Romney and the conservative message
Commenter “gcotharn” writes that Peggy Noonan wants Romney to give a fuller picture of his thoughts in order to woo the Republican establishment, but gcotharn (who thinks that Romney needs to win the “first principles” conservatives as well) says:
My creeping suspicion of the problem, with Mr. Romney giving a fuller picture of his thoughts, is that Mr. Romney’s thoughts are less sophisticated and less wise than, say, Governor Perry’s thoughts. And we saw how far that got Governor Perry. In fact, let me restate: my suspicion, of Mr. Romneys shallowness, is not creeping, but rather is a runaway herd of wild horses. Mr. Romney reminds of Barack in this way: Mr. Romney is doing his best to impersonate a blank slate. He sees no reason to reveal who he, in actuality, is not. As in: a person of philosophic depth.
Later on he quotes Noonan as adding that another problem is:
…[Romney’s] insides are unknown to them. They don’t know what’s in there. They fear he hasn’t absorbed any philosophy along the way, that he’ll be herky-jerky, unanchored, merely tactical as president.
I agree that’s the perception of Romney. But I don’t think it will be changed by any speech or further elucidation of his principles. That’s because I’ve seen him state conservative principles many times and it’s either ignored or treated as a lie or rejected for other reasons.
For me to go into examples of this right now would be to expand this post to book length, and it’s already going to be plenty long. So suffice to say that other examples aren’t hard to find. My point is that conservatives and many “establishment Republicans” already don’t trust Romney, and there’s virtually nothing he can do to change that.
Why? Both groups don’t like him much because of what they perceive as his wooden personality, his slick “Ken-doll” near-perfection in the physical realm, and the fact that he was governor of an ultra-liberal state and had to make major concessions to that during his administration. Everything he says is now filtered through the prism of his personality and that particular history, which sticks in their craws and makes them doubt his conservatism. But in my opinion, the more he states that conservatism, the more many people who already distrust him may say, “Look what a hypocrite he is, on top of everything else!”
You might say that with a candidate so flawed, why nominate him? And a year ago I’d have agreed. But a year ago I thought a host of other people I thought would be better candidates would enter the fray. However, as we all know, they didn’t, and I have very little doubt that the flawed Romney is the best of the even-more-deeply-flawed candidates remaining (and I’m not going to debate that issue in this post either, for that afore-mentioned length reason).
But at least one of those Romney flaws for conservatives has the paradoxical quality of appealing to many independents. No, I’m not talking about his personality—although his looks are a draw for some women in particular. No, I’m talking about the fact that Romney was able to function as the governor of liberal Massachusetts and to work for the most practical (and, actually, the most conservative) solutions possible at that time for that state and that legislature.
Independents like a practical man who shows a bit of flexibility, rather than a doctrinaire ideologue who will not budge no matter what. Most “first principles” conservatives would probably prefer the latter. And that is one of the paradoxes inherent in national elections.
“Ah, but what about Ronald Reagan?” you ask. “Now, there was a man who could state conservative principles and appeal to independents at the same time. All we have to do is find someone like that.”
Well, another Reagan might be nice, but good luck in finding one. Not this year anyway, for sure. Sometimes I think that Ronald Reagan’s presidency hangs like a millstone around the necks of conservatives. Or maybe that’s not the right analogy. Perhaps a better way to put it is that the situation resembles that of a person who had a wonderful marriage and then the spouse died, and he or she is looking for another spouse as close as possible to the first one (or to memories of the first one). But that can be a futile quest, and a dead end.
There’s a notion on the right that Reagan’s great strength was his ability to elucidate conservative values in a way that people could understand, follow, and admire. I’d love to take the time to go back and look at Reagan’s addresses and see where he did that, and then look through many of Romney’s speeches and see how they measure up. Maybe some other time; certainly not now or that book will be written again.
And I’ll also skip the part of this post where I list some of the things Reagan did, both as governor of California and president, that went against those values and principles; I’ve done that before and so have others. And don’t think I’m saying he didn’t have those basic conservative values, and that they weren’t elucidated at times, and that it didn’t matter at all when he did. But he didn’t always follow them; he was a practical man, as well.
I think Reagan’s rhetorical statements of conservative principles meant a lot to some people, especially the sort of people who read blogs, and that it did inform many of his decisions, too. But I also think that most people did not gravitate to Reagan and vote for him and then revere him and respect him because of those statements of values. You politics geeks may not like it, but most people make voting decisions based on other reasons.
Reagan had an unusual combination of attributes besides those values, and the ones that appealed to a lot of voters were personality characteristics he projected: calm, optimism, strength, decisiveness, trustworthiness. It didn’t hurt that he was very good-looking in a grandfatherly way, but not too good-looking either. He also was an actor, and had learned to speak well and convey the affect he wanted to convey (he was mocked for that by his enemies, but it was a stupendous skill). In addition, he had a record of executive accomplishment to point to, and little personal baggage other than a prior divorce, which hardly meant anything in the face of his long-term and solid second marriage.
Plus—and do not underestimate this fact—the public was heartily sick of Jimmy Carter. Without this factor, Reagan wouldn’t have had a chance of election, for all his pluses. And without a record that was basically positive during his term as president, it all would have been so much hot air. Most people want to see results, too.
Flash forward to the present, and Mitt Romney. There are some seeming similarities between then and now: a handsome ex-governor candidate facing a liberal president who’s become unpopular in his first term, as well as an economy with grave problems. His record and his personality are different, however, as are his strengths.
For those who would like Romney to elucidate conservative principles more, I’d like to know which ones you want to hear that he hasn’t mentioned already. Romney has written an entire book entitled, “No Apology: The Case for American Greatness.” I haven’t read it yet, but you might want to if you’re interested. But it wouldn’t take too long to familiarize yourself with Romney’s stump speech. Part of it goes like this:
President Obama boasts that he will “fundamentally transform” America. I want to restore America to our founding principles.
I believe that our founding principles are what made America the greatest nation in the history of the earth.
Among those core principles is what the founders called the “pursuit of happiness.” We call that opportunity, or the freedom to choose our course in life. That principle is the foundation of a society that is based on ability, not birthright.
In a merit-based society, people achieve their dreams through hard work, education, risk-taking, and even a little luck. An opportunity society produces pioneers and inventors; it inspires its citizens to build and create. And these people exert effort and take risks, and when they do so, they employ and lift others and create prosperity.
Their success does not make others poorer. It makes all of us better off.
President Obama sees America differently. He believes in an entitlement society.
Once we thought that “entitlement” meant that Americans were entitled to the privilege of trying to succeed in the greatest nation in the world. Americans fought and died to earn and protect that entitlement. But today, the new entitlement battle of this president is over the size of the check you get from Washington.
President Obama has reversed John Kennedy’s call for sacrifice. He would have Americans ask, “what can the country do for you?”
Just a couple of weeks ago in Kansas, President Obama lectured us about Teddy Roosevelt’s philosophy of government. But he failed to mention the important difference between Teddy Roosevelt and himself. Roosevelt believed that government should level the playing field to create equal opportunities. President Obama believes that government should create equal outcomes.
In an entitlement society, everyone receives the same or similar rewards, regardless of education, effort and willingness to take risk. That which is earned by some is redistributed to others. And the only people who truly enjoy real rewards are those who do the redistributing””government.
The truth is that everyone may get the same rewards under that kind of system, but virtually everyone will be worse off.
President Obama’s entitlement society would demand a massive growth of government. To preserve opportunity, however, we have to shrink government, not grow it.
It goes on in that vein. Let me repeat: that’s Romney’s stump speech—not a one-shot deal, but his basic message, although the details and exact words may change now and then.
Now, how many of you believe he means it? I do. Will he be able to execute it as president? Darned if I know. But I think he has the best chance of doing so of all the Republicans now running.
“”Independents like a practical man who shows a bit of flexibility, rather than a doctrinaire ideologue who will not budge no matter what.””
Well we have one Barak Obama that surely contradicts this. Like i said in a previous post, independents need to be lead, not pandered to.
SteveH: did you read the entire post? Do you think the quotes in that speech pander to independents in some way? I certainly don’t.
The part that disturbs me is this:
Teddy Roosevelt was a Progressive. In 1912, he actually split from the GOP to run against Taft as a Progressive. That was the start of a 100 year war for the heart of the GOP. Jeffrey Lord discusses that war in this interesting article. The conservatives don’t want the government to level the playing field. They want constitutionally limited government and free market. Both parties have been so busy “leveling the playing field” that they have almost destroyed the country. Just get out of our lives and stop meddling!
The war is still ongoing. On the one side is Romney, the progressive, who wants to emulate Teddy Roosevelt, and on the other, that most imperfect vessel for conservative hope, Gingrich.
This war is being played out all levels. The tea Party folk are the Conservatives, challenging the progressive GOP establishment. We’ve seen vicious in-fighting in Colorado and Ohio and Alaska and it won’t stop until fiscal sanity is restored and the government is cut down to size.
Pat: I guess you’re determined to prove my point, because you are discounting what Romney actually says in the speech.
Nor is he praising Roosevelt or saying he will follow him. He is saying that Obama praised him, and pointing out a difference between Roosevelt and Obama.
Sheesh. To get from that to emulation of Roosevelt is a stretch that indicates you’re quite a gymnast.
SteveH, maybe we always knew that Obama was a hard-left ideologue, but many people in the middle didn’t at the time… the media did its best to sell him as not just a centrist, but as a magical being that had somehow evolved beyond the need for politics altogether.
Or, I should have added, the Republic is lost.
The charge from the left that Republicans (Eisenhower, Reagan, Bush, Perry, Romney) are not very bright is so tiresome. Romney has an MBA and law degree from Harvard without the benefit of affirmative action. He founded and ran a very successful multi million dollar company that operated in the world of high finance. His personal wealth is in the hundreds of millions. He sorted out the Winter Olympics that were about to fail. Surely the guy is very capable of running an organization.
What Romney isn’t is a good politician. We have that with Obama and that’s not what we need now as we face fiscal problems unlike any before.
I’ve watched chunks of Romney’s stump speech on C-SPAN. The essential problem is that it is a stump speech. They all sound pretty much the same, with little variation between candidates and across time. A decent impersonator could deliver Mitt’s words with Santorum’s mannerisms, and nobody would notice the plagiarism.
Romney is not offering anything to set him apart from an abstract strawman Republican candidate. What are his “signature” issues or talking points? Yeah, Rah! America! is good for what it is worth, but it’s not substantial.
He echoes the conservative message, but lacks a personal message.
Separately and superficially, at some of the events, Mitt’s hair gets a little tousled. Combined with his general wide-eyed blankness as he looks around the room, and he kind of resembles a shavenJim Ignatowski. Look for
Newt’sObama’s SuperPAC portraying Mitt as a weirdo preacher.Foxmarks… so because Obama might say mean things about Romney he should be disqualified? And what would he say about Gingrich?
Two problems here with believing Romney, even though, I mostly do, but still note the two problems:
1. His conservative chops are johnny come lately chops.
Example: Romney in 2002: I’m “Moderate,” “Progressive,” and “Not a Partisan Republican”
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/12/romney-2002-moderate-progressive-not-partisan-Worcester
2. His conservative chops rely on talk not walk.
Example: Romneycare hasn’t worked and Romney’s budget deficit improvement resulted from raising fees not cutting costs.
The reasons I believe Romney are mainly that I don’t see that he has a motive to join the country club elite–he already is that; and his move to social conservative positions which are certain death to an attempt to appeal to moderates or independents.
I think this describes what Romney has seen in the business world and what he thinks should be fixed:
http://www.city-journal.org/2012/bc0131gs.html
He does talk about the difficulty of businesses being able to plan for investments because the rules keep changing. Obama must drive him crazy.
Neo-Neocon : I’m looking at his actions. Romneycare is the quintessential expression of the Progressive approach to governance and he still defends it.
His China trade policy mimics Trump’s policy. He wants to intervene in free trade. And, if he wants to talk about currency manipulation, he should take a page out of Ron Paul’s book and lambast the Fed for driving down the value of the US dollar.
On energy, his web-site says “Government has a role to play in innovation in the energy industry. History shows that the United States has moved forward in astonishing ways thanks to national investment in basic research and advanced technology.” That’s the sort of thinking that got the Government into the computer chip business in the 90.
On taxes, he proposes “Eliminate taxes for taxpayers with AGI below $200,000 on interest, dividends, and capital gains”. Why the arbitrary limit? That sort of thing opens up all sorts of dodges as people try to stay under the theshold. Moreover, the people with real money are the ones who invest and create jobs, as he should know. The $200K is pandering.
That’s enough for now.
Pat says: I’m looking at his actions. Romneycare is the quintessential expression of the Progressive approach to governance and he still defends it.
That’s Romney’s chinese finger trap. I know people think he can explain it away as a state level program (which is the best he can do), but on the same stage Obama is going to be thanking him for coming up with the model for Obamacare.
Not to mention an onslaught of one-sided political ads that will be running.
Pat: not only do I disagree about Romneycare and Romney’s role in it (and have written about it in the past)–but, much more importantly for this post: you demonstrate my point about the futility of statements of conservative principles from Romney.
My point is that people who don’t like Romney for whatever reasons will find something wrong with his articulation of conservative principles. You say that you are looking at his actions, not his words, which is your prerogative. In doing so, however, you are in line with the following statement I made in this post [emphasis mine]:
What’s more, in saying Romneycare is “the quintessential expression of the Progressive approach to governance” you are ignoring (a) federalism; it was supported by almost every legislator in Massachusetts and the public wanted it as well, and (b) Romney had initially proposed a very different version of it; and (c) he vetoed many provisions of it and was overruled by the legislature. When Romney defends it, he defends it for Massachusetts: it was the state’s right to pass it, and he did his best to make it somewhat more conservative, and it is still popular there. He does not defend it for implementation on the federal level.
To me, your statement indicates blinders in looking at these facts, because you do not trust that Romney is a conservative at heart. I happen to disagree, and I look at the same facts. However, I repeat what I said in my post: no statement of Romney’s would be convincing you that I am right and you are wrong.
neo, thank you for sharing extended thoughts on this.
gcotharn: you’re welcome. You’re my inspiration! 🙂
I wonder, if Romney is such an ill fit to conservative ideals, how he is winning primaries. Here’s what I think. I think the general citizen is not really a political idealogue, but he has been treated to three years of an individual who is, six years of a Democratic Senate that is and four years of a Democratic house that was. I think people are pretty well at the end of their tether with radicalism and are looking for a safe, quiet, competent Chief Executive. After a term or two of that, they may be ready for a more idealistic personna and, if so, the Republican bench is unusually fat with prospective candidates. Mitt is O.K. with me and it looks as if he’s going to get the nod. Time to get past all the navel gazing and ankle-biting.
I don’t believe him. But I’m going to vote for him.
So what’s the difference? I’m resigned to his inevitability, if not to him.
Why don’t I believe him? Because, to me, he’s not believable. That’s it. He seems like a cipher, a throughput for weird alien forces and focus groups. I guess that can be an advantage if he winds up like Jonah Goldberg said, a transactional guy. But it doesn’t change my opinion of his conservatism. If he genuinely believes what he says, then he is truly a singular creature on this big blue ball. I have never in my life seen someone speak as unconvincingly on behalf of his convictions as Romney (if they are his convictions). That, dear friends, is quite a talent indeed.
We’re humans but animals too. And we have animal ways of inferring the content of other people’s minds based on cues. All I can say is that every single cue – with no exceptions I can think of – that I have received from Romney has not just suggested, but screamed with glass-shattering violence that he doesn’t believe a word of what he’s saying. He doesn’t even know how to believe what he’s saying.
Oh, wait – there IS one exception. I do believe him when he morphs into Leonidas in defense of his Great Conservative Policy Achievement, Romneycare, as the conservative hordes besiege him. You want to know why conservatives don’t trust the man? There it is in a nutshell. The only cue signaling deep conviction he gives to the conservative animal is that he hearts Romneycare with the blazing passion of a thousand suns. With other things, not so much. It’s back to alien forces.
Even when he moves his arms giving his stump speech he has this weird stiffness where it looks like he’s doing the robot. He always sounds like he’s trying to sell me something. And sounding like a salesman is practically how I define, “yeah, no.”
Neo is right – there is nothing he could possibly say that could convince me he is a conservative by philosophy or by gut instinct. I cannot let Romneycare go, and until he repeals Obamacare – or dies trying – that won’t change.
@Neo Neocon – Well, I’d love for you to be proven right about Romney, assuming he gets the nomination. I can’t help thinking H W Bush when I look at him, his style, and his positions.
The fact that his state supported Romneycare doesn’t mean it isn’t Progressive. It is borne of the impulse to help the people through the benevolent guidance of government. Blue states have been buying that kool aid for generations.
@Dennis – he has won one primary, primarily by attacking his opponent with a blizzard of negative TV ads. If Gingrich is be lambasted for attacking Romney on Bain, and rightly so, then Romney deserves the same for using a Democrat smear campaign to claim Gingrich was unethical.
I don’t think people were flocking to a “safe, quiet, competent Chief Executive”. They just responded to the money he spent on negative ads. That’s why politicians go negative; it works. Romney will likely win a few more races, and may yet gain enough momentum to win the nomination. If he does that, I’ll support him. My fear, as Honeyimhome notes, is that Obama can use Romneycare against him, to devastating effect, and win another term.
Don’t count me as a big Gingrich booster, either. It is sad, that in such dangerous times, these are the best the GOP can come up with.
Boy, neo, you’ve sewed it all up nice and neat just like a liberal argues. If a person states the facts that show Romney is a johnny come lately conservative, you provide an ad hominem attack: you say that because you don’t like Romney.
Details of Romneycare both exonerate and blame him, but especially troubling is his latest justification of it because it was the “fair” thing to do.
Blinders, here, are on you, Neo.
The facts show that it is more reasonable to doubt Romney than to believe him.
To me Romney is like the son or daughter in-law you would not have wished for, but he’ll be an adequte son or daughter in-law nonetheless. He won’t enliven the Thanksgiving dinner table with his charm or wit, nor will he be that noticeable at a family reunion; but the grandchildren will be of sound body and mind. He’s not what I want, but I’ll be mildly content if he is what I get come inauguration day January, 2013.
Romney’s electability is crucial. I wish there was a dark horse whose name rhymed with ray-gun, but the only other contenders are Newt (thanks for 1994; damn you for 1996-98, i.e. fixating on Clinton’s philandering and spending like a Democrat) and Santorum (OK, you’ve put down your marker in 2012; maybe I’ll be interested if you’re still relevant in 2016 or 2020). I can add to the anecdotal evidence that Democrats I know have said they’ll vote for a competent Romney over an irresponsible Obama but won’t touch the other Republicans with a ten foot pole.
Likely, Romney’s policies would be pro-business enough to grow the economy. Possibly, he would reproduce some of his professional streamlining of bloated bureaucracies and make beneficial changes to the size of government. Pipe-dreamly, he would axe a department or two and eliminate one of the miasmal venues of leftist activism existing on the taxpayers’ dime (Education, Energy).
Big picture: anyone but Obama is needed to avoid further entrenchment of statist (red/green) bureaucrats or another “authentic” Supreme Court justice.
Actually, the real big picture is this: America is at a crossroads between reverting to an aristocracy or maintaining the politics of the Declaration of Independence.
Hold your nose if you have to, but Romney is much less RINO than a lot of other choices (Gingrich included).
