Can we now just admit that everyone is settling in this race. For the last month or so we’ve heard a lot of posturing about the “conservative establishment.” I’ve been pretty skeptical about the uses and abuses of the term. But now that Rick Santorum has replaced Newt Gingrich as the anti-Mitt frontrunner, the term seems even more stale. Santorum has many strengths (and weaknesses), but let’s not insult our intelligence. He is no Washington outsider. The guy has been a fixture of the conservative and Republican establishment — however you want to define the term — for decades. A congressman, senator, radio show host, author, Fox News contributor, leader in the 1994 Contract with America movement, activist, lobbyist, earmarker, endorser of Arlen Specter: This is not some tea party unknown.
I don’t think all of those things are damning (though some are!). Then again, I don’t think the conservative establishment is a term of derision the way some do (the Republican establishment, I’m iffier on).
The simple fact is that none of these candidates are ideal and nearly everyone not writing-in Calvin Coolidge is compromising. The problem is people don’t want to admit they’re compromising. And so they create ideological theories and narratives about tainted motives to explain why the other guys are compromising and why their own candidate is purer than pure.
They are all compromise candidates. All of them. They always are, of course. But this time around they’re a bigger compromise than usual.
What lead us into this position, where we have to settle and compromise for a candidate? I'd argue this is 2 elections in a row where we've had to do this. Bush cleared the political bench by moving some promising governors into his administration (Thompson, Ridge) and sticking with Cheney (not a successor) as VP, but since then why have we failed to find and promote good conservative candidates? Jim DeMint, Fred Thompson, Haley Barbour, Mitch Daniels, these guys aren't too "new" like Rubio or Christie might be - what's going on in the party that is causing these guys to decide not to run?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseObviously everyone has their own reasons, however, part of it may be that they're doing fine just where they are. The President has power, yes, but not as much as many believe. Someone can have plenty of influence without being the President.
Funny you mention Christie because he is actually to the left on some positions, such as gun control. It would take someone more knowledgeable then me, but I believe he may even be to the left of Romney overall.
Note: don't count that comment as an endorsement of Romney, I favor Santorum right now, but time will tell.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSome people are always going to have to compromise and no candidate hits every position they want on all issues. Most people intuitively understand this, but somehow it's lost on people here.
Most people also realize that not everyone agrees with them on every issue and that it might be difficult to win a national election on the holy trinity of tax cuts for the rich, endless wars and anti-abortion.
But some people would rather lose with purity than win with a compromise. As you wish.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusethe holy trinity of tax cuts for the rich, endless wars and anti-abortion
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI call concern troll.
Troll, get thee under thy bridge!
Tax cuts are for everyone, which first and foremost increase liberty for all by starving the federal behemoth back to its intended size and power. All benefit economically as well, from more jobs and less artificial upward pressure on prices. The number of wealthy individuals who could benefit is far less than the number of rich, politically connected parasites who benefit from high taxes by taking billions of taxpayer money without producing any commensurate economic value, and far less than the number of poor people who would cease to be poor. Don't let your depraved envy show so much.
Endless wars? The only endless war has been the Leftist war against God, country, and family, and that one will end with the ignominious defeat of the Left. Count on it, baby! Ooh-rah!
Anti-abortion? You can have it. Apart from objectively verifiable medical self-defense, you betcha! Keep your abortion and we'll see how far you get with it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI remember posters on NRO really KILLING Mitch Daniels, and now he is longed for.... LOL
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseActually, settling and compromising are inherent in reality. Unanimity among the electorate is rare. Purists might win if elections were decided by measuring passion and volume. But in this space-time continuum, every citizen gets a vote and they are counted equally. You can look it up.
If any winner of an election in the past seemed to you not to be a wishy-washy compromiser RINO, it's probably because they were really good at communicating and unifying. And that's what gets people into office.
The guys who aren't running probably look so good to you because they are on the other side of the fence where the grass seems greener.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat are the MittBots compromising on with Little Lord MittleRoy?
The phoniest meme of this whole campaign is that the MittBots are the flexible freethinkers (who have supported one and only one candidate out of this entire field) while conservatives who won't cast a ballot for Mittens are "purists" (except most of us support multiple candidates in this field; I myself supported fully half the field with Bachmann, Cain, Santorum, and Perry).
