Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojkt
As a registered Republican who voted for George W. Bush in 2000 (to no effect since I had long moved from Florida to Maryland so at least I don’t have that debacle on my conscious) and lost faith in the concept of compassionate conservatism, I am a Republican in name only (RINO) in search of a new home. While I have come to empathize with many progressive causes (having a spouse who is a public school teacher will do that for you), I still feel a duty to steer my erstwhile party towards policies which will aid and grow our country. Over the next few posts of mine, I am going to go down the list of candidates and note how I feel about them.
Which brings us to Mitt Romney, the 2012 Republican nominee. Make no mistake about it, he will get the nomination. And while at this time four years ago Hillary Clinton was considered a lock on the Democratic nomination and Mitt’s hold seems a little more tenuous, but he will prevail in the end. Why? Because he is who the money men want. There are only two ‘Establishment’ candidates in the field and Jon Huntsman continues to get no traction whatsoever.
What is astoundingly odd is how tepid his support his. There even seems to a rather stealth Anybody But Romney movement working the fringes. I can only second guess what the motivation is but I suspect it is fear that Romney is a closet moderate. Heck, he was the governor of Massachusetts for christsakes. That alone makes him unacceptable to a broad swath of the Republican base who have been taught to despise anything on sight from the People’s Republic of Taxachusetts.
The biggest monkey on his back is ObamaRomneyCare. It is testament to the ability of the right wing flackmedia to shift the Overton Window that the goalposts have moved so far. Individual mandates were once the Republican straw alternative to universal coverage and single-payer. That individual mandates flew in Massachusetts scared someone somewhere. What should be his signature achievement, because it has been co-opted by moderate Democrats, has become his albatross.
His other claim to fame, his private sector career as a vulture capitalist, is also a rather double-edged sword. While making millions of money in finance is about as gold-star a credential as needed for the players who pull the strings, it’s not going to play well with populists either in general or within the tea party portion of the GOP. He keeps trying to make sympathetic gestures towards the lower middle class but they always come off as awkward and patronizing. Come to think of it ‘awkward and patronizing’ covers much of his campaign style. He is as close to Al Gore stiff as you will ever find in a Republican. Folksy, he ain’t.
He is really too slick for his own good and his waffling and back-pedaling is a tag that is going to dog him. Ultra-right wingers don’t trust him and probably for good reason. While he tries to parrot the current talking points, they just don’t feel right coming out of his mouth. He is insincere and smarmy and it’s clear where his loyalties lie.
The real drama for the next four months (and the campaign should be over by mid-March) is like watching a Columbo movie. You know who the candidate is, the suspense is in figuring out how he gets there.
Filed under: Uncategorized |
All Things in Moderation 
Very nice post yellojkt. It seems pretty clear to me, an outsider, that he will be the nominee. I believe he will have lukewarm support from most Republicans but in that respect he and Obama are somewhat equal. It will be an interesting campaign I think with a rather anti-climactic disappointment whichever man wins. I think the more interesting races will be down ticket, particularly in the Senate. A whole lot of money will be raised for the Presidential campaign either way, which I essentially consider a waste of money, so I won't be participating in that aspect of it this time around.
LikeLike
Its weird. Romney is leading in the polls, but I have yet to find anyone that acknowledges support. Like the post and look forward to your thought on the other contenders. Re: the individual mandate, I'd have to go back to confirm, but IIRC most position papers from right-of-center sources that supported them were based on the idea that the mandate was for catastrophic coverage and designed to address the "free rider at the ER problem." The mandate here (Romney or Obama) is a for a larded up health plan, so it's not exactly the same.
LikeLike
For me at least, Romney seems to be to Republicans as Kerry was to the Democrats, a candidate that seems acceptable, or perhaps a little better than acceptable, to the other side. I could be wrong about that of course, but, just for now, Romney seems to be that kind of candidate.
LikeLike
yellojkt:Thanks for the post. I think it pretty well encapsulates the issue — there's Romney, then everyone else vying to be Not Romney, somewhat reminiscent of McCain and Not McCain (Huckabee). Milbank had a column today about Huntsman's problem with getting traction.Milbank on HuntsmanAs a registered FL R, I'm hoping that I'll get a chance to vote for Huntsman, but I imagine my choices will be Romney and Not Romney.NoVA:I think Gingrich supports the individual mandate for health insurance in general and not just catastrophic coverage. Haven't seen a position paper from him about it though.
LikeLike
"ObamaRomneyCare"It's Obomney care. I remain a registered Republican, and was actually more enthusiastic about voting for George W. Bush in 2004 than 2000, although much of that probably had to do with Kerry, who rubbed me the wrong way in many respects. Of course, I also voted for Palin/McCain, but Obama has won me over since then with what I see has his steadfast pragmatism and centrism (with some red meat thrown to the base, but I don't pay much attention to that). Also, President Drone has taken much of the Bush anti-terrorism policy and improved it. He's also gotten American troops engaged in several other battles, which I'm not a big fan of, but . . . well, if the Republicans would really serve me up somebody solid, I'd get excited about voting Republican again. I don't see that person in the current Republican field. "He is as close to Al Gore stiff as you will ever find in a Republican."This is a good observation. Mr. Sullivan: "Romney seems to be to Republicans as Kerry was to the Democrats"Then seems even closer to the mark. Romney is the Republican's Kerry. Stiff, wealthy, waffles on his positions, and uncomfortable mixing with the hoi polloi.But, I think 2016 might be the year of Chris Christie, running for an open presidency. Crossing my fingers!
LikeLike
Herman Cain: if the Tea Party owns the GOP, I think Herman Cain wins. If the establishment money owns the GOP, then Romney wins. And many of the serious Tea Partiers skip the election.
LikeLike
mike — i was thinking earlier, like back during the Clinton debate in the early 90s. but i might be wrong about that.
LikeLike
NoVA:Dug up this item on NewsmaxAppearing on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Gingrich told host David Gregory that he continues to advocate for a plan he first called for in the early 1990s as a Congressman, which requires every uninsured citizen to purchase or acquire health insurance.Gregory played a clip of Gingrich speaking during an appearance on Meet the Press in October 1993:“I am for people, individuals — exactly like automobile insurance — individuals having health insurance and being required to have health insurance. And I am prepared to vote for a voucher system which will give individuals, on a sliding scale, a government subsidy so we insure that everyone as individuals have health insurance.”[snip]Gingrich also admitted that his proposal is a "variation" of the individual mandate, a key component of the Obamacare legislation President Obama signed into law in 2010.Gingrich backs individual mandate
LikeLike
interesting — will have to dig into that to see what the "variation" is. thanks!
LikeLike
Mike,I was going to link to that Huntsman article in the post but forgot to. Thanks for linking to it. It's very informative.
LikeLike
Very nice post. To me, Kerry 2004 = Romney 2012. Both from Massachusetts (yeah, I know Romney only showed up for a drive by 1 term, but it's what he's got). Both "look' presidential. Kerry was eviscerated by Bush [Really! A silver star who served in Marine gets called on the carpet by a thanks to Daddy reservist. Really?] I think Obama's operation is equally capable of cutting Romney. From my view, Romney is the least distasteful of the Republicans. Cain is a joke. Perry is scary. I think he'd break fingers for power. Nobody else has a clue (everyone but Huntsman) or a chance (Huntsman).BB
LikeLike
Conservatives indeed have reservations about where his true principles lie. In the end, most will decide that he deserves to have the benefit of the doubt that he will govern as he is campaigning, and that is true; he does. Most will also vote for him because of the horrifying prospect of Obama II. The latter will be a factor stronger than in any past election. No one expects Romney to do much in truly rolling back government, and he isn't campaigning very much on doing so. But then Reagan never actually rolled back government and yet was able to tinker around the edges enough to give us two decades of prosperity and strength.All this being said, the tepidness of his support isn't astounding at all. There's no reason why Republicans would rally around him as they did Reagan, for example. The case for him is that he is very smart and capable, has presidential bearing and judgment, can go toe to toe with Obama and beat him down, and is at least somewhere in that desired range of "most conservative electable candidate."I don't know what candidate you are watching to call him awkward and patronizing or smary and insincere. He is lightyears from Al Gore in those qualities. Oh, he has moments when it is awkward to identify with ordinary people, but then Obama is even a complete phony in that regard. Calling him a vulture capitalist is just an errant cheap shot.It's also a terrible exaggeration to call insurance mandates a Republican idea.
LikeLike
"It's also a terrible exaggeration to call insurance mandates a Republican idea."I tend to agree. It was an alternative to Clinton-care that was, generally, not supported by the GOP. Otherwise it might have passed like No Child Left Behind or Medicare Part D and it did not. Nixon had a healthcare plan that contained employer mandates making it so that if you employed someone, you have to cover their health insurance (boy, that would have been great for unemployment in the late 70s). He also supported OSHA and the EPA and wage-and-price controls and on and on . . . I don't think we'd really call those Republican plans or Republican agencies now.
LikeLike
"But then Reagan never actually rolled back government and yet was able to tinker around the edges enough to give us two decades of prosperity and strength"But Reagan was awesomely Reagan. I have a hard time viewing any candidate in that light, or seeing anyone filling those shoes.
LikeLike
I in no way intended to compare Romney to RR.Btw, someone (Powerline?) had an interesting post wondering which Presidents' portraits (in addition to RR) each Republican candidate would put in the cabinet room. Reagan put up Coolidge (great choice). From there, choices can be complicated and subject to controversy for various reasons for various reasons. They had a dim view of Romney's likely choice.To me the answer to this question would quite simple: Washington.
LikeLike
various reasons for various people
LikeLike