The conservative alternatives
Delaware notwithstanding, it’s pretty much a foregone conclusion that Newt Gingrich’s days as a candidate are numbered. The only question now is when he’ll drop out.
For some, that’s a relief. For others, it’s the death knell of the chances for a conservative candidate to be nominated for the presidency in 2012. One of the post-mortems on the 2012 campaign will probably be that Gingrich and Santorum hurt the conservative cause by splitting the conservative vote, but I actually don’t think that was the problem. The problem was there was no “truly conservative” candidate who was also a good candidate.
It’s not that those two things are oxymorons. I’m convinced that there are quite a few politicians with more conservative records than Romney who could have beaten Obama, but they didn’t run (and, by the way, IMHO, Sarah Palin was not one of those people). Either Gingrich or Santorum—or any of the other conservative candidates in 2012, such as Bachmann—could have united the conservative vote and been the nominee, except that none of them were strong candidates and conservatives were torn among them and then between them.
The same thing happened in 2008, only back then one of those conservative candidates who wasn’t strong enough was Mitt Romney. So those of you who despise him now can do so for at least two reasons: he paved the way for McCain’s nomination in 2008 because he was one of the not-strong conservative candidates back then, and now that he’s almost undoubtedly the 2012 nominee you can hate him because he’s a RINO and only a faux conservative.
You could ask me why, if Romney was a weak candidate in 2008, do I think he’s stronger now? It’s a good question, and I have an answer, one you may either accept or reject as you see fit. It may be hard to look back and remember it, but one of the major issues in the 2008 campaign was not the economy (that is, not till the last few weeks, and by then McCain was already the candidate), an area of weakness for McCain and strength for Romney, but the war on terror and the war in Iraq, That’s where McCain was stronger, and that was a good part of the reason that people voted for him in the primaries—which, after all, occur earlier in the year. By the time of the election, that had already faded quite a bit from view in people’s minds and been replaced by “it’s the economy, stupid,” which remains true today.
Another thing to remember is that the Barack Obama of 2008 was not the Barack Obama of 2012. In 2008 the nation was ready to turn to someone new and untried, a young man who promised all sorts of things, including an end to the divisiveness and rancor of the Bush era. We’ve seen how that worked out, and now the nation might just be longing for a stable, somewhat dull guy—older but not old, and seasoned as an executive—who can fix things.
I find it incredible how many people manage to forget the context in which decisions were made in the really recent past. Some criticize McCain for not attacking Obama. While it’s true that he was too soft, he was opposing the first serious black candidate for president. He had a very thin line to toe. And as to issues, the war on terror was really important to people who didn’t want to trust their fate to those who voted for it before they were against it (or was it the other way round?).
Romney has been observing all this, and I think he has figured that stable and competent are his selling points. BTW, did you notice that he was right about illegal immigrants self-deporting? One of the big things that hurt McCain among conservatives is now going under the radar. Romney is not going to put a target on his chest to fire up the base about an issue they may well forget by next month.
Overall, the Conservative label and brand are both played out and used up and tinged with unappealing overtones. Those of that ilk have to rebrand themselves under another label much as liberals rebranded themselves as “progressives.” Until this is accomplished so-called “conservatives” will always be pushing their string uphill.
expat,
The 2008 opportunity to heavily attack Obama DID EXIST. Such a candidate/attacker would have needed to have been philosophically grounded in something other than conventional wisdom of D.C. and major media. Philosophical grounding in first principles of conservatism … would have afforded a foundation from which to attack Obama’s philosophical grounding in leftism.* One candidate who might have accomplished it, had he been a disciplined and motivated candidate: Fred Thompson.
*I realize Obama ran as a moderate. Yet, his voting record was the most leftist voting record in the Senate. His voting record left him vulnerable to attack as a leftist, i.e. to attack which focused on the important philosophical differences between small gov and large gov. But, again, water under the bridge. That Repub candidate did not exist.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In 2008, I supported Romney over McCain, b/c Romney was more conservative than McCain … which was not inconsistent with saying, in 2012, that Perry was more conservative than Romney. In my mind, in both 2008 and 2012, I supported the most conservative candidate who had a good chance to win a general election.
I will add: from 2009 to 2011, I saw some things in Romney which offended me. Had I seen them in 2008, I would not have supported Romney with as much enthusiasm.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I agree with neo’s factors which made Romney a stronger candidate in 2012. Two other factors which made Romney a stronger candidate in 2012:
1. From 2008 onward, Romney knew he would run for POTUS in 2012. He utilized his management skill to set himself up for victory: to build a team, and to build a group of supporters (including $). Romney had a clear vision, and he had the time and the skill to set himself up for victory. Kudos.
