Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Romney: Man of Pastel
National Review Online ^ | June 6, 2012 | Michael Tanner

Posted on 06/06/2012 2:17:12 PM PDT by neverdem

Now that Mitt Romney has officially clinched the Republican nomination, most of the political Right has rallied around him, out of antipathy for President Obama if for no other reason. Recent polls show that if the election were held today Romney would receive 90 percent of the Republican vote, and three-quarters of the vote from self-described conservatives. One can expect even more conservatives and Republicans to “come home,” as the bitterness of the primary season fades, and the contrast with Obama becomes clearer. 

Yet, for anyone concerned with the size, cost, and intrusiveness of government, dark clouds continue to hang over the Romney campaign.

For example, if as is often said, “personnel is policy,” Romney’s decision to name former Utah governor Michael Leavitt to lead his presidential transition team is particularly disturbing, especially since Politico reports that Leavitt may become White House chief of staff if Romney wins.

As George W. Bush’s Secretary of HHS, Leavitt was a principle architect of the Medicare prescription-drug benefit, which created the first new federal entitlement program since the Great Society. And Leavitt continues to call the program “a success,” despite the fact that it will add as much as $17 trillion to Medicare’s unfunded liabilities.

As governor, Leavitt was a tax-and-spend liberal. During his ten years in office, real spending per capita rose by nearly a third. Leavitt pushed for higher taxes on Internet sales, gasoline, and cigarettes. And, as head of the National Governors Association, he lobbied for a federal law to allow states to tax out-of-state Internet companies. He also blocked several attempts by the Utah legislature to cut taxes, including a $25 million state income tax cut in 2001. Between 1996 and 2002, Leavitt never received a grade higher than “C” on Cato’s Fiscal Report Card, and twice earned a failing grade. In 2000, he ranked below Vermont’s Howard Dean, and, in 2002, he scored lower than 7 of 16 Democratic governors.

Of even greater concern, Leavitt has spent the last two years lobbying on behalf of Obamacare. Leavitt’s company, a Utah-based consultancy called Leavitt Partners, has raked in huge profits helping states set up exchanges under the law. In fact, Leavitt’s firm has doubled in size over the two years since the health care law was signed. And, Leavitt hasn’t just made money from Obamacare grant money, he has used his influence to urge state lawmakers to set up exchanges. He has publicly said that he opposes repeal of at least this portion of the new health-care law. Given Romney’s rather spotty history on the health-care issue — to be charitable — Leavitt’s appointment is not a great sign. 

And, as if this wasn’t enough cause for concern, as EPA administrator, Leavitt was an early advocate of cap-and-trade legislation. He was also an enthusiastic backer of numerous other job-killing environmental regulations. Indeed, it’s hard to find a big-government policy over the past two administrations, that Leavitt didn’t support.

Of course, Leavitt’s appointment is not the only reason why advocates of limited government remain uneasy with a Romney candidacy.

For example, while Romney speeches have generally been excellent on the need to cut spending and reduce the deficit, he has still not provided much in the way of specifics about what he would actually cut. We know that he would not cut defense — indeed, he wants to increase it. Taking defense off the table means that cuts in other areas will have to be deeper. Yet, in an interview with Time magazine, Romney said “If you take a trillion dollars for instance, out of the first year of the federal budget, that would shrink GDP over 5 percent. That is by definition throwing us into recession or depression. So I’m not going to do that, of course.”

As the Washington Post’s Ezra Klein noted, “You couldn’t have gotten a clearer definition of Keynesian budgeting from Obama.” 

Finally, it is worth noting that Romney continues to hold the door open for a potential Value Added Tax (VAT), a hidden form of national sales tax embedded in the production process. In an interview last December with the Wall Street Journal, Romney suggested that he might consider a VAT as part of a larger tax reform. The Journal describes Romney’s position on a VAT this way (emphasis added): 

he ‘doesn’t like the idea’ of layering a VAT onto the current income tax system. But . . . philosophically speaking, a VAT might work as a replacement for some part of the tax code, ‘particularly at the corporate level’ . . . .What he doesn’t do is rule a VAT out.

Unlike a national retail sales tax, a VAT is hidden, making it particularly insidious. One only has to look to Europe to see how quickly a VAT would become a cash cow for the government, and would wreck economic growth. Yet, to this day, despite repeated opportunities to do so, Romney refuses to rule out a VAT. 

It is traditional for candidates, once they’ve secured the nomination to reposition themselves to appeal to the political center. But, with Romney, it is less a question of repositioning than questions about his core convictions.

In a campaign that calls for bold colors, Romney remains a man of pale pastels.

Michael Tanner is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and author of Leviathan on the Right: How Big-Government Conservatism Brought Down the Republican Revolution.



TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: romney4deathpanels; romney4dnc; romney4gaymarriage; romney4illegals; romney4morefees; romney4moretaxes; romney4msm; romney4obamacare; romney4romney; romney4romneycare; romney4sharia; romney4tarp
If Romney tries to govern like a RINO, he's going to run into two walls, the Tea Party and the bond market. Our credit has already been downgraded.
1 posted on 06/06/2012 2:17:18 PM PDT by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem
If Romney tries to govern like a RINO,...

He knows nothing else.

He has been a socialist liberal his whole political career and people don't change over night.

He'll get an atta' boy from the ABO crowd however and that will give him confidence to maintain the status quo as a socialist.

2 posted on 06/06/2012 2:24:12 PM PDT by EGPWS (Trust in God, question everyone else)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
"Now that Mitt Romney has officially clinched the Republican nomination, most of the political Right has rallied around him, out of antipathy for President Obama if for no other reason."

I think most Freepers would agree that there is no reason to elect Mitt Romney, other than the fact that Obama is so fiercely despised.

3 posted on 06/06/2012 2:26:22 PM PDT by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Romney will be what he has always been a liberal, evidenced by who he primarily surrounds himself with.
Why would anyone expect anything else?


4 posted on 06/06/2012 2:26:38 PM PDT by svcw (If one living cell on another planet is life, why isn't it life in the womb?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

RINOmney is a vapid dork.

He’s nothing but Obama lite.

Just wait.


5 posted on 06/06/2012 2:30:17 PM PDT by Da Coyote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

2010 - 2012 was all about the GOP neutralizing the Tea Party. That is a fait accompli. The math, however, will remain.


6 posted on 06/06/2012 2:30:22 PM PDT by Psalm 144 ("I'm not willing to light my hair on fire to try and get support. I am who I am." - Willard M Romney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: svcw

I won’t be voting for the Socialist. See tagline.


7 posted on 06/06/2012 2:30:33 PM PDT by Uncle Miltie (The Presidential Race is about the relative light reflectivity of your Socialist Slavemaster.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

America cannot survive a Maobama victory in November - this would be the coming nightmare:

1. Amnesty for 30-40 Million ILLEGALS
2. The ILLEGALS officially join the DNC/Socialist party
3. SCOTUS Kennedy would (by hook or crook) be replaced with another Socialist who rejects the Constitution
4. Socialists control SCOTUS
5. The Constitution becomes totally meaningless
6. The DNC/Socialist party remain in power forever
7. America falls to Communism
8. Elections, if any, become like Venezuela’s - total fraud

Romney, OTOH, gives a a 4-year breather, and then we primary his a$$ out in 2016 with a true Conservative.

BOTTOM LINE: Maobama CANNOT be allowed to win and not voting for the GOP nominee, even if it’s MUTT, is supporting Maobama!


8 posted on 06/06/2012 2:43:31 PM PDT by newfreep (Breitbart sent me...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy; Joe Brower; Cannoneer No. 4; Criminal Number 18F; Dan from Michigan; Eaker; Jeff Head; ...
Future tense, X: The fourth revolution

Thermodynamics of Global Warming

Looking at Bloomberg’s Soda Ban Through a Doughnut Hole

New Documents Show Senior DOJ Officials Were Informed of Gunwalking in Fast and Furious

Some noteworthy articles about politics, foreign or military affairs, IMHO, FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.

