Mitt Romney’s legacy: No ‘Romneyists’

washingtonpost.com ^ | 11/13/2012 | Jonathan Capehart

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

In a New York magazine piece this week, Benjamin Wallace-Wells eulogizes Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign. The headline pretty much sums it up: “So long, Mitt: In love with America, terrified for its future, relegated to its past.” But in the final paragraph, Wallace-Wells made a good observation about Romney’s lasting legacy as the GOP nominee. “[J]ust a week after Romney seemed poised to become president,” he writes, “there is no segment of the Republican Party that could be called Romneyist.” That’s part of the reason why he lost.

Many times during the campaign, I slammed Romney for his ideological promiscuity. His flip-flopping was a character flaw that engendered mistrust among the Republican base and disbelief among the general electorate. As I wrote last month, politicians changing their minds on a core issue isn’t uncommon and should be respected. What Romney did during his six years running for president was change his mind on everything.

Romney’s change of position on abortion, gay rights, gun control, immigration, climate change, his own health care law — collectively, they called into question whether he had a core at all. They also made it impossible for those who believed in the former Massachusetts governor to point to anything he really believed in. That’s why there’s no discernible Romney philosophy from 2012 that will define the Republican Party for decades to come. That’s why there are no Romneyites.

[ari-freedom]

He banked everything on his executive experience. That’s important but you still need to be a conservative!

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

but you still need to be a conservative!

Seems so damned simple and... well... obvious, doesn't it...? ;)

[Jim Robinson]

It was so obvious even a political neophyte like me could see it plain as day. Not one of Rove’s finer picks.

[Arthurio]

The Democrats tried running a massachussetts flip flopper in 2004, didn’t work out too well for them either.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

In their sweaty, increasingly bug-eyed and frantic desperation to win win win -- no matter how glaringly unsuitable their anointed candidate, or how poisonously anti-conservative their favored platforms and tactics -- the now wholly irrelevant CINOs have long since forgotten just why, precisely, "winning" is so important to conservatism in the first place.

The goal, plainly, isn't simply to plop any handy, available "R"-branded hindquarters into any given House or Senate seat, in and of itself; otherwise, we could just as easily nominate and run (oh, say) Justin Bieber, or Chris Hemsworth, and be virtually assured of a nice, easy victory, ten times out of every ten.

If "winning" said seat means doing so by filling it with someone who does not willingly vote and/or legislate along demonstrably conservative lines -- or who routinely needs "their feet held to the fire," in order to decently advocate for and represent conservative principles -- then: that is, by any sane and rational definition, L-O-S-I-N-G.

A large, capital letter "R" following their name in the congressional ledger, notwithstanding. ;)

[Rashputin]

Instead of riding a white horse he’s riding a horse with no name.

If he had shown half the zeal for beating up on Barry that he had when he want after Newt he’d be President elect.

[ansel12]

But in the final paragraph, Wallace-Wells made a good observation about Romney’s lasting legacy as the GOP nominee. “[J]ust a week after Romney seemed poised to become president,” he writes, “there is no segment of the Republican Party that could be called Romneyist.” That’s part of the reason why he lost.

Hey, I mentioned "Romneyist" the other day, but I called it "Mittism"

""To this day, no one knows what Romney's politics are, and no one knows why he was obsessed with being president.

The man has been in politics since his teens and has spent the last 20 years and 55 million of his own dollars trying to get into the white house, and no one knows why, or even what his political reasons were, what his agenda is.

The man is ego driven, and has no center, no convictions, he is a salesman of Mitt, (not Mittism as in a political view, there isn't any such thing).""
111 posted on Mon Nov 12 2012 16:02:36 GMT-0800 (Pacific Standard Time) by ansel12

[Rashputin]

Instead of riding a white horse he’s headed for the desert on a horse with no name.

If he had half the zeal for beating up on Barry that he had for beating up on Newt he’d be President elect.

[Rashputin]

??????? duplicates, sorry

[Trueblackman]

You run a Liberal Candidate against a Marxist and this is what happens.

[goldstategop]

I couldn’t vote for him because he was a flip-flopping liberal!

If I want to vote for a liberal, I’ll vote for a Democrat!

‘Nuff said.

[Happy Rain]

Romney only existed to beat Obama—forced upon us by the big bucks of the RINO GOP-e he was yet just another predictable dud like McCain and Dole.

Obama won now Romney has lost his reason to be and so he doesn't.

Dole-Fool me once shame on you.
McCain-Fool me twice shame on me.
Romney-Fool me thrice you can't fix stupid.

[2ndDivisionVet]

Hugh Hewitt and Ann Coulter beg to differ.

[goldstategop]

The GOP nominated the next loser in line who couldn’t beat the original loser.

That is how Karl Rove and Anne Coulter pimped on us the weakest candidate in Republican history who cost the party its chance at a Senate majority.

His weaknesses were evident all along and in Mike Pence or Scott Walker the GOP could have had a decent conservative candidate but the party leaders and conservative commentariat decided electability was more important than principle.

In the end, the GOP got the worst of all worlds.

[Alaska Wolf]

He banked everything on his executive experience. That’s important but you still need to be a conservative!

Bush wasn't.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

Hugh Hewitt and Ann Coulter

AllahPundit and Meghan McCain, with slightly better agents.

[Yosemitest]

Yes ... it doies seem obvious except to those oblivious "Establishment Repoublicans" and those idiots who aren't paying attention.

We will never unify under "Establishment Republicans" .
"Establishment Republicans" have more in common with the Democrats, than they do with Conservatives.
The weak candidates are "Establishment Republicans", weak on national security, amnesty for illegals, abortion, and government spending.
"Establishment Republicans" scream "COMPROMISE".
And people who study the Bible know that COMPROMISE almost always leads to destruction.
These "Establishment Republicans" are being weeded out, one by one, and slowly but surely, the TEA Party is taking over.

YOU SAY [We're] "Not victims of "the Establishment.""
I disagree.
I ask you again:

Who was it that dumped all those negative adds on Conservative Candidates in the primary?
Who was it that constantly battered each leading Conservative in the primary with an average of three to one negative ads against our real candidates?
Who's money was dumped against the conservative choices?

It WAS Mitt Romney, leader of the "Establishment Republicans"
and it WAS the "Establishment Republicans" who funded all those negative ads against Conservatives.

So conservatives, the BASE of the Republican Party, WERE ' victims of "the Establishment." '

Take a good long look at where "Establishment Republicans" ALWAYS take us.

[Yosemitest]

Sorry.
You DID NOT say " [We're] "Not victims of "the Establishment."""
That was someone else, but the point needs repeating, just not to you.