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?
The liberals do NOT like the mandate. They want single-payer health care. The liberals love the same stuff Romney does, coverage for pre-existing conditions and coverage for any loser kid living in his parents’ basement until age 40. The liberals do not want to pay for their health care, they want it free from the gubbermint, so they don’t like the mandate.
You made an important point. The GOP needs to win over at least some of the folks who voted for Obama last time. They don’t need to convince the people who opposed him last time. Almost no one who voted against Obama last time will have changed their minds to vote for him this time. So the ones in play are his supporters (and not ours, which is a good thing).
The thing is, many of those who voted for him did so believing that their vote proved something about themselves, that they were as people righteous and deep.
GOP is trying to tell them, yes you are righteous and deep, and thats why you are going to vote Romney/Ryan this time.
Liberal love the mandate because it opens the door to even more expansion of Federal power ( just through the threat of taxation and not marginalizing the 10th Amendment, thanks to Chief Justice Roberts) and will eventually help collapse the system this forcing a move to single payer (this per Howard Dean)
Ok, whatever you say.
I heard Romney say he would keep some of obamaccare.
Really, if you don’t want to beleive what he said....okey dokey.
I don’t call it “loving” the mandate when, as you correctly state, their goal is to use it as a stepping stone to single payer, after which it goes away. They would have been happier to pass a single payer bill right off the bat and skip the mandate step.
Nothing like a good old conservative circular firing squad, is there? Sure helps win elections.
Just watched the interview again.
Romney said: I am not going to repeal all of obamacare, there are parts I like.
Then he went on to say he is going to raise taxes on the top 1% (by eliminating deductions).
You are free to beleive whatever you want to believe, I on the other hand choose to beleive the truth.
That truth - Romney is a flipping liberal.
Clean out your ears.
At the very opening of the discussion Romney says he will “replace Obamacare”; he in fact does not say:
“I am not going to repeal all of obamacare, there are parts I like.”
He does not say there are parts of “Obamacare” “I like”.
He says that parts of “health care reform” he will “put in place” in his own plan - which is a broader subject than and is not synonomous with “Obamcare”.
He is not saying he would keep the way Obamacare dealt with the two issues he mentioned - “pre-existing condtions”, and children seeking to continue coverage on their parents plan. Those are reform areas, areas of things that can be reformed. Just mentioning them does not mean keeping anything about them “as is” from Obamacare. As I have tried to keep telling you, the GOP as well had reform ideas on those issues. Those ideas were not the ideas put into Obamacare. Yet, to listen to you, anyone wanting to reform those two areas wanted “Obamacare”. Ignorance.
Geeesh.
When will you quit hearing “Obamacare” everytime someone says “health care reform”. End of your endless circular ears-closed issues.
Ok, honey.
You beleive whatever you want to believe.
Did you not read the original post? The author is telling Romney that the white-taped path to victory is written in our history, and that he'd better get a grip and follow it, or he'll lose this thing.
He's saying the same thing that hundreds of Freepers are saying, which is: 'dump the nice guy routine, and come out swinging, or you're going down to the clown'.
Don't be so sensitive that you reject absolutely critical advice when it's being given.
Romney's got the kid gloves on. He's gonna lose this thing if he doesn't quit playing footsie, and come out swinging with bare knuckles.
The author is dead on the money. Heck, tons of Freepers are screaming the same thing right now.
As for myself, I’d repeal it all — except for the provision that says the mandate may not be considered a tax.
This is the kind of liberal Establishment RINOism that loses elections.
Remember, during the primaries, Romney supporter Pam Bondi (who as Florida AG led the lawsuit against the unconstitutional Obamacare bill) said that they intended to repeal Obamacare and help establish Romneycare in every state.
Romneycare essentially IS Obamacare.
Yet, given that opportunity, she passed.
Not true. She was very active in support of other candidates than Romney and was critical of Romney during the primary campaign. Like many of us, Sarah is correctly critical of the namby-pamby way the Romneyites are running their campaign. Her criticisms are valid.
Tonight on O'Reilly, she agreed with Laura Ingraham that if the GOP can't win what's essentially a gimme election like this one, with the record Obama has compiled, then the Republican Party ought to just close up shop and be replaced. On that, too, I agree with her.
I watched Palin on Fox tonight. I don’t know what’s going on with her, but in the last two appearances I’ve witnessed it appears to me that she’s in danger of losing control of herself. She looks frazzled, and the longer she talks the more frazzled she gets.
It wouldn’t surprise me in the least if she has a nervous breakdown in the near future. Seriously. Something is going on with her.
As for the election, the MSM is currently throwing everything but the kitchen sink in for Obama and he’s only tied, and can’t break 47%. He’s toast. And even the polls that show the tie are way overloaded with Democrats.
The Tea Party’s staying power, OWS’s pathetic ending, Chick-fil-A, and the performance of the documentary “2016 Obama’s America” are harbingers of the upcoming election. It’s not even going to be close.
What a ridiculous godlike ego.
I have a “plan”: Get the F out my of life, get the F out of my business and get the F out of my face.
You say I can't buy a 100 watt incandescent light bulb??? FFFFFF YOU!
Yep, that was George W Bush who also gave us the prescription drug program, no child left behind, McCain-Fiengold, and bigger and bigger budgets.
I hope you’re right.
In my general deep-blue neighborhood today, I saw very few BO bumper stickers.
Curiously, near downtown there were a few identical light-green Priuses with BO bumper stickers. They looked like they were part of a fleet but were all traveling separately.
Anyhow, most of those cars I saw had bare bumpers. Even the ones parked at Whole Foods had bare bumpers, believe it or not.
The only political yard signs I’ve seen have been for a local school board candidate. No BO yard signs at all.
>>The only political yard signs I’ve seen have been for a local school board candidate. No BO yard signs at all.<<
I suspect union organizers usually coordinate the distribution of Democrat yard signs, and right now union organizers are not particularly happy with the way things are turning out under the Obama administration.
And the Chicago teachers’ strike isn’t going to help in that regard either, as Obama is probably not going to stick his neck out and support the strikers. This will give the unions one more reason to withhold support for him.
They’ll vote for him, especially the public employees in unions, but work hard for him this time? Maybe not.
I don’t agree at all. I’ve seen a good bit of Sarah lately on TV, and she is making strong points — stronger than RINO Romney, the Etch A Sketch Man, will ever make. She’s as articulate and tough as ever.
He says there are certain parts of healthcare reform he’ll keep — then cites specific provisions that are in the Obamacare bill. Thus, he endorsed parts of Obamacare and said he’d keep them.
The only part I want to keep is the part that says the mandate may not be considered a tax.
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.