2. The simplest reason, ever: name recognition. Run of the mill, barely informed Republican primary voters – more than almost any group of voters – vote for the comfort candidate. They knew of Romney from 2008, and he was their comfort candidate of 2012.
BTW: how did GWB defeat McCain in 2000? The Bush name made GWB the comfort candidate for barely informed Repub Primary voters.
McCain in 2008? From the fall of 2007, when the Repub race was wide open, and McCain was flying coach and carrying his own bag and was without any staff? How did McCain suddenly pull out of that and become the sudden frontrunner? Comfort candidate.
How did Ford defeat Reagan in 1976? Ford was a modestly skilled candidate; Reagan was a brilliant force of nature. Ford was the comfort candidate.
In future, if either Santorum or Perry run for POTUS, they will have a natural constituency which will remember them from 2012: they will have the built in advantage of having attained comfort candidate status. It may not lead all the way to victory, but it will be of significant help to them.
I don’t know if either Santorum or Perry should run. Perry already plays a national role as a key governor who stands against federal intrusion into state matters. Perry makes a national contribution in his current role. At some point, a significant group of attractive conservative Republican candidates will enter the fray. Santorum and Perry might be better off in other roles. No shame in that.
Neoneocon,
you mention that Obama was a promise for “. . . an end to the divisiveness and rancor of the Bush era.”
Lest we forget, much of that divisiveness and rancor was manfactured by the left. A self-fulfilling prophecy?
Vanderleun,
I don’t completely agree with you. I do think that the Conservative label is shop worn, but IMO that is because it continues to be identified with SOCIAL conservatism. Santorum’s candidacy didn’t help change that.
I suggest that what the conservative movement needs to do is to simply redirect their emphisis to FISCAL conservativism and downplay the social side. In fact IMO, there is no better time than now to do that, and Romney, with his business experience may be in a better position to do that that any of the former Republican primary candidates.
gcotharn: I agree with some of what you say, but I disagree on some points. One is that I think Santorum has managed to made it impossible for himself in a future election; he’s turned off a lot of would-be supporters and/or former supporters rather than gained many new ones. I think he’s weakened himself. For Perry, it’s somewhat irrational, because he should be judged on his record and not those early debates, but they were very negative for him (whether because he was taking medications or not; politics is not fair, it’s based on perception, and the perception was that he’s not very sharp).
Another thing I disagree about is that Ford was the comfort candidate. He was the incumbent, and Reagan was challenging an incumbent in his own party, which is a very uphill climb. Ford was appointed, it’s true, so he was especially weak, but he was a decent guy and a competent one, and he was the incumbent. A huge advantage—although not huge enough for him to win the election, as it turned out.
T: believe me, I haven’t forgotten.
T,
How about avoiding a label, and just standing for common sense? That covers a very broad area in which the libs/progs have no experience.
As to the lib-propagated devisiveness, I think more and more people are figuring out the source. At least, I hope so. The internet is starting to challenge the MSM and make libs look like the fools they are. Obama just needs to throw a few more folks under the bus–Eric Holder, maybe.
Expat,
I have no problem with a label-less existence, but I fear most of the world does. I identify myself as a registered Republican but point out that the designation really means I am a fiscal conservative, a social libertarian and a small govt proponent. To me that’s what Republicanism SHOULD be.
As for the the populace figuring out the source of the rancor. I agree. I have mentioned on several occasions here (and at other sites) that we have passed the the point of the liberal mask just slipping. It is being ripped off and shredded on an almost daily basis.
I repeat my rhetorical question about the upcoming election. In 2008 Obama won by 53% to 47% of the popular vote. He surely hasn’t convinced any of the 47% to change their mind. The operative question is has he convinced at least 4% of those who voted for him to change THEIR minds? I suggest that the answer is a resounding “Yes, and then some” based upon the current state of affairs (caveat—anything can happen in 5 months).
Don Surber is suggesting a 40 state win for Romney. We shall see, but my own playing around w/ the electoral map already has Romney with 31 states (and 301 electoral votes) and that’s with MI, WI, CO and NV as toss-ups.
In another one of those amazing unilateral moves, the war on terror is over! Hazzah!
T,
I was thinking more in terms of what we say to voters during the campaign and not so much about what we call ourselves. I think it’s probably more effective to point out that Obama’s ideas defy common sense rather than, as some in the blogosphere try to do, prove that he is a socialist. The left excells at name calling (racist, homophobe). We should probably ignore the slurs and drive home the question of whether a policy or proposal makes sense. Then voters don’t have to give up or defend their tribal identity; a disillusioned stay at home is as valuable to us right now a a changer. If that suceeds, we have 4 years to show that our ideas work better.
I agree that we have a pretty decent chance of building on the 47%. The young voters are moving away from Obama. The Catholics and other religious groups are upset about the conscience issue. And maybe some of the white guilt voters are getting sick of Holder’s skewed priorities.
I really liked Romney’s line about building the pipeline himself. It fits the picture of the guy who took his office team to NY to find a colleague’s daughter. What a contrast to the guy who votes present and blames tsunamis. I’d love to see a video of Obama putting together a Billy bookcase from IKEA.
“In another one of those amazing unilateral moves, the war on terror is over! Hazzah!”
I caught that story too and had the same reaction. Denial isn’t just a river in Egypt.
Talk about playing the political version of ‘Russian roulette’…
It’s an incredibly stupid move, given it has little upside and, should another attack occur before the election, has the potential to destroy Obama’s reelection chances.
Another attack is, according to the FBI, virtually certain.
So why do it now? They can’t help themselves. Which is really good news, as those not in control of their impulses, shall never rule over others.
I just voted for Romney in the PA primary, which is a moot point at this stage in the game, but made me feel like I was doing something.
I have a childhood friend who is a journalism professor, and very far left. Her daughter is taking part in a program this summer where she’s going to UCLA to “register young people to vote.” I’m assuming that means she’s part of the Obama brigade to get out the youth vote as long as they vote for him. The other side is highly mobilized and motivated. We can do nothing less.
I’ve come around to the view that this election is Romney’s to lose. Obama and his minions criticism’s of Romney are so inconsequential, that IMO it’s indicative of real desperation. Axelrod’s recent Freudian slip on Fox shows just how unnerved they are facing the voters with the sheer incompetence of Obama’s record.
So I think that improving on McCain’s 47% is in the bag.
How effectively Romney will be able to govern however, probably depends greatly upon the post election make up of the Senate.
It’s virtually certain that dems will obstruct Romney at every turn and that the MSM will be unceasingly painting Romney as a corporate shill.
To be effective, he’s going to need at least a small Congressional majority.
I’m trying to think of a good label better than conservative. Non-identity politician. Pretty clunky. Constitutionalist. Open to too much interpretation. FFGAFTA. Freedom From Government And Freedom To Achieve. Awful to say, but fairly descriptive. Non-debtor. Not descriptive enough.
Well, I guess we’ll just have to go with conservative and and fight the info and cultural and educational wars to create the impression with the term. After all, wouldn’t any term we use be subject to disinformation, bias, counter-education and hatred?
Expat said, “I’d love to see a video of Obama putting together a Billy bookcase from IKEA.”
Ouch!
“”Overall, the Conservative label and brand are both played out and used up and tinged with unappealing overtones.””
Vanderleun
Conservatism isn’t a fashion. If it was, it’d be the button down white shirt that never goes out of style. Because it’s practical and it works.
And what would we get with clueless sheep drawn to conservatism by slickly marketed appeal? A redefined and watered down conservatism full of clueless sheep. Which pretty much describes a big chunk of current republicanism.
Definitely, JJ. I worked nights at a warehouse with ready to assemble (RTA) furniture. What a nightmare at first but then I became impressed with the engineering that was behind it and the extension to the masses of furniture, that although not pristine and superb, was functional and available. For the unitiated, RTA furniture is not RTA. But its RTA for someone with a little experience. I grew to enjoy the challenge and soon recognized the inclusion of looked for shortages and material problems by RTA engineers. It’s getting better and better and really, like Walmart, is an example how making a buck propels a better living standard.
But after all, we don’t need a conservative alternative, damnit. Romney is conservative and he knows he can win. He’s sure of that. How do I know that. By what he is saying and how is saying it. He’s not defending himself. He knows he really doesn’t have to and such defense is just a ploy to knock him off the obvious questions.
No. Romney is confident. He has preserved his campaign from Dukakis like catastrophe. He is definitely not following McCain. And he has decided that economic issues are enough (and they are) to dislodge a liar, a cheat, a racist, and a community organizer from his perch and main vulture of the American economy. The trenchant observations of Artfldgr notwithstanding that doom is all that is left (and it is hard to refute such but even Artflder will assert the unpredictability of the human situation), WE JUST MAY BE LOOKING AT THE BEST TOO COME.
Energy, de-regulation, private education, the relief of renewed growth, the relief of meeting an paying our debt, the renewal of loving–not hating–our country, the containment and then finally the cessation of terror and Iran, the ascendance of Israel. . . for every gloom there is room for the opposite. It may seem small now, but with a couple small victories, this great republic shall not perish from the earth.
I’d have preferred either Gingrich or Santorum, but none of that matters now.
We’re stuck with Obomney.
Ugh. His speech tonight was abysmal.
Well said, Curtis. I have assembled quite a bit of IKEA furniture and it is as you stated. Not easy at first, but with experience, it goes together quickly and with not too much wasted motion.
Obama impresses as one who would believe RTA furniture below him and certainly not something he would be adept at assembling. As soon as he got a piece in the wrong sequence he would be blaming someone/thing other than his own failure to follow the directions or his inability to apply himself assiduously to mundane tasks.
I watched Romney’s speech and thought it set a good note. Uplifting, emphasizing the economy and the failure of progressive policies to get the engine of commerce running again. There are things that can be done. (drill, drill, drill, keystone XL, less restrictive regulation, and rein in governmment spending) Most people who have their eyes open know it and will respond to his message. I thought he exhibited confidence and will not be cowed by attacks from Obama and company.
Let all who want to lift this country out of this continuing nightmare get behind him.
Think of this on a basic level. Who dictates what. Does the Earth dictate that we shall suffer want? The Left would have you believe it does. Supposedly, we are stupid to see the obvious. And the obvious is defined by whom? People who believe that all they have is now and care nothing for the furture. That is why they have made the fruit of their bodies suicide bombers, occupiers and heir to their debt. They do this not knowingly but under the rubric of an evil indoctrination. Who would choose to believe this way? Would anyone conclude such given a neutral parent, education, upbringing? We are results of our parents and what has the state parent produced? Nothingness and hopelessness and powerlessness and suckingness off those who were not so produced. So when they are gone, what is left? A result hoped for by evil.
Perhaps an suspicion of Obama as Messiah will now appear. Mankind cannot its problems. This is implicitly recognized by the “Obama is Messiah” phenomenon.
It was quicly abandoned by the main stream media because it so opposes their materialistic presumptions. Yet, for an instance, we saw it. We know it. Their beliefs require as much faith as ours. And Messiah is proof. They, for a brief moment, thought they had proof. Ohh, it is goooood. We are God. When we bless God, we bless us. We can do no wrong. We are rule. We are power. WE ARE GOD.
But G-d had declared otherwise.
Sorry, my keyboard is not communitcat98hg with my computer.
Expat (@6:35),
“. . . Obama’s ideas defy common sense . . . .”
That is generally true of liberalism in general; theory without concern for practical application or results. That’s why liberals are in such short supply in practical disciplines such as engineering. I also think that this country is on the verge of a major breakthrough. Craftspeople like plumbers, electricians carpenters, etc. historically blue collar democrats are, I believe, beginning to wake up to the fact that this isn’t the Democrat party of JFK and Tip O’Neill.
“WE JUST MAY BE LOOKING AT THE BEST TOO COME” (Curtis @8:34). and one of the great benefits may well be that Obama & Co. have set the bar so low that even an average businessman in the White House would look like an improvement. Imagine the potential of a successful businessman like Romney.
BTW I was quite impresseed with Romney’s speech and its delivery tonight. It was a good clear direct message that remained on point; in fact it touched most of the points the Dems would rather obscure. Romney has given me hope that he can take the fight to the left and he may well be able to frame the argument on his own terms.
Perhaps Romney v Obama will make Cotto v Mayweather look like a cake walk.
I did not see Romney’s speech, but I read a couple of excerpts, and they were better written than my previous experiences of Romney’s speeches. He has either gotten better speechwriters, or the old speechwriters are improving their ability to convey the message, and are arranging words which Romney can deliver comfortably and credibly. The following is inspirational. Good job:
A great speech from Romney tonight. gcotharn, I also loved Romney appropriating Obama’s “fairness” theme and turning it against him:
I see an America with a growing middle class, with rising standards of living. I see children even more successful than their parents — some successful even beyond their wildest dreams — and others congratulating them for their achievement, not attacking them for it.
This America is fundamentally fair. We will stop the unfairness of urban children being denied access to the good schools of their choice; the unfairness of politicians giving taxpayer money to their friends’ businesses; the unfairness of requiring union workers to contribute to politicians not of their choosing; the unfairness of government workers getting better pay and benefits than the taxpayers they serve; and we will stop the unfairness of one generation passing larger and larger debts on to the next.
