Recently, columnist David Frum stated:
2012 is shaping up as an all-out battle between big donors and local activists, with the big donors coalesced around Romney and the local activists increasingly desperately shopping for somebody – anybody – else.
Others have phrased it differently . . . that Romney’s become “The Establishment” candidate, while many strong conservatives are looking for an “Anti-Establishment” candidate to rally around. Having seen this narrative develop over the last couple years has been both interesting and confusing to me, especially in light of what transpired in the 2008 GOP primary.
John McCain was the Establishment candidate last cycle, with Mitt running as a Washington outsider. Mitt even was viewed by most as “the Conservative Alternative” to McCain. Mitt garnered the endorsements of most conservative pundits, power-brokers, and politicians. Just a preliminary list included Sen Jim DeMint (SC), Sen. Judd Gregg (NH), Ann Coulter, James Bopp Jr., Sen. Orrin Hatch (UT), Judge Robert Bork, Sean Hannity, David Keene (Chariman of the American Conservatives Union), Paul Weyrich (founder of The Heritage Foundation), Bay Buchanan, Bob Jones III, Sen. Thad Cochran (MS), Laura Ingraham, Sen. Wayne Allard (CO), Rush Limbaugh, Rep. Marsha Blackburn (TN), Rick Santorum, Mark Levin, Rep Connie Mack IV (FL), Hugh Hewitt, Jay Sekulow, William Bennett, Lars Larson, Sherriff Joe Arpaio (R-AZ), Dennis Prager, Ross Perot, and Glenn Beck . . . an impressive list that serves as a “Who’s Who” of the conservative community.
By most accounts, McCain was not a good nominee for the GOP and did not run a particularly effective campaign. Others argue that no GOP nominee could have beat Obama under the circumstances of “Bush Fatigue” and a crashing economy. Whatever the reason, “The Establishment” woke up after the terrible losses of 2008 and realized that running a moderate DC insider with “get along” politics is no way to win the presidency (a la Bob Dole, John Kerry, and Al Gore to name just a few). There was quite a bit of “wish we would have nominated Romney” feeling going around at the time.
What happened is that “The Establishment” wisened up and moved it’s support for this cycle to the right of McCain by gravitating towards DC-Outsider Mitt Romney. But in a knee-jerk and rather childish reaction to mounting establishment support for Romney, many anti-establishment types (I’m looking at you Talk Radio and conservative blogsites like HotAir and RedState!!) have thereby rejected Romney due to said establishment support. It’s as if they’re saying:
“We cannot support any candidate that has the support of ‘The Establishment.’ We don’t care that he’s never worked in DC, that he’s too rich to be bought by lobbyists, that he’s the strongest candidate to match up with Obama (as poll after poll shows), nor that we supported him in 2008 and that he hasn’t done anything since that time to become ‘less conservative.” By darn, if ’The Establishment’ likes him, we cannot accept him and we KNOW that SOMETHING must be wrong with him! (we’ll get back to you when we finally figure out what that ‘something’ is.)”
Now, some will be quick to say that the big difference this time is “RomneyCare” . . . that Mitt proved that he’s no true conservative because that legislation included an “individual mandate” on purchasing health insurance. Oh, you mean that law that was crafted in 2004-5 and passed in 2006 with the support of The Heritage Foundation and loads of conservatives and was the topic of discussion in the debates leading up to the 2008 election? The RomneyCare that didn’t seem to hamper your support and endorsement of him last time? Excuse me while I scratch my head for a while . . .
Observers have seen this anti-establishment community jump around in their preferred candidate between Sarah Palin, Chris Christie, and have even seen some flirtations with Donald Trump, Michelle Bachmann, and Mitch Daniels (the latter is ironically much more of a DC insider and “establishment” guy than Mitt ever was). Tim Pawlenty hasn’t seemed to catch on with hardly anyone, but many have him at the back of their minds just in case none of these other “anti-establishment” candidates pan out. It’s almost as if they know that broad-based support will eventually coalesce around Romney, but that they just can’t bring themselves to get on board yet because of pride. That they’re instead pimping and pumping up ANYBODY else they can think of in order to put off the inevitable time when they’ll have to swallow their pride and get back on the Romney train.
Yes, there’s no doubt that the needle has been moved to the right over the past four years. But there is no logical reason that Romney should not have the strong support from the conservative community that he enjoyed last time. Those orchestrating these machinations are being both prideful and disingenuous.
Jeff has been blogging for Romney since living in Iowa in 2006, when, as a physician, he was drawn to study Romney’s MA healthcare reform plan. A native of California, Jeff now claims to be a proud southern transplant (he currently lives and practices as a vitreoretinal surgeon in Birmingham with his wife and six kids) having lived in Georgia, Alabama, and Louisiana for nearly all of the last 15 years. His recent hobby is doing triathlons, having completed his first (and only) Ironman Triathlon this past May.
I disagree with your premise. I also believe that any article starting with a David Frum quote will be hard to bring back to some degree of intelligence. I think Mr. Romney has several problems that keep people from wanting to gravitate to him.
The first is the Massachusetts health care law. I knew many conservatives who were citing that law as reason not to support him in 2007 and 2008. References to the Heritage Foundation and anything else were irrelevant to them. They were not going to vote for Mitt Romney because he supported “socialized medicine” in Massachusetts.
The second is abortion. These same people can cite all kinds of statements that Mr. Romney made nominally in support of abortion prior to his 2008 campaign beginning. They aren’t interested in explanations or the possibility that he changed his mind. To them, he was just saying whatever the base wanted to hear in order to be nominated.
The third is the Second Amendment. While Mr. Romney ran in Massachusetts on the promise not to change anything about gun laws, different statements he made over the years were cited as evidence that he wasn’t a Second Amendment supporter. Anything he said in support of the Second Amendment in 2007 or 2008 was considered to be insincere political promises to win the nomination. Even in the first few debates, he didn’t handle Second Amendment questions as well as I would have liked.
The fourth is religion. Many people have grown up learning that Mormonism is a cult and have invested a great deal of time and energy into believing that position. To support a GOP presidential nominee who is a Mormon would force them either to admit that they were wrong or to say that they were supporting a cult member for our nation’s highest office. Many people who were actually swayed by this issue hid behind the first three issues to justify their opposition to Mr. Romney.
The fifth is wealth. Many people consider anyone with that much money to be part of “The Establishment” regardless of anything else. No matter how hard Mr. Romney worked for that money, his having that money made him “not one of us.”
The sixth is family. Mr. Romney’s father may have gone from rags to riches. Mr. Romney may remember humble times as a child. However, he still comes from a family that is big in GOP politics. Coming from that kind of family makes him part of “The Establishment” in some ways.
The seventh is education. Harvard and Yale are some of this nation’s oldest schools, and they’ve produced plenty of presidents. We’ve had a Harvard or Yale graduate in the White House for over twenty years now. To folks who went to state universities, community colleges, and trade schools, a Harvard or Yale degree makes someone part of “The Establishment.”
The eighth problem is still the management versus employee gap. Mr. Romney is saying the right things about compassion for people who have lost jobs. He’s even saying the right things about removing government barriers to business in this country being competitive. However, he still comes across as a management type who will move the jobs to China if that move means the most for the bottom line. The management type always seems to be part of “The Establishment.”
The ninth problem is around passion and specifics. He says that we need to get tough with China on the value of their currency and intellectual property protection, but he doesn’t give specifics. He doesn’t come across as being as tough or as passionate about the issue as Donald Trump does. In all of his statements, he has such an aversion to tariffs that we don’t see him using this tool if necessary to deal with the problem. Donald Trump comes out and says that he’ll slap a tariff on Chinese goods if a tariff is necessary to make the Chinese play fair. I don’t trust Donald Trump, but he’s saying the right things on the trade issue. He probably has a good reason for holding back, but holding back makes him appear to be part of “The Establishment.”
Even in 2008, many people saw Mr. Romney as “The Establishment.” He wasn’t in Washington, but he was still considered an insider because of his wealth and social standing. He’s not going to escape that perception. He’s going to be rich, white, and good-looking as long as he’s healthy enough to run for office. Right now, plenty of people see that image as being part of the problem. They see people who have tried to cultivate that image as the people who have created the leviathan government that we have today.
That’s why so many people are seeking candidates like Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, and Allen West. They are stuck on the image issue, and these guys don’t project the image of the consummate politician like the images of those who got us into this mess. If we look at substance, none of them are as likely to do what must be done as Mr. Romney is, but they don’t “look like” the people who got us into this mess. For those who just want symbolism rather than substance, touting Trump/West, Christie/West, or Christie/Rubio is much easier than thinking about the situation that we really face.
For those who think about substance, there is still a search for someone who has the substantive qualifications to be president but doesn’t have the image that Mr. Romney does. Mitch Daniels is proof that if you’re short enough and bald enough, you won’t seem like “The Establishment” even with degrees from Princeton and Georgetown and having broken into politics as a member of Richard Lugar’s staff. Tim Pawlenty’s father was a truck driver and not a governor. After twenty years of Ivy League presidents, a University of Minnesota graduate has appeal to many people. For those who want a “The Mighty Ducks go to Washington” story, he has tremendous appeal. However, his generally mild manner and conventional looks give him the same “looks like” problem that Mr. Romney has. He’s not the conservative tough guy that many Republicans want.
Ultimately, I think Mr. Romney will get past these problems. Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee will probably realize that they gain nothing by running. Donald Trump either won’t run or will be knocked down in the vetting process. Michele Bachmann will get many of the frustrated conservative votes. She raises money well enough to stay in the race for a while. Mitch Daniels will get some support from college students, but he won’t raise that much money or do well enough to get that much attention. Newt Gingrich has too much baggage. He can raise enough to stay in the race for a bit, but he’ll quit when the votes obviously aren’t there. If Tim Pawlenty does well, he’ll position himself to be VP and be the frontrunner for 2016 if the worst happens and Obama stays in office.
In the general election, Mr. Romney will lose some votes because he is seen as “The Establishment.” I hope most of those votes will be in states where the GOP either can’t win or can’t lose. He’s currently ahead of Obama in Michigan. He should be able to take back Nevada. He has a good chance of winning New Hampshire. He’s within margin of error in North Carolina. I think he’s close in Florida, but I don’t remember. If he chooses Jim Talent as a running mate, he should pick up Missouri and might even have an inside track on Iowa. If he picks Tim Pawlenty, he’d have a chance at Minnesota and Iowa. He plays well in the West, so maybe he gets Colorado back in the GOP column as well. We still have to win Ohio and Florida, but Mr. Romney gives us a chance to win.
Reagan by these measures would not be able to win the nomination today.
I think Mitt Romney has been given a very raw deal and he is perceived as a RINO, which I know is ridiculous as he worked hard to get many tea party and conservative Republicans in office in the 2010 midterm. I think Mitt Romney could really bring his campaign into high gear by considering Allen West as his running mate. I know he is well ahead in most polls already for the Florida primary and in New Hampshire. He should win Iowa as well because I just don’t see Huckabee going through the grind again this time. I think Mitt Romney really should start going on the attack on Obama on drilling, the falling dollar and continue on the economy. He should really start saying over and over that gasoline was $1.87 a gallon when Obama came into office and start doing townhall meetings and take a page out of Ross Perot but instead of physical charts do the high tech way bringing large screens and showing video and have his campaign put together impressive presentations showing the people why Mitt is a real conservative but one who has proven he can get votes all across the Political spectrum. He should also emphasize the fact that he has the organization, the best name recognition and the wisdom from the hindsight of a 2008 run.
Further emphasizing that never in the history of this country has a GOP candidate came out and won the nomination on the first run for President without tremendous name recognition. The Democrats do it almost every time they win because the leftist media builds them up and makes their image. The GOP canididates do not have that luxury actually quite the opposite they have to fight against the media every step of the way. That is why in the history of our nation never has a GOP candidate won the nomination without substantial name recognition, big resources, a big in place organization. They either had to either already be the V.P. a son of a President or a household name like President Eisenhower. But all of the last 3 Democratic Presidents were all largely unknown before their run for President.
Please participate in my Presidential poll at http://www.saywhatyoureallymean.blogspot.com
Marilyn, Ronald Reagan did have to run twice to win his Party’s nomination as he was beaten by Gerald Ford for the Republican nomination who ended up losing to Jimmy Carter.
Bruce, romney ran and was beaten by McCain, who ended up losing to Obama.
good point.
Yes, but I am referring to Reagan being the Governor of a liberal state, and some of the positions he took while Governor were not necessarily conservative. In a way, he “grew into” it.
I don’t want any promises that would tie the president’s hands, like Grover Norquists’ no taxes pledge. Back in the day, Reagan raised taxes and saved social security.
What I want, more than anything, is for somebody with integrity who is willing to go against the doctrine of the party line, and at least try to keep his word. Like Ron Paul for instance. He doesn’t change a position just because it’s unpopular or because he’s challenged on it.
I want somebody who is not going to go off the deep end, like Paul Ryan with his budget.
I don’t think we need to look like Communist China, in order to compete with China.
@Bill
Bill, while it is true that no politician has holes and/or gaps in their records or conservative credentials, some of the things you list for Mitt are perplexing.
You list his Family background, his Wealth, his top-flight education, AND his management experience as four independent “weaknesses” in your post. These are Mitt’s bread and butter credentials my friend! There are some people that view an Ivy Leauge education with suspicion and as a detriment . . . but history has shown that these people are in the major minority as nearly all our Presidents have such a background. It doesn’t appear to have impaired them and it is definitely a big net plus by nearly all standards. I guess if the goal is to be the most “main street, normal-folk” candidate then what you list could have some credence. But that is not the goal in my book. It’s about COMPETENCE and EXPERIENCE and Romney’s the man!
Very good post. I think you are absolutely right about the talking heads being addicted to being perceived as “cool.” The fun part will be as they watch normal American conservative voters – the majority of their audience – do the conservative thing and vote for “the uncool” – Romney. That will be funny to watch. Because the “cool” talkers will be then find themselves revealed to be typical media narcissists – i.e. typical media “establishment” types! – rather than the “spokesman for the common man” they like to present themselves as.
And Bill’s long analysis is dead on as well. But the superficial perception of Romney he posits is not as ingrained in the average serious voter as it is the “establishment” talking head hipster types that are flying so high these days.
These talking-head hipster conseravatives are also subconsciously terrified that their careers will suffer – their ratings will nosedive – once a serious conservative leader like Mitt Romney is hogging all the airspace with real policies that will be making news – and probably making conservatives quite happy. Hence the anger quotient will be gone as will the ratings and careers of many of our current media savants. They know that supporting Romney now will also advance the date that they become boring, so they’ll try to pretend interest in whoever they can find who is not Romney until the inevitable happens.
It’s been funny watching Levin squirm around this situation. Last night he finally realized he had to put some names on his “true conservative” candidate. It was becoming a glaring ommision, as no one could figure out who on earth he was supposed to be thinking was so great. He was forced to say “Bachman” (who he “thought had been a tax litigator or something” and Santorum. That pretty much said it all!
Thoe other funny thing is they also know that Romney probably doesn’t want their support untill the crux moment comes – very late in the game. If he even needs it by then. So by not being able to bring themselves to support him now, they must ruefully have to admit to themselves that they are playing right into his hands. (He wants the middle’s support right now – not the “right-wing talkers nut jobs” as the middle and the left-media perceives them – not me). So they are in a double squirm position thanks to Romney! By not supporting him they are actually helping him. And it’s killing them that he’s probably laughing at their cowardice and reaping it’s benefits as well!
Jeff, I was thinking along those lines as well–credentials. If Bill, who makes his points well, thinks establishment is a bad thing, than the opposite of that would be that populists are good. But populism is not leadership. Populism is studying the direction of the crowd and than jumping in front and convincing the crowd you will take them where they want to go. That is not leadership, not the kind of thing Romney is known for.
Romney is a data cruncher, he is studious and a gatherer of information. He learns for himself the right direction and then speaks about the way forward. He is a born leader.
You can call that establishment if you want. Its certainly what I expect from my president. Not the reluctance born of ignorance, incompetence, and politics shown by Obama who can’t bring himself to choose a direction if he fears it will be unpopular.
I think Romney’s terrific and I cannot wait for the debates between him and Obama on the issues.
Here is a link to an article I found interesting, but even more interesting were some of the comments.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-presidential-primary/157877-mitt-romneys-primary-problem-
Any person using MassHealth as the reason for writing Mitt off as a liberal needs to look honestly at what he accomplished there and equally important, how he did it. Jeff, you’ve laid this out at length so I won’t go into it again but essentially he offered a free market based solution to providing health coverage to all Mass residents. He arrived to the end product by garnering broad based support from both sides of the aisle and getting outside advice from other sources, namely, THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION. Just comparing his approach to the solution with Pres. Obama’s is a considerable difference, Mitt getting broad based support, Obama jamming it through against the will of the majority of americans during a recession.
@Jeff
Jeff,
The points I listed and you mentioned specifically are not weaknesses exactly, but they are reasons why Mr. Romney is seen as part of “The Establishment.” He’s not going to escape from that perception.
The Ivy League education is a not a particular strength. The last president we had without an Ivy League education was Ronald Reagan who was also our best president in a long time. As the American people look for someone who isn’t like the ones who created this mess, they are likely to look for someone who didn’t go to an Ivy League university.
I’m not saying that I see these issues as major weaknesses. I am saying that these are the objections that I hear when I talk to conservatives about Mr. Romney. These are issues that people bring up when they talk of him as an “Establishment” candidate. Even the ones who are nice about their objections say that he’s just too much of an “old school” politician to fix the problems that we face today. I disagree, but that’s the perception that we are fighting.
Reagan has to run twice to win the presidency and became the great president of the US that beat the cold war because the republican didn’t see his leadership at the first time as the republican didn’t see Mitt leadership last election either,so this time Reagan Jr (Mitt) had come back to replace the Carter Jr.(Obama) and so the war of terrorist will be defeat by Mitt leadership and his character. Reagan won the cold war and the communist by his character,his strength,his leadership and his star war so only Mitt has Reagan leadership style,Reagan strength,Reagan character,and Mitt experienced in the economy will lead America for prosperity and America will lead the world,because the world will respect his leadership and his own character,he look like a great president and he speaks like a power full leader, he speech like a terrific person,Mitt is a high value leader for America,he loves America more than Obama,Obama is laughing attacking America around the world because he is living in his father dream that a Kenya visitor son is riding on the neck of a greatest nation in the world,only Mitt can beat Obama by landslide in 2012, because Mitt is a national leader,and he is a world leader too.
And what perception of Barack Obahma did the voters have of him in 2008????? Boy were they ever wrong!!!! Need I say more! Mr. Romney IS the right GOP candidate for 2012! Let the 2012 games begin!
Great writing Jeff! The response by Bill is silly and full of non-important information. Are we going to split our votes and lose again? Or, are we going to rally around the very best candidate in a very long time and take our country back? This election is too critical to have people like Bill spewing their silly garbage which will only lead to the utter destruction of our country. It’s time we ALL grow up. Mitt Romney is the ONE candidate that can get our country back on track before it’s too late. MITT ROMNEY 2012!
Steady on David, don’t be so critical of a fellow Mitt fan. Bill identifies some valid points regarding some peoples perceptions and challenges that Mitt may face. However I am confident that with the benefit of previous campaigns, Mitt and and his advisors will deal with these perceptions if they become enough of an issue to detract from his message.
DavidinLouisiana,
I’ve spoken the truth. I’m sorry that you are too stupid to understand.
Many points in Mr. Romney’s present and past will link him to what people see as “The Establishment.” Trying to pretend that these aspects of his life won’t cause that link is foolish. If you, Jeff, and others persist in trying to deny the obvious, you are dooming your campaign. Trying to deny the obvious to pander to some perceived “anti-Establishment” trend only reinforces the impression that some people have of Mr. Romney as someone who flip-flops to get votes. Even with these obvious links to what many people see as “The Establishment,” Mr. Romney is popular with many in the Tea Party movement. Trying to argue against that label is silly. The point should be that his experiences make him the right candidate regardless of what label he might have.
I’ve been in many situations where I’ve taken a great deal of criticism for defending Mr. Romney. Jeff’s commentary here makes him sound like someone who either hasn’t heard the criticisms I’ve tried to fight or someone who just doesn’t listen. I offer what I’ve heard in an attempt to help Mr. Romney’s allies understand the weaknesses that must be overcome. If MRC is full of people who don’t care, that’s fine.
[edited by Moderator]
Simmer down, fellas. We all have our opinions… no need to get hostile (especially to fellow Mitt-fans). Please maintain respect for one another or commenting privileges will be removed.
Bill, your analysis was a thoughtful and cogent argument. Thanks. I believe that perception is the key to winning, and Romney will need to work to overcome those negative perceptions. I believe that can be done by emphasizing his history, especially as it relates to his family, background, and successes.
Seriously Bill, a few pages less next time to make a comment?
Thanks Jeff, great post!
I am so pro-Mitt that I still display the “Mitt” mitt in my front yard. But he needs to change his tactic a bit. He’s trying to hang back, be the reasonable person, not attacking anyone else. Well, we need a fight, and people will respond to a fighter. I’d like to see Mitt come out stronger, come out swinging, talking about Obama not as a nice guy with bad policies, but as a totally incompetent president who must, must, must be removed. It would be nice if Mitt would address the Trump problem as well. Can someone who is close to Mitt pass my concerns along?
Sorry to Team MRC, But David in Louisiana is RIGHT!! We have to stick by the ONLY candidate that can beat Obama and that is MITT ROMNEY!!! HE is so presidential already and knows everything that needs to be done for this country and doing it with grace, diligence and the will of the American people!! Donald Trump, Michelle Bachman , Tim Pawlenty, Newt Gingrich, Mitch Daniels or even Rick Santorum, Get real! These candidates cannot even hold a candle to what Mitt can and WILL do for this wonderful country that is going down the toilet right now! HE IS the ONLY one out there to do the job that Needs to be done! And, if WE AL want our country back the way it was founded to be then WE ALL must Stand behind MITT for 2012!!!
I find it very hard to allow any credence when one criticizes anyone where one of the reasons for not voting for him is his religion. All other issues are fair game although I severely disagree with Bill on all of his premises. Mormons have been known to be very patriotic and have served well in all wars. They have been very generous in providing aide to millions of people worldwide. They are among the most sincere believers in the gospel of Jesus Christ. Mr. Romney is a High Priest in our Church holding several prominent positions. He has provided many acts of Christian charity that he does not trumpet about like some would do. All in all, this is a very good man who lives the gospel of Jesus Christ in a very commendable way. Let’s put aside the religion issue and focus on his qualities as a President of the United States.
Big Chief Likes Romney feels like he needs to work on connecting with voters because many voters throw out logic, reason, and common sense and vote based on how they feel
Mark,
If you don’t have the attention span to read my comments, then don’t.
Laura,
I’m trying to explain the difficulties we will have in persuading people to vote for Mr. Romney. All of the issues I raised are issues that I’ve faced when trying to persuade people that Mr. Romney is the best candidate. Some of these things cannot be changed, and trying to pretend that the perception problem doesn’t exist won’t win any votes. If we can’t change the fact and can’t change how people feel about those facts, then we have to show them that other factors outweigh that fact. If you think that attacking me for raising issues that Mr. Romney’s supporters will face is the right thing to do, one of us on the wrong forum.
Jeff,
I didn’t intend for either of my posts to you to be a personal attack. I disagree with your premise that Mr. Romney isn’t a “Establishment” candidate. To me, that’s not a big deal if a candidate is the best man for the job. I had hoped that I could explain my disagreements in a thoughtful and civil way. I still don’t see anything in my posts that could be taken as an attack and don’t apologize for raising differences of opinion. I am sorry if you took my posts as a personal attack.
All,
If you just want a forum where people can mindlessly cheerlead one another in two sentence posts, I’m happy to say good-bye. I like to have serious discussions about the issues and candidates that this country is facing. If I’m in the wrong place for that kind of discussion, I’m happy to move on.
Bill
To those who’ve been supportive or even politely disagreed, thanks for you kind words and intelligent conversation.
Bill
http://www.economyincrisis.org/
In the first quarter of 2011, U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) only increased by 1.8 percent, vastly down from the 3.1 percent of growth in the last quarter of 2010.
U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk says that the administration is ready to move forward on not just three stalled free trade agreements left over from the Bush administration, but the White House’s entire trade agenda.
If an enemy infiltrated our government and wanted to destroy us, this is the type of agreement they would want approved – the new Korean Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA).
Meanwhile, the G.O.P. house representatives are attempting to “muddy the waters” over their medicare privatization plans. As far as I’m concerned, they are morally and ethically bankrupt, borderline sociopaths for attempting such deceptions. Seniors have caught on, and they are NOT happy.
I’d rather choose a cult member if that guy is sincere enough to die of what he stands and believes for…
Bill,
I am fine with looking for weaknesses in order to fix them. I find most of the weaknesses you listed to be exaggerations. Let’s take the first one, for example. That is completely false. There were a handful of conservatives that complained about RomneyCare in 2008. Most either praised the plan or didn’t pay any attention to it. The idea that there was a large group of conservatives in 2008 upset about RomneyCare (which has carried over to this year) is just not true. I have other problems with some of the things you listed, but I will leave it at that.
Let’s look for our weaknesses, but lets not exaggerate to get there. Romney has some things he can improve. There are things that we as supporters can help to overcome. Exaggerating weaknesses will just turn into making excuses. There is no need to explain away a loss, because it isn’t going to happen.
I really believe that Mitt is playing this campaign just right. Already, people are dismissing Donald Trump as being a narcissistic blowhard that does not have enough discretion to be the President of the United States. Michelle Bachman does not have the gravitas to bring enough support or money to run an effective campaign. Newt Gingrich already has money problems in getting his campaign started. Mike Huckabee is sitting on the fence debating whether he should leave his cushy job with Fox News or run a bruising campaign that he might not win and leave him broke. Pawlenty does not seem to get off the ground as well as the other candidates. We already know that Ron Paul will have his fringe following that will leave him in single digits as far as the percentages go. If Mitt just waits long enough, he may very well be the last man standing. Everyone else will just fizzle out.
I agree with all Bill has shared. In 2008 I supported McCain. I liked Romney but simply did not follow him.
Look at McCain v Obama….qualifications….. It makes me sick.
Forget about donations. Obama had billions of dollars in free advertisements via NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, and hundreds of newspapers.
Early last year I read Mitt’s book. It is very informative. As someone who leans tea party it would be very easy to pull for Bachmann or any of the other fresh faces that can not win. I like Romney because we need a capitalist and LEADER for POTUS. I support Romney and have no second choice. I believe Romney will be our next President.
We, as Mitt supporters need to have honest conversations prior to Mitt going against Obama.
The VP debate in 2008 was hosted by someone who wrote a positive book about Obama that was released shortly after the election. THAT is what we are up against.
Bill has been on here for some time and while I will not pretend to read his mind, I am certain he wants to believe in Mitt.
President Obama has produced two, yes TWO, socialist supreme court justices. Lets look at Mitt with an open mind now.
I bounced around but the bottom line is lets get it out in the open now because we have darn near the perfect candidate and owe it to him
MRC is a great place to share ideas. I will keep sharing. Sean GO MITT 2012 !!
Bill, one of the indicators of a compelling argument or persuasive writer is concision. Please internalize that prior to your next comment. Thanks.
Sorry if that was rude Bill. After all, we are all on the same team.
I totally disagree with this article.
http://www.barnstablepatriot.com/home2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=24636&Itemid=112
If you have the time, you might want to leave a comment there.
It’s all about jobs.
http://www.economist.com/node/18620710
A good article, but he’s wrong about this:
All this means that grappling with entrenched joblessness deserves to be far higher on America’s policy agenda. Unfortunately, the few (leftish) politicians who acknowledge the problem tend to have misguided solutions,
such as trade barriers or industrial policy to prop up yesterday’s jobs or to spot tomorrow’s. That won’t work: government has a terrible record at picking winners. Instead, America needs to get its macro-medicine right,
in particular by committing itself to medium-term fiscal and monetary stability without excessive short-term tightening.
But it also needs job-market reforms,
from streamlining and upgrading training to increasing employers’ incentives to hire the low-skilled.
And there, strange as it may seem, America could learn from Europe:
the Netherlands, for instance, is a good model for how to overhaul disability insurance.
Stemming the decline in low-skilled men’s work will also demand more education reform to boost skills,
as well as a saner approach to drugs and imprisonment.
Lot of trained and/or educated American workers cannot get jobs that just aren’t there.
Bill,
I appreciate your comments and did not view them as a personal attack. I’ll admit that I started reading and commented before finishing your post. You did bring more resolution to your points towards the end and it was a very well thought out comment. They liked it at Race42012 too, eh? We DEFINITELY want and need you staying around. I agree that all cheerleading withouth thinking is detrimental to everyone in the end. Hope to keep seeing you around. We know you’re a solid Mitt supporter and want you to stay that way!
This is the first time I hear about you Bill. The post was a bit long for me to digest. But I thank your input. Although, I’m not sure what to think about it. Who cares is what comes to my mind? Is there something we can do to better promote Mitt and fix those perceived weaknesses. It doesn’t get better with other candidates… so if this is all the baggage that Mitt has he is in pretty good shape.
Romney said that one thing he did wrong last cycle (2008) was answer everyones questions, this time he will stay on his message and hopefully focus on his main strength Economy. There was point where I was getting sick of Romney to the way he was pandering the social conservatives… but I was more sick of evangelicals rejecting him despite him insisting he was one of them.
I would appreciate Romney just being himself and if other people don’t like him, well that’s just too bad. He will not change for other people, but rather be a leader and have other people follow or change for him. I believe he has learned that this time. The “Say Do Anything” label was unfairly attributed to him from McCain, one of the politicians I most despise because it seemed like he was in it totally for himself.
In the end, if Romney would have been the nominee in 2008, I don’t think he would have won due to exhaustion from Bush and the GOP. Obama would have won and I’m not sure if that would have been better or worse for Romney. Perhaps that would merit a post in itself.
Would Romney be better position for the Republican Nominee today had he lost in 2008 to Obama?
Is there an edit button to fix my grammar. :( If not oh well.
They weren’t even paying attention in the last election, I dumped them on twitter.
Jason,
We disagree, but I appreciate the thoughtful and polite response. In terms of “big name conservatives,” I agree that a small number of them complained about the Massachusetts plan in 2008. Where I disagree is the impact on everyday voters and particularly those who are active online. When I’ve spoken to people about Mr. Romney, the health care bill is one of the first objections that many raise. I don’t care that much about the opinions of the nationally-known pundits, but I worry when I hear regular folks saying that they see that law as a stumbling block to voting for Mr. Romney. Most of them will vote for Mr. Romney anyway in the general election if he wins the nomination, but some would be drawn to an independent Trump candidacy because they have so much energy invested in saying that they’d never vote for Mr. Romney.
Deg,
If I understand what you are saying, I think you’ve made an important point. In being himself, Mr. Romney will come across as a bit “Establishment” in some ways, but I don’t think we should be terribly afraid of that label.
Last year in Delaware, Republicans were faced with a choice between Christine O’Donnell was certainly not “Establishment” and Mike Castle who was establishment in the sense that he would have been another Susan Collins or Olympia Snowe. Everyone says that Mike Castle would have won the general election if he’d been nominated, but he’d have won only if Tea Party Republicans had held their noses and voted for him. Likewise, Christine O’Donnell could have won if “Establishment” Republicans had held their noses and voted for her. I’m not sorry that we didn’t put another Olympia Snowe or Susan Collins type of Republican in the Senate.
The lesson I hope the GOP can learn is that we need to find candidates who can appeal to a broad cross-section of “conservative” or Republican voters. Again, I’m sorry if I’m reading too much into your comments, but I think you’re saying that Mr. Romney can best be that kind of candidate if he’ll just be himself. I think he has a chance of being that kind of candidate by being himself. That means accepting that he’s going to come across as somewhat “Establishment” in some ways. I agree that the “Say Do Anything” attack was wrong and unfair. I worry that protesting too much about the “Establishment” label will only reinforce those labels.
Jeff,
Thanks for clearing things up. I’m not sure what Race42012 is, but I’m glad that they liked my comments.
Its probably time to move on. Thx for your insights. Romney addressing the establishment label probably will not be among his highest prioritites. Educating the average voter is a whole diffenent package. However, social media seems to be doing both a service and deservice at the same time. In general, Mitt seems to be on the right track, he will have to keep the big tent candidate and appeal to the general voter on the campaign trail and be smart enough to not answer every question that is thrown at him. By staying on message, lettingnew material come out on a timely prepared basis he should be able to win this.
@Bill
I definitely agree that the Massachusetts health care plan is probably Mitt’s greatest stumbling block with voters right now. As supporters, I think it would be smart to seriously consider the concerns that people have about the issue and try to educate people when they are understanding something incorrectly. Jeff has done a fantastic job of doing that with his series of posts on health care, in my opinion. We need to be careful to not speak down to people that have misconceptions about health care.
There are other issues like health care that we should identify and try to understand and education people when they are perceiving things incorrectly. There are also a lot of issues that can’t be changed and aren’t really that big of a deal. I just felt that Bill’s post highlighted too many of those things and I don’t think that is helpful in any way. Let’s focus on real concerns that we can make a difference on. Recognizing that there are a few crazies that hold dumb things against Romney isn’t really that important to me and can’t be helped.
I’m not sure where religion fits in there. I think there are a lot of people that might be willing to accept Romney if they know a little more about his religion, but there are many who will refuse to consider the idea that Mormonism is not what their preacher taught them it is.
When reading polls, Romney is the only candidate who matches well against Obama.
Nothing else should matter. We either want to defeat Obama next year or we don’t. Elect a loser and Obama wins by landslide
Elect Romney and we win. It’s not rocket science.