Mitt's Moving...Right
I think it's pretty clear that Romney is becoming more conservative over the arc of his political career. Is he a movement conservative? No. Does he still need to move right on some issues? Yes, but he seems to be traveling in that direction with decent speed.
Mitt governed more conservatively in MA than he campaigned (which is why his reelection prospects looked so dim). He said the experience made him more conservative. Given the nature of politics, I understand why some would view his transformation with skepticism. But I also think it's perfectly reasonable to consider that his conversion is real and ongoing.
The man clearly has the skills to be a turn around artist extraordinaire. With his apparent ideological transformation he could end up being one heck of a president.
- Comment (48)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
Sep '10
Re: Mitt's Moving...Right
Mama Toad
EThompson
Just for the heck of it, pls confirm your national citizenship, sans feline references, s'il vous plait. · 25 minutes ago
I grant that I smiled when I first read your comment, so I think you are being light-hearted, but I want to emphasize that the election of the American president is a matter of importance to the whole world. I for one am always glad for Pseudodionysius' input even when I don't understand all his references. Even residents of Canuckistan are welcome to weigh in, I think. · 35 minutes ago
Edited 3 minutes ago
I've mentioned this before but it bears repeating:
1. We've had CastrObama care for 50 or so years in Canada;
2. You are Canada's largest trading partner and vice versa;
3. I don't speak French. (Well, not unless I'm intoxicated)
4. If you go down, so do we.
Your political process is much more entertaining per Tocqueville than ours and I like to delude myself that I have more influence here over the American electorate than I do over my own Canadian electorate.
5. I have talent on loan from dog.
Jan '11
Re: Mitt's Moving...Right
Good try, Frozen, but it's plain that Mitt is selling what he thinks conservatives want to buy. He's running for political office and, therefore, will spout whatever his political advisers put in his mouth. Sorry, I'm not buying. I won't go so far as saying you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, but you get the idea.
Santorum is absolutely right. Romney can't get over the finish line carrying Romneycare on his back. Obama will just agree with him, smile at him and the camera, and tell him he ought to join the Democratic Party - and people watching and listening will get it. Obama will joke about it, the main street media will joke about it, and people will quickly see the joke of Romney, with his record, campaigning as a conservative Republican.
You may be seeing Romney up there on the debating stage, but I see Bob Dole and John McCain - both liberals, and both losers.
It's time to wake up. Romney cannot win a national election against Obama.
Jul '10
Re: Mitt's Moving...Right
Xennady:
If he is successful I have no doubt he will continue the grand tradition of Republican political failure that- except for Ronald Reagan- stretches all the way back to Herbert Hoover.
We're doomed.
Perhaps. Though I'm not sure exactly what you mean by failure.
Eisenhower wasn't Nixon, HW wasn't Ford, & W wasn't Hoover.
And they were a darn sight better than Adlai Stevenson, Mike Dukakis, Al Gore, and John Kerry.
Oh yeah, they were all better than Barack Obama, too.
Sep '10
Re: Mitt's Moving...Right
I'm growing weary with the conservative purity tests. I'm with frozen: I actually believe his conversion is genuine.
There's several parts to the worry and its more than whether his conversion is genuine. Given his business training, its natural to want to triangulate to cut deals: most conservatives are worried that he's not solidly enough grounded in his principles (leave aside any malice or ill will) to guarantee that he won't cut the wrong deal when the chips are down. (The Romney-Rahe test lets call it)
Second, is that because he's spent so much of his professional life on the east coast he buys into their governing principles implicitly, so he's not aware of how deep they inform his judgement. Its worth nothing that GHWB wouldn't throw leather at Ross Perot, GWB wouldn't throw leather at the war media, Mitt wouldn't throw leather till last night and GHWB is a Yale grad; GWB and Mitt are Harvard grads.
I hate to use a word so emphemeral as sensibility but that's now what we're down to.
Edited on Jan 27 at 6:53pmNov '11
Re: Mitt's Moving...Right
Anon:
You may be seeing Romney up there on the debating stage, but I see Bob Dole and John McCain - both liberals, and both losers.
It's time to wake up. Romney cannot win a national election against Obama. · 23 minutes ago
I don't think that McCain or Dole were good presidential candidates, and they both obviously lost in their campaigns, and I don't think either of them are conservative. But they both served our country, and both suffered immensely for it, and I feel like calling them losers is unacceptable.
I think you're right about Romney, though.
May '10
Re: Mitt's Moving...Right
Sorry guys, Romneycare will help MItt get elected I the general election because it will make it that much harder for the Dems to demonize him, which is what they will try. Moreover, the argument that Romneycare isnt fundamentally a conservative solution or compensation mechanism for the free rider problem is weak. You, most of you, were wrong about this. It's why Pawlenty and Bachmann and Perry are gone. It why Santorum will be gone. Obsessing over one state's decision to hold free riders accountable with some taxation is madness.
Edited on Jan 27 at 7:29pmJan '12
Re: Mitt's Moving...Right
I console myself with the suspicion that Mitt, a practical man little acquainted with political philosophy, is susceptible to pressure. A solid Republican House and Senate would be the best way to keep a President Romney from running with the rinos.
Feb '11
Re: Mitt's Moving...Right
Palaeologus
Perhaps. Though I'm not sure exactly what you mean by failure.
Eisenhower wasn't Nixon, HW wasn't Ford, & W wasn't Hoover.
And they were a darn sight better than Adlai Stevenson, Mike Dukakis, Al Gore, and John Kerry.
Oh yeah, they were all better than Barack Obama, too.
I'll elaborate.
The Republican party has been utterly unable to prevent the left from changing the United States from a free nation with a free people into a welfare state full of subjects.
Yes, the GOP has won elections- plenty of them. It hasn't mattered.
True, the country moved left less than it would have otherwise under GOP presidents- but the trend is clear.
I have no faith in the ability of Romney to change that, even assuming he wants to change it.
And considering that he invented Romneycare and still endorses it, I'm not willing to make that assumption.
May '10
Re: Mitt's Moving...Right
If he actually beats Obama, the LEAST of my worries is a Romney dynasty.
First things first...
Feb '11
Re: Mitt's Moving...Right
And they'll succeed, quickly and easily, just as they'll succeed at depressing GOP voter turnout. Romneycare. Obamacare. What's the diff?
The solution to the free rider problem is not to turn the entire country into a slave pen. If the government can force people to buy health insurance then what can it not do? Tyranny, in another word.
ParisParamus: Obsessing over one state's decision to hold free riders accountable with some taxation is madness.
Does the Constitution still apply in Massachusetts?
It seems Romney believes it does not.
I disagree. Intensely.
Jan '11
Re: Mitt's Moving...Right
Mothership_Greg
Anon:
You may be seeing Romney up there on the debating stage, but I see Bob Dole and John McCain - both liberals, and both losers.
It's time to wake up. Romney cannot win a national election against Obama. · 23 minutes ago
I don't think that McCain or Dole were good presidential candidates, and they both obviously lost in their campaigns, and I don't think either of them are conservative. But they both served our country, and both suffered immensely for it, and I feel like calling them losers is unacceptable.
I think you're right about Romney, though. · 38 minutes ago
I was writing in the presidential candidate sense; both lost, and that's indisputable. Both served honorably, and both paid more "dues" for their citizenship responsibilities than the great majority of us, me included.
Nevertheless, they were lousy presidential candidates. Both were picked for their party seniority rather than their competitiveness. Neither were really conservatives in the Goldwater/Reagan sense - they were both big taxers. And, they both lost their most important political races. Military heroes? Yes, and I honor them for that. Political winners in the big event? Not according to the record.
Jan '12
Re: Mitt's Moving...Right
Pseudodionysius: I'm growing weary with the conservative purity tests. I'm with frozen: I actually believe his conversion is genuine.
... Given his business training, its natural to want to triangulate to cut deals ...
Mitt wouldn't throw leather till last night and GHWB is a Yale grad; GWB and Mitt are Harvard grads.
I hate to use a word so emphemeral as sensibility but that's now what we're down to. · 1 hour ago
Edited 1 hour ago
Two excellent points. I heard it argued once about business school being essentially a progressive invention - and it's more training, not a classical liberal education. That's Romney, and that's a real concern, but also the hope. I think his natural political philosophy is conservatism, but he's not the philosophical type - he's been trained, not educated.
The second part is partially true: through the superPAC/surrogates he's been in the dirt fighting since S. Carolina against Newt. I find that encouraging thinking of the general. There is evidence his team will fight and fight dirty if need be (and need will certainly be). Now he's starting to show that he can do it personally.
Nov '11
Re: Mitt's Moving...Right
It's time to wake up. Romney cannot win a national election against Obama. · 23 minutes ago
I don't think that McCain or Dole were good presidential candidates, and they both obviously lost in their campaigns, and I don't think either of them are conservative. But they both served our country, and both suffered immensely for it, and I feel like calling them losers is unacceptable.
I think you're right about Romney, though. · 38 minutes ago
I was writing in the presidential candidate sense; both lost, and that's indisputable. Both served honorably, and both paid more "dues" for their citizenship responsibilities than the great majority of us, me included.
Nevertheless, they were lousy presidential candidates. Both were picked for their party seniority rather than their competitiveness. Neither were really conservatives in the Goldwater/Reagan sense - they were both big taxers. And, they both lost their most important political races. Military heroes? Yes, and I honor them for that. Political winners in the big event? Not according to the record. · 8 minutes ago
Thanks for clarifying. I seem to have a tough time getting Romney supporters to do the same, at least round these parts...
Nov '11
Re: Mitt's Moving...Right
I don't think that McCain or Dole were good presidential candidates, and they both obviously lost in their campaigns, and I don't think either of them are conservative. But they both served our country, and both suffered immensely for it, and I feel like calling them losers is unacceptable.
I think you're right about Romney, though. · 38 minutes ago
I was writing in the presidential candidate sense; both lost, and that's indisputable. Both served honorably, and both paid more "dues" for their citizenship responsibilities than the great majority of us, me included.
Nevertheless, they were lousy presidential candidates. Both were picked for their party seniority rather than their competitiveness. Neither were really conservatives in the Goldwater/Reagan sense - they were both big taxers. And, they both lost their most important political races. Military heroes? Yes, and I honor them for that. Political winners in the big event? Not according to the record. · 8 minutes ago
Thanks for clarifying. I seem to have a tough time getting Romney supporters to do the same, at least round these parts... · 0 minutes ago
No offense to Crow's Nest or tabula rasa, of course.
Jul '10
Re: Mitt's Moving...Right
Xennady
I'll elaborate.
The Republican party has been utterly unable to prevent the left from changing the United States from a free nation with a free people into a welfare state full of subjects.
Yes, the GOP has won elections- plenty of them. It hasn't mattered.
True, the country moved left less than it would have otherwise under GOP presidents- but the trend is clear.
Well... sure.
How did they accomplish it? Was it by running obvious commies for President?
No. Because they would have lost.
Instead they ran leftist sympathizers for office, and gradually took over public institutions from the ground up.
Let's not emulate that approach, since it works.
Feb '11
Re: Mitt's Moving...Right
Palaeologus
Well... sure.
How did they accomplish it? Was it by running obvious commies for President?
No. Because they would have lost.
Instead they ran leftist sympathizers for office, and gradually took over public institutions from the ground up.
Let's not emulate that approach, since it works.
Nothing I've seen from Mitt Romney or the GOP establishment makes me think they would even understand your comment let alone endorse it.
I think that establishment- including Mitt Romney- identifies much more strongly with political class leftists such as Barack Obama than it does with the mass of voters that comprise the GOP base. So the cultural concerns that I have with the left's slow destruction of American culture- which I think you share- merely generate guffaws from the political class of both parties.
Yes, some get it. But not enough, and certainly not Mitt Romney.
Mar '11
Re: Mitt's Moving...Right
I don't think the guy is right or left. I think he's a technocrat. And I think he'd govern in that utilitarian fashion, "taking a bath in the data" to come up with his policies, and neither the Constitution nor conservatism would have much to do with it. If "the data" told him to pass a law to make us all eat our vegetables, he'd do it. He'd just tell us it's a conservative law, so that makes it OK.
Sep '10
Re: Mitt's Moving...Right
Bill Doublewide
I heard it argued once about business school being essentially a progressive invention - and it's more training, not a classical liberal education. That's Romney, and that's a real concern, but also the hope. I think his natural political philosophy is conservatism, but he's not the philosophical type - he's been trained, not educated.
I like and agree with your first point about business education. Very interesting and enlightening take. It rings true for me and I never thought of it like that.
I disagree with your analysis that Romney, being willing to play "dirty" will help much in the general. In fact it will hurt - a lot. It will further tarnish the GOP brand because the MSM will have none of it They will actively refute any lies. Hell, they are good at refuting truth! They won't let Mitt get away with dirty suff - they will expose him and it won't be pretty. There's plenty of real "dirt" on Obama out there and it gets no attention. Mitt will be exposed and mocked by the MSM if he tries this same kind of attacks he has used with Gingrich on Obama.
Dec '11
Re: Mitt's Moving...Right
Romney will tell you anything you need to hear to get you into bed. The question is will he call the next day?
Jan '12
Re: Mitt's Moving...Right
Sure it's a thin reed, but I still point to his veto on the stem cell legislation back in Mass. Maybe then he was posturing in preparation for a GOP presidential run, but it had to have been tough. It's definitely to the right of Newt's contemporaneous position.
I suppose I should look deeper into his record as governor, perhaps there are other slivers of light, or rather, right.