Wow! I’m impressed gcotharn and rachel. That does sound like a great speech. Really sorry I missed it, hopefully it will be up on the web.
His sentences were succinct in communicating his message and yet invited the listener to add their own thoughts.
If he keeps this up, if he warms to his themes and can speak extemporaneously…reacting as a patient adult to Obama’s and his minions utterances…
He’ll not only win this election but become another ‘great communicator’ because in the excerpts you provided, he sounds a lot like Reagan.
The Tshirt printers will be selling a lot of “It’s still about the economy and we’re not stupid” models. They should go over big with the college seniors who can’t find a job. Obama’s condescension is going to bite him in the a**.
Re: RTA furniture. In Germany, there are few built in closets. One of the first things my husband and I had to do when we bought our first apartment here was assemble a wall-length wardrobe with drawers, shelves, etc. Twenty five years ago, IKEA still had some problems aligning holes and suppying enough screws. When we finished, I told my husband that a marriage that can survive IKEA can survive anything.
JJ is right on about how Barry would view putting together a piece of IKEA funiture beneath him — how he has convinced the MSM to convince the public that he is a man of the people — a man who has never done an honest day’s work in his life, an man educated at the tonyiest prep school in Hawaii, Occidental College, Columbia University, and Harvard Law School, a man who disdains actual working people — is a real mystery to me! Does anybody remember when Michelle, describing her humble background, exclaimed, “Why, we had to live in a three-room apartment when we were first married!” (Full disclosure — my wife and I lived in a one-room apartment in Chicago when we were first married!)
I guess Dr. Goebbels was right.
And speaking of forcing the left to play on one’s own turf I offer this (H/T Instapundit):
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/296899/primo-obama-michael-walsh
Sheesh, the “divisiveness and rancor of the Bush years” was generated by whom? Not Bush et al. The American Left plays long ball; in the first inning, they have their eyes on the ninth. Their quiet development of “democratic constitutionalism” has been ongoing for some 8 years now, at least. The Affordable Care Act was under development since the defeat of Hillarycare.
The Left gave us divisiveness and rancor then, and reaped the benefits. Same as today. Woe betide us.
T,
I am with you, and Stephen Green, and Michael Walsh: the Obama/Axelrod campaign team has not been truly tested: media has carried them. The 2012 battleground is not the same. Political terrain is shifted: Obama now has a record which voters may consider. Media terrain has shifted: Twitter, et al. The brilliant, lighter than air, undefinable sprite in the misty woods: ArielObama, is now sour, dour, and angry at the unfairness of it all. He has morphed, from an undefinable airy sprite, into a bum. He is going down. Decisively.
Never give the Left the benefit of the doubt about anything. Anything. That includes the doubt that vote fraud will be greater than usual this Nov.
The fraud will be enormous. Win dirty, lose fair- whose motto is that?
This seems to me to ALWAYS be a remarkably bad idea. It has gotten us two of the worst, if not THE worst, “PotUSi” in history, Jimmy Carter and his lite form, The Great Big 0. “Outside the beltway” isn’t a Good Thing, for the simple reason that anyone outside the beltway has no grasp of how the whole mechanism works, much less the whole international game. Desire for change or no, you can’t just say “this changes” — it’s a bureaucracy, and it’s designed to resist change inherently. And you can’t just say to the international bozos “Hi, I’m here and things will be different from now on” — because THEY may not want things any different — even when they say so openly and loudly. Consider how many times “Yankee Go Home!!” is suddenly withdrawn when we take it seriously and start to do so.. cf. Japan, Korea, and Germany in the past 3 decades, at least once each.
You also lack any grasp of how effective a people manager the candidate is, since he doesn’t need to prove that at all to get to the nomination, for the most part, appearances to the contrary. Picking the right people for the job, something President Downgrade has shown himself to be quite abysmal at, is something you don’t pick up overnight and you can’t tell as far as his campaign staff if he just got lucky or even just managed to cover up his mistakes (esp. with the news media covering for you).
So, while I agree with you that this was a factor — I’d argue it should be an abject lesson to everyone, one which you’ll argue the nature of long and loudly when the situation arises again in your lifetime, which it will — these things run in cycles.
If these things run in cycles, one must have concern about the cycle’s length. I think that from a macro view we are in the political equivalent of the Kondratiev ‘long wave’ economic cycle; we left its peak a good while back, and it’s a very long negative slope from here.
One need not accept the economic validity of Kondratiev’s thesis. He wrote it in 1925, got sent to the Gulag and was executed in 1938. The length of cyclical waves is what matters in Bupkis’ context.