Posted on 09/10/2012 8:45:49 AM PDT by Bratch
I’ve argued many times that the politician Mitt Romney most closely resembles is John Kerry, primarily due to the Mittster’s legendary penchant for flip-flopping, a trait Kerry is also known for. I stand by my Kerry comparison, but Jonah Goldberg has an excellent point when he compares Romney to another Massachusetts politician: Michael Dukakis.
Meanwhile, the Republicans seem to have become Dukakified. It was Michael Dukakis, the 1988 Democratic presidential nominee, who insisted that the election should be entirely about “competence, not ideology.” Romney has avoided saying that in so many words, but it’s certainly how he’s campaigning. After running to the right in the primaries and boldly picking Representative Paul Ryan as his running mate, Romney bizarrely seems to have retreated to an ideological and even intellectual crouch.
Though he doesn’t say it explicitly, the tone and tenor of Romney’s convention speech suggested that Obama failed because didn’t have the right resume, not because he has the wrong ideas. Stuart Stevens, Romney’s top strategist, has dismayed many on the right by operating according to the theory that Romney mustn’t do anything to offend the delicate sensibilities of some statistical abstraction of a female voter in the Ohio suburbs. Listening to the Romney speech, you’d have no idea he picked a principled, fearless, and brilliant conservative lightning rod as a running mate.
If Stevens’s theory of the election is right, then the GOP convention was brilliantly executed. But that is a huge gamble — as huge as Obama’s bet that Americans have moved left. Right now, however, it looks too much like a contest between people with the wrong ideas against people without any.
My hat’s off to Jonah Goldberg. I never equated Romney to Dukakis, but the more I think about it, the more appropriate the comparison becomes. Like Romney, Dukakis is a former governor of the deep blue state of Massachusetts. Both are adherents to the technocratic approach to government in which the beneficence of the government bureaucrat plays a central role (see Romneycare). 59-point plans, which are nothing more than Keynesian big government boondoggles to conservatives, are utopia for technocrats and the armies of bureaucrats required to administer them.
To listen to his “Obama’s a nice guy who’s in over his head” speeches, Romney’s primary objection to Obama is not that government shouldn’t do what Obama wants it to do, but that Obama is an incompetent manager. While that may be true, the biggest problem with Obama is not competence, but his radical ideology: he wants to transform American into another bankrupt, European-style welfare state where government inexorably grows at the expense of individual freedoms. But Romney and his “Dukakified” campaign won’t even bring this up for fear of offending someone.
Political ideology — having consistent views and ideas based on core convictions — is viewed as a liability by the Mittster, whose only discernible conviction is his desire to be president. Other than that self-aggrandizing conviction, though, Mitt goes out of his way to avoid any others. He finds them confining, for lack of a better word. If he had a consistent ideology, how could he tell Massachusetts voters upon his election as governor that he was a moderate with progressive views while later describing his gubernatorial tenure as “severely conservative” to a CPAC audience. (Romneycare, presumably, is evidence of his severe conservatism). It’s liberating to lack a consistent ideology, I guess.
Much has been made of Romney’s selection of Paul Ryan to be his running mate. But one gets the feeling the Mittster was just checking a box; that he selected Ryan not because he shared Ryan’s deep ideological commitment to fixing the nation’s finances, but because he needed to keep conservatives interested in his milquetoast campaign. But simply picking a conservative running mate is insufficient to assuage conservative concerns. He must actually embrace Ryan’s conservative positions.
Nearly two years ago, Governor Palin became the first national conservative leader to endorse the Ryan Roadmap – to date the only specific plan to eliminate the deficit put forward by anyone. Romney has yet to endorse that plan, insisting he’ll come up with his own at some point in the future. Mitt’s been running for president for a decade. When will he come up with a plan? I doubt he ever will because he’d run the risk of offending ”the delicate sensibilities of some statistical abstraction of a female voter in the Ohio suburbs” as Goldberg notes above.
