After Rudy Giuliani, my old boss, dropped out of the 2008 GOP presidential sweepstakes, I supported Mitt Romney. That was not a difficult choice for me. The former Massachusetts governor is a good man and he loves the country as is. That I wish he were more conservative is not a deal-breaker for me. I wished the same thing about Rudy. Mitt, like Rudy, would make a fine chief executive.
More to the point, the choice in a nomination contest is not candidate A versus one’s ideal nominee. It is candidate A versus candidates B, C, D, et al. On that score, the contest was no contest — Mitt was easily, in my mind, the best remaining in the field.
Advertisement
He may still be. He also may not. I’m not any less favorably inclined toward him than I was four years ago. It is silly, though, to portray as hypocrisy, or at least inconsistency, a reluctance to endorse today the same candidate one was happy to back the last go-round. This time around, B, C, D, and the rest are different. Not necessarily better, but different — most combining ringing positives with steep drawbacks, signal achievements with weighty baggage.
Unless different is better, shouldn’t that mean the nod still goes to Mitt? Again, not necessarily. If we could analogize the race to a baseball game, the winner is not always determined by a straight-up comparison of the players. The game is situational. Say one of my best relief pitchers is a fire-baller, and he’s done a great job, blowing away hitter after hitter while saving our team’s last five games. But now, we find ourselves in a tight pennant race, playing a game we absolutely need to win. In the critical situation, the other team sends up its power hitter, a guy who absolutely crushes the fastball but couldn’t hit a curve if his life depended on it. So, when I make the call to the bullpen, I don’t want the guy who throws a hundred miles an hour; I want the pitcher with the big hook. Doesn’t mean I like the fireballer any less: It just means this match-up does not favor him.
I’m still very worried that the match-up with President Obama does not favor Governor Romney. I don’t mean to overrate Obama’s strength or underrate the sundry weaknesses of the other GOP contenders. But Romney’s match-up problem is glaring.
In 2008, Obamacare did not exist. In 2012, it vies with our astronomical national debt — to which it will prodigiously contribute — as the most crucial issue in the campaign. It is Obamacare’s trespass against the private economy and individual liberty that transformed the Tea Party into a mass movement, perhaps the most dynamic one electoral politics has seen in decades. And of all the Republican candidates, Romney is the weakest, the most compromised, when it comes to taking that fight to the president.
Like most conservatives, I’ve been hoping that Mitt would disavow Romneycare, the health-care reform he engineered as Massachusetts governor. I’ve been hoping he’d sensibly conclude it was a bad idea, exacerbated by the politics of a state whose Big Government enthusiasms make it an outlier in a center-right country. Romney, after all, has reversed several positions after being persuaded that he was in the wrong. Alas, despite having flopped more times than Flipper, Mitt has decided that Romneycare is his line in the sand — the crown jewel of his gubernatorial term, the single stand that will prove how constant he can be when passionately convinced he was right.
I have found this doubling down impossible to swallow. First there’s the Tenth Amendment business. Being a Tenth Amendment kind of guy, I’m predisposed toward different-strokes-for-different-states arguments: What’s right for Massachusetts may not be right for Mississippi or Montana.
Andrew
I live in MA, it is a disaster. I cannot support Mitt unless he admits it was a mistake. Group premiums went up and up, one year it was over 30%.
Unfortunately the other guys in the bullpen are out of their league or washed up and either need to be sent back to the minors or need to retire.
If it were such a killer issue for Romney, it should have killed by now and he should be polling at 10%. Reality is the other candidates' flaws outweigh those of Romney. And let me point out that Romney did not run on Romneycare for a America as a policy proposal in 2008 when it wasn't an issue.
Romney, if he was a winner should be polling higher than what he is as well. He is winning by default because he is next. I had enough of "next" with the nomination of McCain.
What you advocating is that we win the war but lose the key battle. A republican president who will leave Obamacare in place is no better than four more years of Obama. Romney will try and fix it, the Republicans will own it and our decline will continue. Great!
Hey if Obama gets four more years, maybe the Dems will own the mess for good and then serious people can get back the business of rebuilding our country. Hopefully by that time, those people sitting on the sidelines now will be compelled to actually get in the game. It wouldn't take long if we just removed the self imposed shackles we constrain ourselves with now and actually got stuff done. Our country could be great again in no time.
Agreed. Romney may very well be the best of the bunch despite this grievous flaw, which McCarthy is certainly correct to point out. Except for Santorum, the other candidates have crapped out in one way or another: Bachmann seemed to punching above her weight and was badly advised by her campaign staff; Perry was revealed as a crass opportunist who hadn't given much thought to major policy questions and used idiotic phrases like "vulture capitalism" which sounded like it came from the mouth of an OWS layabout; Cain much like Perry in his unpreparedness and with perhaps several sex scandals to weigh him down further; Gingrich less like a loose cannon than one that was aimed squarely at bedrock Republican principles such as free markets and shrinking the size of government; Paul had a screw loose; and Pawlenty showed incredibly bad judgment in allowing himself to be knocked out of the race by a straw poll!
And that's why Romney's numbers have held steady and probably will continue to do so. Even worse, I'm not sure Chris Christie or Mitch Daniels would be an improvement over Romney either, since they've got some liabilities of their own and Romney does have some real strengths.
The lesson for the future is that we've got to do a better job in finding quality candidates earlier in the process.
But Romney will use the MA Health Care Reform to his advantage in the General - especially to show how corrupt - depraved the Democratic Party has become. Using bribery, coercion, threats, etc., to force a partisan dictate by the few onto all.
Romney is going to remind everyone it was a State solution, which didn't raise taxation, didn't raid Medicare, didn't create a government run system, didn't change the existing plans of those already with Health Care coverage, etc.
The real interesting thing is, now that Gingrich, Perry, etc., are attacking Romney via Capitalism/Private Enterprise, we are seeing some Sideline Pundits on the sound side enabling this ugly folly.
We are actually seeing some so-called Conservative Experts telling us we should be afraid to run on the Free Market in the General Election. They actually seem to be susceptible to populist - leftist nonsense, only because of their dysfunctional bias against a proven Private Sector CEO named Romney.
It is a stunning moment. It may even prove to be debilitating to this lucrative Conservative Industry peddling opinion - the contradiction of principle is as vivid as Gingrich running to the left of Obama.
We shall see, but this is fascinating.
Perhaps some think they are just too big of a deal, their standing too established However, no matter how super the Celebrity becomes, they can lose their status in a hurry. There are many who have played the game, only to fall dramatically. Buchanan is a prime example.
A number of these voices from the sidelines have only the experience of judging, making a career of writing about the efforts and actions of others. And if they want to make a living telling Conservatives they should be afraid of running on the Free Market, to fear anti-Capitalist slant, they are truly playing with fire. They do a grave disservice to Conservatism.
"And let me point out that Romney did not run on Romneycare for a America as a policy proposal in 2008 when it wasn't an issue."
The flipside is that he didn't have the albatross of Romneycare hanging around his neck as an issue in 2008, and he still couldn't win over Republican primary voters. How's he going to win general election independents over the onslaught of Obama's campaign money and underhanded tactics and the mainstream media's running interference for Obama?
Unless Mr Romney repudiates the individual mandate he put into law in MA or gives a reasoned substantive reason why this acceptable at the state level when it is questioned at the national and constitutional level and will be before the Supreme Court he is not a viable candidate.
Thank you for that sober assessment, Mr. McCarthy.
Regarding Romney's flipping on many other issues as compared to his standing firmly behind Romneycare even if it costs him the nomination, I think his actions are easier to understand if you distinguish between general positions he holds, versus specific accomplishments he has put his name to.
So Romney has no problem evolving his views on abortion or immigration to suit the mood of the day, because those aren't issues on which he has ever signed a significant bill or created a new program. Immigration just doesn't mean much to him. You need him to be flexible one way in order to be elected in Massachusetts, or the other way in order to be nominated as a Republican nationally? No problem, either way.
Romneycare is different. Backing down on Romneycare means admitting, I Was Wrong. Not just wrong as a casual question answerer giving his personal opinion on What do you think about abortion, or What do you think about illegal immigration. But wrong to undertake a specific, active endeavor of his.
James Taranto noted this week that Romney finally seemed to have found another issue he could stand behind, when his record at Bain was challenged. Again, the distinction between Romney's personal involvement in something instead of just a general question about venture capitalism if that were a world Romney had never encountered is key.
Personally, I'd prefer someone who had more flexibility regarding his own actions and more willingness to reassess his record, and maybe a little more firmness when it came to the great moral issues of our times. But no doubt some would see that as simply the reverse of what I accuse Romney of. In any case, that's how I have resolved the seeming contradictions on Romney's (in)flexibility on the issues to my own satisfaction at any rate.
What is your position on Reagancare and its federal mandates? Why are conservatives not up in arms regarding one of Reagan's signature accompliments? Should Reagan have apologized for Reagancare?
Yes, Reagan should have apologized for EMTA (and Amnesty and TEFRA and TRA etc.).
Personally, I wince every time I hear the nomenclature "Reagan Republican" every bit as much as when I hear "Romney has the best chance."
Romney is a mad egotist in the vein of William Jefferson Clinton. He'll say or do anything that will win him higher office and adoration from his subjects. Sadly, it looks like there are many credulous fools who are willing to accept him as the presumptive nominee.
First reaction: The GOP with Romney cannot run against Obamacare as a major issue. Romney is left with debt/spending, limited government, what's left of the economy issue, and foreign policy. His pledge against Obamacare would only be salve to conservatives and not a campaign issue - unless he wants to be humiliated by Obama as a hypocrite with the oratory skills of Rick Perry (I can think of many reasons, but I can't remember any that don't make me sound silly.)
Second reaction: Romneycare is unsustainable whether or not Obmacare is repealed. But who knows when politics will ever be able to deal with it. More's the reason to repeal Obamacare.
I would be less uneasy about Mitt if he was for a bold tax plan...an aggessive program to cut government spending....a serious entitlement reform blueprint...all to unleash private sector growth, cut debt and the big gov beast.
Then when asked about obomneycare he could honestly reply..."it is moot...we are broke and my priorities demand we kill this expensive, unfunded mandate immediately because I need to boldly cut spending, debt and taxes to unleash growth and create jobs".
My unease remains. I do not think he would be bold ... He is a moderate and finds comfort nibbling in the margins...and compromising with lib / prog / statists.
Maybe Romney could sit back and dare Obama to make a major issue out of Obamacare (while pledging spending and limited government reforms in gerneral)? I don't think Obama's camp would want to campaign on the issue except in defense and would not risk a repeat of 2010 by energizing that movement by making Obamacare their main point of attack.
Well, not so. The Axelrod machine will grind Romney to dust.
There is nothing they won't dare, and there is no smear they won't launch. Romney doesn't have a prayer.
As soon as someone actually brought out Romney's record at Bain, and in the process, made so many of remember why we have such disgust for venture capitalists, he started talking about how he'd work with Democrats and how unfair it is to criticize him.
The Great Progressive Machine will simply chew him up in the first week of the actual campaign.
The existence of Obamacare is the 800 lb. gorilla in the room. If Obamacare didn't exist, then Romneycare wouldn't matter too much, as long as Romney wasn't promising to implement it nationwide if elected President.
Obamacare is the issue which raised a call to arms amongst conservatives. As Obamacare neared its passage in the House of Reps. in the, Spring of 2010, conservatives in Chicago no less, took to the streets, albeit in small numbers, to expressed that they didn't want it passed and try to influence more Democrats to go against the pressure of the Democrat leadership and vote No. The day before it passed, one friend and I stood in 20 degree wind chill on one of Chicago's largest North side streets and held up signs protesting Obamacare. It was a Hail Mary pass, and we were greeted with some thumbs up and some loud protestations against us.
We lost the battle, but spent the rest of 2010 working to get Republicans elected into Congress and the State Houses. But I’ve gotta tell you, in 2011, John Boehner and his team didn’t come close to living up to voter’s expectations nor their own pledge at the lumber yard. They held 1 symbolic Obamacare repeal vote and spent the rest of the year making deals with Obama which hardly cut 1 dime. They decided to try and convince voters that they are the wise realists, and the voters were just the idiots who screwed up and elected O’Donnell, Buck, and Angle in the primaries. Not to mention, National Review Online seemed to serve as the supportive mouthpiece of all John Boehner’s deals with Obama, and they hardly seemed concerned with the optics of Boehner golfing with Obama and Biden shortly after Obama sent troops to Libya without House approval.
To top it all off, National Review decided to go all out in protesting the nomination of the one candidate who had a history of winning and keeping government spending out of control. So today, we are the brink of the nomination of a candidate who was the first executive in the nation to sign socialized medicine into law? We are on the brink of nominating a Republican candidate based on the preferences of just 3 out of 50 States; states where many Democrats voted in the Republican Primary. This is surreal. If Romney were to win the Presidency, the nation would be on the road to recovery instead of destruction. However, how is he going to win, when the Obamacare issue is off the table; especially since voters haven’t thought about it since 2010, but will get hit with it squarely in 2014. Too bad this huge issue will be a liability for both candidates and therefore, unaddressed during the 2012 campaign. How is he going to win, when he doesn’t inspire conservative voters and the Republican House of Representatives proves itself impotent against Obama month after month?
[I’m still very worried that the match-up with President Obama does not favor Governor Romney. ]
Just now NR is thinking about this? What's wrong with you people, you've been Romney's big cheerleader!
Romney is compromised on Romneycare, 2nd amendment, GM bailout, TARP, abortion, Mormonism, and half a dozen other things.He is hated by a significant percentage of the activist base. and just now you're wondering whether he might not be a good candidate to beat Obama?
The elite of the GOOP have given us Poppa Bush, Dole and McCain. Now you give us Romney, cut from the same loser mold and suddenly you get a tinge of buyer's remorse?
Do you guys have any idea what you have done? When Romney loses running as Obama lite, his rotting political carcass will be hung around your necks. Be careful what you wish for, pushing your liberal Massachusetts RINO will likely break the GOP..
While I agree in principle with everything Andy writes about how bad Obamacare is, I think there are two key things to remember in the general election: First, the vast majority of voters are not policy geeks like us. And second, outside the world of conservative policy geeks, repeal of Obamacare is not an issue with legs. The average undecided voter cares more about the economy (whether or not they have a clue as to the internals), the debt, and even personal issues. (Which is why Newt's past and even the ease of dems cheap-shotting Santorum as the "anti-sex guy" present more problems than Romney's much more genuine Obamacare problem.) Once the nomination is decided, the choice will be between Obama and not Obama. No matter how strong a tea partier you are, it would be awfully tough to stay home or write in Hank Reardon given that choice.
