Posted on 01/11/2012 12:16:58 PM PST by neverdem
And his economic policies would be warmed-over Bush Sr. and Dole.
In 1980, George H.W. Bush was making the same argument against Ronald Reagan that Mitt Romney is making this year. Bush argued that he was the most electable against Jimmy Carter. The big money Republican establishment was behind Bush because they feared that Reagan was too radical to win, and would carry the entire party down to historic defeat, like Goldwater did.
Reagan even lost Iowa to Bush on that argument. But Reagan carried forward the pro-growth, supply-side economic message that ultimately swept him to the nomination. That message then led to landslide victory in the fall, carrying the Republicans to control of the Senate, and effective control of the House.
Real world election results showed just who was the most electable. After two Reagan landslide wins, it took George Bush just one term to trash the Reagan coalition, crawling out of town in 1992 with just 38 percent of the vote, barely better than Alf Landon in 1936.
Long History of Rejecting Conservatism
Romney assured Massachusetts voters when he was running for the Senate in 1994 that he did not want to go back to Reaganomics. He said during that campaign, "I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I'm not trying to return to Reagan-Bush."
Romney was also one of the few Republicans in 1994 to refuse to sign on to Newt Gingrich's Contract with America. He said during that campaign, "In my view, it is not a good idea to go into a contract, like what was organized by the Republican Party in Washington, laying out a whole series of things that the party says 'these are the things we are going to do.' I think that's a mistake." That mistake led to an historic...
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
Safe + Moderate not equal to Electable - Low-beta isn’t always better.
The problem with election Mitt is that you get the good old boy status quo. Nothing will change. We need a bomb thrower such as Newt to change things in Washington. GO NEWT!
During the convention, the possibility of choosing former president Gerald Ford as the vice-presidential nominee was given at least some consideration. Ford asked for certain powers and prerogatives that has been described as making Ford a co-president. This included the return of Henry Kissinger as Secretary of State and the appointment of Alan Greenspan as Secretary of the Treasury in a “package deal”. The two sides could not come to an agreement, and ultimately George Bush was chosen less than 24 hours before the ticket was announced. [1]
The Reagan-Bush ticket went on to win the 1980 presidential election by a landslide victory.
Goerge Romney was a part of this BS too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_Republican_National_Convention
The problem with election Mitt is that you get the good old boy status quo.Yes, and if this were truly the case I could almost bring myself to support the man. Only it isn't. The question before us is whether to support the one-term governor whose only achievement was RomneyCare with all its new rules, its new taxes, its assumptions about state power in the service of progressive goals, and its mandates, a program functionally identical to ObamaCare--and the answer has got to be no--no under any circumstances.
And still, the GOP lets cross-over democrats select their candidate...
"Since 1896, only Republicans who have campaigned on a pro-growth platform have been elected. Mitt Romney, instead of being the most electable, is firmly in the tradition of Thomas Dewey, Jerry Ford, Bob Dole, and John McCain. His timid, scared proposals do not offer the promise of booming economic growth that Reagan's bold reforms delivered."
Yep- that about perfectly sums it up. If we have a nominee that truly understands this- we will likely win in a landslide. If we don't, we will lose.
Good article, thanks for posting!
I’ve thouight that just as Obama is Carter’s second term, Mitt is HW’s.
The biggest problem with electing Mitt, and Congratulatons for this GOP idiot establishment, is that he DOES NOT HAVE THE SUPPORT OF THE BASE. Consequently, Republican voter turnout will be seriously depressed, causing losses in the down races in the House and Senate. I will be the first to call it. If Romney wins the nomination, we will gain only TWO of a possible 23 seats in the Senate and there is a 50/50 chance we will lose the House.
The dims have to be rolling in the aisles with laughter at the fratricide going on.
If we are interested in beating obummer in November then we all need to quit having our little tantrums and focus on the objective.
FWIW I don't care who the candidate is as long as the winner isn't obummer.
Perhaps. I'd sure take it if I could get it. The problem is newt isn't the most likable guy you'll encounter, to put it mildly. And he doesn't have good looks to counter his personality deficit, so he will never be president of his country.
Lot's of apolitical people vote in presidential elections - for the candidate they would most like to see on TV for the next four years. That isn't Newt, by a long shot. Like many here, apart from his loopy flirtations with futurism and his strange way of using leftist talking points, I would look forward to a Newt presidency. But I really can't say I like the guy. I can't doesn't often act like a petulant adolescent, because he does. I can't say he isn't whiny, because he is. He's been whining since forever. Remember the crying about having to use the rear exit on AF1?
In a country where style and flair are far more important than they should be in the general presidential election, Newt and his crybaby ways just won't cut it, no matter how correct he might be about policy and ideology. He'd be the most likely (other than Paul, of course) to squander the advantage of Obama's many failures and inadequacies.
Which makes the "Romney is not electable argument" more complicated than the author of this article wishes to acknowledge. Unelectable? Compared to who? Sanatorum? Maybe. Santorum is a decent looking, likable guy. Romney is less electable than Perry? Maybe, if Perry could ever get any traction in the nomination battle and borrow a functioning tongue from somebody. Romney is less electable than Newt? Hilarious.
“... I will be the first to call it. If Romney wins the nomination, we will gain only TWO of a possible 23 seats in the Senate and there is a 50/50 chance we will lose the House.”
You are not the first to call it but you are early and it is true. I think it would also be the mortal wound to the GOP. The Tea Party saved the GOP from its near death experience in ‘08, only to be mocked, maligned and betrayed at every turn by that same left wing, big government, big welfare and small liberty party.
Romney’s ascendancy will be the death of the GOP, which on balance may be a very good thing in the long run.
Parley Baer,
you are right that a bomb thrower is appropriate about now I just am not convinced Newt would throw large enough bombs.
I think we could use about a 30 percent across the board cut in gub minttoday,
Eliminate crap and cut all else.
Mitt?
A Republican Party led by Mitt Romney is not a party that I want to be a part of.
Pretty isn't enough -- LOL! Newt is interesting and he comes across as a real person, unlike Mitt and Obama, who could be space aliens or department store mannequins!
I personally don't think Mitt's that good-looking. I never really cared for male model looks (which I guess he had when he was younger). In his speech last night, I couldn't help noticing that he has a very weak mouth and his eyes were doing something weird -- going from recessed and beady to bulgy like someone with a thyroid problem.
He also sounds like he spits when he talks (like Chris Matthews) when he's excited.
People are often forgiving of a persons sexual sins. They are significantly less forgiving about a person who uses his power influence and money to further enrich himself and hiss friends at the expense of working people. Mitt Romney is Not a capitalist and never has been.He is a corporatist, a crony capitalist.
He will never beet Obama.
In 20 years Romney has won a single election, and he slinked out of that office with 34% approval, no chance of reelection, destroyed the states Republican party and appears to have made the states Governor office a permanent Democrat seat.
People just do not like Romney, or respect him, or fear him, but he does creep people out.
If Romney gets in, I am voting for Gary Johnson.
Far worse than Bush Sr.
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.