Posted on 11/20/2012 12:10:08 PM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
Every person who talks and writes about politics gets stuff wrong. I’ve gotten my fair share wrong. But what I think I got most wrong in Campaign 2012 was the damage Mitt Romney’s “47%” remark would do to him.
It may seem obvious, but bear with me.
Mitt Romney was talking off the cuff to a supposedly off the record group of donors and muddled several data points together, ultimately telling the tale of the 47% who won’t vote for him for any reason. He was referencing the 47% who don’t pay taxes and interwove it with a 47% of locked in Obama support. The statement was a mess.
I didn’t think Mitt Romney would be as hurt by the statement as he was because I assumed Romney had misspoken in an off the cuff way. I assumed Romney would clarify that he knew many of those who have government assistance did not actually want the assistance, but needed it. I assumed he’d make the case that he’d help those people get off the government dole and back into work.
In other words, I assumed Romney believed what I believe — many of those people are good people who fell on hard times and are not of the same class of people who will vote for Barack Obama for free stuff. I was absolutely wrong. Romney not only believes completely what he said as he said it, he reinforced it with his post election analysis of his defeat blaming gifts to various classes of people. If that was true, as Newt Gingrich pointed out, Romney had plenty to gift to plenty strapped to the back of marching elephants.
Note to Mitt Romney: really, it’s you, not them. Seriously.
What does this have to do with Ronald Reagan? As Dan McLaughlin pointed out, every Republican Presidential candidate since Ronald Reagan opposed Ronald Reagan in the 1980 election except John McCain. Think about that for a minute. Every nominee of the party cast by the media as an insane fringe of conservatives actually opposed, from the left, Ronald Reagan in 1980.
Each of those candidates ran successfully as heirs to Reagan or, when they failed, as rich Republicans who believe in some sort of noblesse oblige. George H. W. Bush, embracing his own identity outside the shadow of Reagan in 1992, Bob Dole in 1996, John McCain in 2008, and Mitt Romney in 2012 all ran as patrician aristocrats who intended to make government more efficient to help the poor. There really was no theme of elevating the poor from poverty or the middle class to the rich. The theme was the care and comfort of men through the technocratic efficiencies of government and a conservative disposition. Romney did that this time too, going so far as to put his more conservative running mate in a witness protection program for candidates.
Reagan in 1980 ran a campaign on the explicit understanding that government was an obstacle to the poor and middle class elevating themselves from poverty and the role of a Reagan Administration would be to get the government out of the way. George W. Bush largely ran his 2000 campaign in a similar vein, but cast as a compassionate conservatism that quickly morphed into a big government conservatism once elected.
Republicans are not successful when they run campaigns as the rich patrician out to make government more efficient so it can be more helpful. Republicans win with conservative populists who run as men who pulled themselves up in life fighting big government and its cronies.
Fortunately for the GOP, in all this talk about the end of the GOP, people overlook that from here on out for the next decade or two we’ll be in an era of Republican politician who was raised in the era of Reagan and supported either Reagan or the idea of Reagan. Mitt Romney will probably be the last Republican nominee who ever opposed Ronald Reagan. That is a very good thing. From here on out our candidates will most likely speech Reaganese, even if not in a Reaganesque way, without sounding like they learned it from Rosetta Stone because each of them will have formed their world view during Ronald Reagan’s America.
That's what I hear coming out of the GOPe - that they have to cater to Hispanics, give them what they want, give the blacks what they want, give, give, give, instead of clearing the way for these people to help themselves.
Rubio says one of his best friends is Jeb Bush. If they run together, expect it to be to the left of Romney.
Sheesh. Mille. Zette would smack my knuckles for that one.
Well written article - thank you for posting this sanity.
I caught a lot, and I mean A LOT, of flack on here for predicting that Romney wouldn’t win for several reasons, not the least of which was his attitude of entitlement.
Unfortunately, Jon Huntsman.
So... there's that to look forward to, at any rate. ;)
If you don’t really believe in the conservatism and the Republican platform, can you please step aside and make room for a leader who does?
- - - - - -
But...but...but...it was Romney’s TURN!!
That is the biggest problem in the GOP and Romney ran with the attitude of ‘I’m not the other guy’ and expected the GOP base to just roll over and many did. He was partly right in that.
You are right of course, they will, and they will play the fear card.
May I asked if you voted and for whom? Just curious, I won’t flame you.
yep.
The sole advantage, really, of living in a state which hasn't gone red since Ronald Wilson Reagan -- the comparative luxury of being able to vote a conservative's conscience.
The sole advantage, really, of living in a state which hasn’t gone red since Ronald Wilson Reagan — the comparative luxury of being able to vote a conservative’s conscience.
- - - - - -
I live in a state that hasn’t gone blue since FDR, so I had the same luxury. I voted for conservatives, left one state race blank (because the incumbent endorsed Romney) and voted for Virgil Goode for POTUS.
