Posted on 09/21/2011 3:14:13 PM PDT by freespirited
Michael Gerson writes today he is confident GOP primary voters will nominate Mitt Romney over Rick Perry because Romney seems to be the “safe” candidate at a turbulent hour in American economic history. Gerson writes that Republicans prefer to elect known quantities and are wary of nationally-untested firebrands.
“None of these historical precedents make Romney a shoo-in,” Gerson writes. “But they indicate his prospects are better than his current polling.” That’s probably true, and some polls–especially state polls–indicate Romney is still in the game. But Romney’s “safety” isn’t the advantage Gerson thinks it is, and more importantly, many writers and pundits are probably underestimating the appeal of Perry’s unapologetic conservatism to general election voters as well as Republican primary voters.
Perry does favor low taxes and is generally suspicious of heavy-handed regulation. But his record suggests he is not the absolutist he seems to be at first glance, and when he strays from such orthodoxy it is in favor of policies that are both more conservative and more palatable to the voting public.
Two of the most prominent examples of this are tort reform and Texas state housing regulations. To be sure, Perry does not get the credit for enacting one major piece of legislation, which limited mortgage borrowing to 80 percent or less of the borrower’s home value, preventing risky loans and shaky mortgages that contributed to the housing crisis. That legislation was passed under George W. Bush’s governorship. But Perry did, as Reason pointed out recently, resist the push to relax such laws around the country to make home ownership more available, especially to the poor. Many Republicans buckled under the pressure to expand ownership. Perry didn’t. Whose constituents fared better?
And as for tort reform, Perry has signed into law two pieces of legislation Republicans nationwide hoped–in vain–would be part of national health care reform efforts. In 2003, Texas passed a law limiting noneconomic damage payouts in medical malpractice cases, ensuring patients were still fully protected by the law while creating a more beneficial medical environment for both patients and doctors. And earlier this year, Texas passed a loser-pays law designed to limit frivolous lawsuits. As Ryan Brannan of the Texas Public Policy Foundation notes, the 2003 law has been a success, giving Texans high hopes for this year’s bill as well.
Both these reforms–limiting the lawsuit free-for-all that has been so damaging to health care nationally and the housing legislation that emphasizes personal responsibility and fiscal sanity–are undeniably conservative reforms. The argument Perry is “too conservative” for the electorate begins to crumble when you look at Perry’s record. His conservative ideology helped shield Texas from the post-bubble housing crisis and increased the availability of health care in his state without limiting personal freedom.
Gerson is right that Romney has a good resume–he’s been an executive in the public and private sectors with some impressive successes under his belt. But Romney’s lack of ideological consistency, while giving him credibility as a nimble and centrist problem-solver, faces a tough test when compared with Perry’s record. Conservatives have been making the case for stability and predictability in the tax code because people need to know what the likely result of their decisions will be. For the same reasons, Perry’s ideological consistency, buoyed by his state’s successful approach to housing policy and medical liability, will be reassuring to many voters.
I am confident that we won't nominate Romney. IMO his good numbers right now are due in part to people not knowing as much about him as we do here. Once his liberal history comes out, I think his campaign will take a turn south.
Michael Gerson is deluded. Romney will finish lower than 3rd.
Its time for Mr. Romney to be vetted and have to answer some hard questions. So far he’s been skating along and hasn’t been asked to defend anything.
He’s out there today on the campaign trail pandering on the issue of Social Security.
Romney isn't running as a conservative any more. He has reinvented himself yet again. This time he's more genuine, but also less appealing to most Republicans. His new campaign persona is going to roll out and flop, spectacularly.
We've seen this movie before. Establishment progressive Republican against conservative (or reasonable facsimile thereof). When it's one on one the candidate who stakes out the conservative turf wins, unless the progressive has the benefit of incumbency (Ford/Reagan). Goldwater/Rockefeller, Reagan/Bush, and W/McCain all follow the familiar pattern.
in ‘08 terms, Romney ‘12 is standing in for Giuliani. Without another candidate, Perry gets to be Thompson, Huckabee, McCain and Romney ‘08 all rolled into one. The result isn't in doubt.
To me, Romney is sounding like a Democrat with his Mediscare rhetoric. He needs to run against Obama, in the Dem primary.
If Mrs. Clinton runs against the kenyan and doesn't fizzle early or effectively knock the kenyan out early then the Republicans will choose their own nominee and McRomney won't be it.
Amen. All he's ever been pressed about is RomneyCare. There's so much more.
Exactly!!! If only we could put that in the hands of every GOP primary voter.
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.