Christian Media Christian Right Derangement Syndrome Christianity and Homosexuality Christians in Government Christmas Chuck Colson CLS v Martinez Comic Creation Creativity and the Arts Cross Examinations Cross Investigations Daily Fragment Daily Trinity Death debt Deep Thoughts on Fatherhood depression economy education Election 2012 entertainment Environment Epistemology Erik Campano Euthanasia Evangelicalism Evangelicals and Gays Everyday Transcendence evil evolution Facebook Jesus faith Faith and Politics Faith and Politics Faith and Politics Faith and Politics Faith and Politics Faith and Politics Faith and Politics faith and reason family Feminism foreign affairs Franklin Graham Future of Evangelicalism Galen D. gay marriage George W. Bush Guest Posts Guns Gymnastics Harold Camping Heaven Hell Holidays Hollywood Homosexuality iam2.org Illegal Immigration immigration Immigration Reform Injustice Inspiration Interviews Islam Jeremy Lin Jesus jesus christ John Mark Reynolds Johnnie Moore Judgment Day Just War Theory Killing Osama Link of the Day Lists of the Week Mark Goldblatt Marriage Military Missions Mitt Romney Modern Western Thought Monastic wisdom Mormonism Morning Hash Morning Report Motherhood Movies Obamacare Old Testament Orphan Care Palin Parenting Pastoral Resources Patheos Peace Between Religions PEPFAR Persecution Peter Wehner Peter Wehner Philosophy Political Quotes of the Day politics Politics and Economics Pornography Prejudice Prisoner Rape Question of the Week Race Radical Faith Rapture Ravi Zacharias Rick Santorum Russia Salvation Sarah Palin Scandals Science Science and Faith Separation of Church and State Series sex sex slavery social justice Social Justice Ministry Spiritual Disciplines sports Steven Tyler Suffering Suicide Sunday Funnies T. Dalrymple Tea Party Technology terrorism The Christian Media Files The Daily Trinity The Electorate The Ethics of Rhetoric The Future of Seminary Education The Middle East The Obama Presidency theological Theological Renewal Theology Uncategorized Understanding Evangelicalism Vocation war War and Peace With Distinction Word to the Wise Writers

Select a Month October 2015 June 2015 May 2015 March 2015 December 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz