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