Posted on 09/10/2012 8:45:49 AM PDT by Bratch
I’ve argued many times that the politician Mitt Romney most closely resembles is John Kerry, primarily due to the Mittster’s legendary penchant for flip-flopping, a trait Kerry is also known for. I stand by my Kerry comparison, but Jonah Goldberg has an excellent point when he compares Romney to another Massachusetts politician: Michael Dukakis.
Meanwhile, the Republicans seem to have become Dukakified. It was Michael Dukakis, the 1988 Democratic presidential nominee, who insisted that the election should be entirely about “competence, not ideology.” Romney has avoided saying that in so many words, but it’s certainly how he’s campaigning. After running to the right in the primaries and boldly picking Representative Paul Ryan as his running mate, Romney bizarrely seems to have retreated to an ideological and even intellectual crouch.
Though he doesn’t say it explicitly, the tone and tenor of Romney’s convention speech suggested that Obama failed because didn’t have the right resume, not because he has the wrong ideas. Stuart Stevens, Romney’s top strategist, has dismayed many on the right by operating according to the theory that Romney mustn’t do anything to offend the delicate sensibilities of some statistical abstraction of a female voter in the Ohio suburbs. Listening to the Romney speech, you’d have no idea he picked a principled, fearless, and brilliant conservative lightning rod as a running mate.
If Stevens’s theory of the election is right, then the GOP convention was brilliantly executed. But that is a huge gamble — as huge as Obama’s bet that Americans have moved left. Right now, however, it looks too much like a contest between people with the wrong ideas against people without any.
My hat’s off to Jonah Goldberg. I never equated Romney to Dukakis, but the more I think about it, the more appropriate the comparison becomes. Like Romney, Dukakis is a former governor of the deep blue state of Massachusetts. Both are adherents to the technocratic approach to government in which the beneficence of the government bureaucrat plays a central role (see Romneycare). 59-point plans, which are nothing more than Keynesian big government boondoggles to conservatives, are utopia for technocrats and the armies of bureaucrats required to administer them.
To listen to his “Obama’s a nice guy who’s in over his head” speeches, Romney’s primary objection to Obama is not that government shouldn’t do what Obama wants it to do, but that Obama is an incompetent manager. While that may be true, the biggest problem with Obama is not competence, but his radical ideology: he wants to transform American into another bankrupt, European-style welfare state where government inexorably grows at the expense of individual freedoms. But Romney and his “Dukakified” campaign won’t even bring this up for fear of offending someone.
Political ideology — having consistent views and ideas based on core convictions — is viewed as a liability by the Mittster, whose only discernible conviction is his desire to be president. Other than that self-aggrandizing conviction, though, Mitt goes out of his way to avoid any others. He finds them confining, for lack of a better word. If he had a consistent ideology, how could he tell Massachusetts voters upon his election as governor that he was a moderate with progressive views while later describing his gubernatorial tenure as “severely conservative” to a CPAC audience. (Romneycare, presumably, is evidence of his severe conservatism). It’s liberating to lack a consistent ideology, I guess.
Much has been made of Romney’s selection of Paul Ryan to be his running mate. But one gets the feeling the Mittster was just checking a box; that he selected Ryan not because he shared Ryan’s deep ideological commitment to fixing the nation’s finances, but because he needed to keep conservatives interested in his milquetoast campaign. But simply picking a conservative running mate is insufficient to assuage conservative concerns. He must actually embrace Ryan’s conservative positions.
Nearly two years ago, Governor Palin became the first national conservative leader to endorse the Ryan Roadmap – to date the only specific plan to eliminate the deficit put forward by anyone. Romney has yet to endorse that plan, insisting he’ll come up with his own at some point in the future. Mitt’s been running for president for a decade. When will he come up with a plan? I doubt he ever will because he’d run the risk of offending ”the delicate sensibilities of some statistical abstraction of a female voter in the Ohio suburbs” as Goldberg notes above.
Romney prefers caution and inaction to bold action, defense to offense, and amorphous vagaries to concrete ideas. He says he’ll repeal Obamacare, but won’t tell us how. He says he’ll reform the entitlement plans before they inevitably go bankrupt, but, again, won’t say how. It’s as if he’s psychologically incapable of taking a consistent position on an issue and defending it. Whether this is due to his lack of core convictions or his lack of a backbone is anyone’s guess. In any event, he’s simply running out the clock and hoping to avoid making a mistake. But if the election were held today, he’d lose. A prevent defense can only work if you’re ahead. And even then it often doesn’t work. (Ask the Cleveland Browns.)
Although there are similarities to the campaign Romney’s running today and the one Dukakis ran in 1988, the political envorinment was starkly different. In 1988, Dukakis ran a distinctly non-ideological campaign because he had no other choice. Both the 1980 and 1984 campaigns were ideological in nature, and liberalism suffered historic defeats. With Bush 41 running on Reaganism and effectively promising voters a “third” Reagan term, Dukakis would have had zero chance if he ran as a liberal. The Carter-Mondale years were still fresh in the minds of voters, and they were in no mood to return to those dark days of malaise. In short, voters were happy with the way the country was being run under Reagan, and didn’t want to return to liberalism.
But Romney has a choice. Voters have witnessed the devastation unfettered liberalism inflicts on an economy. Obama has seen to that. This is the best opportunity Republicans have had to mount an ideological campaign since 1980.
Unfortunately, however, the GOP Establishment, in their infinite wisdom, chose a candidate who appears incapable of advancing or even explaining conservatism; a candidate who prefers to avoid the possibility of offending some moderate in a swing state rather than inspiring him (or her) to rally to the conservative cause as Reagan did. For this reason, Romney effectively banned the Tea Party from his convention. Last week I predicted this would backfire and result in a smaller post-convention bounce, and that whatever small bounce Romney did receive would quickly fade in response to Obama’s bounce. Today’s Real Clear Politics polling averages bear this out. His approval rating, at 49.2% and rising, is the highest it’s been since the bin Laden raid, and dangerously close to that magic 50% number.
Obama’s surge in approval ratings is mirrored by his improvement in the horse race numbers with Mitt Romney. This is also from this afternoon’s RCP average.
Whatever momentum Romney was riding is long gone, and Team Mitt had better figure out how to generate enthusiasm — real, sustainable grass roots enthusiasm — for his campaign. Clearly his policy of ignoring Tea Party conservatives isn’t working. If he sticks to his DC insider, consultant-approved “Obama’s a nice but incompetent guy” routine, I don’t see how he turns these numbers around.
The fact is, Obama’s not a nice guy. He’s a narcissistic left-wing ideologue with a chip on his shoulder who’s hell bent on transforming America into something unrecognizable, a guy who’ll do anything, including flouting the constitution, to secure another four years so he can complete that transformation. And Romney considers him a nice guy? Ideologues can only be defeated with ideology, not platitudes designed to offend the least amount of people. Conservative ideas work every time they’re tried, liberal ideas do not, as the past four years make crystal clear. If we can’t make the conservative case in this economic environment, when can we?
The debates offer an opportunity for Romney to gain ground but, unlike in the primary debates, Mitt won’t have Ron Paul and Michele Bachmann around to jump to his defense every time he’s on the ropes. Goldberg’s point, I think, is that if voters aren’t given an alternative, the devil they know may well be preferable to the devil they don’t know. Ideas, even bad ones, trump no ideas. If the Romney brain trust, such as it is, doesn’t figure this out, and quickly, we’re in for another four long years of misery. Unfortunately, by that time it may be too late to prevent America from suffering a Greece-style collapse.
Update: (h/t xthred) Shocker: Romney indicated today that he won’t repeal all of Obamacare:
Mitt Romney says his pledge to repeal President Barack Obama’s health law doesn’t mean that young adults and those with medical conditions would no longer be guaranteed health care.
The Republican presidential nominee says he’ll replace the law with his own plan. He tells NBC’s “Meet the Press” that the plan he worked to pass while governor of Massachusetts deals with medical conditions and with young people.
Romney says he doesn’t plan to repeal of all of Obama’s signature health care plan. He says there are a number of initiatives he likes in the Affordable Care Act that he would keep in place if elected president.
So Romney wants to keep the preconditions coverage guarantee part of Obamacare. I have one simple question: Suppose I decide to eschew Homeowner’s insurance. If I do that can I expect an insurance company to insure my home after it catches on fire? Hello, Mr. Insurance provider. My house is on fire. I’d like to purchase an insurance policy effective right now to pay for this fire which is raging out of control and burning my house down? Oh wait, Obama says you must. Can anyone explain to me how this is insurance, and how insurance providers can possibly stay in business under this mandate? Anyone?
My comments (the first and the current) were suppose to be linked to the author of the thread. I am sorry...I will be glad to see the day when people stop blaming conservatives for this mess. Yes, we can blame the division on not coming together on Newt or one of the others over Mitt but the GOP-e promised Mitt this election and now we got these problems. The more you criticize the conservatives, it ties into the scenario that conservatives are just extremists by the left so wise up.
Couple of versions one or the other is probably corect.
She was not invited.
She refused to have her address pre-approved.(Edited)
I heard her say this to Greta. I forget her words exactly.
She was saying that she was going to set up outside the convention hall...to keep the TP energized and thank them for their work. Never happened. Romney did not want her there or people like her.
>>Explain to me why/how the Republican congress will send a bill to over turn of obamacare to Romney, when Romney is now saying he just wants to tweak it.<<
Romney is not saying he just wants to “tweak” Obamacare. What he IS saying is that every goal in Obamacare is not objectionable.
For example, if a reasonable way to deal with pre-existing conditions can be found (and I believe it can), then why wouldn’t you want a Republican plan, or a Republican/Democrat plan for that matter, to address that issue?
If young people need and want insurance, why wouldn’t you look for a way to see that they can get insured, as long as it’s in a way that aligns with free-market principles?
For that matter, the goal of Obamacare is to attempt to get every American insured. It fails, but isn’t a goal of getting every American who wants to be insured onto some form of insurance a respectable goal, again, if it could be done in accordance with free market principles?
Romney in no way said he wants to “tweak” Obamacare. He says he wants to “repeal and replace” it. It’s very likely that some of the replacements are going to cover the same goals as Obamacare has. Hopefully, a replacement will be more effective at actually meeting those goals.
Thank you.
I wonder if a good bumper sticker for moderates might be:
“Change and Hope: Vote Romney.”
It pretty much sums up how I think they’re feeling.
I was a huge Palin fan until she asked Todd Akin to step down. Such a wrong message. Her formidable political character was deeply dinged by that remark, in my opinion.
Sarah came to Missouri, and campaigned for Steelman. Akin in his 'big' interview changed the election to 'legitimate rape' and and and .... away from the literal world that affects Missourians. I do NOT blame Sarah Palin for asking Akin to step down, considering that he and he alone change the subject of how to defeat Claire. See now Clarie has spent the past year hunting tall grass to hide her Obama connections and Akin handed her a mink coat.
Only a very vocal few understood Akin's language, and it takes far more than a 30 second sound bit to explain. When daily survival for the majority of Missourians is NOT about 'legitimate rape', but daily survival of high gas prices, food prices and a long drought and searing heat wave!!! Akin made this mess, but I will still vote for him if he remains on the ballot.
Problem is Obama keeps blaming Bush and the Republican party for the collapse and he has a compelling case for it, since the economic collapse happened at the end of Bush's term. The Republicans have made no effort to defend Bush, nor to blame the Democrat Congress for being in bed with Fannie/Freddie, nor to blame Obama for working with Acorn to force banks to give loans to people who couldn't pay them back, which are the true roots of the housing bubble.
It may in fact be the Republicans' failure to defend Bush, their limpwristed, wimpy impulse to throw a fellow Republican under the bus every time the liberal media attacks one, that allows Obama to win reelection. They have ceded the argument that Republicans caused the economic collapse to the other side. Why would the public ever want to vote back in a party that causes economic collapses?
So the Romney campaign is now beyond critique? No matter how terribly they run their campaign into the ground, we're just supposed to say "rah, rah, go, team!" and not offer them any advice, no matter how desperately they need it? So even if Romney decides to strap a dog to the top of his campaign bus for the next 2 months, we just have to sit back and either ignore it or tell everyone that it's a good idea because the dog will attract much-needed attention? I'm a free speech conservative, not a "get to the back of the bus and keep your mouth shut so we can drive it over a cliff" conservative.
Romney has the charisma of Michael Dukakis, the likability of John Kerry, the natural warmth of Richard Nixon, the honesty of Bill Clinton, the business ethics of Michael Milken, the populist appeal of Thurston Howell, III, the socialist leanings of Barack Obama and he practices the weirdest religion outside of Scientology. A candidate like that just screams electability.
32 posted on Thursday, March 22, 2012 2:01:26 PM by JediJones (The Divided States of Obama's Declaration of Dependence: Death, Taxes and the Pursuit of Crappiness)
“Now, we see Romney is not only defending his Romneycare but admitting that he will keep some of Obamacare”
Romney did not defend, say he liked, or say he would keep any part of Obamacare. the law; Obamacare as in any provision of it the way it was establioshed by Obamacare.
He said there were two areas of “heath care/insurance REFORM” that he agreed were REFORMS that were needed - “pre-exisiting conditions” and older-age children getting coverage on their parents plans. It was not an agreement with Obamacare on those items, in any way. He did not say he would adopt the kind of provisions for them that was done in Obamacare; in fact, his language about them suggests very different approaches to them than in Obamacare.
The GOP in the House had their own market-based reforms for those two areas that were never even considered by the Dims. I am sure Romney will have to get his own ideas past the GOP in Congress and will not have a party as compliant on the matter as was the Dims with Obama.
But if you prefer to wait for Saint Sarah, go ahead. Meanwhile the rest of us prefer to fight Romney if we have to through our friends in Congress and not wait for four more years of “Executive Privilege” to fully implement Obamacare across the economy.
“when Romney is now saying he just wants to tweak it”
Romney does not say he wants to “tweak it” - the Obamacare law, in fact he said he wants to repeal it.
Health care/insurance reform is a bigger subject than simply “Obamacare”. The GOP has been also in favor of some kinds of health insurance reform.
There were two areas of health insurance reform - not “Obamacare”, the law - that Romney said he too would propose reforms on - “pre-existing conditions” and older children keeping coverage on their parents insurance.
He did not say he wanted to “tweak” how Oabamcare dealt with those issues, nor did he defend how Obamacare dealt with them, no did he defend or say he “liked” any part of Obamacare.
So get yourself past the idea that all health insurance reform, of anykind, equals “Romneycare” or “Obamacare”, and check out some reputable Conservative think tanks like the Heritage Foundation or the American Enterprise Institute or the Cato Institute and disabuse yourself of the idea that only Liberals/Progressives/Marxists would like to see some kinds of health insurance reforms - though not “Obamacare”.
Akin will remain on the ballot. And, there’s no reason for Palin or Romney to have asked him to step-down......and no reason for Akin’s pro-life supporter - Paul Ryan - to have been asked to jump on the bandwagon to have Akin step down. Akin mispoke, is all. His pro-life message was at the heart. Once again the GOP elite muffed that and showed their RINO tendencies by working against Akin.
We are not talking about reform this is about obamacare.
Yes, Romney did say he would repeal obamacare the first day.
And yes, he did say he liked parts of obamaccare which he would keep.
I am just asking how a person squares what Romney is saying now with what he said before total repeal of obamacare.
*On Mitt Romney Sunday on MTP, said he would retain elements of President Barack Obama’s health care
*Romney has said, I will repeal obamacare the first day.
Again, how are you resolving those two statements.
Akin and a few of his 'poor' but vocal supporters wanted to have a conversation about 'legitimate rape'. Personally, I did not understand his language. AND I know that there is not one person that I relate to daily, weekly or monthly have as their main priority a discussion about 'legitimate rape'.
I will vote for him if he remains on the ballot, but I sure am NOT going to spend my time attempting to educate the unlearned of Akin speak about what he said. And no, I have not called for him to step down, but I sure do expect his vocal supporters to send him money, considering they demanded him to stay in the race. I know who the GOP-e are and expecting them to send 'money' for Akin's election is like expecting Obama to stop redistributing this nation's wealth.
yes?, your telling us what?
That if FoxNews uses the phrase “Romney...likes parts of Obamacare”, that means that Romney said “I like parts of Obamacare” even when the quote for Romney is right there and that is not what he said????
You need to separate Romney’s own words from how the reporter spoke of them.
Romney spoke of health care reform, not Obamacare. One is a subject that did have GOP support, the other is a law that ignored any GOP input to it.
Any issue, such as “pre-existing conditions” is more than just the issue, it’s how the law does or does not attempt to deal with it. To imply that any “pre-existing conditions” reform is, must and will be a duplicate of how the issue is handled in Obamacare - as if there is only one way to reform that issue, is nothing less than ignorance of the subject.
And to suggest that anyone who wants to reform it “likes Obamacare”, or even “likes” how Obamacare dealt with it is also just ignorance.
If you cannot separate “health care/insurance reform” in your mind from Obamacare, then please stay out of these threads. No one can tell you anything, you’re already convinced yourself that all healthcare/insurance reform is an Obamacare redo.
Actually, Mitt's not so very different from typical Republicans of years gone by: Tom Dewey, Everett Dirksen, Bill Scranton, George Romney, Hugh Scott, Chuck Percy, John Heinz, John Warner.
Somebody's going to say that they were all losers. Maybe, maybe not, but that's true of most politicians. Losers abound. Winners are rare, whatever their ideology.
“And yes, he did say he liked parts of obamaccare which he would keep.”
No he did not.
*On Mitt Romney Sunday on MTP, said he would retain elements of President Barack Obama’s health care”
You’re quoting the reporter, not Mitt Romney.
He never said he would “retain” any part of “Obamacare”. He never even said he would “retain” any part of the “Affordable Care Act” - the official name of Obamacare in the law.
What he said was:
“Of course there are a number of things that I like in health care reform that I’m going to put in place,”.....’One is to make sure that those with pre-existing conditions can get coverage.” ....Romney also said he would allow young adults to keep their coverage under their parents’ health-insurance.”
Is he talking about Obamacare? No. He is talking about the general subject of health care reform. He mentions two areas of reform - not of Obamacare, not of how they were treated in Obamacare, just two areas of reforms.
And were there more than just the “Obamacare” versions of health care reform - from the GOP, and including those two areas? Yes. And were any of the GOP ideas in those two areas even allowed to be submitted as possibilitities, as amendments, in Obamcare - no of course not.
But to suggest that (a) if you want to reform those two areas, you simply want such reforms as Obamacare imposed for them, and (B) anyone proposing to include those two areas as areas in GOP health insurance reform, simply likes, or wants to duplicate Obamacare reflects a lack of understanding and puts the word “Obamacare” in the mouth of anyone who attempts to discuss them.
Repeat after me: Obamacare and health insurance reform are not synonyms.
Just remember, folks, for the Liberals the “good” parts of Obamacare are the individual mandate, the death panels and the government incursion into religious freedom.
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.