The Candidates
Featured Archives
…when even the National Review appears to be bailing?
The current narrative about Mitt Romney’s political positioning driven by both the media and conservative critics has put in jeopardy the candidate’s plan to be a credible conservative alternative to the current frontrunners. In staking out positions to the right of John McCain and Rudy Giuliani on issues important to conservative voters, the former Massachusetts governor is also to the right of his former self. Skeptics see more naked ambition than sincere conversion in Romney’s shifts on multiple issues, including abortion, gun control, gay rights, and taxes. His campaign should make no mistake: His introduction to the public has gone badly, and a few early TV ads isn’t going to fix it.
Conservatives should hope Romney’s campaign does not fizzle. For three decades, candidates who have moved to the right in Republican presidential primaries have been rewarded rather than punished. Conservative openness to converts has made it possible for moderate Republicans who found themselves moving rightward to prosper, and given ideologically malleable Republicans an incentive to adopt conservative positions. In both cases, the effect was to facilitate the country’s rightward move.
Conservatives should want to keep it that way. Thus, the gleeful pounding away at Romney’s changes from some on the right is counterproductive. Do any of these critics really wish that Romney had remained pro-choice? Pro-choicers didn’t object when Al Gore, Dick Gephardt, and Jesse Jackson moved their way on abortion they welcomed the converts.
Still, there is a sense that Romney has moved too far, too recently, on too much. A conservative Republican would be unelectable in liberal Massachusetts, so it is understandable that such a badly outnumbered politician would emphasize some issues and soft-pedal others. It is natural that he might say he is personally pro-life, but would not try to change laws in Massachusetts; that he would oppose same-sex marriage, but otherwise promote gay rights; even that he would duck the Reaganite label. In any case, Romney is a career businessman who spent far more time thinking about management and government reform than social issues and political philosophy.
George W. Bush moved right in preparation for his presidential run in 2000, but also thought through a new brand of conservatism that he figured would be attractive in the post-Gingrich, post-impeachment era. We have never been particular fans of “compassionate conservatism,” but Romney would be well advised, in a similar fashion, to figure out a distinctive way to apply his conservatism to the challenges of our time. (Alliteration is not necessary and probably should be avoided.) This individuation could help deepen and authenticate that conservatism, and make it sufficiently compelling to prevail in the general election. At the moment, Romney is running on a businessman’s typical theme of competitiveness along with a paint-by-the-numbers collection of conservative positions that seem to have no deeper rationale than getting to the right.
That was enough to get him into the top tier of candidates, but won’t be enough for him to thrive there. Romney is in many respects a talented and impressive man. We believe he can have a significant and healthy role in this race, but probably not by simply checking all the conservative boxes.
What is happening to Mitt was described as one of the pitfalls to avoid in ABC News Political Director Mark Halperin’s seminal work on the next presidential election, “The Way to Win: Taking the White House in 2008“. In this book, Halperin cautions prospective candidates that they must have a plausible and convincing explanation for any inconsistencies between their past and present political views or they will simply not survive the intense scrutiny that is driven by the New Media (or “The Freak Show” as he refers to it).
One’s view of abortion is arguably one of the most longstanding and deeply held beliefs that a person holds in American Society. Mitt has simply not given a convincing reason for his conversion to being Pro-Life at the age of 57 years old. Until he does, the charges of political opportunism will continue.
February 23rd, 2007 at 10:28 am
[...] post by Kavon W. Nikrad and software by Elliott [...]
February 23rd, 2007 at 10:33 am
A suggestion. Go to mymanmitt and read the article by Mark DeMoss. It’s pretty good.
February 23rd, 2007 at 11:49 am
Another classic pander job. The guy who would be better at supporting gay rights and abortion than Ted Kennedy is in S.C. promoting traditional marraige.
February 23rd, 2007 at 11:56 am
How has the botton fallen out, Kavon?
Why is it that whenever anyone expresses anything but absolute adoration and lock-step devotion to Romney; you, LJ, Republius and others rush over each other to shovel dirt on the “dead” Romney candidacy?
February 23rd, 2007 at 12:00 pm
Mitt has simply not given a convincing reason for his conversion to being Pro-Life at the age of 57 years old. Until he does, the charges of political opportunism will continue.
I continue to find it hilarious when people say this sort of thing, considering Mitt has given the same explanation for his pro-life change since it happened in 2004, which is the sight of human life being created and destroyed for research based on the harsh logic of abortion rights.
Now some people just don’t believe him, I get that. But does anyone find it strange that Rudy supporters criticize Romney for “not giving a convincing reason”, when they simultaneously cheer Rudy on for his abrupt flip on partial-birth-abortion several weeks ago. In fact, several contributors to this website were eagerly anticipating Rudy’s flip on partial birth abortion before it happened, which was accompanied by no explanation from the former mayor, only denials about his past positions.
Talk about double standards.
February 23rd, 2007 at 12:08 pm
KT,
When Romney made those statements – “Gay Marriage” had nothing to do whatsoever with “Gay Rights.” Gay Rights in the context of the mid 1990s time frame meant that Gay’s should not be lynched, persecuted, or denied a job etc as a result of their alternative orientations. It really was not until the early 2000’s that Gay marriage morphed into gay rights. It is entirely plausible and acceptable to be pro gay rights & against gay marriage in my book. For example, I believe that women should be treated equally, paid fairly, and not denied opportunities if they are qualified applicants (as I do for homosexuals). I could say that I am pro “women’s rights” in that regard. However, that does not mean that I’ll support a woman’s right to marry whatever she wants. Since I don’t support a woman’s right to marry whatever she wants, am I anti-woman’s rights? A sexist or a bigot? To many on the left, I would be.
February 23rd, 2007 at 12:16 pm
Sorry folks but this attack that I’ve heard against Romney many times by those on the left who “see more naked ambition than sincere conversion” is very disingenuous. As if McCain, Obama, Rudy, & Hillary are *not* ambitious themselves? I’m going to make a profound statement here so hang on to your seats:
All presidential aspirants are ambitious, that even goes for Ron Paul.
Ambition is not necessarily a bad thing. They all have it regardless if it is liked or disliked. This best statement in the article is this:
“…the gleeful pounding away at Romney’s changes from some on the right is counterproductive. Do any of these critics really wish that Romney had remained pro-choice? Pro-choicers didn’t object when Al Gore, Dick Gephardt, and Jesse Jackson moved their way on abortion they welcomed the converts. “
February 23rd, 2007 at 12:34 pm
One other thing on this topic then I’ll shut up & go-away. Romeny was recently asked what his thoughts were on the Clinton-Obama Drama. He said:
“”It’s great, isn’t it?” Romney said to peels of laughter from crowd of employees at a solar-related equipment plant on the newly declared candidate’s first visit to the leadoff presidential primary state. “I love to see it when it happens on the other side.”
The former Massachusetts governor described his leading Republican rivals, Sen. John McCain of Arizona and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, as “friends” and “national heroes,” before adding, “I respect them. I’m sure we’ll disagree on issues from time to time, but I doubt you’ll see the rancor that apparently may exist elsewhere.”
I like how Romney calls his two main opponents “national heros” and “friends.” I think that is classy. Hopefully whomever wins the nomintation is not too beat up by us the Republicans to stand a chance in November ‘08.
February 23rd, 2007 at 1:30 pm
It’s sad to see so many distractors out there trying to paint Romney as a flip-flopper. There’s no doubt that his stock has fallen since the pounding he’s recieved from all sides but when you line up all the candidates, I still believe that he has the most potential. Those attacking him want to catch you before you line him up with the others and compare. It’s agreed by many that Romney has the most potential to rise and I’ve heard from many that the democrats fear him the most. I mean, how do you run against a guy who passed universal health coverage, the bread-and-butter of the Democratic candidates? The only thing they can do is to paint him as a flip-flopper.
So, is he electable in the general election? Just look at how successful Hillarycare was.
February 23rd, 2007 at 1:37 pm
Kavon,
“even the National Review appears to be bailing?”
Appears to you, perhaps. Since when does a little constructive criticism constitute “bailing.” The cogent point is that they are NOT bailing:
“Part of what Romney needs is simply time, and even though the campaign season is already super-charged and the news cycles relentless, he will get it.”
They agree he has work to do, but clearly feel that if Mitt hones his message, he’ll be fine.
So, for the time being, the most important conservative publication of the last 50 years is still in Mitt’s corner.
February 23rd, 2007 at 3:51 pm
[...] Ace of Spades HQ – Is Hillary! Outright Buying Endorsements From Black South Carolina Pols? Captain’s Quarters – Giuliani: Consistency Trumps Pandering Crazy Politico’s Rantings – Fractured Democrats Liberal Values – Hints About Obama as President, and Candidate MyDD – California for the GOP Race 4 2008 – Has the Bottom Fallen Out of the Romney Campaign [...]