Romney Emerging As The Conservative Presidential Candidate
TAGS: George W. Bush, John McCain, Mitt Romney.
I certainly have not been the biggest advocate of Governor Mitt Romney’s prospect as a presidential candidate. However, as of today, Mitt Romney is the only conservative candidate I would be comfortable with. While big Republican names like Senator John McCain and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani are also being touted, they are Republicans, not conservatives–at least not conservative enough, and yes there is a difference between being a Republican and being a conservative.
Mitt Romney is making a strong appeal towards the base of the Republican Party, because he knows that in order for a Republican to win, you got to appeal to the conservative base. Anyone who listens to Rush Limbaugh will tell you the same thing; Republicans win when they are truly conservative, not some kind of watered down moderate. Mitt Romney has declared “I‚Äôm a conservative Republican, there‚Äôs no question about that….I‚Äôm at a different place than the other two.” He’s absolutely right. Looking at the current crop of presidential hopefuls on the Republican side, particularly McCain and Giuliani, Mitt Romney is the only one emerging as the actual conservative candidate.
Republicans need to look no further than the White House to see what happens when a Republican veers off the conservative path. George W. Bush may be a Republican, but he’s no conservative. The President’s approval numbers are hanging in the 40s because he has not been a conservative leader. While it’s true we’ve seen Romney shift conservative over the past few years, that is still better than someone who is undeniably moderate–like a McCain or a Giuliani.
If Romney continues to hold on to the conservative values that historical have elected Republicans, he will be a much stronger contender for president than I originally expected. Particularly now that the field of potential candidates is a bit smaller after a few Republicans lost their elections this month, Romney is continuing his rise to the top of the pack, and there may not be much in his way to stop him.
Follow us on TwitterJoin us on Facebook
Aaron Margolis is a life long resident of the Bay State, and works at an architectural firm north of Boston. Aaron has a Master of Architecture Degree from Boston Architectural College and is currently in the process of becoming of a Registered Architect.
I have to disagree with you here. John McCain has plenty of conservative street cred. In fact the argument that Mitt Romney made today about McCain being againt gay marriage but wanting to leave it up to the states is a conservative states rights message.
Plus John McCain is extremely good on defense issues.
Finally he has a greater than 80% rating from the American Conservative Union.
McCain has the wool pulled over the libs eyes and I love it.
The most important quality for the ‘08 candidate in my mind is strength in defense. Both McCain and Romney seem to have this covered (as does Guiliani). McCain’s advantage is that the liberals might be ok with defense if McCain’s in charge. That would make the whole project a lot easier.
Basically: Conservative values. Nice. Not horrible. But if McCain can get the whole country to accept that we’re going to be fighting for years, I’m willing to compromise on the values. McCain’s conservative cred, while not at Romney’s level, is acceptable. (also, I’m mildly pro-gay-marriage, so I prefer McCain on that one. It’s not a dealbreaker for me either way, though.)
But I’m most happy about having the choice because either would be good.
Ditto EaBo — McCain’s LIFETIME ACU rating is 83% — and he probably loses 5-7 poiints for his immigration position alone, which, considering his home state, is perfectly understandable.
Aaron, were you impressed with Mitt’s conservative stripes when he was pro-choice?
I think the REAL Mitt is finally coming out, he had to position himself to get elected in THIS wonderful state, but now can stand for what is values are.
After stating the above, I think Mitt would make a better 2nd half of a Newt Gingrich ticket.
We are talking about two very smart and strong conservative men, that’s a hard combination to beat in 08.
Imagine the debate power of those two! Unless someone could find a way to let {slick willy} Bill Clinton run again, NO ONE can win a debate with Newt Gingrich.
“…there may not be much in his way to stop him.”
Criminy – why would you WANT to?
I don’t think he has much chance of winning the general election.
He moved to the left to get elected here, now he is moving to the right to win the Republician primary and then he will have to move back to the left (toward the center) to win the general.
People will be left wondering just where he really stands.
Was Mitt pandering to Mass to get elected in 2002? Or is he pandering to the conservative base now? Or both?
That’s gonna be his major problem to convince the conservative base of. That and potentially fallout from the Big Dig if that gets national traction.
Mitt has a shot, but he’s going to need to get by his past statements (if this was Kerry, you would call it ‘flip flopping’) on major conservative issues.
“The President’s approval numbers are hanging in the 40s because he has not been a conservative leader.”
Funny but in the 2000 Primaries Conservatives were thumping their chest over how conservative Bush was and now he is a RINO while Mitt Romney, a pro-abortion moderate from Massachusetts has now become the latest incarnation of Ronald Reagan?
No wonder the conservative movement is cracking up. How can anyone buy into a message that is so completely incoherent? The Gipper must be rolling over in his grave at the thought that Romney would be his “heir.”
> The President’s approval numbers are hanging in
> the 40s because he has not been a conservative
> leader.
Thanks for pointing this out, Charlie.
40s?? 40s?!? Approval in the 40s were the good ol’ days for Mr. Bush. I haven’t seen him with more than the rare poll in the 40s in quite a while:
http://pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm
http://rasmussenreports.com/Bush_Job_Approval.htm
40s looks accurate according Rasmussen
Please Romney is hardly a Pro-Abortion Moderate. As he said in 2002, he was personally Pro-Life but as Massachusetts Governor he agreed to follow the will of the people and govern essentially with a moratorium on Abortion law changes. Furthermore, unlike other Pro-Abort politicians like Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi or Shannon O’Brien, Romney supported the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban, which is hardly a Pro-Abortion position.
On Immigration, the War in Iraq, Spending, Tax Cuts, Government Reform, Crime, the Death Penalty, Gay Marriage, and Energy, Romney is a staunch Conservative. He is no different than people like Mike Pence or Newt Gingrich.
I think the only other issues where he is not a staunch Conservative, but is fairly Conservative would be Guns, and Healthcare. On Guns he is fairly Pro-2nd Amendment, the only exception for him being totally anti-gun control would be his support for the Brady Bill. (Which many Right of center politicians agree with). On Healthcare he supported required Universal coverage, however avoided Socializing the entire system with the comprehensive plan he worked out, which I might add in the end comes out pretty Conservative. Again, on Healthcare he is almost indistinguishable with Newt Gingrich.
I don’t see where Romney could be cast as a Liberal Republican, or even a Conservative with a shaky history. He is certainly more Consrvative than McCain or Guiliani, I think in the end Romney comes out dead center in the political spectrum of the Republican Party, which would make him a Conservative.
Giuliani and Romney have “strength in defense” covered? By what measuring stick, exactly? Giuliani couldn’t even keep people from New Jersey from driving into NYC and Mitt Romney let all of those foreigners invade Utah for the Olympics.
Romney is a sure fire loser out of the gate in Iowa, despite his best efforts to spend more nights there than in Massachusetts and Giuliani will do even worse. Neither of them can beat McCain in the heartland.
“Strength in defense” is a poor turn of phrase. With Romney, McCain or Giuliani I don’t doubt that they will keep taking the fight to the terrorists. That’s all. It’s actually a really low standard, but with so many weak pols these days, it’s good that we have some with resolve.
Considering the standard again, I’d trust McCain with defense more than Romney and Giuliani; he just has a lot more experience. But defense experience is more important for the Generals than the C-in-C. I trust Giuliani and Romney (and McCain) to stay vigilant.
McCain has a wild look in his eyes. I don’t want him anywhere near the button.
What CCFK is trying to say: “Republicans suck, they have no chance. Heil Democrats!”
Really Voodoo Daddy? You’re trying to put words in my mouth again? Remember what happened when you claimed you knew that I blamed Romney for the Big Dig Tunnel tragedy? I’m amazed that you can still talk after I handed your head to you.
It is unclear how you come to the conclusion that I am saying Republicans suck and have no chance but then again logic has never been your strong suit has it? I was talking specifically about Romney’s and Giuliani’s prospects in the Iowa caucus, which, by definition, one candidate will have to win. Republicans really would suck and have no chance if one of them couldn’t win the Iowa Republican caucus now wouldn’t they?
I’m not certain how Giuliani and Romney might fare nationally (Giuliani would do better than Romney is my guess) but since the likelihood that either of them will get the chance on the national stage given the primary/caucus system is slim, I’m not going to put too much thought into it.
In any case, as a native Iowan who was involved for many years in politics there and spent four years studying voter behavior, especially Iowa and its caucuses, I think I have a decent sense of what plays in Iowa and what doesn’t. Romney and Giuliani will not fare well in Iowa for a host of reasons. Giuliani’s personal baggage will likely be too much for him to overcome and, at the end of the day, Romney is a Mormon which will probably keep enough of the evangelicals away from him after his opponents start letting slip what Mormons really believe. It isn’t fair to Romney, but that’s life. McCain doesn’t have those issues. It is as simple as that. Chuck Hagel would also play well in Iowa.
I’m not sure if you saw the Iowa results from the last election Voodoo Daddy, but when a moderate like Jim Leach gets voted out, it is difficult to see how an even harder tack to the right is going to play out. I know, I know, you guys all believe that the last election will allow Republicans to return to “true conservative principles” but I’m not certain that making one’s appeal less broad will translate into electoral success.
Last election: the Republicans had conservative talking points but had acted like liberals for the past few years. The liberals had conservative talking points and (in the swing eostates) no prior history.
So…yeah, conservative ideas are winning elections. The Republicans showed that they had lost touch, and most of them deserved to lose. I’m sure you could go too far right, but–in light of who won the last election–being a strong conservative isn’t a bad plan.
btw, if the Democrats actually stick to the conservative ideas that the freshmen won with, the Dems certainly do have a good chance of holding onto power (I don’t believe the leadership will follow such a plan, but it would probably work).
> So…yeah, conservative ideas are winning
> elections. The Republicans showed that they had
> lost touch, and most of them deserved to lose.
> I’m sure you could go too far right, but–in
> light of who won the last election–being a
> strong conservative isn’t a bad plan.
Yeah, Republicans definitely lost touch, but the fact that ‘conservative’ democrats one is one of the big lies of this election.
Its true in a few places – red state Indiana, Heath Schuler in NC, and Tx (delay’s old district), but that’s about it (that’s 5 seats, I think).
The Dem who won the Louisville, Ky district was opposed by the DCCC in the primary because we was ‘too liberal’. Certainly Chris Murphy and Joe Courtney were not ‘conservative’ in Ct, nor were Hodes or Shea-Porter in NH (Shea-Porter was the woman kicked out for wearing an anti-Bush t-shirt to a Bush town meeting or something a few years ago).
The victories in California, Fl, and NY were mostly progressive, grassroot Dems.
Of the ~20 new Dem congressmen, 5 or so are mostly conservative.
Turning to the Senate, Whitehouse in RI is no conservative, neither was Brown (Oh) or Klobuchar (Mn). Casey in Pa is pro-life, but that’s about it.
That leaves us with Webb and Tester. They are not liberal, but to call them conservative is even less accurate. They were both favorites (including in the primaries) of the grassroots, net roots, and progressive movements (i.e. DailyKos, etc). They are economic populists, privacy libertarian, and socially moderate-to-moderate-conservative.
Tester, at a televise debate, was accused of wanting to weaken the PATRIOT act. His response was “no, I want to repeal it.” That’s a conservative (libertarian yes, conservative no)?
None of this gives the Democratic leadership the ability to raise taxes across the board and declare gay marriage across the country (not that most of them want to do that anyway – Democrats have said “middle class” about every other sentence this election).
But there is wide spread support for things like minimum raise increases, allowing medicare to bargain for lower drug prices for seniors, starting to do something about health care in this county, focusing more on privacy (i.e. illegal, warrantless, FISA-less wiretapping). All of which not only Republicans, but conservatives generally oppose.
We’re looking at economic populism and social libertarianism (which is not anti-gay marriage, but more about let people do what they want) that came out of this election.
The idea that most or even many of the new congressional dems are conservative just does not hold up after a detailed look.
fredct, the fact that Dems ran conservatives candidates is no secret. That was a specific strategy of Rahm Emanuel who is being called the architect of the Dem’s house takeover… so i wouldn’t try to write that off when it’s not something even the Dem leaders are denying.
For someone so concerned about the misuse of “socialist” you don’tseem to have much of a handle on “conservative”. And I should clarify: the Dems conservative platforms weren’t as conservative as the Reps. version. But they were conservative, and the Dems still had credibility. If the Dems had run to the nutroots left, then voters would have had a tough choice.
But, scratch that, you’re right all around. It was the progressive, grassy, netty, rootsy that got elected in a landslide. Keep believing that. Cut out anyone–like Lieberman–who doesn’t conform to the nutroots. Please.
> fredct, the fact that Dems ran conservatives
> candidates is no secret. That was a specific
> strategy of Rahm Emanuel who is being called the
> architect of the Dem’s house takeover…
Rahm did a good job, but he was hardly the architecture – another story line that the press picked up on which doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.
Rahm = DCCC. The DCCC opposed the person in the primary who won the Louisville, Ky seat, as I first said. They also opposed both the people who picked up the NH seats, and spent millions on losses such as Tammy Duckworth in Illinois, and several others.
None of which is to say that Rahm and the DCCC did a bad job. But Rahm’s more conservative strategy worked in some places (red state Indiana), and failed in others, and was beaten by a more progressive strategy in yet still more places.
Rahm had a hand in it, so did Schumer and the DSCC, so did Dean and the DNC, so did the grassroots and netroots.
Yes, I did indeed acknowledge that there were *some* conservative Dems that won, no doubt. And that the Dem leadership by no means has a mandate to shift hard left on social issues, nor raise taxes across the board (not that they even want to). But as I said above, the vast majority of victories were still not conservative Dems.
Of the 6 Senate seats, 3 were quite liberal picks ups, 3 were moderate (I’d be open to calling Casey conservative as I don’t know enough about him). Of the 30 house seats, no more than 5 to 10 can be at all categorized as conservative.
That doesn’t mean that Rahm & the DCCC’s conservative strategy didn’t play a part. It did. But its just a part of the story, and not *the* story, as some wish to make it.
> For someone so concerned about the misuse of
> “socialist” you don’t seem to have much of a
> handle on “conservative”
conservative = ‘hands off’ economics, hands on social issues
liberal = hands on economics, hands off social issues
libertarian = hands off economics and social issues
That’s the traditional definition, and the way I was using it here. I’d be more than happy to hear if you take any issue with that usage, either generally or candidate-by-candidate.
> If the Dems had run to the nutroots left, then
> voters would have had a tough choice.
That’s the thing with the strawman again. Netroots/grassroots/progressive are much more about connecting with candidates and making them accountable to communities of supporters, rather than to big donors (both on the left -unions, etc – and right – corporations generally, etc).
Sure, the big factors do tend to be liberal, but that doesn’t mean that the candidates they support are ‘moonbats’ as you would probably say. Tester and Webb – who you would probably argue are conservative (and I would say are moderate) – got big pushes from the netroots. Starting way back before their respective primaries.
You want to say that they’re ‘conservative’ and then say that the people who supported them are “nutroots.” Can’t really have that both ways.
Ah yes, success has a thousand fathers and the netroots are responsible for all the wins. How’d that thing with whatshisname in Connecticut go?
Don’t you think it’s skating awfully close to tautology to say that the netroots are about making candidates accountible to the electorate and thus, whenever any candidate approved by said roots gets elected, the rooters rule for themselves an assist?
The netroots did get some bonafide wins: Webb, for example. Except, of course, he’s far closer to the center than the Kossacks.
You certainly didn’t get “conservative” right; you’ve only defined the Republican religious right, the preferred outrage of online liberals. That betrays a foreshortened perspective. Some distance, a second point of view (maybe actually read some WFB perhaps?) would give you a clearer understanding of the ideas you live to criticize.
> You certainly didn’t get “conservative” right;
> you’ve only defined the Republican religious
> right, the preferred outrage of online liberals.
I actually went for both the economic (business conservatives) and the social (religious rights) parts of the Republican party. However, what I said (hands off economics and hands on social issues) is your general high school history and government/poli sci 101 definition of ‘conservative’.
I personally part from many on the left when they think the loss of conservative connection wasn’t the issue in this election. I think it was much of it, and that if Republicans can get back to a focus on small government and other economic conservative issues – and find a way to win back credibility on said issues – that would be a big help for them.
Anyway, if you feel that that my definition is too simplistic, just generally not applicable to today, or something else, I’d be very interested in hearing your perspective on what it means. Twice so far how you’ve said i got it wrong without offering a correction. I’m interested, what do you think it means today?
Andy wrote:
Nice try…
The Democrats won overwhelmingly with progressive-centrist candidates like Webb, Tester, Ritter, Whitehouse, Perlmutter, Harry Mitchell, Bernie Sanders, Jerry McNerny, and Sherrod Brown –all pro-choice, pro-labor, pro-social security, pro-strong multilateral defense. Heck, Jim Webb explicitly opposed VA’s gay marriage ban (the most conservative Dem Senate candidate –Harold Ford, Jr.– was the one who lost).
Not only did Dem’s defeat prominent far-right Republicans like JD Hayworth, Dick Pombo, Ken Blackwell, George Allen, Rick Santorum and Conrad Burns with these more progressive candidates, they didn’t lose one single House or Senate seat to the GOP!
The American people flatly rejected right-wing Republican conservatism (which is distinctly different from real conservatism).
The American people don’t want Social Security dismantled through privatization, don’t want to criminalize abortion, don’t want to subsidize Big Oil with corporate welfare, don’t want stem cell research banned, and don’t want a bunch of ignorant, Big Gubbamint right-wing fanatics interfering in their private family lives like the Repubicans did to Terri Schiavo.
Most importantly, Americans want serious decisions about going to war made by honest, serious leaders –not the right-wing ideologues and extremists who lied our country into the Iraq quagmire.
Today’s far-right Republican party is no longer a true conservative party. It has degenerated into a reactionary, mostly Southern, White Evangelical interest group.
Sal,
Bernie Sanders isn’t a Democrat, he’s a Socialist at least he’s ballsy enough to tell us what he really is, unlike the rest of y’all
EaNo Clipper wrote:
Uh, no, Bernie Sanders is a registered Independent who describes himself as a democratic socialist. Sanders was endorsed for US Senate by Chuck Schumer, Harry Reid and the DNC because he’s always caucused with Democrats in the House and pledged to do so in the Senate.
Sanders trounced his Republican opponent Dick Tarrant by a 2 to 1 margin for the seat previously held by Republican Jim Jeffords –another centrist who was driven out of the GOP by the right-wing whackdoodles who have taken it over.
Face facts: Dem’s gave the right-wing Republicans a “thumpin’” with progressive-centrist candidates. The GOP will never be competitive again until it moves back to the center and abandons all the Religious Right gobbledeygook
And since you brought-up Socialism, Ea Bo, let me ask you a serious question… Given that George W. Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress:
1. Created the largest government entitlement program in 50 years with the Medicare Drug Benefit;
2. Enacted government regulations prohibiting states from free market negotiation of drug prices directly with drug companies;
3. Enacted the largest government agriculture Subsidies since WWII;
4. Awarded millions in no-bid government contracts for Iraq, rather than via free market competition;
5. Wracked-up more in discretionary government spending than LBJ did during the “Great Society” years;
6. Spent millions of taxpayer dollars on government funding of churches and religious groups;
7. Convened a special session of Congress to pass a one-time federal law interfering in the most private decision of a single American citizen –Michael Schiavo;
8. Established new federal regulations (and one presidential veto) prohibiting embryonic stem cell research;
9. Spent hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars and natural resources on Corporate Welfare.
10. Expanded the size of federal government (including the first new cabinet level department in 60 years) after it had decreased during the Clinton presidency…
Do George W. Bush and the Republicans who approved these actions meet your definition of “Socialists?” If not, why not?