ALL DONATIONS HELP.
Click the Pic
Support Free Republic
Posted on 01/05/2012 5:41:02 AM PST by Kaslin
Much of the conservative punditocracy has declared that Mitt Romney is the consensus conservative candidate. If he is, he's the least consensual consensus candidate in modern political history -- the man can't break 25 percent with a sledgehammer. While his supporters shout from the hills that Romney essentially tied for the win in Iowa, his glass remains three-quarters empty, with no-name Rick Santorum winning as much of the vote, Ron Paul winning nearly as much, and Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry combining for as much. The last time a Republican candidate captured the nomination for the presidency by winning Iowa with this low a vote total, his name was Bob Dole. A couple of years later, he was hawking Viagra.
Nonetheless, the word is out: The fix is in. Unbelievably, not a single anti-Romney television ad was run in the state of Iowa. And while a few conservatives -- including yours truly -- have come out and opposed nominating the most left-wing Republican in the field, many more conservatives have endorsed Romney's candidacy.
Now there are good reasons for supporting Romney in the GOP nomination race. Some people argue that he has the most appeal to independents, because he is the least openly conservative. Others state that he doesn't have personal baggage and is thus less likely to become fodder for late night talk shows. Still others contend that his vanilla personality means that the focus of the election will remain on President Obama and such focus will make Romney a shoe-in. Finally, there are those who say that Romney has had his convenient road-to-Damascus conversion to conservatism and we should now trust him.
These arguments, at the very least, are understandable. What is not understandable is the contention by so many conservatives that Romney's record is conservative. It isn't. He's always been an advocate of a carefully managed, large government rather than a freedom-ensuring small one; his record in Massachusetts shows him to be an advocate for liberal policies like the individual mandate and activist judges. There can be no doubt that among all the Republicans running, his record is the most left. Even Jon Huntsman looks like Ronald Reagan next to Romney.
Why, then, do so many conservatives say that Romney represents true conservatism?
Because it's convenient.
Whenever there is an open Republican race, many professional conservatives fear alienating the candidates. Instead of holding their feet to the fire, they find the person most likely to win and back him. If that person happens not to be particularly conservative, the pundits rewrite conservatism to fit the candidate. This preserves their access and their credibility with their audience. As professional prognosticators, it certainly looks better to have endorsed George W. Bush in 2000 than Steve Forbes. If pundits can convince us that not only did they support George W. Bush but also that George W. Bush's "compassionate conservatism" was actually conservative rather than warmed over big government liberalism, they can eat their cake and have it, too.
This is deeply problematic, of course, since the professional pundit class is supposed to stand for something other than convenience. Yes, defeating horrible politicians like Barack Obama is the top goal -- but that doesn't justify redefining conservatism entirely. Support Mitt Romney if you must -- but don't urinate on our leg and tell us that it's raining. Mitt Romney is not a conservative. If you want to support him, go right ahead. But don't lie about your rationale. It undermines the conservative standard.
Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, D-N.Y., long ago pointed out that folks who cannot live by certain standards tend to undermine those standards. When the standards are lowered, the behavior that such standards were originally intended to stop increases dramatically. In the case of unwed motherhood, for example, when society ceases to consider such behavior morally wrong, the behavior increases exponentially.
The same holds true in politics. When we deliberately broaden conservatism to encompass government-forced purchase of health insurance or raising taxes or appointing liberal judges or enforcing same-sex marriage or using taxpayer money to bail out business or pushing trade barriers, we destroy conservatism from within. If we do that, why would our politicians even bother to pay lip service to the standard?
They wouldn't. And we'd end up with ever more liberal nominees. Which is precisely what has happened since the halcyon days of Reagan.
Standards matter. If you want to support Mitt Romney, that's your prerogative. But don't sell out conservative principles in the process.
So, he’s open to independents? So What? How open is he to conservatives? I’m tired of Republicans who are open to independents, and lose, or even worse, win and then forget about all the conservatives who voted for them. I will not vote for Romney, period!
I can't be! Karl "You magnificent jackass" Rove says Iowa was a great win for his RINO Messiah candidate Willard.
“I will not vote for Romney, period”
Then don’t be surprised or upset when Obama wins! Other than Ron Paul he’s my least favorite. If more people would have held their noses and voted for McCain like I had to do then we wouldn’t have Obama!
The mantra has to be Anyone But Obama!
Sorta reads like a letter to Ann Coulter from Ben Shapiro doesn’t it?
If I was betting, I would bet the Romney campaign was behind the taking down of Cain. I would also bet that they were behind the attacks on Sarah Palin.
Not true. Slick Willard will break 25% in NH next week. He may break 40%. Not good timing for this article.
“If more people would have held their noses and voted for McCain like I had to do then we wouldn’t have Obama”
But, we’d have McCain, and a Democrat congress, and maybe a slightly slower speed of the handbasket, but no change in direction.
After the 2006 fiasco, Rush said he was through carrying the water for the GOP. That’ll be tested if the GOP nominates Romney. I voted for McCain, or rather against Obama, but I’m finished carrying the water for the GOP.
I should have learned the lesson years ago, when the local Republicans closed ranks against conservatives, and sometimes joined with Dems in doing so. but, I thought the Dems were worse, and so I supported the Grand Old Party. But no more. From now on, they’ll have to earn my support.
The lesser of two evils is still evil.
“I will not vote for Romney, period!”
Nor I. I don’t understand why the party pimps can’t get that through their dead skulls. This is where the trail ends, if that is the best they will PERMIT. Better people have already been eliminated, one by one, and all through smears, suffocation and ‘friendly fire’.
The GOP -will- become a regional party - a weird groups of aloof, condescending cold war liberals slowly dying off in the Northeast.
The worst candidate possible. Both in terms of conservative credentials and ability to beat Obama. How is this even possible? We all saw the Youtube videos, how can any candidate survive this?
NO way in Hell will I vote for Romney if he gets the nod.
Romney is a Nelson Rockefeller Republican.
He is Obama Lite.
I say hunker down for the coming economic storm(it’s coming regardless who gets elected;Romney just delays it) and pray for sensible leadership during the crisis. Hint: it won’t be coming from the Federal Government.
When Ann Coulter tossed her high-heels into the Romney camp, all innocence was lost....
It was noticeable and curious.
This is not Heaven, choose the best. Too bad, it's reality.
I used to buy into this cliche of "if I vote between two evils, I will still end up with evil" Yup, but there's no other way, unless you want to drop out of the process and not have a say.
I say a Democrat is always more evil than the Republican.
This means in the general election, you will ALWAYS vote for the R.
I will be voting AGAINST Obama—no matter what!!
“most appeal to independents”
He also has the most appeal with Democrats!
“don’t be surprised or upset when Obama wins!”
I won’t be. That’s partly why Obama won last time. It’s obviously not bad enough for folks yet.
Pragmatism and compromise for its own sake is part of the reason why we’re in the trouble we’re in.
The only way to stop it is to stop voting for RINOs.
Forget the Tea Party trying to work WITHIN the republican party. It needs to be separate.
Romney is just more proof that RNC is done.
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.