After over 20 years (since I could vote) of fighting for and supporting the GOP, I left it this year and changed to Constitution party. I left over Romney or more precisely, the GOP left me.
I think you’re right that Obama has purposely put as many people on the dole as possible in order to make them into reliable Democratic voters. I’ve actually seen it up close and personal through my job, where I’ve witnessed people being literally bribed with little freebies like food and gift cards to spend an hour with a social worker going through every single possible federal welfare program to see if they qualify.
I blame the MSM almost entirely.
Nothing will ever work again in American politics as long as we have a ONE PARTY MEDIA-with a criminally free hand in determinging our leadership for us.
We can be as pure as we want, as Reaganesque as we want and it won't matter a hill of beans if we don't alter the balance of power with the democrat/media complex.
“...will have formed their world view during Ronald Reagan’s America.”
Whenever I go off on a rant my kids tell me “Dad - YOU should run for President!” I tell them that there already was a president with those ideas - RR.
In other words, I assumed Romney believed what I believe — many of those people are good people who fell on hard times and are not of the same class of people who will vote for Barack Obama for free stuff. I was absolutely wrong. Romney not only believes completely what he said as he said it, he reinforced it with his post election analysis of his defeat blaming gifts to various classes of people. If that was true, as Newt Gingrich pointed out, Romney had plenty to gift to plenty strapped to the back of marching elephants.
Excellent point, though the last sentence looks garbled.
What does this have to do with Ronald Reagan? As Dan McLaughlin pointed out, every Republican Presidential candidate since Ronald Reagan opposed Ronald Reagan in the 1980 election except John McCain. Think about that for a minute. Every nominee of the party cast by the media as an insane fringe of conservatives actually opposed, from the left, Ronald Reagan in 1980.
Each of those candidates ran successfully as heirs to Reagan or, when they failed, as rich Republicans who believe in some sort of noblesse oblige. George H. W. Bush, embracing his own identity outside the shadow of Reagan in 1992, Bob Dole in 1996, John McCain in 2008, and Mitt Romney in 2012 all ran as patrician aristocrats who intended to make government more efficient to help the poor. There really was no theme of elevating the poor from poverty or the middle class to the rich. The theme was the care and comfort of men through the technocratic efficiencies of government and a conservative disposition. Romney did that this time too, going so far as to put his more conservative running mate in a witness protection program for candidates.
Not so much. It sounds like he's twisting things to fit his interpretation, fitting all the winning candidates in one pattern and all the losers in another.
It doesn't work. Dole was no "patrician aristocrat." George W. Bush did his share of promising social programs.
Romney may have been a "patrician" in some ways, but the attitude expressed in his 47% quotes is very different from the standard "patrician aristocrat" approach.
One possible counterargument to all this: not every candidate can do the Reagan thing, just as not every candidate can do the FDR or JFK thing. Imitations don't always produce the same results as the original.
Erick has some good ideas, but he ought to have somebody read his stuff over before publishing it.
Romney thought he knew what conservatives wanted to hear from him....that’s what happens when you have no core beliefs, you try to say things you think people want to hear, and as usual, with disastrous results.
The lapdog Obama media would have manufactured “something” out of anything Romney said, labeled it a “gaffe”, and beat him senseless with it. The lamestream media fancies itself relevant; and aims to use what’s left of its influence to assure that no Republican, and certainly no Conservative will EVER be elected again if they can help it.
I hate to burst your bubble for ya pal, but Reagan got his message out through a media that was a true monopoly wrt liberalism. Limbaugh was brand-spankin' new and with that one shining exception, almost every single media outlet was liberal as the day is long.
Now, with the internet, and many, many conservative outlets, Romney had it way better than Reagan could have dreamed of.
*ROMNEY LOST because he is not a Conservative*... Never was... In fact, as this article clearly states, Romney spent his whole career opposing Conservatism.
Next time, try a Conservative instead of a mere Republican, and watch the Conservative juggernaut rise up.
The sweet sound of liberty is the clarion call. It cannot be sung by one who mouths the words and can't hold the tune.
RINO File.
I don't want to sound too pessimistic, but we had a president with one of the worst records ever. Maybe the worst. He's been awful. And we couldn't beat him. I'd like to see a Reaganist candidate next time, but there's no guarantee that candidate will win. Sure, Romney should have raised the banner of conservatism, but he's not far wrong saying there's just too many parasites now.
We may not like what Romney said. It may have cost him, and us, the election. It may have cost us the Senate. But was he lying? I’ve seen people mad, but I haven’t seen anyone dispute his claim. The election would seem to prove his point. The first step in defeating the Democrats in the next election is to be true to ourselves. Romney may be entirely wrong, but let’s see the proof.
“If you understand yourself and you understand your opponents, then in one hundred battles, you will never be defeated.”
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.