Now we hear from Jonah, a MittBot-in-the-wings, that "everyone is compromising." Really?
What precisely are the MittBots not getting in Mittens, who is running the most liberal GOP nomination campaign since Nelson Rockefeller? Has there been a candidate who has shown less interest in cultivating the conservative movement and the conservative base than Mitt Romney?
The only thing people who support Romney are compromising is conservative principles---which many of them don't seem to have in abundance to begin with.
I have yet to see any signs MittBots have buyer's remorse at all with Romney.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYour post is little more than an anti-Romney screed.
Romney voters are compromising because he isn't the "perfect conservative". Tax cuts for the rich, endless wars and anti-abortion is the holy trinity of conservative beliefs and he's a little squishy on some of that.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMittBots aren't conservatives, period.
Look at the RINO-heavy endorsement slate---they support Romney because he ISN'T conservative.
There's no mystery here---the Not Romney 3/4 majority happens to be where the GOP conservatives are. The Karl Rove wannabes and Arlen Specter admirers of the Rockefeller Republican wing of the GOP are where Romney's support is coming from.
Just look at the county map for the caucuses and you'll see Romney's support comes from counties which voted for Obama in 2008. Santorum's came from those Iowa counties voting McCain in 2008.
Neither the twain shall meet. Which is why Willard's stuck at 20%.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYet, Romney's leadership PAC supported a large number of conservative candidates in 2010, while Santorum endorsed Arlen Specter.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm for Mitt and I'm very conservative.
I want a Republican in the White House and Romney is our best chance.
And then we screw him to the wall with a conservative House and Senate.
However, I won't call those who disagree with me IdiotBots.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou should say "MittBots" about eight more times.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf your effort is to persuade, I would recommend ditching the puerile nicknames. And, perhaps, you should consider the possibility that a rational conservative could review the actual field of Republican candidates and decide that Mitt Romney has the best combination of conservative policy positions, relevant experience, and electability. Not ideal, but the best when compared to the alternatives. Maybe this would not be the case with a different field of primary candidates, but we go to war with the army we have.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAllegedly rational conservatives who have been assimilated into the MittBot Brigade haven't even made an attempt to claim Romney's a conservative---the closest was Ponnuru proclaiming his faith---with no evidence--that Romney would "govern as a conservative".
NR's infamous editorial trashing the conservatives in the race made the case for Romney with zero ideological content or analysis whatsoever---they simply repeated the mantra of "electability" without offering evidence of same.
But perhaps you can provide us the links to these "rational conservatives" who find Mitt Romney to be the most conservative candidate in the race.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo one claimed Romney is the most conservative candidate. Certainly not me. But one can reasonably conclude that his combination of conservative policy positions, relevant experience, and electability make him the best candidate in 2012. Then, as others have noted, provide him with a Republican House and Senate to keep him in tune with his conservative self, and we will see an enormous improvement over the status quo.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMy concern is that we have an example of how well that worked with Bush (43). :(
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"NR's infamous editorial trashing the conservatives in the race"
Which one would that be? The semi-anti-Gingrich one? I won't defend that editorial except to say that it certainly didn't "trash the conservatives". Everything it said against the "conservatives" you like was true, unfortunately.
This is Jonah's point with this post: conservatives are not happy with the field, and the poll numbers have shown that as they have tried to decide on a compromise candidate, only to find that candidate fall away because of various problems.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat are you smoking that makes you think Jonah is endorsing Mitt with this post?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis post is one in now a long string of posts denouncing any candidate that has gotten anywhere near Mitt. The latest not-Mitt candidate must be destroyed, sometimes by playing the race card (a first for republicans, and thanks Jonah for ratcheting our rhetoric to the left), sometimes by promoting another not-Mitt candidate (until he's within striking distance like Santorum is now).
Incoming "Consider Huntsman" posts, I guess.
It's not just Jonah, but many writers here, Jonah's just been the most rabid attack dog lately with Newt, Paul, and now Santorum... nobody must challenge darling Mitt.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse