Boop Their Noses!
Keep the Wolves Away From the Door
Donate Monthly
Sponsors will contribute $10 for each new monthly sign-up
Posted on 01/12/2012 1:06:00 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
It is commonly argued that Mitt Romney has benefited from a weak Republican field, which is true. And that the attacks of his opponents have been late and diffuse. True, and true.
But the political accomplishment of Willard Mitt Romney should not be underestimated. The moderate, technocratic former governor of a liberal state is poised to secure the nomination of the most monolithically conservative Republican Party of modern history.
Some of this improbable achievement can be attributed to Romney's skills as a candidate. In 14 debates, he delivered one gaffe (the $10,000 bet) and once lost his temper (with Rick Perry) — neither lapse particularly damaging. Under a barrage of awkward formats and dopey questions, Romney has been calm, knowledgeable and reassuring.
Romney is the varsity — a far better candidate than, say, Bob Dole or John McCain. A Republican nominating process that swerved again and again toward silliness — alternately elevating for consideration Donald Trump, Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain — seems ready to settle on a serious, accomplished, credible candidate. Republicans, it turns out, are choleric and fractious — but not suicidal.
The nominating process has also revealed Romney's limitations. It would be awkward for anyone this stiff to pose as a working-class stiff, and Romney should not try. But if he gains the nomination, Romney's rival in connecting with average voters will not be Bill Clinton. It will be professor Barack Obama. Again, Romney benefits from the luck of the draw.
Romney has paired his skills with a sophisticated political strategy. His campaign team learned something from the failures of four years ago. Last time, Romney flooded the early states with money and personal attention. In Iowa, his limited return on investment made him a political punch line. This time, Romney rationed both his money and his presence — lowering expectations and generating genuine enthusiasm when he finally arrived to campaign.
Ideology has always been Romney's main vulnerability. Running and winning in Massachusetts before running twice for the Republican presidential nomination is a process best described by biologists — a story of adaptation and evolution.
Other candidates have naturally carried more vivid ideological messages. In the end, the intra-Republican argument has come down to Ron Paul versus Rick Santorum — both effective spokesmen for their views. Paul carries the hopes of libertarians and those who seek a return to the federal government of an 18th-century agrarian republic. Santorum stands more in the empowerment tradition of Jack Kemp or George W. Bush. On the whole, he is reconciled to the goals of modern government — encouraging equal opportunity and care for the elderly, sick and vulnerable — but not to the bureaucratic methods of modern government. I come down on the empowerment side of this divide. But maybe, at this moment, the Republican Party doesn't need a clear decision on its identity (which might not be possible anyway). Romney has this advantage: In supporting him, no Republican is called upon to surrender his or her deepest ideological convictions. Romney is temperamentally conservative but not particularly ideological. He reserves his enthusiasm for quantitative analysis and organizational discipline. He seems to view the cultural and philosophic debates that drive others as distractions from the real task of governing — making systems work.
His competitors have attempted to portray Romney's ideological inconsistency over time as a character failure. It hasn't worked, mainly because Romney is a man of exemplary character — deeply loyal to his faith, his family and his country. But he clearly places political ideology in a different category of fidelity. Like Dwight Eisenhower, Romney is a man of vague ideology and deep values. In political matters, he is empirical and pragmatic. He studies problems, assesses risks, calculates likely outcomes. Those expecting Romney to be a philosophic leader will be disappointed. He is a management consultant, and a good one.
Has the moment of the management consultant arrived in American politics? In our desperate drought of public competence, Romney has a strong case to make.
Well, I don’t believe that about Rush.
I think he has a visceral reaction to anyone knocking capitalism in any form.
He fails to understand that evil is evil and exploitation is just that.
But any stance that Rush takes, he tends to start worshipping so don’t expect him to back down on this.
I won’t diss Rush. He’s been a force for good in this country for too long to do that.
He’s upset me a couple of times during this primary.
Once when he devoted two weeks of shows to defending Cain (ha) and now this.
Let’s see how this plays out.
Events are continually changing the landscape.
He also made it clear that he is not attacking free market principals, but vetting the candidate. In addition, he said his record in TX shows exactly how he supports free markets and job creation.
Perry looked great in the interviews I saw. Oh yeah, the Romney flier on SS is pathetic. Perry was the first that clearly has pointed out the need for reform to protect future generations. Romney will say anything to get elected. We know that.
Sarah Palin was very good on Perry's behalf last night. Basically, she said that if you want to run on your business experience and job creation, being questioned about it is fair game. She is right. IMHO, you're either with us or against us! Anyone saying anything about Newt or Perry questioning Romney's record is with him.
Great picture.
Great information.
Thank you!
GO Perry!!
Guess, they didn't see the clip of him being heckled when he called himself a job creator. He yelled at the crowd, if you don't like--go vote for someone else.
I am betting they will!
Maybe there is a reason that has not yet occurred to you; Rush is Right.
Champion [new]
See the new video above. You will like it.
Cain was worth defending. Had Cain gotten more support from conservatives, he would have weathered the storm and would likely be our front runner even now. Instead, conservatives decided to focus on irrelevant perceived weaknesses and failed to see the true value of the man. For this same reason they are incapable of making a rational decision on which candidate to support amongst the remaining few.
Perry is obviously the superior candidate and the last conservative standing. But conservatives will split their votes on Newt, a progressive, and Santorum, a boring, unoriginal candidate, and will mock Perry into oblivion. Because it doesn’t matter what a man’s platform is or his true worth; what matters is how well he can tickle conservative itching ears and fulfill other superficial standards.
I agree with you about Perry, but why are people acting like this is over and decided after one caucus and one liberal state primary?
Let’s at least get through super Tuesday before we throw in the towel.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
