The theme for this year’s primary season was set back in May 2011. Recall that the Republican-dominated House of Representatives had just done something that cynics said would not and could not be done. They voted for a budget — the Paul Ryan budget — that actually began to tackle the problem of limitless entitlement spending.
The cliché about entitlements (the “third rail”) had been largely true. Neither Republicans nor Democrats had shown the courage to tell middle-class voters that Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security would have to change. But on April 15, all but four Republicans (and zero Democrats) voted for a budget that would block-grant Medicaid to the states, and gradually transform Medicare from the whale-shark entitlement that threatens to swallow all other federal spending into a premium-support program.
Advertisement
Naturally, Republicans got no credit for this principled vote from the usual suspects (the press, liberal commentators, professors). But you’d think fellow Republicans and conservatives would offer at least a pat on the back. Nope. Just a few weeks later, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, appearing on Meet the Press, labeled the Ryan budget “too radical” and “right-wing social engineering,” which, Gingrich explained, he opposed as much as “left-wing social engineering.”
As Ryan said at the time, “With allies like that, who needs the left?”
It set the tone for what was to come. While claiming to save the Republican party from the supposedly “moderate” Romney, one after another of the Republican presidential candidates has seized the slogans of the Left — even of the Occupy movement — to make his case. Judging by campaign rhetoric, there is really only one conservative left in the race, and that’s Romney.
A few weeks after Meet the Press, Gingrich reversed himself on the Ryan budget. A spokesman said “there is little daylight between Ryan and Gingrich on Medicare.” But Gingrich was soon sounding like Michael Moore regarding Romney’s career at Bain Capital. “Is capitalism really about the ability of a handful of rich people to manipulate the lives of thousands of other people and walk off with the money, or is that somehow a little bit of a flawed system?” asked the self-styled “Reagan conservative.” Romney’s wealth, Gingrich said, came from a model of “leverage the game, borrow the money, leave the debt behind, and walk off with all the profits. . . . I think it’s exploitive. I think it’s not defensible.”
Rick Santorum, to his credit, resisted the Occupy Wall Street–style Bain bashing. But on the day of the Michigan primary, he sponsored robocalls that urged Democrats to cross over and vote for him, saying, “Romney supported the bailouts for his Wall Street billionaire buddies, but opposed the auto bailouts. That was a slap in the face to every Michigan worker.”
Really? Was opposing the bailout of GM and Chrysler a “slap in the face” to the Michiganders who work for Ford, a company that declined to seek a bailout? And, by the way, every Michigan worker paid for that bailout. Is Rick Santorum now adopting the Left’s posture — and that of President Obama — that being pro-worker means favoring government bailouts of companies that make poor business decisions? And doesn’t Santorum feel even a twinge of embarrassment at making these arguments when 1) he claims to be a free-marketeer, and 2) he himself opposed the auto bailouts?
If anyone really studies Romney's MA governorship, he was clearly holding the line for conservative values in a vastly majority liberal state. 800 vetos, many overridden by the liberal Congress.
Romney will be as or more conservative than Reagan . . . if we, the people, are wise enough to see it. I hope we don't make the same mistake in 2012 that we made in 2008. Think how much better off the recovery and most of us would be had we not been so blinded by "hope and change."
Obama will come on with dazzle again. I'll take the data driven, analytical, "wooden" problem solver Romney any day.
Thanks for making this point. I was uncertain on Romney myself until I learned about how he governed in MA. He may have strayed from conservative principles at times but as everyone is pointing out, so has every candidate. Romney is definitely a conservative and will make a great President.
Difference is, Romney strayed from his supposedly "conservative" views when he was Governor, when he was in the position of executive leadership. When Romney had the opportunity to lead on issues, he lead with Romneycare (including tax-payer subsidized abortions); with liberal positions on climate change; with higher taxes (I guess your thorough research on his Governorship missed that); with mandates for the issuance of gay marriage licenses; and with increased limits on gun ownership rights.
Sure, the others have not been perfect conservatives, but when in a position to lead on something, they led conservatively. Unlike Mitt. Romney is not even sure what he is himself - first, he says he's against something (ex: Blunt Amendment), then he has to scramble with an oops to say he's for it. He doesn't understand nor speak conservatism. He merely understands business. Capitalism does not equal conservatism. Mitt Romney will be a weak nominee, who admits he is not willing to take the fight to Obama. He will not shake up Washington. And that is why he is the perfect candidate for DC insiders and milquetoast moderates.
I've long been tired of Charen's continual propaganda in Romney's behalf, but calling him conservative is a descent into idiocy. Or does she simply take her readers for idiots?
The Democrats, the liberal media and the press have all deliberately mischaracterized Romney in an effort to redefine who he is and what his record was really all about.
The fact is this article is spot on.
So I agree, I think there are way too many readers that either a) can't get past the liberal media sound bites or b) are totally irrationally freaked about the prospect of having a Mormon in the White House that they behave like children.
But whatever the motivation the outcome remains - you're compromising the candidacy of perhapsthe single best conservative candidate the GOP has had in decades or longer.
Mitt Romney IS the right man at the right time. Mitt Romney will be one of the great presidents of the United States of America.
I believe in America and I believe in Mitt Romney.
What exactly was the alternative to Romneycare? A much less market-oriented approach, with much bigger deficits and much bigger problems than Romneycare created.
Romneycare was an experiment. A rational alternative to the insanity proposed by MA demsor the insanity of doing nothing. Any other take on Romneycare is uninformed or revisionist.
Yes, I thank Ms. Charen for reminding me that Speaker Gingrich's missteps, when seen in proportion to his conservative accomplishments, are minor compared to those of the other aspirants for the GOP nomination this year.
Big Hurt - try the truth, instead of the oppo spin. Taxpayer subsidized abortions came from the Governor previous to Mitt Romney. The democrat legislature included a lot of things in Mass Care that Mitt Romney tried to remove through veto. They overturned his veto 700+ times. They had a veto proof majority. As for the issuance of gay marriage licenses, that was a Mass Superior Court order. The state legislature was ordered by the court to legislate gay marriage, making it legal to marry in Mass. It had a date certain in May of that year by which it must be accomplished. Mitt Romney's part in that was ensuring that those marriages wouldn't be recognized by other states, and that people from other states couldn't come there just to get married, and then go back home. Gun rights.... the NRA helped him draft something that could get passed in the Mass legislature so that it wouldn't be WORSE.
Thanks, Dawna, for pointing out these largely missed pieces of the puzzle on Romney's governorship. I always think there must be another side to the story but digging it up is almost impossible. Mass. is a notoriously left wing state and Romney did his best with what he had.
Throughout his campaign, Romney has been attacked as having no core and no principles. That he is willing to “say anything” or “do anything” to get into whatever political office he is running for. This is blatantly false. There have been many times in Romney’s past and now where it would be politically expedient for him to say something other than what he is saying. This in and of itself should make the “say anything” rants moot, but unfortunately there are many people who do not look beyond liberal media soundbites and the so called “conservative” media outlets that continue to spout them. So let me just share a few moments where Romney stood by his principles.
While campaigning for governor in 2002, Romney made a promise to the Massachusetts people that he would not change the laws on abortion as they stood. During his governorship, he was confronted with a bill dealing with stem cell research where he came to the realization that Roe vs. Wade and abortion “rights” had so cheapened the value of life that he effectively became pro-life. The politically expedient thing for Romney to do, for conservatives, would have been then to fight to change the abortion laws. This would have won him the fanfare from the far right. But Romney did not. He had given his word that he would not change the law. He vetoed every bill that would have expanded the pro-choice legislation, thus keeping his promise while at the same time fighting for life in the only way he could. A principled stand.
The same bill on embryonic stem cell research that had a changing affect on how Romney viewed abortion rights, also showed another time where Romney took a strong position. Romney vetoed the bill that would allow for cloning and creating of stem cells only to destroy them for research. Romney spent his own money running ads against the embryo farming. John J. Miller of National Review Online, in an article titled Matinee Mitt, said concerning this issue: ”Condemning ‘embryo farming’ as he does is certainly no way to curry favor in Cambridge.” Would it not have been politically expedient for him at the time to have given in and won favor with the democrats in office? Instead, he fought this and many other issues, on what Miller calls “the most inhospitable terrain in the country.” A principled stand.
The same case can be made on gay marriage. Romney lost a lot of political points from the democratic majority in Massachusetts while he fought against the MA Supreme Court’s decision to allow gay marriage. After everything he tried in the state failed, Romney appealed to Washington DC to fight for a federal constitutional amendment to protect marriage. Maggie Gallagher, the president of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, had this to say of Romney: “While the GOP glitterocracy attended the first gay wedding of one of their own, Gov. Romney was in Washington, D.C., making the single most eloquent and articulate defense of our traditional understanding of marriage I have heard from an American politician.” Romney stood then and he stands now for traditional marriage. A principled stand.
Another example can be found if you look at his “Faith in America” speech given in December of 2007. Concerning his Mormon faith, he said: ”There are some for whom these commitments are not enough. They would prefer it if I would simply distance myself from my religion, say that it is more a tradition than my personal conviction, or disavow one or another of its precepts. That I will not do. I believe in my Mormon faith and I endeavor to live by it. My faith is the faith of my fathers – I will be true to them and to my beliefs. Some believe that such a confession of my faith will sink my candidacy. If they are right, so be it.”
Considering all the anti-Mormon bigotry and some polls saying the majority of evangelicals in Iowa will not vote for a Mormon, wouldn’t it be politically expedient for him to distance himself from his faith? A principled stand.
Now fast forward to today. There is so much vitriol surrounding ObamaCare and what the democrats shoved onto the American people. A lot of that vitriol is being unfairly passed to Romney because of his health care plan in Massachusetts. This is of course because the Democrats have told us that Romney is the “author” of Obamacare (since when did we believe their political propaganda?). There have been many conservatives that have just asked Romney to apologize for his healthcare bill. In affect they are saying – “If he would just ask for forgiveness, we will give it. He just needs to distance himself from that.” Would it not have been politically expedient for Romney to then promptly have done so? Instead, he has stated on many occasions that it was the right plan for his state at the time. While there are some things he would do differently seeing how they are working out now in the state, he has stood by what he passed and has stood by his belief that all states have the right to pass their own plans. A principled stand.
These examples as well as many others show that Romney does have a core, he is a principled candidate and he will do what he promises. The fact that Romney has stood by his claims on global warming and healthcare in the face of intense criticism from members of his own party and the fact that he stood tall for conservative issues in the bluest of blue states demonstrates that he is a principled politician. Hardly a person who flips when the going gets tough.
Conservatives surely could do worse than Romney on fiscal matters, but If you want real fiscal conservatism then you need look no further than Ron Paul. Now, hold on, don't get all wild eyed on me here, yep he really is the only one with a plan to cut spending. In fact he is the only one with a plan the has a lower deficit than Obama...Are we seriously going to nominate a "conservative" who can't even do better fiscally than Obama? All right, so on to Social Issues. Santorum is good here...but he wasn't always. It wasn't until he ran for congress that he bacame decidely pro-life, which is strikingly similar to the pattern Romney followed. Only Paul has ALWAYS been on the Pro-Life side. Are we really going to nominate a Social Issues canidate who ignored their moral formation until the decided to run for office? Well then there is foreign policy, If you think Paul is weak here try reading something other than the Santorum talking points on what Paul proposes, it'll be a striking difference from what you thought you knew. For all the talk about "extremism" and "crazy ideas" the paul platform is strikingly similar to the party platform from 1980-1996 in both foreign policy and financial matters. Take another good long look at Paul, and you'll find there is quite a lot there for a conservative to love.
RonPaul talks a good game but has no "plan." None that he's detailed, certainly. Let's remember that Paul has been completely ineffective as a legislator, nor is there any reason he'd be effective as an executive.
You are forgetting the most important point about this election. If O'bwana-Care is not repealed before 2014, it will never be repealed, and socialism is here to stay. Please tell me the last Republican President who has repealed anything preceding Dems have done. Right, Calvin Coolidge. Reagan didn't add much to the bureaucracy or regulations, but he didn' t abolish anything. Not even the Dept of Education, which is doing horrendous damage to the US today. And Romney isn't even a Reagan! Why doesn't anybody note what happened the last business whiz elected President? Man, that Herbert Hoover was sure great. More generally, as every conservative agrees that government can do nothing to create private-sector jobs, why does being a businessman count a a 'plus'? I would venture a guess that it's exactly that entrepeneurial spirit that "there's always a work-around" that might lead a businessman to try to take action in an economic crisis. For sure he has no clue how the bureaucracy works -- after all, government has its own branch of economics.
Great piece Mona. If ever there was one to apply lipstick to pig, its you. On Santorum, I'll grant you he's not ideal on economics. His bifurcated tax plan for manufacturers is ripe for bureacratic abuse. Of course Romney's own 20% "cut" is anything but. And on Obamacare, do you really think Romney will be a credible campaigner? Or for that matter will he really push for a true legislative repeal, even with a Republican congress? Read between the lines and the answer is probably not. On entitlement reform, Santorum is the only one to advocate real immediate cuts for current SS and Medicare recipients. That's courage. On the other two legs of the conservative stool, he's excellent.
How is the means testing of Social Security which Santorum proposes not also ripe for bureacratic abuse? I mean, we all know that eventually means testing will translate to rewarding and punishing groups of voters. In other words, if you own a fairly nice house, you get zip from Social Security. It is a more conservative plan to treat all seniors equally and raise the age uniformly in order to receive the payments. I believe this is the position of the Heritage Society.
Oh Mona, you must like abuse. You have now permanently revealed yourself to be part of the mythical Establishment, and for that there will be a multitude of comments to come banishing you from the GOP. As to what you wrote being all so true will not matter to the Anybody-but-Romney crowd, most of them are now hoping for a brokered convention and that Sarah Palin will be the nominee. She is the only one left they haven't had the official chance to support, but she did weave them along for awhile - remember her bus tour and the detraction from the Romney announcement for a candidate for President?
How these two quintessential Washington insider candidates like Gingrich and Santorum manage to pull the wool over the eyes of the GOP voters with their professed claims that they are the Anti-Establishment candidates is unbelievable! Of course, this myth of the Establishment is perpetuated by Limbaugh, Hannity, Fox News, and a host of others....meanwhile the net result of all of their rantings is doing the work of Obama by creating a division in the GOP. These pundits then declare that whoever the GOP candidate is, then we are all going to come together, but if it is Romney, who would ever listen and believe Rush, Hannity, and Fox News after their constant barrage of Romney put downs? Obama could not have ask for a bigger favor from the likes of these commentators.
What gets me is that when you examine the objections of the anti-Romney camp and what they like about their favored candidates, it all seems to come down to emotion. They want someone who appeals to their hurt feelings and their desire to fight. They claim that Romney is diametrically opposed to everything they want, but their yardstick is one of vocabulary and rhetoric, not policy or positions. They think it is all about them. But this is not sports or entertainment, people. This is serious.
Now, be honest, purist conservatives: Would Reagan ever have pandered in the way you seem to want? Answer: No. He was about building a coalition. He made it clear what he stood for, but he wouldn't have given in to demands of various slices of his constituency to go beyond that just because they fussed and pouted. He knew it was about getting a grand coalition behind some real change. And he got it done. He was a grownup and he expected everyone else to be a grownup. He knew when it was time to speak up to shake things up, and when to say less, bide his time and work with people.
Wait a second. I thought there was four remaining candidates. ..... I was sure there was four. ...well I am getting older....maybe I'm mistaken. Give me a second and I'll check in my local paper. ....... Yeah, there it is. Ron Paul speaks to over 4000 at Michigan State University. Rassmusan Reports says Ron Paul beats Obama head to head nationally. Ron paul wants to cut a Trillion in real spending in his first year.
Who is this Ron Paul?
Oh I remember. He's the one who wants to stop being the policeman of the world and wants to end America's state of perpetual war. That's why he is the invisible candidate in the national media.
NR only recognizes candidates that agree to continue supporting the military industrial complex. If you don't do that, doesn't matter what your other policies are, your crazy and unelectable.
How long do you people think you'll be able to get away with this charade?
Hey! What are you doing posting here? Don't you know that this column was about the CONSERVATIVES? Don't you know that this column was about the remaining Republican candidates? Don't you know that nobody is supposed to cover the only true conservative running? I would like to point out that the Republican National platform is one of a humble foreign policy, no nation building, smaller, constitutional government, more individual freedoms, liberty, smaller taxes, no socialist entitlement programs. Any of this sound familiar? I submit to anybody listening that Ron Paul is the true heart of the Republican party, and that the party has been hijacked by a bunch of people who are as unAmerican as the Patriot Act (otherwise why would they vote for it?). This is the exact platform that George W. Bush ran on and won the presidency behind. Of course, he was lying through that hole in his face and completely reversed himself once in office. Then came Obama. Same deal. Lie to get elected, and then embrace everything that Bush did and then some. So it's actually the Republican Neocons who have abandoned their party principles, and those of us who are with Ron Paul are the true Republicans. Those who try to marginalize him and his supporters are not those who remember their own Republican platform nor are they true to conservative principles. Since when did conservative principles include preemptive wars and warrantless searches? I submit that it's those who denigrate and marginalize us true conservatives (the Ron Paul supporters) who are the true destroyers of the Republican party. I implore them to remember their principles and come back into the fold. Support for and get behind and vote for somebody who not only remembers those principles but lives them and can actually be trusted to follow through on them when elected. Or, really, isn't that what you want? These other three phonies are just more of the same old crap and would only continue Obama and Bush's failed policies. Wake up, folks.
Follow
