Some conservative pundits are still mad at the editors of National Review for an editorial in which the venerable magazine urged Republicans not to back Newt Gingrich for president. Though NR didn’t endorse a candidate in the piece, many outraged conservatives who had embraced the former speaker as the leading “not Romney” in the race felt that Mitt Romney was the intended beneficiary of the broadside. The latest to vent his spleen about this alleged betrayal of conservative principle is Jeffrey Lord who wrote in the American Spectator that the attack on Gingrich was akin to NR’s founder William F. Buckley blasting Barry Goldwater in 1964 or Ronald Reagan in 1980. His point was not just that any of the other conservatives still in the race was better than Romney but that Buckley’s magazine had become the moral equivalent of the old-line GOP establishment that its founder had spent his life battling.
But Lord’s anguish is misplaced. Newt Gingrich isn’t Ronald Reagan. Neither is Rick Santorum, Michele Bachman or Rick Perry. And if you really think any of them are worthy successors to Barry Goldwater, does anyone on the right believe another 1964-style wipeout that would mean four more years of President Barack Obama is a good idea?
A focus on winning in 2012 is what many conservatives think is wrong with NR’s editors and others who have come to grips with the fact that Romney is the Republicans’ best chance for victory next November. Lord, and others who agree with him are not really arguing that Gingrich should be president any more than they are making a serious case for Perry, Bachmann or Santorum. None of them have a ghost of a shot at beating Obama though all of them can make a much better case than Gingrich for representing a consistent conservative stance on the majority of the issues. Rather, Lord seems to be making the case that ideological purity is a higher value than electability.
To that one can only respond with one of Buckley’s most famous sayings that instructed his followers to always back the most conservative candidate available who could win.
It should be stipulated that this didn’t mean you always backed a Republican. In Buckley’s heyday the two parties were not divided so much by ideology with conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans, two now largely extinct factions, being very much a part of our political life. Buckley helped found the Conservative Party of New York to combat the leftward tilt of a Republican Party dominated by liberals like Nelson Rockefeller and Jacob Javits.
But the notion that a relatively moderate candidate like Romney is in any way comparable to the liberal Rockefeller Republicans that the conservative moment defeated in 1964 is absurd. For all of his imperfections and flip-flopping there is no question that he is to the right of center. Like the first President George Bush whom Buckley and other conservatives backed in 1988, Romney is no favorite of the right and may disappoint them. But, as Republicans learned after 1992 when some stood by and watched Bill Clinton beat Bush, life is choice. Any conservative who would prefer to see Obama re-elected than to stomach a Romney presidency has lost perspective about the whole point of their movement.
Even more to the point, the argument that Gingrich — whose deviations from conservative principles over the years are too numerous to count — is more authentically conservative than Romney is unsustainable. As for Perry, Bachmann and Santorum, even the most fervent Romney-haters know they can’t be elected.
That may say something unflattering about the current state of American conservatism but it is no reason to willfully choose to go off the cliff with a certain loser. Unlike in 1964 when the main point of Goldwater’s candidacy was to seize control of the GOP from its liberal establishment, conservatives already run the party. To the extent that there is a Republican establishment these days (and I have argued that there is no such thing anymore), everyone that is supposedly part of it, like Weekly Standard publisher William Kristol and the editors of NR, are all conservatives. Nominating another Goldwater (not that anybody in the race can really be compared to the Arizonan) would merely be doing a hard-core liberal like Obama a favor. Surely, that is not something Bill Buckley would ever have supported.
I do not know that Santorum can not be elected. I think a two term Senator from Pennsylvania with an attractive family and a message to middle America has a chance against Obama. The question is whether he can go anywhere in the Republican Party. He lost in the perfect storm of 2006 which does not mean he is "unelectable." n nOtherwise I agree conservatives like me are nuts to go hunting for ideological purity when Obama's second term looms.
"I do not know that Santorum can not be elected."? Well then you don't know anything about American politics. The extreme religious right would love Rick Santorum. The other 90% of the country would vote for Barack Obama.
Let me state it clearly for you: SANTORUM IS NOT ELECTABLE.
And if those in the SoCon cummunity GREW UP they’d realize that no, abortion and homosexuality are NOT more important than education, jobs, the economy, taxes, national defense or foreign policy. The cultural and political degradation of America, from public unions to Obama in the White House is the fault of SoCons, plain and simple.
Doesn’t matter if Erik Erikson or Santorum likes it, that’s the way it is.
Dude,r nSo what you are saying is you would pick Obama over Santorum?r nPlease all, EVERYONE of the alternatives are better than Obama. Can you afford another four years of this guy? I cant.
jjv1, Santorum in 2006 lost badly to Bob Casey (I want to say by like 16 points). Seems like a nice guy, but personal opinion he is a touch out of his league running for President
Mr. Tobin: n nWhile it is true that no one in the GOP field is Reagan or Goldwater, it also is true that this is not 1964. The 1964 election marks in many ways the height of the Dem's electoral power in the post-WWII era. Among other things, we were less than a year removed from JFK's murder, our large-scale move in Vietnam only was at its beginning, and the civil rights movement was at its peak. Does any serious student of political history think that a Rockefeller or similar moderate GOPer would have faired better? n nThe central point of the any-one-but-Romney conservatives is that the GOP ought to nominate the most conservative candidate who can articulate core conservative principles to contrast with Obama's leftist statism. Romney has not proven that he is that candidate. It is fallacious to argue that no one but Romney can beat Obama absent some magic clairvoyance that gives one vision of November, 2012. Folks said the same thing about Reagan in 1980, right up until only a couple of weeks before he wiped out Carter.
In Mitt Romneys short political career he did nothing that could be classed as as even mildly conservatibe. What taxes did he cut(none) but many fees were raised. How did he use his great private wealth to advocate for conservate ideals. He didn't. Newt has many flaws but when given the ball(elected office) he moved it in a conservative direction. I liken it to the Washington Redskins quaterback choices. Gingrich as Grossman, deeply flawed yet he can move the ball and did play in a superbowl. Romney is John Beck good looking in practice but the conservative ball doesn't move beyond our own 30 yd line.
Perry is much like Reagan, only more so, in his policies. Granted he has nowhere near the ability to communicate effectively (a serious hindrance for a presidential candidate) he shares with Reagan a genuine belief in the American system as detailed by the Founding Fathers. None of the other candidates – especially Romney who, if 'right of center' then the center has shifted so far left as to be a meaningless measure anymore – share that belief.
Why does the author assume so casually that if Goldwater were running today he would lose? The country's voters are much more knowledgeable about, and much more fed up with, Progressive policies than they were nearly 50 years ago. Experience is a great teacher to those who lack the abstract ability to project consequences based solely on principles.
The far right wing simply can't accept the fact that they comprise a minority of the Republican Party.. No doubt they probably would prefer an ideologically pure candidate who gets hammered in the general election, just like Goldwater did in '64. Fortunately, most Republicans are more concerned with actually winning back the White House. This is why Romney will win the nomination.
Anyone can beat Obama so let's nominate the most conservative who can go toe to toe with Obama. That would be Speaker Gingrich. Case closed. We need to stop this infighting and tearing all the candidates down simply because we want our personal favorite to win. My pick was Gov. Sarah Palin but she is not running. I am not going to take my marbles and go home. People need to grow up-we have a very dangerous president to remove from office.
Conservatives, aka Tea Partiers, aka me!, want another Reagan. Is that so flipping hard to figure out? n nSo let the National Review disparage the most conservative House Speaker in my lifetime. Let them not make an argument for Bachmann or Santorum. And in the process, watch as Republican voters are SADDLED with yet another moronic wallpaper paste candidate in the mold of Bush Sr., Bob Dole, Bush W., and McCain. Then watch as Obama waltzes back into the White House eating caviar and drinking champagne and laughing at the stupidity of the GOP that handed him an easy victory. n nMeanwhile, we conservatives in the Tea Party will get to hear how it was our fault Republicans lost the WH, House and Senate. Same sheet, different bed.
The entire electoral argument in favor of Mitt Romney is that, as the Republican presidential candidate, he is guaranteed to beat Obama. This certainty is being used to bludgeon anyone who questions his candidacy or dares to consider voting for someone else. n nOf course, no one can guarantee this outcome. And more than a few have made cogent arguments suggesting that a Romney-Obama race would be a very, very tight contest, and that the odds currently favor the incumbent. n nUnfortunatly, we are not able to run multiple general elections with multiple candidates, choosing the best performers from each party only after seeing the final outcomes. Those who are now condemning any primary choice other than Romney might take a moment to consider the possibility that they are actually helping to reelect President Obama. n nOn the other hand, it is entirely possible that many (most?) of the voices urging quick consolidation around candidate Romney actually would prefer to see Obama reelected if the alternative might be a President Ron Paul, or a President Newt Gingrich, or a President…
The problem with this author's thought process is that you get no change from Romney. Rather, you get a Big Government Republican. George W. Bush gave you a bigger more intrusive government and there is nothing conservative about that. Romney's healthcare plan shows one thing that he believes government can fix a problem not free peoples or free markets. Hence, you will get more debt with him and more government. In other words, you get Bush's 4th term. Right now, we are Bush's third term with Obama. Bush added four trillion dollars to the national debt in eight years and Obama is going to add five trillion in four years. Both presidents expanded the scope of government into the healthcare and ecduation fields. Both presidents added tens of thousands of government workers. Both Presidents have attacked the 4th and 5th Amendments with the Patriot Act in the name of security. Finally, both Presidents are still fighting foriegn wars that we can't afford.
Romney had committed to all these policies. When he talks, it is always government can fix this or that. Never does he say government is the problem. The man couldn't even name one department of government that he would eliminate. It is the same old mantra that Big Government Republicans have been saying for years which is we can make government more efficient. No, you can't. Its nature is to be less efficient and the only fix is to shrink it to the 18 enumerated powers in the US Constiution. Anything less will get you more debt, more government, and less freedom
I don't buy the notion that Romney is the only electable one. He is the only candidate that has money and organization, and who looks and sounds Presidential. But he has many big flaws that will make him easy for Obama to beat. It may be that none of the current crop can beat Obama, in which case our best interest is served by a brokered convention. Let's keep this contest going for a while so we can pick someone who is not currently running like Barbour at the Convention.
Based on the posts I've read on a number of blog spots, many conservative bloggers think that Obama is in such trouble ANYONE could beat him, so they intend to try to get the most staunch fiscal and social conservative nominated. Many are CONVINCED that Gingrich is one of the most conservative; but others (including Glenn Beck) think he is a full-blown LIBERAL. n nLuckily, the nomination will be decided by all Republicans who vote; rather than just the small percentage who blog. Hopefully they will see defeating Obama as the highest priority and will nominate the one most likely to beat Obama. A SMART idea would be to determine electability based not only on polls, but also on 'baggage' — and that baggage COULD include some far right ideology which would lose moderates and Independents. n nIf Ron Paul or one of the more far right candidates; or one with heavy baggage, is nominated by the Repubs, they have only themselves to blame if Obama gets another four years.
Hmmmm. Not a mention of Ron Paul. Odd.
Well. since Romney and Santorum have announced that, by gosh, if Ron Paul is the candidate they would certainly vote for him, even RINO's appreciate that using twice-borrowed David Duke and Holocaust denial mailing lists is no vice and that moderation in the pursuit of some minimal baseline political sanity is no virtue. Everyone is Goldwater now on that side of the fence or paying (trembling) lip service to it. n nBut you know, say what you will about Obama (oy vey) at least he will never be caught dead in his houndstooth creased pants voting for a secessionist whose remarks leave us unsure as to exactly which struggles against foreign powers to secure the American continent he woud have bought into, going back to, say, 1812..
I've never heard Santorum being described as a RINO, and I wouldn't be too sure about Obama's proclivities in any voting area, except of course as an anti-conservative.
Exactly, Rick. Gingrich has the 1994 Revolution, welfare reform, and the balanced budget. Romney has Romneycare. The rest is bloviation. If Romney is the candidate I am staying home. Better an open communist with an opposed Congress than a socialist who will "keep what's good" in Obamacare and fix the rest.
Same old bs everywhere. No one wants romney. Period. Every single person in the media pushing romney will find out that they will lose their conservative audience. The country is majority conservative and beating obama is easy but its these establishment fckus eff everything up every 4 years. 2010 proves that true conservative victory is possible and no we don't need a douche like romney to achieve it. Or pretend to achieve it.
How is Ron Paul politically different from Goldwater?
The reason I'm not longer a Republican is that y'all keep making decisions based on pragmatism rather than principle. If you want a pragmatist, go the Newt. Ron Paul's the only principled man I see in the field.
The problem none of the mainstream G.O.P. seems to get, is that when you have a Republican with the selfsame views as the Democrat, suddenly, the far left views of the Democrat become "bipartisan." Thus, when Romney vetoes the repeal of Obamacare, and continues using the NLRB as a weapon against business, and keeps (figuratively) attacking Israel, those issues become "bipartisan" and "mainstream" and any contrary voice is suddenly a "radical."
If you believe in conservative principles, why would you argue that the more conservative candidates could not win (Santorum, Bachmann, Perry). The candidate who most effectively articulates conservative principles will have a much easier time defeating Obama than will Romney or Gingrich, who will create a muddied field in the eye of the voter with their previous support for the individual mandate, et al. Conservatism, ostensibly, is arrived upon as a matter of reflection upon human nature, history, et al. In other words, the arguments and facts are on our side. We should not be afraid of articulating them and taking the Liberals (and a hostile leftist press) head on. As for your contention that the Republican party is controlled by Conservatives, there are a whole army of Tea Party activists that would disagree with you. That is exactly what needs to happen to save this country. In other words, McConnell and Boehner need to be replaced by DeMint and Ryan (or their ilk).
Another Barry Goldwater ? n nGood God, Mister Tobin, we are still awaiting the inauguration of the first one. n n None save neocons should be dismayed that there are two and a half such conservatives on offer, with both Ron Paul and the late Barry's nearest neighbor, the former Governor of New Mexico looming over Newt.
The only reason that Romney is doing so well is that he has the support of lukewarm Republicans and disenchanted Obama followers. Usually an incumbent president with such a dismal approval rating faces a challenger in the primaries. For some reason, Democrats haven't put up a Ted Kennedy or a Eugene McCarthy or a Henry Wallace this year. The closest Obama will get to having a liberal challenger will be if Romney gets the nomination.
There will not be another Goldwater any more than there will be another Reagan. Both have gone to their reward and may both rest in peace. While it is a virtue of Conservatives to look to the future by understanding the lessons of the past, PUUHHHHLEEAAZE, don't over do it!
….no one can attack a conservative like a RINO……still no room at the inn for a conservative…..