Romney prefers caution and inaction to bold action, defense to offense, and amorphous vagaries to concrete ideas. He says he’ll repeal Obamacare, but won’t tell us how. He says he’ll reform the entitlement plans before they inevitably go bankrupt, but, again, won’t say how. It’s as if he’s psychologically incapable of taking a consistent position on an issue and defending it. Whether this is due to his lack of core convictions or his lack of a backbone is anyone’s guess. In any event, he’s simply running out the clock and hoping to avoid making a mistake. But if the election were held today, he’d lose. A prevent defense can only work if you’re ahead. And even then it often doesn’t work. (Ask the Cleveland Browns.)
Although there are similarities to the campaign Romney’s running today and the one Dukakis ran in 1988, the political envorinment was starkly different. In 1988, Dukakis ran a distinctly non-ideological campaign because he had no other choice. Both the 1980 and 1984 campaigns were ideological in nature, and liberalism suffered historic defeats. With Bush 41 running on Reaganism and effectively promising voters a “third” Reagan term, Dukakis would have had zero chance if he ran as a liberal. The Carter-Mondale years were still fresh in the minds of voters, and they were in no mood to return to those dark days of malaise. In short, voters were happy with the way the country was being run under Reagan, and didn’t want to return to liberalism.
But Romney has a choice. Voters have witnessed the devastation unfettered liberalism inflicts on an economy. Obama has seen to that. This is the best opportunity Republicans have had to mount an ideological campaign since 1980.
Unfortunately, however, the GOP Establishment, in their infinite wisdom, chose a candidate who appears incapable of advancing or even explaining conservatism; a candidate who prefers to avoid the possibility of offending some moderate in a swing state rather than inspiring him (or her) to rally to the conservative cause as Reagan did. For this reason, Romney effectively banned the Tea Party from his convention. Last week I predicted this would backfire and result in a smaller post-convention bounce, and that whatever small bounce Romney did receive would quickly fade in response to Obama’s bounce. Today’s Real Clear Politics polling averages bear this out. His approval rating, at 49.2% and rising, is the highest it’s been since the bin Laden raid, and dangerously close to that magic 50% number.
Obama’s surge in approval ratings is mirrored by his improvement in the horse race numbers with Mitt Romney. This is also from this afternoon’s RCP average.
Whatever momentum Romney was riding is long gone, and Team Mitt had better figure out how to generate enthusiasm — real, sustainable grass roots enthusiasm — for his campaign. Clearly his policy of ignoring Tea Party conservatives isn’t working. If he sticks to his DC insider, consultant-approved “Obama’s a nice but incompetent guy” routine, I don’t see how he turns these numbers around.
The fact is, Obama’s not a nice guy. He’s a narcissistic left-wing ideologue with a chip on his shoulder who’s hell bent on transforming America into something unrecognizable, a guy who’ll do anything, including flouting the constitution, to secure another four years so he can complete that transformation. And Romney considers him a nice guy? Ideologues can only be defeated with ideology, not platitudes designed to offend the least amount of people. Conservative ideas work every time they’re tried, liberal ideas do not, as the past four years make crystal clear. If we can’t make the conservative case in this economic environment, when can we?
The debates offer an opportunity for Romney to gain ground but, unlike in the primary debates, Mitt won’t have Ron Paul and Michele Bachmann around to jump to his defense every time he’s on the ropes. Goldberg’s point, I think, is that if voters aren’t given an alternative, the devil they know may well be preferable to the devil they don’t know. Ideas, even bad ones, trump no ideas. If the Romney brain trust, such as it is, doesn’t figure this out, and quickly, we’re in for another four long years of misery. Unfortunately, by that time it may be too late to prevent America from suffering a Greece-style collapse.
Update: (h/t xthred) Shocker: Romney indicated today that he won’t repeal all of Obamacare:
Mitt Romney says his pledge to repeal President Barack Obama’s health law doesn’t mean that young adults and those with medical conditions would no longer be guaranteed health care.
The Republican presidential nominee says he’ll replace the law with his own plan. He tells NBC’s “Meet the Press” that the plan he worked to pass while governor of Massachusetts deals with medical conditions and with young people.
Romney says he doesn’t plan to repeal of all of Obama’s signature health care plan. He says there are a number of initiatives he likes in the Affordable Care Act that he would keep in place if elected president.
So Romney wants to keep the preconditions coverage guarantee part of Obamacare. I have one simple question: Suppose I decide to eschew Homeowner’s insurance. If I do that can I expect an insurance company to insure my home after it catches on fire? Hello, Mr. Insurance provider. My house is on fire. I’d like to purchase an insurance policy effective right now to pay for this fire which is raging out of control and burning my house down? Oh wait, Obama says you must. Can anyone explain to me how this is insurance, and how insurance providers can possibly stay in business under this mandate? Anyone?
Gregory knew full well that the parts of Obamacare that receive the highest approval are the preexisting condition and keeping children till age 26 on their parent's insurance provisions. That was the point of the question, i.e., to get Romney on the record one way or another for use by the Dems.
Romney could have turned that around and said why it was necessary to repeal Obamacare citing some details and then say that his replacement health care plan would address these issues and others in a bipartisan way. Of course, the press would then say that Romney will eliminate preexisting coverage, children up to age 26, etc. It was a no win solution by design.
But at no point did Romney ever say he was keeping parts of Obamacare. He never mentioned it. The MSM lies and distorts. And unfortunately, many conservatives then run with it like they did against Akin. We will never please the MSM. We should view and treat them like the enemy.
Then Romney should just roll over and play dead.
Those interested in health care have been waiting for a long time to see what replacement the GOP has in mind when it says ‘Repeal and Replace’. Mitch has been woefully silent. The hardest part of Romney’s campaign in ahead as reporters continue to press him for specifics. Romney’s plan to grab the pot without showing his cards is in for some rough times.
It is a bit disconcerting that Romney who has been running for president for a long while, does not understand the tactics of the MSM.
He could have easily turned the tables on Gregory like Newt would have done, but intead gave a honest reply which was deliberately misinterpretated.
If Romney cannot tackle the MSM at their own game! He is not going to be President period. Republicans who win elections are not prone to such mistakes.
At a time when the country’s future is literally at stake as a free nation, Republicans end up picking a candidate who’s signature legislation as governor was to impliment the very kind of policy we now want him to repeal and to top it off, he won’t even win his home state of Massachusetts and probably won’t even win the state he group up in, Michigan. How does it get any more screwed up than this??
The author is not saying he wants Romney to lose.
The author is saying that if Romney continues on the present path, he’s afraid Romney will lose.
Big difference.
Mr. Romney has NO interest in repealing ObamaCARE.
Anyone who thinks so is a fool, or paid, or a supplicant.
I dont see whats wrong with Mitt saying he would make sure people with pre-existing conditions still can get covered.
To come out against that, would turn off a ton of swing voters..Lets be realistic, people.
There is nothing wrong with Romney saying there are some aspects of Obamacare he would keep.
Romney cannot run and win just by saying he will kill Obanmacare - he has to offer improvements over the pre-Obama system and make changes that should have been made 12 years ago anyway.
In fact, it is republicans who brought this Obama nightmare down on America.
If republicans during the George Bush years had governed responsibly, including making some positive changes affecting health care insurance, we probably would not have Obamacare today - and maybe Obama would never have been elected.
Instead they acted like liberal pigs at the trough and outdid democrats in stuffing their pockets, spending money we don’t have and then to top it off they blatantly ignored their own base.
Their (president Bush and congress) choice to govern as liberals and act like democrats is what led to the election of Obama and gave us the pitiful mess we have today.
They could have (should have) passed some basic reforms affecting medical insurance like these:
- Make cost of medical insurance purchased by individuals tax deductible just like it is for companies and organizations.
- Allow shopping for medical insurance across state lines.
- Require insurance companies to allow children and other family members to be carried on individual policies. (and charge appropriate fees for it)
- Require insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions. (and charge appropriate fees for it)
Good post.
Now the MSM is going after Ryan on a statement he made about his marathon time some 20 years ago.
We need to confront the MSM. Romney is no dummy. We have a little less than two months to go. It is a long time in terms of elections. The first debate will be critical to show a side by side comparison of the candidates. I worry that the MSM is moderating the debates especially if they leak the questions to the WH beforehand. But I think Romney will do well against Obama in this forum. It could be a gamechanger. No filters.
Agree.
How does it get more screwed up than this?
Think 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012...
And then think 2016, 2020, 2024...
Be sure to send those cards of thanks to the Republican early primary voters, and the Democrats who are voting with them.
And then remember, the RNC doesn’t have any problem with this whatsoever.
Every election our fellow Republicans and their Democrat friends pick us another steaming pile of a pasture patty as a candidate, this nation goes down further and further.
Frankly, both parties seem to want this nation go fail, and I don’t mean in the future either. They’re doing their best to make sure it happens ASAP.
Not when. Where? In their mythical brain of course.
This article isn't written by Sarah Palin. She has nothing to do with it.
PALIN:" No no no no! Please go vote! Let me ask you — man, do me a favor. If this go-around you don’t know who you dislike more or like more, Romney or Obama — this go-around, give Romney a shot.
We don’t want to repeat the failed policies of President Obama. That’s insanity, to repeat the same failures over and over again and expect a different result."
Idiots.
A conservative economist a few months ago (in the WSJ) explained Congressional history, what is already taking place and scheduled to take place in the next two years alone, due to Obamacare and how unlikely and how expensive repeal of Obamacare will become if it does not happen by 2014. By then the cost of repeal will set many in Congress for looking at ways to simply “trim” what Obamacare is already doing.
Obamacare has to be repealed, and then health care reform can be put through its hoops in a GOP Congress.
If anyone is concerned about what Romney may want in health care reform, take it up in the next GOP Congress, after Obamacare is repealed.
Wait another four years and the likelihood of repeal is nearly assured. That will be the way of Washington, D.C.
Explain to me why/how the Republican congress will send a bill to over turn of obamacare to Romney, when Romney is now saying he just wants to tweak it.
Yes, I think we’ve got it. If Romney loses, you are going to blame the few Conservatives who weren’t enthused with him, instead of blaming him for running a lackluster campaign. Is that about right?
Every one has to face reality. (Prepare your life for either one of them so you do not drive yourselves insane. Work for the person on the ground that you see fit in doing so for) This issue will not go away. A lot of people want Obamacare repealed; not by keeping parts with the government being involved. It’s like Brit Hume said over a year ago about Romney’s problem was always going to be Romneycare and suggested strongly for him to move pass this obstacle by admitting it was a mistake versus being defensive and arguing of being satisfied with the program. Now, we see Romney is not only defending his Romneycare but admitting that he will keep some of Obamacare. This keeps giving mixed signals to the undecided voter.
We have to remember Romney’s people wrote the blueprint to what Obama pushed through on the American people. If Romney wins, it will be the fear of Obama pushing him to win. It will not be patriotic citizens carrying the flag for him like my 72 year old friend says. Someone has to guide him before it’s too late. His handlers are liberals. Romney thinks Obama is a good guy. Okay, maybe a good dad but repecting/obeys the constitution. No. Romney is basically a democrat. Sometimes, you wonder if the Gop-e just does not want to win nor have a desire to fight. Look at them/call their offices-they say to people-”we have to be careful in what we say” You can’t win with this type of weakness in my thinking. Our convention was boring, just okay. The other side made their base energized. The night of Clinton’s speech, one left wing blog had over 12,000 comments and the night of Michelle’s was high in comments as well. If Clinton helps Obama to win, it’s a cake walk for Hillary (think about it) Their agenda is almost passed. Clinton is headed to Florida to campaign. We should be double digits ahead but we have this nonsense going on as always the insiders don’t want to lead as the base would like for them to do. Please everyone help the Senatorial/Congressional offices in an event that we do not win the presidency.
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.