9 posted on 06/06/2012 2:44:11 PM PDT by neverdem (Xin loi minh oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
I think I still agree with Ronnie:

"Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but BOLD COLORS which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?"
From Ronald Reagan's 1975 Speech To CPAC

10 posted on 06/06/2012 2:45:42 PM PDT by LTC.Ret (You'd think I would know better than to volunteer!!! www.sendmetocongress.us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Romney will split the party open. There is no way only 10% are refusing to vote for Romney. Not voting for Willard is NOT about sour grapes because our candidates did not win! It's about who romney is. He is not who the eleftist gop tries to protray him as and he is NOT conservative. Someone said its about his religion. You don't have to be a Christian to be prolife and against gay marriage and adoption, cap n trade, against vat tax....yes many question his wisdom and character in believing he is a god. But take his religion out and he's a lousy liberal candidates anointed by eleftist who appointed themselves to have unelected power over the great unwashed. If they think it's about newt or Rick or whoever, they are only lying to themselves.
11 posted on 06/06/2012 2:48:51 PM PDT by Linda Frances (Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Miltie

Agreed.


12 posted on 06/06/2012 2:51:53 PM PDT by svcw (If one living cell on another planet is life, why isn't it life in the womb?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

13 posted on 06/06/2012 2:52:22 PM PDT by American in Israel (A wise man's heart directs him to the right, but the foolish mans heart directs him toward the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: svcw

14 posted on 06/06/2012 2:54:53 PM PDT by American in Israel (A wise man's heart directs him to the right, but the foolish mans heart directs him toward the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: EGPWS; svcw
He has been a socialist liberal his whole political career and people don't change over night.

He'll get an atta' boy from the ABO crowd however and that will give him confidence to maintain the status quo as a socialist.

Check "Future tense, X: The fourth revolution." It's linked in comment# 9.

The socialist agenda is running out of other peopple's money. Interesting times are almost upon us. Look at Greece.

15 posted on 06/06/2012 2:57:26 PM PDT by neverdem (Xin loi minh oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: newfreep

“...not voting for the GOP nominee, even if it’s MUTT, is supporting Maobama!”

Apparently, not all conservatives support your guy. Nor do they support Obama. No sale.


16 posted on 06/06/2012 2:59:37 PM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion ("I'm comfortable with a Romney win." - Pres. Jimmy Carter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: aMorePerfectUnion

My “guy” was the chick from Alaska.

Congrats for supporting Obama’s communist coup!


17 posted on 06/06/2012 3:03:40 PM PDT by newfreep (Breitbart sent me...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Milt Romney ruined the GOP in 2008,
and by Soros, he will do it again in 2012.


18 posted on 06/06/2012 3:04:46 PM PDT by Diogenesis ("Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. " Pres. Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Never liked Romney but can't wait to see Obama sulking on that inauguration stage.
19 posted on 06/06/2012 3:10:24 PM PDT by toddausauras (FUBO x 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem; SoConPubbie; svcw; Zakeet; Nachum; Jim Robinson
WOW! I can't believe that article is from the Romney campaign's house organ, National Review.

Methinks Michael Tanner's byline won't be seen there often...if ever again.

20 posted on 06/06/2012 3:12:56 PM PDT by greyfoxx39 (Until the 52K LDS missionaries claiming Christian faith is bogus quit, I will post LDS truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: newfreep
"....and then we primary his a$$ out in 2016 with a true Conservative"...

BWAAAHHAAAHHAAA!!! Oh my sides hurt! Really?

Look at how FReepdom tore each other up here during the primaries. One couldn't ask a single critical or inquisitive question of many FReepers about "their candidate" for fear of having a new one torn out.

If FReepers can't even remain united without some really distasteful characters mocking, denigrating, maligning and impugning the character of other FReepers because they're not "on board", what the hell do you think is going on out in the rest of the country?

And now, it continues, at an even greater level with the Mittbots attacking those who dare to resist compromising their values, morals and principles to support Mitt.

Meh...The eGOP made this crap sandwich and you think they're going to "compromise" with conservatives in the future? What a belly laugh.

21 posted on 06/06/2012 3:13:57 PM PDT by SZonian (Throwing our allegiances to political party's in the long run gave away our liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SZonian

So you’re OK with Obama completing his communist coup and America falling.

Thanks, we all know where you stand - a passive supporter of the marxist muslim!


22 posted on 06/06/2012 3:18:00 PM PDT by newfreep (Breitbart sent me...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: greyfoxx39
WOW! I can't believe that article is from the Romney campaign's house organ, National Review.

Methinks Michael Tanner's byline won't be seen there often...if ever again.

I'll be suprised if he doesn't. NRO expresses diverse opinions from conservative to libertarian.

23 posted on 06/06/2012 3:27:32 PM PDT by neverdem (Xin loi minh oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: newfreep

Reading comprehension isn’t your friend, is it?

Where did I say that? Please point it out.

I took your basic premise and responded to that.

And instead of a rational reply, you go on to prove my overall point that civility amongst so-called “conservatives” and rational discourse here on FR is a thing of the past.

Much appreciated.


24 posted on 06/06/2012 3:28:06 PM PDT by SZonian (Throwing our allegiances to political party's in the long run gave away our liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

No question, Romney is a lousy nominee. If the election weren’t so important, I might vote third party.


25 posted on 06/06/2012 3:39:12 PM PDT by Clintonfatigued (Obama and Company lied, the American economy died)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Now that Mitt Romney has officially clinched the Republican nomination, most of the political Right has rallied around him, out of antipathy for President Obama if for no other reason.

And what will happen if the DEMs decide to DUMP Obama at their convention, and run someone who could win?

All the anti-Barak stuff waiting to flood the airwaves will be WORTHLESS!

26 posted on 06/06/2012 4:27:21 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: newfreep

“Congrats for supporting Obama’s communist coup!”

Oh, sure, every time I buy a 7-up, I’m in reality buying a Coke instead of buying a Pepsi. Everyone knows that.

As an aside, you might spend a bit of time reviewing how the Electoral College works. My single vote won’t help elect your guy, RINOmney, even if I were to vote for him, which I won’t.


27 posted on 06/06/2012 4:47:30 PM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion ("I'm comfortable with a Romney win." - Pres. Jimmy Carter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: aMorePerfectUnion

As I posted my “guy” was Sarah

Clearly you cannot grasp that previews post or my points in #8

Are you one of those commie union thugs from WI?

LOL - WHAT A MAROON!

Good-bye...


28 posted on 06/06/2012 5:10:06 PM PDT by newfreep (Breitbart sent me...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Well, we are at the brink. We now must decide which poison we choose & can live with.

We must go forward & remake our RINO GOP elite party or go on to choose a New Conservative Party with the people that WE pick.

The name of the game is tough love & that includes the new 'young guns' that we helped put in office. It seems they are drinking the D.C. water & are not doing what they were sent to do.

Cleaning house includes getting rid of them too, if we don't don't see a change in attitude.

29 posted on 06/06/2012 5:11:07 PM PDT by LADY J (You never know how strong you are until being strong is the only choice you have. - Author Unknown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

Can’t help myself, I’m compelled to post my Romney endorsement again.

“Who thought a year ago when Conservatives were saying “ANYBODY BUT oBAMA” we would actually get the anybody? It’s time to “swallow the bitter pill”, “eat crow”, “gangrene has set in, time to cut off the foot”. I do not believe voting third party or not voting will result in obama being removed from office. I also believe that electing Romney will not begin to solve our problems but at least we will be able to look forward to elections in 2014 and 2016. If obama is re-elected I believe any future elections will be a complete sham. A bumper sticker that read “VOTE for the RINO, IT’S IMPORTANT” would be in order but may dampen enthusiasm for those that have it.

There, that does it Romney now has my official endorsement, my promise to vote for the Republican nominee will be honored, I’m also going to send a small check to the NRC, probably with a note attached, and a small check to the Romney campaign, with a note attached, and a check to Newt to help pay off his obligations and a note attached thanking him for what he has done for Conservatives, Republicans and the Nation and for stepping forward again in these troubled times and pointing us to the right path even though we chose to turn left.”


30 posted on 06/06/2012 5:13:40 PM PDT by duffee (NEWT 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: newfreep
I think you get the award for the new phrase this week: a passive supporter of the marxist muslim!

Congratulations.

Oh, just in case you don't know, this is in reference to people who have no cogent argument (ABO is not an argument) against people who do not support that liberal Romney, so they resort to name calling and sissy fits.

31 posted on 06/06/2012 5:44:59 PM PDT by svcw (If one living cell on another planet is life, why isn't it life in the womb?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: newfreep
commie union thugs from WI Two for two, nice going.
32 posted on 06/06/2012 5:49:34 PM PDT by svcw (If one living cell on another planet is life, why isn't it life in the womb?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: EGPWS

Romney won’t be able to settle for status quo. His entire campaign is tied to his ability to get the economy moving again. You won’t get that by just kicking the can down the road for the umpteenth time.

He’s not the ideal candidate, but he’s to the right of Obama. I hate his Leavitt pick. Not good at all. Leavitt’s too far Left to be this close to power.

That said, health care isn’t off the table and is an important part of our fiscal health as well. Here’s an article that gives some hope to a renewed federalism under Romney: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77074.html


33 posted on 06/06/2012 5:57:35 PM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: newfreep

Oh, I can grasp that your points in post 8 are histrionic silliness. And you have a right to support any rino you favor. Some conservatives don’t share your view. Good luck.


34 posted on 06/06/2012 6:10:20 PM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion ("I'm comfortable with a Romney win." - Pres. Jimmy Carter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: duffee

A pastel endorsement, but at least you’ve faced reality.


35 posted on 06/06/2012 6:15:40 PM PDT by altura
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: newfreep
If Mister Obama wins, FR will be a mere memory in no time.

BTW, this supporter of Bachmann in the early primaries voted for Romney yesterday here in Cali.

And, I'll be sending him money! (Not a fortune, mind you, but as much as I can spare without going without.)

Obama can't be allowed to do a full-scorched earth on our fine Country.

.

36 posted on 06/06/2012 6:17:42 PM PDT by Seaplaner (Never give in. Never give in. Never...except to convictions of honour and good sense. W. Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Psalm 144

>>The math, however, will remain.

As Jerry Pournelle has been pointing out for many years now, the gods of copybook headings will be appeased, no matter what. We appear to be overdue a good hard reminder of this. It won’t be pretty.

THE GODS OF THE COPYBOOK HEADINGS

Rudyard Kipling

(1919)

As I pass through my incarnations in every age and race,
I make my proper prostrations to the Gods of the Market-Place.
Peering through reverent fingers I watch them flourish and fall,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings, I notice, outlast them all.

We were living in trees when they met us. They showed us each in turn That
Water would certainly wet us, as Fire would certainly burn:
But we found them lacking in Uplift, Vision and Breadth of Mind,
So we left them to teach the Gorillas while we followed the March of Mankind.

We moved as the Spirit listed. They never altered their pace,
Being neither cloud nor wind-borne like the Gods of the Market-Place;
But they always caught up with our progress, and presently word would come
That a tribe had been wiped off its icefield, or the lights had gone out in
Rome.

With the Hopes that our World is built on they were utterly out of touch.
They denied that the Moon was Stilton; they denied she was even Dutch.
They denied that Wishes were Horses; they denied that a Pig had Wings.
So we worshipped the Gods of the Market Who promised these beautiful things.

When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace.
They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would
cease.
But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe,
And the Gods of the Copybook Heading said: “Stick to the Devil you know.”

On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life
(Which started by loving our neighbour and ended by loving his wife)
Till our women had no more children and the men lost reason and faith,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: “The Wages of Sin is Death.”

In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all,
By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul;
But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: “If you don’t work you die.”

Then the Gods of the Market tumbled, and their smooth-tongued wizards
withdrew,
And the hearts of the meanest were humbled and began to believe it was true
That All is not Gold that Glitters, and Two and Two make Four—
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more.


37 posted on 06/06/2012 8:37:13 PM PDT by FreedomPoster (Islam delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: duffee
I do not believe voting third party or not voting will result in obama being removed from office. I also believe that electing Romney will not begin to solve our problems but at least we will be able to look forward to elections in 2014 and 2016.

I respect your right to see this FUBARed situation in any way you wish, but allow me to just lay out another view.

It's a documented fact that Romney is a liberal with a record that would make any left-winger proud. He's not going to suddenly change his stripes, just because he's now the president. In fact, like most first term presidents, he'll feel omnipotent and freshly confident in his vision for America. This means that he'll be following much the same political path as Obama has, albeit without the racist, Marxist overtones of anti-Americanism.

We're very likely to have a Republican dominated Congress next year. If Romney becomes president, he also becomes the de facto head of their party. Given the reality of the game of politics, they're not likely to oppose his agenda, even if it goes against the grain of everything they personally campaigned for in their own quest for office. They're going to circle the wagons around the 'boss'. Such has it ever been in US politics.

Now, if Obama is re-elected, that same Congress will fight him tooth and nail over his agenda. They'll oppose him for the simple fact that he's on the other side (and perhaps because they really don't support his agenda).

In these two scenarios, at the end of four years, you're going to see a lot more progress of the Socialist agenda with the Republican as president, than you'll see with the Democrat as president.

Art of War 101.

38 posted on 06/07/2012 8:04:31 AM PDT by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Thanks for the ping!


39 posted on 06/07/2012 9:27:29 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Windflier
We're very likely to have a Republican dominated Congress next year. If Romney becomes president, he also becomes the de facto head of their party. Given the reality of the game of politics, they're not likely to oppose his agenda, even if it goes against the grain of everything they personally campaigned for in their own quest for office. They're going to circle the wagons around the 'boss'. Such has it ever been in US politics.

I think it's different this time. The pubbies gave GWB just about everything he wanted, and the independents cleaned their clocks in 2006 and 2008.

Remember when talk about renewing an "assault weapons" ban in 2009. IIRC, Reid and Pelosi said to forget about it, and 64 House rats sent a letter to Holder to the same effect. They campaigned on being pro Second Amendment.

The Tea Party Congress critters campaigned on being fiscally conservative most of all. IMHO, Romney will have to worry most about conservatives opposing him.

40 posted on 06/07/2012 2:42:47 PM PDT by neverdem (Xin loi minh oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Windflier
We're very likely to have a Republican dominated Congress next year. If Romney becomes president, he also becomes the de facto head of their party. Given the reality of the game of politics, they're not likely to oppose his agenda, even if it goes against the grain of everything they personally campaigned for in their own quest for office. They're going to circle the wagons around the 'boss'. Such has it ever been in US politics.

Yes, but.

And the "but" is because that's exactly what happened with Bush. Since it happened so recently, it's less likely that it will happen again to the same degree. Representatives may be a little more recalcitrant and not follow the leader so easily, knowing how things turned out last time.

It's kind of a glass half-empty, glass half-full phenomenon. If someone's expecting Republicans to go Tea Party with Romney in the White House, they're going to be disappointed. As you say, that's not the way things happen. But if you compare a Romney presidency to how things were in the Bush years, you may be surprised that Congress does show a bit more backbone this time.

BTW, you are thinking you're making a great argument against Romney. For some people it will work the other way around. That is to say, for a some Republicans the idea that the party will circle the wagons for a Texan or blindly follow an evangelical but won't do the same for someone from the coasts or a Mormon is objectionable. I suspect that's why Ann Coulter and other East Coast conservatives embraced Romney with a closeness that conservatives from other parts of the country may find objectionable.

41 posted on 06/07/2012 3:29:00 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: x
for a some Republicans the idea that the party will circle the wagons for a Texan or blindly follow an evangelical but won't do the same for someone from the coasts or a Mormon is objectionable.

No offense, but that's just silly. As a native Californian who lived there at the time, I strongly supported George Bush in 2000, and would have supported him even if he were from Massachusetts.

I may love Texas, but a candidate's regional origin is completely irrelevant to me. It's their record of accomplishment and ideological grounding that either draws me to them, or repels me.

Case in point: Sarah Palin. The fact that she's from Alaska doesn't mean a hill of beans to me. It's her record and what she stands for, that has earned her my support.

Here's another: Rick Perry. Although he's the Governor of my state, and has presided over a long run of prosperity in this state, he's not really my kind of guy. I think he's far too moderate, and I don't trust him to make the conservative choice on every decision.

Then there's Mitt Romney. Now here's a man, who if you simply studied his record as Governor of Massachusetts, and didn't know who he was, you'd swear that he was a liberal Democrat. That's what his record shows. That's repulsive to me, and is a complete deal-breaker. I can't, and I won't vote for someone like that under any circumstances.

As to how a Republican dominated Congress is going to behave under a Romney administration, well, you'll see. They're going to roll over for him like trained pets. Too bad they won't be rolling over for any of the right reasons. I don't expect them to put up much of a fight when he begins rolling out his own Socialist agenda.

42 posted on 06/07/2012 5:00:32 PM PDT by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

I agree with you compleatly about Romney, I don’t believe that the liberal Romney appointment to the Supreme Court will vote any different than the marxist that obama will appoint. I hope with a Republican victory that we may have another shot at a real election. I don’t have much hope but I pray a Republican Congress and Senate may exert some sanity into what is happening. Romney getting elected is a disaster, obama getting re-elected is worse. I believe that voting third party or not voting only helps obama. I certainly understand anyone who refuses to vote for Romney.


43 posted on 06/07/2012 5:00:51 PM PDT by duffee (NEWT 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
IMHO, Romney will have to worry most about conservatives opposing him.

Let us hope they really do oppose him. If FR is any gauge, they're simply going to roll over when he shows them that nice big R on his sleeve.

44 posted on 06/07/2012 5:03:47 PM PDT by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Windflier
Why else is Ann Coulter so passionately for Romney? Why is Chris Christie her second choice? If you don't live on the East Coast (or the West Coast) you may not get it.

If you live in Texas you're a lot more likely to write off Romney and support Bush than if you live in Connecticut (I'm talking about people's feelings for Bush now, not in 2000, though).

45 posted on 06/07/2012 5:46:17 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: x
Why else is Ann Coulter so passionately for Romney? Why is Chris Christie her second choice? If you don't live on the East Coast (or the West Coast) you may not get it.

Let's stop right here. Your premise is absolutely ridiculous. You're talking as though conservatives support candidates the same way they support sports teams - based on region or location.

I've never heard anything so silly. People support various candidates because they agree with their records and their politics. Period.

Ann Coulter supports Romney and Christie because she's a liberal Republican - just like they are. It's also why she hates Sarah Palin with a passion. She is not a conservative, although she did fool most of us for a long long time.

46 posted on 06/07/2012 6:04:04 PM PDT by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Windflier
You're talking as though conservatives support candidates the same way they support sports teams - based on region or location.

I've never heard anything so silly. People support various candidates because they agree with their records and their politics. Period.

My point wasn't that people support candidates because of where they are from, rather than because of their positions on the issues.

It was that voters are more inclined to be forgiving of candidates with backgrounds similar to theirs -- candidates from the same part of the country or ethnic group or profession.

In uncertain situations they are more likely to give such candidates the benefit of the doubt than they would candidates of a very different background. And they're more likely to view situations as uncertain when candidates they see as similar to themselves are involved than voters who don't make that kind of identification or connection are.

Voters who view a candidate as alien or foreign are a lot less likely to extend to that candidate the benefit of the doubt, and more likely to view candidates from another part of the country as untrustworthy.

It's not that East Coast conservatives or Republicans would support Romney over a qualified conservative candidate. It's just that they don't automatically write him off, and in the absence of a really qualified conservative candidate they are more likely to support him.

Ann Coulter supports Romney and Christie because she's a liberal Republican - just like they are.

In a way, that proves my point. You disagree with Ann Coulter about Romney and maybe one or two other things and you write her off completely. From where you sit, she looks like a liberal Republican. Someone from Connecticut or Maine who knew Coulter's background and knew actual, living liberal Republicans might have a very different take on this question.

From your earlier post:

As a native Californian who lived there at the time, I strongly supported George Bush in 2000, and would have supported him even if he were from Massachusetts.

...

Here's another: Rick Perry. Although he's the Governor of my state, and has presided over a long run of prosperity in this state, he's not really my kind of guy. I think he's far too moderate, and I don't trust him to make the conservative choice on every decision.

That's the other side of the coin. Maybe because I don't live in Texas, the similarities between Bush and Perry are more apparent to me than the differences.

It's hard to get a winning and a losing candidate, one who ran after 8 years of a Democrat in office and one who ran after 8 years of a Republican, on level ground for a comparison, but if I had to say who was more moderate or liberal, I wouldn't automatically say Perry, given Bush's Washington connections and "compassionate conservative" message.

If I were from Texas and had known each man as governor, I might be more of your opinion, just as if you saw Olympia Snowe or Susan Collins up close, you might not assume Ann Coulter was somehow their missing triplet.

Anyway, my argument was that pointing out that that people always put their faith in candidates and candidates always disappoint might work in Romney's favor. If one is already disillusioned and "pre-disappointed" one might go clear-eyed into the election.

While senators and representatives do rally around around a president of their own party and follow the lead of the White House, congressional Republicans are less likely to blindly follow Romney, after having given Bush the benefit of the down and being disappointed by his leadership.

But having made such allowances for Bush, I can't quite see making Romney out to be a monster or abomination, especially not at this point, after having failed to come up with a credible candidate who could beat him. I can't see having vested all that trust in Bush, to stamp my foot and say that Romney is beyond the pale.

I don't have any privileged insight into Ann Coulter's mind and instincts, but I suspect part of her support for Romney and Christie is based on the knowledge that voters are always extending the benefit of the doubt to candidates and expecting them to be something more than they've already shown themselves to be, and wanting this to be more than a one-way street, with Northeastern Republicans like herself always putting their trust in candidates from other parts of the country and not having this reciprocated.

Of course one's take on that would depend very much on what part of the country one came from. If you live in Texas and Republicans have been likely to rally around candidates from Texas you aren't going to take to the point of view that I'm guessing she may have. I don't know if she's right or wrong about Romney, but I don't dismiss her view out of hand.

47 posted on 06/09/2012 8:27:49 AM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: x
My point wasn't that people support candidates because of where they are from, rather than because of their positions on the issues.

It was that voters are more inclined to be forgiving of candidates with backgrounds similar to theirs -- candidates from the same part of the country or ethnic group or profession.

Well, that's not what you said. If you'd expressed it as you've done above, we wouldn't be having this conversation. I would have acknowledged your viewpoint and moved on.

That said, it takes all kinds to make the world go 'round. Just because someone's from my neck of the woods, doesn't mean that I'm going to give them any extra points for being a 'home boy'. On the other hand, some folks will.

I don't think you can make that case for Ann Coulter's support of Christie and Romney, though. She's not simply giving two politicians the benefit of the doubt when they've slightly wobbled on an issue or two. No - these guys are nowhere near the conservative reservation, yet she (supposedly a fire and brimstone conservative) gives them her full-throated support. At the same time, she cuts Palin to ribbons, as badly as any liberal pundit. That says a lot more about Coulter's real views, than anything else.

Back to your regional bias theory....yes, I've seen it. It's the 'favorite son' effect. Blacks voting overwhelmingly for Obama, Mormons voting overwhelmingly for Romney, Texans getting behind Rick Perry, etc. I get it. My only point is that that sort of loyalty only counts for so much in most people's evaluations of a candidate.

48 posted on 06/09/2012 10:50:11 AM PDT by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson