David Brooks makes the case for them, and I agree with much of that case. In particular, I agree that the programmatic differences among the major candidates are small and not especially important: The party has reached a consensus on most issues. He’s right as well about the general-election appeal of a solid-citizen candidate. But there are several important questions Brooks does not address.
1) How much of that consensus would Romney actually act on? That question has to be asked about any candidate but for various reasons it has to be asked especially of Romney.
2) Can Romney mobilize public opinion behind the Republican program? Brooks describes Christie as someone who could do that, then drops the subject.
3) Is that consensus correct? If not can Romney supply what it lacks?
4) When new issues come up for which the consensus has no answers, what would President Romney do?
Unfortunately having David Brooks make the case for you as a Republican candidate may not be a "strength."
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Can Romney mobilize public opinion behind the Republican program?"
Like Bush II mobilized public opinion for Amnesty, No Child left Behind, and Prescription Drugs. The whole problem with Romney is many of suspect his "Republican" program will be as conservative as 75% of Bush II's "Republican" program.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseForget the strengths for a moment: The fact that David Brooks is admiring the crease of his pants speaks to a huge weakness.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI always look forward to david's monthly article in "Pant Crease Aficionado". In case you haven't read it, it's the finest magazine catering to the lost art of the perfect pants crease.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhy would anything said by Brooks have any credibility in R circles? Is he going to switch from pantleg crease to beautiful head of hair as his standard?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat would president Romney do?
Find a way to work with the Democrats to create a "bipartisan" solution involving new govt programs to solve any and all problems.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm not so worried about him coming up with new govt programs - I don't think he'll be doing (much of) that. I fail to see him adequately dealing with cutting back the existing ones and sufficiently reforming entitlements. Which is effectively the same problem, just a little slower over the fiscal cliff.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYes, the spirit of bipartisanship. R: Let's waste 100 billion dollars; D: Let's waste 700 billion dollars; Romney to the bipartisan rescue: Let's waste 400 billion dollars.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHere is Romney's problem. He agrees with the elites. He sees that value in trying to have a state govt intervene in the medical market there. He accepts global warming because all the right people say it is. He would have supported the Euro in Europe and he would be fighting to save it now. He might have approved a slightly less risky Solyndra.
In his heart he is a technocrat - and he did a fine job with Bain in being one. But technocrats and consultants make lousy day-to-day folk. They see the solution over the outcome, and think their own brilliance can overcome what should be warning signs flashing stop.
Here is the problem - businesses like Bain were built on debt and leveraged instruments - just like our govt. Our healthcare industry is being destroyed by the govt. Those who believe they can manage all the inputs and make the right decision for you, instead of letting you figure it out on your own, are what Romney at his core is.
There are no capitalists and small r republicans left. Everyone has their hand out - whether a unionist who has killed his host (steel, autos, airlines, and state govts), a contributor running a shaky business (Solyndra), a corporate leech looking for a handout (GE, Duke Energy, Enron), etc. Everyone has to get their palm greased. It is the one true bipartisian activity.
The whole place stinks. It is corrupt. We would be better if when the entire govt was in session it just vanished from the face of the earth with all the people working there disappearing too.
I feel my inner Derb and Steyn coming up.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHonestly. This is ridiculous! How have you bought into the demagoguing of Mitt Romney?
You act like the man is a total liar who can't be trusted!
You know who taught you that? John McCain and Mike Huckabee.
You know what the truth is?
When the 2002 Winter Olympics was on the verge of collapse because of corruption, it was the international reputation for honesty and integrity of one man that saved it. It was Mitt Romney's international reputation for integrity and honesty and his ability to take a failing organization and fix it that saved the 2002 Winter Olympics.
Then this man who, because of his international business relationships is known far and wide for his integrity went into a Presidential campaign against John McCain.
They could find no dirt. One story about how he put a dog on top of his car when he moved. One lame story was all the dirt they could get!!!!
So they found every tape of everything he ever said, and they found every inconsistency he ever had and they played it on a loop. With no explanation. Over and over and over and over Mitt Romney says things differently, changed his mind on a few things like every other human being! But the loop of those few things played over and over and over until they convinced people, the man whose word was good enough to save the Olympics, was now seen as a liar.
It is despicable what the McCain and Huckabee campaigns did to this good and honest man. I would love to see someone put a loop of all their inconsistencies together it would be too long... no one would get to the end! Especially McCain!
Every politician changes their positions. Rick Perry can't stick to his positions he published in a book 6 months ago!!!! Chris Christie was pro-choice before he was pro-life!!!! And he can't even understand that illegal aliens are committing a crime! John McCain in the middle of the campaign where he bore false witness against Romney with his despicable campaigning.... flip flopped on AMNESTY!!!!! His support grew!!!
Everyone else's changes go down the memory hole, whoosh, we speak of them no more!
Only Romney is still held to a wrong view he had in a campaign more than ten years ago... Only Romney is held to a standard that no human can be held to successfully!!!
Your article is just an insult to the name of a very honest man, a man the world trusted and a man who followed through!!!!
Mitt Romney is no flip flopper, if you call him one, after you supported McCain or if you now support Perry or Christie or Gingrich you are a hypocrite!!!!
This man deserves our trust. And you owe him an apology!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRomneyCare, crony capitalism and global warming cultism are "small programmatic differences"? Really?
If you liked Schwarzenegger, then you will love Romney. Mitt is exactly what he appears to be: a failed one-term governor of a deep-blue state.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMost of the comments about Romney are absolutely meaningless things far in the past, like RomneyCare. If that's a disqualification, then should we exclude all ex-Democrats like Governor Perry and Ronald Reagan?
I think it is a strength and an absolute requirement for the executive to work with whatever legislature the people elect. President Reagan did that. There was a Democratic House all through his presidency, so every piece of legislation Reagan passed had some Democratic support.
It's amazing that last election we nominated an absolute RINO like John McCain without a word of criticism (and no one said a word about RomneyCare) but now no one is good enough.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOne of the problems with Romney is that he still defends RomneyCare as being a good bill, and a model for others states.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseA bit of "bombastic" passion from Mitt against Barack would be appreciated. I am sorry, we need some of that.
And he is going to have to address that albatros around his neck--Mass Care. Why is it different, why state vs. fed plans are different, what is not working about it, and why Obamacare needs to go.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseA bit of "bombastic" passion from Mitt is needed. Sorry. That alone does not cut it (hence the reason Christie did not have a shot) but it is a necessary component of leadership. Do it with a smile and a wink like Reagan, but you have to occasionally be the knife man.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm so tired of big government 'convervatives'.
If you want to vote Romney - your choice - but don't expect me to join you. I've had my fill of "hold my nose and vote for 'em" candidates (Mccain / Bush the elder / W's 2nd Term). Not going to do it again.
The slow boat to He$$ is still a boat to He$$.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse1) How much of that consensus would Romney actually act on?
None of it if the "consensus" is to shrink government.
2) Can Romney mobilize public opinion behind the Republican program?
No. He didn't even try in MA. Not one bit.
3) Is that consensus correct? If not can Romney supply what it lacks?
If not, expect Romney to "seek" consensus...by "listening"....to Democrats then doing what they and the media prefer.
4) When new issues come up for which the consensus has no answers, what would President Romney do?
See answer for #2. He had no answers in MA for the profligate spending, corruption and bureaucracy.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBrooks? Does anyone care what that clown thinks? His opinion is worthless. Unless you do the Costanza thing...opposite.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMy problem with Romney is that he is for sale. The same people that bought Obama (euphemistically called ‘crony capitalism’) are now meeting with Romney to negotiate his price.
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI don't understand your first question. Why is that question particularly important for Romney and not anyone else? Do you know anything about Romney? I wonder sometimes.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse