In the aftermath of Rick Santorum’s sweep of the three states that held elections on Tuesday, many observers are counseling Mitt Romney to do something to energize a conservative base that is having trouble mustering any enthusiasm for the Republican frontrunner. Pundits have pondered his dilemma and prescribed a full program of activities and speeches designed to fire up the GOP grass roots and to finally convince them the former Massachusetts governor cares deeply about their issues and can be trusted to govern as a conservative.
But the problem with this analysis is those demanding Romney to inspire conservative passion are asking him to do the impossible. While such a feat would certainly be desirable — for both him and his party — Romney can still win the Republican nomination without morphing into Ronald Reagan, let alone Mike Huckabee. But if he is to win — and that’s a proposition that looks a bit less inevitable than it did on Monday — it will only be on his own terms. If Republicans are to embrace Romney, it must be the real Mitt Romney–flaws and all–not an artifice designed to please the audience at the CPAC conference. Those who wish for Romney to discover some new approach to Republicans are dreaming. After a campaign that has been going full bore for the last nine months — not to mention his first presidential run four years ago — and 16 debates, we have already seen all that Mitt Romney has to offer Republicans.
Romney’s strengths are obvious and impressive. He is someone with a deep understanding of economic issues and vast executive experience in both the public and private sectors. He can also put forward credible conservative positions on foreign policy and has come to embrace stands that satisfy the right on social issues. Though he is rightly accused of having flip-flopped on some issues, he is also a person who has lived an exemplary life and embodies the values of morality, decency and hard work.
But he is not a man who can fire up the base with his ability to articulate conservative ideas or the resentment that so many on the right feel about the liberal establishment, the media or popular culture. That’s Newt Gingrich’s territory. Nor is he a fervent social conservative in the manner of Santorum. He is a technocratic problem solver who can read the lyrics from the conservative hymnal but is no better at singing its melody than he is at finding the correct tune to “America the Beautiful.”
Romney’s inability to connect with ordinary voters or conservatives can’t be fixed. The only real passion in his political portfolio comes out when he discusses economic ideas or when he tries to articulate his belief in American exceptionalism that is at the heart of his life’s work in politics, business and his church. And it is to those virtues that he must cling. Given his opponents’ liabilities and political weaknesses, this ought to be good enough to win him the GOP nomination, even if it turns out to be less of the cakewalk that seemed likely only a few days ago.
Should Romney try to change his approach in order to keep up with Santorum’s passion or should he allow his advisers to convince him to go negative on the Pennsylvanian the way he took down Gingrich, it will not help him. It may be once the cloak of inevitability is stripped away from Romney, most conservatives will flock to a candidate like Santorum who is better at playing to the conservative crowd. But if Romney is to win it will be as the Mitt Romney we already know. He literally has no more tricks to pull out of his bag, and to expect him to come up with new ones is unrealistic and somewhat unfair.
In reading over this article's list of Romney's assets/attributes, what struck me discordantly was saying Romney believed in American exceptionalism and that it was at the heart of his beliefs. How Romney has come off to me in the debates is thinking he'd be the best at managing the American decline (because he's been in business and made lots of money). That, combined with his totally negative campaign (yes, I do get that the author despises Gingrich and believes the best thing anyone can do is give money to tell how rotten a candidate Gingrich is … but maybe those who support Gingrich, Santorum, or Paul don't feel that Romney's a giant for telling any lies his people can imagine to destroy them), makes him unelectable — because the entire party is staying home.
Despite his artlessness as a campaigner, Romney is certainly the most electable of Republican candidates. The question is whether the base, i.e. the jihadis, wield veto power over the party's nominee decision. Do the jihadis actually hold the numerical balance of power in the party or are they merely the noisiest squeak that gets oiled? n nAn ominous turn for the GOP occurred when Newt Gingrich referred to Romney, pejoratively and unchallenged, not as a "liberal" or a "progressive," but as a "moderate". If the party condones even "moderate" as a pejorative, then it will have marginalized itself and ceded the 2012 election to the Democrats. n
Hate to tell you, Lbjack, but "moderates" are a distinct minority in the U.S. Try Europe. There are still a good number there. Maybe. n nVoters who self-identify as either conservative or very conservative form the single, largest block at slightly over 40%, twice as many as "liberal" self-identifiers. The middle of the pack is made up of undecided or left-leaning moderates and right-leaning moderates, splitting the difference. n nThe only thing that will cede the election to Obama is low turnout by conservatives. That is the only way, short of a tidal wave of voter fraud by Obama, that he gets elected. n nWho do you think got all those Republicans elected in 2010? It wasn't the "moderates." it was a huge turnout of conservative voters.
Outside your disco world, where every Saturday night the whole world is conservative, the "establishment" Republicans, i.e. those who heed reality rather than talk radio or the voices inside their heads, realize that it's the moderate vote that holds the balance of power in the general electorate, if not the party. In any case the 2012 elections will confirm whether 2010 was an anomaly or a tidal shift toward the dark side à la 1930s Germany.
Don't care for disco, Jack. That may be your thing, I suppose, along with your tether to reality. Look at the polling date released by Gallup for the last 20 years. The trend has clearly been towards a more conservative electorate. As I clearly said before, conservatives are by no means the *majority* in the U.S. but they do form the largest, single voting block of any political orientation. Even your so-called "moderates" are not, truly moderates. They simply lean less to Left or Right. Even so, Gallups studies show that there are more moderates with a Right tilt than Left, just like the larger electorate. Obama needs almost 100% support from the Left (which is 20% of the voting population) and he needs almost 100% of the Left-leaning "Independents" (which you call "moderates") AND he needs some portion of the Right-leaning Independents AND he needs a low turnout among conservatives. n nAs for your strange idea about "the dark side a la 1930s Germany"…. What do you think Nazi stood for, Jack? National SOCIALIST party. Nazism was LEFT wing, not Right. Just like Communism is Left wing, Fascism is Left wing and Socialism is Left wing. Conservatives who voted in 2010 want LESS government control over people and more individual freedom. That would run exactly opposite to the ideology of the Left that relies on the coercive power of government to change people "for the better." n nIf 2010 was an "anomaly" as you put it, then we are doomed to another 4 years of Leftist Obama and that will look more like 1930's Germany for sure.
Santorum won the Colorado primary. But he is not the most electable in the Colorado general. Two years ago Colorado Republican primary voters selected Ken Buck as the Senatorial nominee. Buck foolishly alienated independent voters and I think cost himself the election with his clumsy remarks about Gay rights. n nSantorum's on record statements about Gay issues will hugely problematic in purple Colorado. I live in The People's Republic of Boulder. I know many business minded liberals, a lot of them Jews who are totally disillusioned by Obama with his bogus populism and anti-Israel policies. They WANT to have someone else to vote for. Almost all of them find Romney acceptable. Gingrich is totally toxic in their eyes and as they learn about Santorum's social conservatism and especially his views on Gay rights they are going to have a hard time voting R in the general election if Santorum is the nominee. Maybe Obama's negatives can push any Republican over the top.
If it does wind up being Santorum, there is plenty of time for him to polish his message on social issues to assuage the kind of voters you are talking about. I think Santorum has finally begun to realize that 2012 is not about social issues, it is about jobs, jobs, jobs.
This would seem to be the genuine "Jihadi" position. The real "Jihadis" are the "abortion-on-demand" at any cost fanatics that have the most influence (and probably the most sympathy" at the White House) and generate policies opposed by Joe Biden and no less devout an Obambot than E.J. Dione. The real Jihadis are the Enviro Fanatics dedicated to policies which prevent the creation of 10s of thousands of jobs, greater prosperity and security that would have been the consequence of Building the Keystone Pipeline. The list is far too long and I don't have the time. n nOne has to concede that some on the right, such as those who criticize Paul Ryan's Roadmap for "not balancing" the budget soon enough are either extreme, misguided or both. On the whole, fanatacism in this country resides quite overwhelmingly on the left (which is, of course working with the "other" Jihadis to destroy Western Civilization – and are doing a much better job of it). Any person claiming to be reasonable or moderate must recognize this fact. n
The reason Romney is taking a hit in the polls is because many perceive him as an opportunist who will say or do anything to get elected. His millions of dollars in negative ad campaigning are tools at his disposal to try and "destroy" the opposition. Newt Gingrich found that out pretty quick and now Rick Santorum is Romney's latest target. Many of Romney's Super-Pac ads are way over the top with many of them being downright false and even despicable. The American people don't mind campaign ads that reveal an opponents record, if the ad is depicted as factual and fair. Romney's ads, on the other hand, use deception, slight of hand and downright lies to rake his opponents over the coals and then spits them out. n nRepublicans are sick and tired of candidates demonizing their opponents unfairly and I think that was one big reason why Rick Santorum had a three state victory sweep on Tuesday. As I said, Romney is proving himself as an opportunist who will say or do anything to get elected, in my opinion, and obviously that includes using dirty politics to try and destroy his competition. Which makes Willard Mitt Romney NO better than Barack Obama, the man who in 2008 launched the most negative presidential campaign in America's history in an effort to get elected. Obama did get elected by utilizing hundreds of millions of dollars of campaign contributions and using a massive negative ad campaign, but Obama continues to be the most divisive, destructive and ruthless politician the United States has ever encountered in my opinion. Mitt Romney seems to be going down that same road of negative ad campaigning and possibly with similar results as Obama if Romney got elected President. How can Republicans trust a guy who tries to "destroy" other Republicans? Ronald Reagan's eleventh commandment was: thou shalt not speak evil of other Republicans. It's okay to point out a person's record and stances on the issues but NOT to demonize them and speak bald face lies about them or try and "destroy" them so little ole' Mitt can get the nomination! Of course, Mitt Romney didn't really like Ronald Reagan and didn't agree with Reagan's policies so I guess it's understandable that Romney doesn't adhere to Ronald Reagan's eleventh commandment rule. Personally, I think Mitt Romney is a Democrat in disguise as a Republican. In other words, a "wolf in sheep's clothing" and if he happened to get elected President he could "flip flop" back to his old "liberal" ways when he was Governor of Massachusetts. And the country would be worse off than ever perhaps. It's hard to trust a guy who changes positions according to the political winds of opportunity like Mitt has done. Before he decided to run for President he was considered a liberal politician and only when he decided to run for the presidency did he suddenly reverse course on many of his former stances in order to become more acceptable to the conservative Republican base – which he would need in order to win the nomination. He failed to convince people he was a conservative in 2008 and it looks like he might fail again in 2012. Especially when he partakes in the same dastardly negative ad campaigning that Democrats and Barack Hussein Obama partake in. You can't really tell them apart if you ask me. And it might end up being Mitt Romney's downfall… again.
The problem, Mr. Tobin, is that it is precisely on the issues of the economy, budget, taxes and healthcare (all intimately related, of course) that Governor Romney lacks a sufficiently comprehensive, incisive, detailed and compelling message. He does fine with some platitudes and one cannot doubt that he would be dramatically better in this area than the incumbent (an amazingly low standard, to be sure) but one need only to look at the SOTU response by the "radical" Mitch Daniels to know what is missing. Further, one does not doubt that Paul Ryan's speech tonight at CPAC will illustrate this deficiency in Governor's Romney's campaign in a compelling way. n nOf course the problem is that Governor Daniels and Chairman Ryan have chosen not to run (heretofore – if Mitt looses Michigan all bets are off and the Convention could be very exciting) and one can understand, if not quite condone, the primary electorate's flirtation with problematic candidates and their hunger for a someone other than Governor Romney. In the end, that electorate deserves some credit in deciding that of the available choices Senator Santorum is almost certainly the best. n nStill, and especially so in light of the current "recovery" (which might be more accurately characterized as an Obama-induced depression) its difficult to see someone with so little and restrained and economic message winning the White House and if Governor Romney has indeed emptied his bag of tricks in this particular respect, than this country is in very serious trouble.
Absolutely right; the one big problem I have with Romney is that he always comes off as completely insincere, by now regardless of what he is saying.He's been trying to "position" himself for so long from so many different "angles" that he is simply no longer believable, period. nAnd that, I think, will come through in general election, should he be a nominee, and mainly because of that he WILL loose. His backers say he is "electable" because he is more moderate than other Republicans, but to present this "moderation" in general he will have to pivot, yet again, for the thousandth time and contradict many things he is saying today to win Republican nomination. At that point no one will believe a single word he is saying.
In an economy where people are unemployed and desperately in need of a job…you think a man who has been a job saver and creator all of his career wouldn't be embraced by voters? That a man who reversed a $3B deficit in Mass and left them with a surplus couldn't help reverse the debt issues? n nI find Mitt Romney to be an amazing leader and quite appealing as a person. He's a CEO and they don't usually need to make people feel warm and cozy, but his honesty and leadership shine through. If he can fix the problems, I don't care if he isn't Mr. Personality. He is a capable man for a very difficult point in our history. n nThe democrats are the ones telling republicans how unlikeable he is…gee, I wonder why they would do that?
Time Magazine has an piece this week that includes brief articles by various conservative writers concerning the state of the republican party. Based on what I understand from them, the conservatives wish for the republicans to lose this election. The most important election of our lifetimes and they are willing to sacrifice the next four years so they can take over the party. Eric Erickson didn't try to hide his disdain…and he didn't hide their strategy for the takeover. They wish to clean the party of RINOs (i.e., those who are not rabid conservatives) and in 2016 roll out the "new and improved" republican party controlled by the conservatives. n nThis plan might be acceptable except that those of us who are more moderate are the ones with the money. Good luck with your strategy Mr. Erickson. You will need a lot of it.
Romney and Bachman lost me in the debate when they used demothug tactics against Perry.