I hate to kick a man when he’s down, but …

… Mitt Romney is even more disgusting in defeat than he was in campaigning.

I’ve been saying all along that Mitt Romney would be my preferred Republican candidate not only because he would be most likely to lose but also because (against admittedly weak competition) he’s the most fit of the Republican candidates to actually be President. He’s clearly smart and a quick study, he’s run a substantial-sized organization successfully, and &#8212 best of all, I thought &#8212 he doesn’t actually believe anything.

That was my inference from the fact that everything he says he believes now contradicts everything he said he believed while running for Governor of Massachusetts.

But Romney’s concession statement gives me pause. He’s no longer running for President, unless he imagines that he could come back in 2012. And yet lots of what he says is no less batsh*t crazy than his campaign so far:

Europe is facing a demographic disaster. That is the inevitable product of weakened faith in the Creator, failed families, disrespect for the sanctity of human life and eroded morality. Some reason that culture is merely an accessory to America’s vitality; we know that it is the source of our strength. And we are not dissuaded by the snickers and knowing glances when we stand up for family values, and morality, and culture.


Did you see that today, government workers make more money than people who work in the private sector. Can you imagine what happens to an economy where the best opportunities are for bureaucrats?


I disagree with Senator McCain on a number of issues, as you know. But I agree with him on doing whatever it takes to be successful in Iraq, on finding and executing Osama bin Laden, and on eliminating Al Qaeda and terror. If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror.

Footnote He’s right about public-sector salaries, though. Why should a lazy, unproductive public-sector cop be paid more than a hard-working, risk-taking private-sector auto thief or dope dealer? I know Mitt is down on pornography, but why should an STD researcher at the Centers for Disease Control or NIH earn as much as a producer of porn films? As St. Ronald taught us, “Government isn’t the solution. Government is the problem.”

Author: Mark Kleiman

Professor of Public Policy at the NYU Marron Institute for Urban Management and editor of the Journal of Drug Policy Analysis. Teaches about the methods of policy analysis about drug abuse control and crime control policy, working out the implications of two principles: that swift and certain sanctions don't have to be severe to be effective, and that well-designed threats usually don't have to be carried out. Books: Drugs and Drug Policy: What Everyone Needs to Know (with Jonathan Caulkins and Angela Hawken) When Brute Force Fails: How to Have Less Crime and Less Punishment (Princeton, 2009; named one of the "books of the year" by The Economist Against Excess: Drug Policy for Results (Basic, 1993) Marijuana: Costs of Abuse, Costs of Control (Greenwood, 1989) UCLA Homepage Curriculum Vitae Contact: Markarkleiman-at-gmail.com