For years, John McCain was the Left’s favorite Republican. I hadn’t heard the term “maverick” used so often and so affectionately since I attended a James Garner tribute dinner. He was a thorn in the side of George W and a burr under the saddle of most conservatives. He was the co-star of The McCain-Feingold Act. He was considered by many on both sides of the aisle to be a Republican in Name Only. But a strange thing happened to Senator McCain when he became his party’s nominee for President. According to the Democrats and their media friends, the maverick was suddenly marching in lockstep with the most radical fringe of the Right. The thorn and the burr had morphed into Bush II.

I say all this not to rehash history, but to prepare us for the inevitable when (and, of course, if) Mitt Romney is nominated by the Republicans. I still haven’t made up my mind as to what would be best for the Party, but I do know—regardless of the nominee—what will be best for the nation. But sometimes I wonder whether, if the person with the (R) next to his name will always be the wild-eyed conservative, we should just go ahead and nominate one.

Comments:


Mel Foil
Joined
Jun '10
etoiledunord

I know the Left is going to dress him up like Jesse Helms, for Halloween, but under the makeup he'll still be Mitt. That's the sad part.


Joined
Dec '11
Guruforhire

 Pat the larger problem isnt that our candidates are wild eyed conservatives, its that our moderates define the acceptably pole of polite discussion.  If we seriously nominate mitt romney, obamacare becomes the rightward pole of acceptable discussion.  Dewey cleansed the new deal and it took us 70 years to acceptably discuss it maybe not being so hot.

If we want to seriously discuss these issues, we cant cede the rhetorical terrain.

Obama fumbled the ball on our 20 yd line, the tea party picked up a few yards with a good solid run.  Boehner and McConnell lost yardage, and we sit at 4th and 10.  I would prefer to call in a kicker, than try for a hail mary to a one armed reciever with a limp.

Anthony Kaiser
Joined
Dec '10
Anthony Kaiser

I dunno.  The better strategy might be to focus on his past liberal positions.  It won't make Democrats decide to switch to Romney, but it might depress the conservative vote.

cdor
Joined
Jun '10
cdor

 Exactly right, Sajak. Give them what WE want. Unfortunately I am at a loss for who WE is. Everybody hates Obamacare. The Tea Party rises up and sweeps Republicans into office in 2010. Ostensibly this would lead to more sensible budgets with smaller government and the repeal of Obamacare. What happens next...every few months an increase in the debt limit. Those that are battling the increase are demonized as if they had created the debt to begin with. Than we get the primaries and who looks like the certain nominee, why it's the birth father of Obamacare--Mr Romneycare himself. How did this all happen? I do not know. But one thing I do know. Next year I will become an Independent.

Edited on February 1, 2012 at 6:08pm
Chris Deleon
Joined
May '10
Chris Deleon

You've exposed the obvious myth of Romney's electability.  This myth costs us the election time and again.  Look at G.W. Bush, Bob Dole, McCain.

We win when we can motivate people to vote for our candidate, because the candidate stands for something.

Pandering to moderates usually just doesn't work out well for the Republicans.  And yet it's trotted out every time as the only way to get elected.

Cobalt Blue
Joined
Jul '11
Cobalt Blue

But sometimes I wonder whether, if the person with the (R) next to his name will always be the wild-eyed conservative, we should just go ahead and nominate one.

I agree, but she went off the rails with that whole Gardasil fiasco.

Percival
Joined
Mar '11
Percival

 Two or three days after McCain secured the nomination in 2008, the New York Times ran that ridiculous, unsourced hit piece on his relationship with a female lobbyist.  Up until that moment, he had been their favorite Republican for the previous eight years.  The Mittcateers had better gird their loins; the carping they are currently getting from the right is as nothing compared to the attacks they are going to be facing.


Joined
Jan '11
Margaret Ball
Pat Sajak: ... sometimes I wonder whether, if the person with the (R) next to his name will always be the wild-eyed conservative, we should just go ahead and nominate one. · · 27 minutes ago

Sounds good to me, but where do we find one who's willing to run?

Ben Domenech

Margaret Ball

Pat Sajak: ... sometimes I wonder whether, if the person with the (R) next to his name will always be the wild-eyed conservative, we should just go ahead and nominate one. · · 27 minutes ago

Sounds good to me, but where do we find one who's willing to run? · 6 minutes ago

Therein lies the problem.

George Savage

What Romney just did to Newt in Florida--carpet bomb him with thousands of unanswered negative ads--will later be done to Mitt on a national scale by an Obama campaign with $1 billion at its disposal.  And as the economy creaks forward and the media overstate all the wonderful new jobs being created, Obamacare will be incessantly compared with Romney's version, which he continues to support.  So the most potent weapon we have to illustrate Obama's statist overreach will be off the table.

Meanwhile, Newt has been defined for a new generation, thanks to Romney-allied super PACs.  

Time to write a check to Rick Santorum.

Busy System Admin
Joined
Feb '10
Busy System Admin
George Savage: Time to write a check to Rick Santorum.

Good idea.  I'd second that.  It's pretty clear that Romney's money advantage must be neutralized if we are to compare the candidates on an even field.