I’ve met Romney-likes on the training mat. They appear competent at first glance and by their stance they seem to be aware of the fundamentals of self-defense. Once the action starts they quickly find themselves laying on the mat wondering what happened. But their saving grace is they get up, shake your hand, and acknowledge they were bested. I think Romney is capable of learning from his mistaken assumptions. If he is not, he remains 10E4 better than BHO.
As noted in another post, Romney is who he is at this point. Whatever he’s done or not done is what it is.
The guy can’t pretend to be firebrand conservative.
He can’t pretend to be an ordinary middle class person – he’s not been in that position for a long time.
He can’t prentend to be a grassroots tea party leader – that’s not who he’s been.
Anyway, you get the idea. But the guy needs to turn whatever negatives people perceive about him as a candidate and embrace and address them directly and use it to his advantage.
A story:
One night at a comedy club there were a lot of wannabes trying to get their break. After a couple of pretty good acts there was a lull on stage. The curtain opened wider than usual from the side and two guy pushing a cart came on stage. On the cart was a short torso and a head. It was a man with no arms or legs on his back on the cart. The audience noise died to an awkward silence, with a few people trying to start some applause, but overall the air of everything was uncomfortable.
The men propped the short figure up on a simple chair and strapped him to the back, then left the stage.
Then the man spoke in low but clear tone and asked the audience a question.
“Do you know why I’m brave?” he asked.
The audience squirmed a bit.
Then with just enough timing for effect, he answered, “Because I can’t duck if you guys start throwing stuff!”
The audience cracked up.
So, that’s what I think Romney needs to do. If he can’t make himself believable, he needs to turn the idea around. Yes, I haven’t been exactly this sort of person some hoped for, but here’s what I can do for you.
Know thyself. (isn’t that Socrates)
Curtis: I wonder what’s happened to your reading comprehension. I mean that quite sincerely.
I have never said any such thing. What I said was that, if I offered evidence that Romney had clearly articulated conservative principles, then people would discount that they meant anything because—well, take your pick from any number of reasons, such as, for example, that he doesn’t really believe in those conservative principles anyway. And I used that to illustrate that the mere articulation of conservative principles would not be enough to change the minds of most people who don’t like Romney.
That’s the point of this post, by the way. Not that the articulation of conservative principles by Romney ought to be enough to change people’s minds. They’ve got plenty of other reasons not to like him, reasons I don’t happen to agree with, but so be it. But (and I’m repeating this just to make it crystal clear) the point I was addressing was the contention by some people that articulation of conservative principles is what Romney lacks, and that if he just were articulate them, it would help. But he has already articulated them—in his stump speech, no less—and many people either haven’t paid a particle of attention or don’t care what he says. So those who think that if Romney articulated conservative principles it would make a difference are wrong.
You are a regular commenter here and I would be loathe to give you a warning. But I am strongly requesting that you be more careful when you accuse me of something, and take some time to pay attention to what I’m actually saying.
Pat: of course the fact that Massachusetts supported Romneycare doesn’t mean the bill isn’t progressive. Some states (for example, Vermont) support things that are not only progressive, but so progressive they’re downright socialist. Massachusetts is one of the most liberal states in the US.
What I was trying to say was (1) that despite the “progressive” nature of Romneycare, it was considered a relatively conservative solution compared to other solutions Massachusetts might have passed (it was praised by the Heritage Foundation and good old Newt Gingrich himself); and (2) that it doesn’t tell us what Romney would consider a good direction for the entire country in 2012. Romneycare was a solution for Massachusetts only, and Romney tried to make it more conservative at the time and failed (many of his suggestions were not adopted, and his vetoes were overruled).
kolnai: interesting.
I happen to believe him. I “read” his emotional stiffness as just that: emotional stiffness. I believe him for a number of reasons, but I’ll just list three here: (a) the totality of his life is quite conservative; (2) even when he was governor of Massachusetts, and had to cater to liberals, he tried to make that bill (Romneycare) a lot more conservative than it ended up (if he didn’t have actual and real conservative convictions, why on earth would he annoy liberals by fighting them on any of it?); and (3) he’s not known for breaking promises.
I observe that he keeps his word, both in his private and public life. He ran as a moderate in Massachusetts and then governed as one, and if he runs now as a conservative in word (and promises to get rid of Obamacare, for example) I believe he will make a very good effort to follow through in deed.
Also, I don’t see such a difference in affect in him when he defends Obamacare. Any extra intensity I read as a need to justify something he feels under the gun for; perhaps that gives him a little more urgency. I don’t see it as an ideological love of progressivism at all.
I also watched a clip a while back that impressed me. I have been trying to find it again, but no dice so far. It was during his debates with Ted Kennedy in 1994, when he tried to unseat him as senator. Romney gave a surprisingly heartfelt defense of some conservative principle (I think it was smaller government), and it especially surprised me because for much of that 1994 race he was trying to negate Kennedy’s accusations that he was too conservative for Massachusetts. And yet at that one point, anyway, he was making a fairly strong conservative statement.
I should really try harder to find it again.
Interestingly enough, I have the opposition reaction. I listen to Romney speak, and he seems very believable. I listen to Gingrich or Obama speak and every fiber of my body screams “liar – don’t trust him!”
Maybe I don’t get hung up on Romney’s so-called stiffness because I’ve personally known so many LDS’s – that kind of demeanor (politeness) is almost a cultural thing for them and it doesn’t prevent them from being very competent (another aspect of their “culture”).
To SteveH – You might want to re-think using statements like “independents need to be lead, not pandered to.” That particular gun can be twisted around any which way, and end up shooting you in the foot. Like so…
“Far-right conservatives need to be lead and not pandered to.”
“Moderates need to be lead and not pandered to.”
“Liberals need to be lead and not pandered to.”
“Fill-in-the-blank need to be lead and not pander to.”
All of which really translates to “Anyone who doesn’t agree with me needs to be lead and not pandered to.”
Seems pretty risky to use a weapon so readily available to the other side.
kolnai (and everyone else): Here’s a clip. It’s not the one I was looking for (at least, not to the best of my recollection). But it’s the sort of thing I’m talking about in my above comment.
Note that this conversation took place in 1994 during Romney’s debates with Ted Kennedy. He was challenging Kennedy’s Senate seat. Romney actually did better than any Republican had before against Kennedy, but of course Kennedy won the election. But take note that this was in the very liberal state of Massachusetts, and despite that I see Romney articulating some conservative thoughts here that belie the idea that he’s all for big government and is a progressive. Why would he have presented himself as this conservative if it wasn’t sincere? It certainly wasn’t going to win the election for him against Kennedy in Massachusetts.
And by the way, Romney seems pretty intense here, too. Watch.
I believe Romney and think he will make a good president. As I have said before, he’s intelligent, competent, has accomplished much in his life, has an impeccable personal life (which *IS* walking the walk as far as I’m concerned), and has the style I like to see in a president. And is conservative enough for me at this time but not so conservative that he will scare off independents.
Let’s get behind him, elect him AND…repeat AND elect a Republican House and Senate so he can repeal Obamacare like he says he will.
I’ve said before that I prefer Romney to Gingrich, but that I would be happy to vote for either to get Obama out of office. See here. And see here.
In reviewing the comments, I cannot do better than what Matthew M said. In fact, he echoes my views just about perfectly. So, to keep from writing a long post, let me just say:
Dittos Matthew M… Dittos!
@neo-neocon : I understand that Romney can rightfully argue that Massachusets got the healthcare system its people wanted. I hope he can articulate the idea that he’ll repeal Obamacare because it is a healthcare system that the people of America don’t want. My fear is that he isn’t doing that forcefully enough to allay the fears of conservatives , let alone repulse the attacks from the left.
Another weakness is his background as a rich Wall Street investment banker. The Obama campaign is going to run a campaign based on the rich paying their full share while blaming Wall Street for our dire Economic straits. Romney is the perfect foil for such a campaign.
Then there is his flip-flopping on abortion. That turns off social conservatives and evangelicals.
The MSM is treating him very gently, just as they did McCain in the 2008 primary season. This will last until he is nominated, assuming he is. Then all hell will break out. Watch for exposes of Mormonism on the front page of the NYT. Apparently, he and his wife had his late father-in-law, an avowed atheist, posthumously baptized into the Mormon church. If that is true, the press and the late-night comedians will have a field-day. It has already started. Watch for sob stories from people who lost their jobs when Bain closed a plant in the WP. See these stories amplified on TV.
Would Gingrich fare any better? At least he has been pre-demonized. If the good Newt shows up much more often than the bad, yes. But the bad, whiny Newt is the one we’re seeing now, due in part to the attacks on him.
I think Palin is right to say the primary campaign should go on – “Steel sharpens steel” – because both candidates need to improve their campaigns and messaging if either is to prevail against Obama.
For obvious reasons Romney does not talk about his Mormon faith, but it would suggest he is conservative at his core. Mormons believe in self reliance and planning for the future. They believe in small government and hard work. They believe in improving their communities. Much of their theology is way, way out of the mainstream, but their basic approach to life is honest and conservative.
Pat: not only would Gingrich fare much worse, he is a candidate who already is disliked by everyone except the right. Just ask around, if you know any independents or moderates: they will not vote for him. If the right thinks it doesn’t need those people to win, it thinks wrong.
Obama and the press will demonize anyone who runs. Period.
As for Romney’s financial background, they can demonize it all they want, but for many many people, private sector, financial, and turnaround background is a plus.
Romney’s supposed flip-flopping on abortion amounts to saying the states should decide, and he supports Massachusetts’ right to say yes to it although he’s personally against it (he always, always said the latter: that he was against it personally), and then later changing his tune on government support of it. That’s the big flip-flop. I don’t see what the huge fuss is about.
@neo-neocon – hope you’re right but I have every fear that Romney is the McCain of 2012; he’s the one they want us to run.
Gingrich is loathed now about as much as Reagan was at the same point in the cycle. We will see if he can emulate Reagan. I suspect not.
No, Gingrich is definitely not the next Reagan.
But Romney is very much the next McCain. He will go down in flames in the general election. He is practically the poster boy for the Evil Rich White Male Capitalist that Obama will be running against. He’s a living, breathing strawman.
There are many, many people who have had enough of the Institutional Republican Party and are no longer willing to take a bite out of that particular flavor of sandwich.
Pat: I’ve got an article in the works about the McCain thing. Now I just have to write it!
But I think Romney is the candidate they’d least like to face. Although, as I’ve said before, I don’t think they mind facing any of them. They’ve got a dossier a mile long on all of them.
rickl: our messages just crossed. But see the comment I wrote above.
Crazy Bald Guy: Much, probably most, of Romney’s support comes from his alleged electability, not from his principles and policies. Although I think electability is bogus, I enjoy pointing out how Mitt is nowhere near as electable as most believe. Mitt’s the easiest for Barry to beat.
McCain was running against an unknown. Now we know him. I also think the white guilt card has been played. What Romney can appeal to is the common sense of voters, and there are a lot of people that might win over.
Romney is the safe bet out of the whole republican field for sure. And i believe he will win handily over Jimmy Carter the 2nd if nominated. I just fear he won’t be conservative enough to slow the leftward slide of the country, much less move it rightward.
But you go to war with the army you got.
Many Republicans nowadays talk about how RINOish McCain is/was and what a poor candidate he was and how much Romney is like him.
Are they forgetting that Obama had the “white guilt thing” going for him (and for Heaven’s sake, I hope we’ve got THAT out of our systems now) and that McCain was leading Obama in the polls until the economy (at last) fell apart?
The economy beat McCain as much as anything and Obama got lucky about its timing. This time, the economy may beat him.
The economy tanked in 2008 because of decades of mismanagement by both Republicans and Democrats with a huge assist from the Federal Reserve Board…NOT just because of Bush II or McCain.
texexec: yes, they have forgotten.