Among the alibis being promoted by Democrats in the aftermath of Mitt Romney’s triumph in last night’s debate is that President Obama was unprepared for the Republican’s shift to the center. The president’s campaign rests on class warfare tactics in which Romney is portrayed not only as a heartless plutocrat but also as seeking to loot the middle class in order to give gifts to his fellow millionaires via tax cuts. Therefore, when Romney asserted in the debate that he had no plans to cut taxes on the rich or enact tax cuts that would increase the deficit, Democrats argue that the former law professor who now presides over the country was so flummoxed by the deception that he could offer no response.
It isn’t likely that many people, even those most devoted to Obama’s cause, will buy that excuse. A better explanation might be that once he decided to eschew the personal attacks on Romney that have been the hallmark of his campaign, the president was left with nothing to fall back on, since he is either uninterested in defending his record in office, or unable to do so. However, this line of inquiry does raise the question of how far to the center did Romney really shift in the debate? The answer is quite a bit, but no one should expect a Republican base that long distrusted Romney to abandon him. A year ago, when Romney was competing for the hearts and minds of the conservative base, his sidestep away from across-the-board tax cuts might have been fatal. But on the night when he reminded the right that he is the only person who can help them defeat Obama, it isn’t likely many are going to question his judgment.
As the New York Times editorial page griped this morning (in a piece that stubbornly refused to admit that Romney had won the debate), Republicans are in favor of retaining all the Bush-era tax cuts, as well as ending levies like the estate and gift taxes. Romney also believes in changing the system to one that would result in across-the-board reductions in taxes. The Times is so stuck in its liberal ideological mindset that, like the president, it sees any increase in the amount of money that the state does not confiscate from taxpayers as a gift from the government. It also refuses to understand what Romney clearly gets: that raising taxes — especially in hard economic times — doesn’t always lead to increased revenue.
However, it is fair to say that Romney’s pledges last night raise the very real possibility that once in the White House he may not be following a Tea Party line on taxes. Romney is, as most Republicans already knew, no ideologue. He may speak the language of conservatives when it comes to basic principles of small government and individual rights, but he is also a pragmatist who would sacrifice a hard line on the issues in order to solve a problem like the deficit. That’s why many extreme conservatives and libertarians predicted he would be part of the federal deficit problem rather than the solution.
Such moderation would not have helped him win the Republican nomination, but it is probably very useful as he seeks to win the political center in the remaining weeks before the election. Call it “etch-a-sketch” or smart politics, but the not-so-subtle pivot to the center has left liberals impotently gnashing their teeth.
Obama’s insistence that Romney’s plan is a $5 trillion tax break for the rich has been exposed as fiction by fact checkers. Romney can also argue that his preferred version of tax reform would eliminate deductions that will, in effect, raise taxes on many of the rich because it would create a fairer system.
If conservatives connect the dots between his Denver pledges, some might be inclined to cry foul over having been gulled into nominating a man who will not adopt an absolutist stand on taxes. But don’t expect many on the right to complain about this today. Romney’s debate victory gives his party’s base a reason to hope that Obama can be defeated and set the stage for the repeal of ObamaCare. Nothing he says now is likely to make them do anything that might increase the president’s chances of re-election. That means an unprepared and arrogant Obama had better get used to the idea that Romney is playing to win.
Jonathan, first of all no conservative has ever even hoped that Romney would be a Chicago-style(as in University)free market guy, so some of his defenses of welfarism—Medicare, Medicaid, eg.—are not shocking. As far as taxes are concerned, as you probably know, there are differences among conservatives over exactly what should be done to the tax code, but, I think it's safe to say, almost all believe that the current system is a mess and must be reformed. Personally, I'm glad he raises the subject and would look forward to something being done in that area. So, I don't think there is anything that would be distasteful to conservatives, other than Ron Paul supporters, in his general approach. In other words, I really didn't see him tacking to the center.
"Romney’s pledges last night raise the very real possibility that once in the White House he may not be following a Tea Party line on taxes." n nSo even you're unsure what this guy stands for. Join the crowd.
I think he was very clear what he stands for: n nAn end to "green energy" subsidies to hid crownies. nA revenue neutral tax overhaul that does not lower taxes on the rich or raise them on the middle class, nAn expansion of domestic energy production, primarily but not totally, from fossil fuels to create total North American energy independence, including the Keystone pipeline. nBetter use of competition to lower Medicare costs. nNo change in entitlements to those over 55. nReduction of Federal payroll through attrition. nElimination of non-essential programs. nEtc. n
The irony is that if there is a heartless ideologue increasing the burden on the poor and the middle class in order to benefit his cronies, it's Obama. Ask any non-union autoworker (and any union auto worker who is not UAW) whose pension fund was wiped out so that UAW members could keep their benefits. Ask the retired teachers and school bus drivers whose pension money was invested in GM and who got smeared as greedy hedge fund managers when their secured priority debt was illegally wiped out to benefit the UAW.
I am assuming that Romney's new jobs 'promise' is based on what Gov. Perry tried to say: unleash Federal lands for shale gas and shale oil. Those new jobs increase the taxpayer base, USA lowers trade deficit (add in national security benefit), royalties flow to Federal Gov, and markets respond with lower prices that help everyone who wants to buy a flat-screen Made in the USA. Romney did not nail the idea that you re-grow the taxpayer base to help reduce the deficit. n nRomney was very clear – this is same Romney who showed up at Clinton'sGlobalInitiative. First time he did not make me tense. btw, Obama later spoke that day, and he was as listless, more pouty, as at last night's debate. n nAs for 'tacking to the center'? I was glad Romney started sounding like Sen. Tom Coburn and Mitch Daniels. n nRomney needs Sheila Bair in his cabinet or at the Fed.
Mitt can change his tactics, he can have a great debate, he can say whatever he wants to say (he usually does) — but until he releases his 2009 and previous taxes, I’m going to continue to believe that he took amnesty for criminal tax fraud on his Swiss bank account in 2009.
He shouldn’t even be in the race without showing his tax returns.
There didn't really seem to be much of a shift to the center on Romney's part in this debate. He said very little that was different from what he has said on the stump or in the primary debates. Maybe the things he emphasized were different, but he did not change his tune. He has always been pretty moderate in his policies, if not his rhetoric.
I agree, but that has not stopped the press and the other Democratic Party operatives from labeling hims as a dangerous crazy.