Southern Pessimist
Joined
May '11
Southern Pessimist

When it comes to carpet bombing negative ads, Romney has shown himself willing and able. Obama is still a very big target. A thoughtful discourse on the proper role of government is not what this campaign will be.

Chris Deleon
Joined
May '10
Chris Deleon
Southern Pessimist: When it comes to carpet bombing negative ads, Romney has shown himself willing and able.

In a national election, with the news media on Obama's side, he won't be able to deploy this weapon so indiscriminately.  He'll get called out and shamed by the media, and rightly so, if he uses the same kind of dishonest ads he's used against Newt, starting in Iowa and continuing non-stop until now.

Since Romney can't get the base excited, and won't be able to go that negative on Obama, and particularly on Obamacare, what does he have left?  The moderates?  The independents?  Since when has that worked for the Republicans?

Edited on February 1, 2012 at 6:44pm
flownover
Joined
Aug '10
flownover

It's really hard to believe that the Republicans (of manicured lawns, country clubs, and bridle leather) can't raise more money than the democrats. Why can't we be the bombers for once ? Can't Bain organize a bombing run more effectively than Andy Stern and Wade Rathke ?

About all I can see that distinguishes Mitt from McCain is that his children are better-behaved and his wife a little less colorful than the driftracing Budweiser heiress.

Sound like I am yearning for plain Republican cloth coats, with someone as smart as Nixon using it as a foil ? Yup ~

Edited on February 2, 2012 at 2:28am
Snow Bird
Joined
Feb '11
Snow Bird
cdor:  The Tea Party rises up and sweeps Republicans into office in 2010. Ostensibly this would lead to more sensible budgets with smaller government and the repeal of Obamacare. What happens next...every few months an increase in the debt limit.

Republicans were 'swept' into the House only. If I remember correctly, Congress consists of two chambers and one is still controlled by Democrats as is the Presidency. How exactly, under those circumstances, are Republicans going to achieve anything more than a grudging stalemate at best? Suppose they had obstructed everything. What would that do to their electability in 2012? When they control both houses and the presidency and nothing happens there are grounds for complaints. As for now, give them a break.

Americans need to get over their obsession with instant gratification and learn that positive results, in politics as anything else, require long term commitments, not just fifteen minutes of dopamine driven enthusiasm.

Romney's primary (sole?) virtue is that he is not Obama and has an R after his name. If Republicans in 2012 can hold the House and take the Senate they will have someone they can work with. With Obama, no chance.

Edited on February 1, 2012 at 6:55pm
DocJay
Joined
Jul '11
DocJay

If we want bat guano crazy just to prove a point then let's trundle out Ron Paul for the strangest election in history.  Millions of young quasi conservatives will at least become active and the comedic value of Obama endorsing militarism to win a debate might be off the charts.  

A Santorum VP choice would reflect well on the party if he does not win.

Mike LaRoche
Joined
Oct '10
Mike LaRoche

Ain't nothing like the real thing, baby.  And Mitt is about as genuine as New Coke.

CandE
Joined
Jul '11
CandE

Is Gingrich conservative enough?  Is Santorum?  I'm not trying to be facetious; both have said and done things in the past that have damaged their conservative credentials.  Certainly Romney has also, but I don't think the 3 can be compared simply along sliding scale from Ultra-Conservative to RINO squish. 

Personally, I don't support Romney because he may be more electable, I support him because I think he would make the best president.  Obamacare is a serious problem, but it's not the only direction the government is expanding.  The exploding budget, entitlements, czars, deficits, executive overreach, etc. are all serious problems, and I do think that of the candidates currently running Romney offers the best hope to address those issues.

-E

Colin B Lane
Joined
Jun '11
Colin B Lane

As a long time member of the anyone-but-Mitt crowd, let me offer a slightly different and more optimistic view of the Romney candidacy.

McCain's candidacy is a useful template.  I believe McCain actually morphed into a stronger, more resolute conservative as the 2008 campaign went on, and I think Romney is showing the capacity to do the same. I truly believe McCain/Mitt have generally conservative instincts, but have spent a lifetime (or at least a career) trying to persuade the editors of the New York Times to like them by doing and saying things that provide a contrast with more conservative Republicans.

This strategy works fine until they become the Republican nominee. At that point, the MSM attacks with venom, and McCain/Mitt become just another mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging troglodyte trying to hurt poor people.  Freed from the need to please the Lefties, McCain/Mitt can begin to align their actions with their more conservative instincts. 

At least, that's the happy thought I will be holding if forced to pull the lever for Mitt.

Brian Clendinen
Joined
Mar '11
Brian Clendinen

George Savage

Time to write a check to Rick Santorum. · 25 minutes ago

Which is why I voted for him yesterday. He has his issues on his economic record, but I somehow I think he could get more though congress than anyone else in the field. It is pretty impresive to get elected to leadership after only one term.

 


Would you like to comment on this Conversation?

Become a Member for $3.67 a month.

Join the Conversation
Already a member? Sign In
Loading

Start your shopping here!

Help support Ricochet by making your purchases through our Amazon links.

Welcome Visitor!
Join  or  Sign In

Become a Member to enjoy the full benefits of Ricochet:

Ricochet: The Right People, The Right Tone, The Right Place.  Join today!

Already a Member? Sign In