Generally speaking, our two parties have wanted to nominate candidates who have shown special strength among the voters who know them best. None of the nine candidates who participated in the Fox News/Google debate in Orlando has really done that. Rick Perry and Mitt Romney have won elections by margins comparable to those of John Cornyn and Paul Cellucci, competent officeholders but not on anyone’s list of presidential candidates. Ron Paul ran well ahead of his party base in 2010 against weak opposition; Michele Bachmann has not done so in three races against vigorous opponents. Newt Gingrich’s record of running ahead of party is spotty; Herman Cain’s is nonexistent.
Rick Santorum outperformed the Republican base in 1992 and 1994, but woefully underperformed it in 2006. Jon Huntsman and Gary Johnson won solid majorities for reelection against weak opposition.
None of them has performed, at least recently, as Chris Christie did when he was defeated an incumbent governor by a 48%-45% margin in New Jersey in 2009, a year after it had voted 57%-42% for Barack Obama, or Mitch Daniels, who was reelected over a former member of Congress by a 58%-40% margin in Indiana on the same day the state voted 50%-49% for Barack Obama, or Paul Ryan, who has been reelected with between 63% and 68% of the vote between 2000 and 2010 in a district which voted Democratic for president by 49%-47% in 2000, 54%-46% in 2004 and 51%-47% in 2008. These are Republicans who have shown the capacity to overperform the party’s generic base.
The problem Mitt Romney faces is that explaining conservatism to “conservatives” is not like chess. In chess, there’s an objective measure. Most folks are unable to absorb (and thus appreciate) sophisticated analysis. In chess, it doesn’t matter if others are able to see your strength. You just hit an opponent with a checkmate and others are left wondering afterwards what happened – because even though they don’t understand the nuances of “how” you did it, they can at least understand “that” you did it.
But when it comes to explaining principles, there is no clear objective standard for people to follow. Sometimes this can be overcome through sheer explanation, but too many loud, lazy voices with agendas are eager to interfere. So, Mitt is like a Kasparov with a long record of impressive wins, but his antagonists spread confusion – ie “This sixth grader has won more games than Kasparov, so he’s better than Kasparov” or “Kasparov claims to be good at chess, but he completely gave up his queen, he traded it for a pawn! He doesn’t even know that a queen is worth more than a pawn!” And people buy this stuff.
Still, Romney keeps trying to explain it to them – because he cares about our future. That’s why Romney kept hammering the social security issue. It wasn’t for cheap political points, it was because he did not want the GOP nominee to have such a liability in a general election. That’s the same reason he dropped out in 2008. The entire establishment wanted him to keep going – including Santorum, Bachmann, Rush, Levin, Hannity, you name it. He was introduced by Laura Ingraham. He could have kept going. But he knew the options were to either let McCain be the nominee, or pursue a course that could lead to a brokered convention and leave the ultimate nominee with a huge liability that would be difficult to overcome. He sacrificed his own chances for the greater good:
Notice his wife at the end. This was a difficult decision, a sincere decision. And Romney was right about his primary reason, Obama’s foreign policy. Just look at the chaos Obama has created in the Middle East. Iran is closer than ever to acquiring nuclear weapons, the Palestinians believe Obama promised them their own state, unnecessary problems with Turkey, attacked Libya, and apologized to the whole Middle East for America’s alleged crimes.
Rick Perry came prepared with an attack on Mitt Romney that in Romneys book No Apologies, he claimed that he wanted the Massachusetts healthcare model to be adopted by the rest of the country, yet in the paperback edition this was deleted. While one specific line may have indeed been edited from the paperback, a scan of the original book proves that the context was unchanged and that Romney did not in fact advocate the whole country having MA-care foisted upon them. The book, provided by pro-Romney site WhyRomney.com instead says the opposite of what Perry claimed.
Reposted from WhyRomney, with permission:
Critics cite differences between the paperback and hardcover editions of Romney’s book, “No Apology,” accusing Mitt Romney of subtly changing positions on Obama’s policies to harden his stance for political reasons. However, critics falsely lead people to this conclusion by taking excerpts out of context. For instance, critics claim that Romney called Obama’s stimulus plan “a failure” in the paperback but not in the hardcover. The truth however is that Romney wrote the hardcover during the initial phase of the stimulus and thus could not yet claim that it had “failed,” or elaborate on the effectiveness of details which had not yet been implemented. But Romney specifically said on page 145 of the hardcover that Obama’s stimulus had “already been far less than successful,” and Romney predicted “it will impose a heavy burden on the economy in the intermediate and long term.”
Critics also fail to mention that on page 31 of the hardcover, Romney says “the record and achievement of modern free-market capitalism” is “now at risk because of the economic policies of President Obama.” Romney goes on to say, “His effort to expand the size, reach and role of government is without precedent in our history. His plans would leave us with a crushing deficit and debt, far beyond anything we have ever experienced.” Also on page 31, Romney writes that “at a time when Europe is moving away from socialism and its many failures, President Obama is moving toward that direction.”
Likewise, critcs claim that in the hardcover Romney promoted Obama’s stimulus on pages 144-145 as something that would “accelerate the timing of the start of the recovery.” But in fact, Romney’s statement was alluding to the limited tax cut portion of the stimulus, having put it in that context in the previous line which critics leave out, by statinSupremg that congressional Democrats fail to understand “the crucial role played by tax cuts.” It is in this context that Romney said the stimulus would not help “as much as it could have had it included genuine tax- and job-generating incentives.”
In a similar criticism, critics accuse Romney of being soft on Obamacare in the hardcover because in the paperback he stated that it should be “repealed,” but in the hardcover did not call for a “repeal.” The truth however is that Obamacare had not passed when Romney wrote the hardcover edition and its passing seemed less likely at the time because of the election of MA Senator Scott Brown. With no law to repeal, a call for repeal would have made no sense. Furthermore, Romney had no pressing need to discuss Obama’s health care ideas in extended detail.
In fact, while Romney has a reputation as a flip-flopper (which this ad tries to exploit), he has been consistent in saying he did not want to import his plan to the rest of the country. When the Massachusetts law was passed in 2006, he appeared on MSNBC and was asked whether it would work for the rest of the country.
“Well, it will work for Massachusetts, and that’s of course the thing that I had to focus on,” Romney replied. “There are certain aspects of it that I think would work across the country, perhaps better in some states than others. Of course the great thing about federalism is you let a state try it and see how it works before you spread it out.”
Romney made a similar point in an interview with Dan Balz of The Washington Post in 2007, as he recalled during last week’s debate. “Instead of having the federal government give us one-size-fits-all, everybody-must-follow-the-same-plan, let states develop their own,” he told Balz.
We closely compared the chapter on health care in the two editions so you don’t have to. Essentially, it is clear that the hardcover edition was written when Obama’s health-care plan was still a work in progress. For instance, Romney spends some time denouncing the idea of a public option as “government-supplied insurance.” The paperback was published after the health-care law was passed, so the paragraphs on the public option — which had been abandoned by Obama — are dropped.
The main point: Romney has long said he did not view his plan as a model for the nation, and he has not wavered on that stance.
Livonia Rep. Thaddeus McCotter told The Detroit News this afternoon that he is leaving the race for the Republican presidential nomination.
McCotter says he will give his support to former Massachussetts Gov. Mitt Romney, and will likely run again for the 11th District congressional seat he’s held since 2003.
McCotter began his long-shot bid for the White House in July, billing himself as the voice for a new generation of conservatives. He campaigned on a dramatic reform of Social Security, and a tougher approach to dealings with China.
However, in June McCotter called Romney Obama’s de facto running mate and in fact, the news of the endorsement sits right above the most recent news item about McCotter on FoxNews.com which was this very criticism leveled against the candidate he now champions.
Quotas are not conservative. They are an inept or intellectually lazy means of assessment. If people are not committing crimes, we shouldn’t arrest folks just to meet a quota. And when everyone has a job, we don’t need to prioritize job creation or criticize the leader for “failing to create jobs.”
At the end of Mitt Romney’s term as Governor, MA had a healthy unemployment rate of 4.7 (below 4 becomes unhealthy). There was no job problem, and no need for an artificial “fix.” When Romney took office, the state faced a massive budget problem, which Romney successfully solved.
So why does Rick Perry point out that Romney didn’t create many jobs? Because many people are confused. We are now in a jobs crisis, nationally, and people are thinking in terms of the need to create jobs.
The only way MA could have created more jobs under Romney is if the population in MA had increased. But MA is the third most densely populated state, right behind RI and NJ. Texas has 26 times the area of MA. That means, unlike MA, Texas has room for sprawl (which it has seen in excess) – meaning cheap land for people as well as businesses building stores and factories, equaling jobs.
Logistically, TX is a frontier. And because of its central placement, temperate climate and sophisticated urban variety, it is a hub. Combine this with its conservative laws (pre-dating Rick Perry) and built-in natural resources, and Texas is an obvious place for people to move.
Still, as Mitt Romney pointed out, a much higher percentage of jobs were created in TX under both Richards and Bush than under Perry. This may indicate that suburban TX is finally beginning to see some saturation after the massive population increase of the last 20 years.
The bottom line is that Texas has had room for bringing in new people. MA population has seen little change in 20 years, while TX has had a 40% increase in population over that same period. While Perry would like to take credit for job growth, especially since the recession, recent growth has been demonstrably chaotic rather than ordered. Just as Babe Ruth hit more home runs than anyone else but also struck out more than anyone else, when people have taken their savings and moved to Texas in the last 3 years, they have naturally generated some jobs but also been left with a lot of unemployment.
To illustrate the chaos which Perry takes credit for, consider that a year ago MA and TX had the same unemployment rate, 8.2% (Sept. ’10). Now, MA is down to 7.6 and TX is up to 8.4. Is this the result of Perry’s careful planning and micromanagement? If so, he has failed. If not, he should stop pretending to assume credit for the jobs situation in Texas.
A simple misunderstanding and lack of communication could be standing between Mitt Romney and a host of conservatives, including Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and a large majority of tea party supporters.
These conservatives want Romney to say that his health care plan in MA was a mistake. By this, they mean that the mandate is a problem. But let’s look at what exactly constitutes the mandate: If someone does not acquire health insurance, they are required to pay a penalty. That is the mandate.
Now here’s the game changer. Romney has said that if he could go back and do it over again, he would do some things differently. Several months ago, Romney specifically said that if he could do it over again he would not have the penalty but would instead give a tax credit to those who acquire insurance. The distinction here is critical, because this approach does not require action on anyone’s part. It is not a mandate, but a reward. Moreover, it is a justifiable reward because the state was footing the bill for uninsured hospital patients, and therefore when someone acquires health insurance they are removing a costly liability from the state.
The bottom line is that Romney is not standing by the mandate. He would take out the mandate and replace it, if he could. This is what his critics have demanded. He has met their demand, and no one even realized it.
Additionally, Romney has stated that he would make other changes if he could. Romneycare has not been as cost effective as he wanted, due to clauses which passed by veto override and additional changes which MA liberals have imposed since Romney left office.
Be the First to Comment 
