“Winning Our Future,” a super PAC supporting Newt Gingrich, has released an ad that complains that the “Republican establishment” and the “liberal Republican establishment” want to “pick our next candidate” — and that candidate is not the “principled conservative,” Newt Gingrich.
I understand the theory behind the ad. The avalanche of attacks being leveled against Gingrich need to be framed in a way that celebrates his virtues. The argument is that the much-reviled Republican “establishment” is afraid of an authentic conservative. And so the establishment is terrified of Gingrich. The problem is that much of the establishment that has been critical of Gingrich consists of principled conservatives, including George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Mona Charen, Rich Lowry, Jennifer Rubin and our own John Podhoretz. Mark Steyn (a frequent guest host for Rush Limbaugh) and Ann Coulter (author of Demonic: How the Liberal Mob Is Endangering America) have been ferocious critics of Gingrich. In what way are they RINOs (“Republicans in Name Only”)?
To complicate things further: many of the so-called Republican establishment desperately wanted Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels and Representative Paul Ryan to enter the race, figures whom the “establishment” considers more conservative, reliable, and disciplined than Gingrich. And to complicate things even further: if there is one person in the race who qualifies as “the establishment,” it’s Newton Leroy Gingrich.
Here’s the real story: some influential conservatives oppose Newt Gingrich because they care about conservatism and believe Gingrich would do harm to the cause. Many people who worked with and for Gingrich admire certain things about him — but would never cast a vote for him to be president. They have concerns about his temperament, grandiosity and ego, and lack of discipline. Still others oppose Gingrich because they don’t believe he can win a general election.
Now these concerns may be right and they may be wrong. But it’s wrong to argue that figures like George Will and magazines like National Review oppose Gingrich because they know he is a “principled conservative” while they are unprincipled RINOs who choose their candidates based on whether it ingratiates them with the liberal political class. What we have is a genuine and deep difference of opinion. That happens in primaries. And to pretend that opposition to Gingrich is based on fears that he is too much of a principled conservative is a fantasy. It is more nearly the opposite.
While I agree that Gingrich's ad is just spin to put the best face on his argument he can, I do think the Republican "elite" is missing the point — probably because Romney comes off as elite. Like, Romney's your guy! Rich — rides in a limousine, eats caviar, right? Uses sterling? Has he ever used stainless steel silverware? JFK was rich — horses, sailing, movie stars … but, he was in the Navy in WWII also. Kennedy gave the impression you could have a beer with him or look at pretty girls together or tell a joke to. Romney left flyover country for the green pastures of Harvard University. And none of us have forgotten your and the other elites Palin derangement syndrome. Sorry, but I don't think anyone out here in America can relate to Romney like the people you named do. He certainly stands for nothing except claiming to be the one with the best chance of beating Obama. If he gets the nomination, that's good enough — meaning I certainly will vote for him. But, if only being Not-Obama is enough for him, why isn't it enough for anyone who actually stands for something?
No problem. He stands for whatever you want him to stand for. What do you, Keith Vlasak really want as a conservative to move this country forward? Lower taxes? That's what he's for! Your exact position on abortion? HIs too! or was! Or will be! Or could be! A strong defense but not hair-trigger neocon beating the drums of war? That's him! ObamaCare? Gone in a flat minute. etc. nBut I think people misunderestimate Romney. What, at heart, he stands for is his character, his temperment, his discipline, and his persistence. If you need more of the "common touch" well, he's what he is.
part 1: n nI want to address your question — and if I fail to satisfy you, I can be belittled on my answer. My experience comes from self-employment and lesser management positions than Mitt Romney, and the best experience comes from being a retail supervisor in convenience stores-gas stations in Ohio. n nWhat one believes in, what one stands for, is not and should not be only a set of positions ever set in granite — I would hope. What one should believe in is the method, and a flexible method, for addressing the situation as one finds it. The President we have has beliefs of the first kind — just look at green energy, Solyndria (sp?), and the fossil energy he refuses to develop no matter what it does to the country. I have no problem with any candidate, including Governor Romney or Gingrich changing their minds about an old policy belief (like Obamacare by any name). n n
part 2: n nWhat I see in Gingrich, but saw better in Palin, and best in Reagan, is/was a flexibility of addressing problems with a set of core principles to address a question on the instant. When Romney came to Ohio, he didn't want to give an opinion (I could say "take sides," but that's being negative rather than fair) on the fight between the public sector unions and the Republican governor trying to rein in their ever growing retirement-benefit packages. I think he lacks there. n nI also think that Bush II lacked the ability to use the bully pulpit to convince America that what he was doing in the Middle East was right. Gingrich, Palin, and Reagan do not lack that ability — and Obama straight out lies and has the MSM covering for him. Romney … I'm in doubt about. In the Ohio example I gave, he issued a modest statement days later in support of Kasich (but after he got flack — and I won't say "only after" because it raises the question I'm suggesting just by noting that he had to go get a policy paper together with his "czars").
part 3: n nAnd, as I've said, I will vote for Romney as I voted for McCain Bush and Dole, but I'm not excited about him (at least not yet) and rely on his core beliefs at least being Republican and that he will be a force to fight Obamaism, which must be done to turn the economy around.
Keith, I get the well-thought out take you have on the day to day lack of principled substance to Romney, in his past statements, his governing history, his apparently opportunistic positions–and the likely inability to rally citizens to a core he doesn't possess.–as in the Ohio public sector union confrontation he clumsily attempted to finesse. n nBut let's circle back to what Keith Vlasek identifies as a core of cores, if we can use that expression–what is a one oundation upon which other foundations are built–that is the disciplined core of our daily achievement in building up the profile of our lives–what casts a shadow behind us–what we can say, naturally, we've learned and achieved through all the ups and downs, the daily successes and tragedies. Our family, friends, our work, our worship etc. What we take away from the experience in our gut. Not just way cool dreams we dreampt but what we put together in the face of adversity. What we've done to build something that lasts. n nThrough managing the retail end of of convenience gas store operations in Ohio you know that nothing comes easily, everything takes effort, and that collectively, we contribute to the public good by pursuing our private enterprises and making things work and providing goods and services for other people, not in taking academic intellectually exciting or dramatic or heroic ideas out of the books into our heads and then insisting that–yes we can!–we will continue to cram those ideas down the throats of our fellow neighbors and citizens even if every rational observation should be convincing us that this dog won't hunt. n nPersonally my only long-lasting professional gig has been production redaction and formatting of documents and sometimes data bases. It is always to someone else's spec. There's no bs possible because the required end result is something that can be pointed to. Turnarounds are short-term, not long-term and hope and change is not an acceptable substitute for actually doing the work. n nOur wisdom hopefully eventually surpasseth some school-book articulated understanding. And Obama is very stubborn, very very resistant to learning from his mistakes, and too often foolish.. n nI have no idea myself what managers, executives, big money boys are doing. It's all playing with magic beans to me but we have to assume they are in some sense working. More or less. Maybe. Sure hope so. And yes, Romney's inability not to trim his sails, to position himself in some sweet spot might suggest that there just, end of the day, isn't much of anything there any more. That he's sold himself short so many times, that this is a just one slam-bang well-organized train to nowhere. n nThat isn't my sense of the guy. When he gets where he's going he'll be able to settle down and stop pandering and find the grace to be incisive and decisive when he needs to according to his inner compass. He's a "moderate" and he'll trim back and work imo to avoid the fiscal train on a wrong-way track Obama's cynical Chicago-style dogfight political instincts incline him to ride as far down the track as he can tempt fate. n nHowever……… n nAs, yes, a neoconish Jew what concerns me right now is the GOP field's pandering, with some baby steps in the opposite direction, to Ron Paul's perceived base of support. With the exception of Newt. n nPaul is a guy trailing clouds of kook and has said over and over that WWII was a put up job America could have avoided because the Germans were reacting to Wilson and FDR knew about Pearl Harbor in advance etc. etc. etc. and that Israel should be turned back to the Arabs. Literally. He's said that stuff. n nSo far, and they are supposedly running against the guy, to hear Romney and Santorum say that if Paul wins the GOP candidacy they certainly will vote for him, I am hardly convinced they are worth my vote. n nI like Newt but there is some truth to the best line Romney has gotten off, God bless him, that Newt's Virginia fiasco was not so much Pearl Harbor as "Lucy in the chocolate factory." Newt had the good humor to actually visit a chocolate factory in response, but if you Google the youtube episode of Lucy at the chocolate factory (and it is a hoot) I think we can get an idea of the strength Romney gets from his sense of satisfaction in planning and implementing.
There is much to think about in your reply, not the least of which is Romney's core, faith, family … and I will think about it. There is a long ways to go yet. And I too have fears regarding Ron Paul. Obama may want the U.S. reduced to one among many equal nations, but I do not doubt he would allow our armed forces to defend the country … and I'm not sure Ron Paul would??
and yet Ron Paul was a flight surgeon in the USAF 1965-1968–somehow it makes sense to him looking at the world behind his two eyes–though he scares the bejuzus out of this old pooch. Romney is a long distance runner. Observers may regard as strategic betrayals what he considers tactical adjustments to get him from A to B. We'll see.
Obama has already foisted the Astroturf OWS movement upon us to argue that Wall Street caused our economic downturn. So it follows that he is preparing to tie Romney and Bain Capital Private Equity directly to the catastrophe. The bankrupting of five or so companies acquired by Bain while Romney's fortune grew astronomically will put the populists into Prez Zero's corner. Funny how only the liberals want to discuss this problem at all – under any circumstances – even if their viewpoint is slanted. n nMichelle Bachmann, the conservatives' 'hit person," has been strangely silent on any and all of the weaknesses of the GOP's only Progressive candidate. I am left to conclude that she too wants a VP nomination on the Romney ticket. n n
Jennifer Rubin has no principles since she wandered over to WaPo. n nRomney has only one principle – saying anything and paying off anyone to get the GOP nomination, which will not only insure Obama's undeserved re-election, but will destroy whatever the GOP thinks it represents, taking the down-ticket Senate contests with him. n nRomney v Obama will be the lowest voter turnout in American history. n nRegardless of Gingrich's flaws, I would at least vote for him, but that is because I am the 60% who know America is doomed to economic disaster under either Obama or Romney. nThe only worse option is Ron Paul. n nWhere is the Death Panel when you need it?
The idea that Jennifer Rubin is a "principled conservative" is beyond ludicrous.
Some recent polls have indicated that Barak Obama has a lock on at least 44% of next year’s probable voters. His base will only get larger as plays the class warfare card and peels off more of the disaffected angry left and the angry middle who have more in common with Occupy than they do with the Tea Party. They may not like him, but they’ll vote for him. n nMitt Romney, doesn’t stand a chance against Barak Obama. Neither do any of the other declared candidates.Romney doesn’t have a base of support large enough to enable him to win the election. Romney is a follower; he isn’t a leader. He isn’t even a manager; he’s a consultant. He’s whatever his clients engage him to do, consequently, flip-flopping comes quite naturally to him. It’s an acquired trait that won’t go away. Jimmy Carter was a manager president, and look what that got us. A consultant president would be worse. More than anything, we need a leader president, someone who can build a broad-based coalition of support. n nWe're going to need every vote we can get, again, IF we want to get BHO out of the White House next year. We'll need a coalition of voters: those who follow Mitt Romney and those who support the other candidates. But, to build a successful coalition, we'll need the critical votes of the millions of people who are loyal supporters of Sarah Palin and Herman Cain, as well as the millions of voters (like me) who refuse to be typecast as “moderates” or “evangelicals”. n nAre any of the declared and hoped-for candidates up to this job? Few, if any. This leads me to conclude that many "principled conservatives" care less about winning next year's election than they do about purging the GOP of Tea Party involvement and influence, thus once again making the GOP the right place for the right sort. (No pun intended.) And who are the right sort? Why, the "principled conservatives", aka, the Republican establishment.
I dunno. So far nobody can even definitively "purge" Ron Paul, who so far, has opposed the US responding to attacks on its homeland such as (working badkwards chronologically): 9-11, Pearl Harbor, and (at least via proxy) Ft. Sumter–the Good Doctor's feelings about the War of 1812, the revolt againt Britain's Anglo Saxon provision of property rights for the colonists, or the French-Indian wars are not on record. Possibly he inhabitants an alternate history universe that Newt Gingrich will write in a future reality. Commentary Magazine and NRO are just magazines. They have influence but less influence than Rush or Sean or Fox.
Though there may be some overlap, RINO's and "establishment Republicans" are not interchangeable terms, but two different categories. See Angelo Codevilla's 2010 article, "America's Ruling Class — And the Perils of Revolution" for further instruction.