Rush Limbaugh at This Very Hour
Peter Robinson ·
Dec 8, 2011 at 10:35am
Here's a question for you: If Mitt had denounced RomneyCare months ago--if he had just said it was a mistake--would he be leading in the polls right now?
Mitt, if you want the nomination, get together with your people, and think about running to the right of Newt. You and Newt are both guilty of flip-flops. So why don't you flip to full conservative?
Energize the base, don't try to split it. Mitt, energize the base!
- Comment (51)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments :
Jul '11
Re: Rush Limbaugh at This Very Hour
I'm not sure that Romney can do that at this point. He appears to be attempting to project consistency these last few months. A flip now might torpedo him given how much attention we are all paying to this race. Wouldn't it?
Mar '11
Re: Rush Limbaugh at This Very Hour
I don't think so. What energizes the base is attacking Mr Obama -- instead, Mr Romney is attacking Newt. I don't think it's gonna work.
Re: Rush Limbaugh at This Very Hour
Exactly. If Mitt had only said that Romneycare was a well-meaning mistake, I think conservatives would have long-since rallied to his flag.
If Romney begins running to Newt's right, then he will win the nomination and the presidency. And Gingrich will have done the nation a service via his sudden surge in polls.
Dec '11
Re: Rush Limbaugh at This Very Hour
In order to have a base, you have to have a discernible body of political principles, which Mitt signally lacks.
His only base is LDS, RINO's and people who are hoping he''ll share the secret of his which hair products he uses.
Dec '11
Re: Rush Limbaugh at This Very Hour
I think fundamentally it doesnt matter if he flips on this one. I personally think Romney is flawed insofar as he hasnt actually advanced conservative policies that voters care about right now. He is running on a technocratic superiority platform and good character. Its the cobb salad of conservative politics, which is fine when the mood strikes you, but the voters want meat and potatoes from somebody who has actually produced meat and potatoes before, and if there is a side salad, its cool if it has advacado and bacon on it.
Since, all food metaphors need a beverage to wash it down with: Rush is trying to make lemonade, I just dont think its enough to make people want the salad.
Dec '10
Re: Rush Limbaugh at This Very Hour
The first part of your statement here is counterfactual, the last part is just down right funny. Saying he's only supported by Mormons and RINOs is the same as his supporters saying we don't like him because of our bigotry or because of some other mental health malady.
Mar '11
Re: Rush Limbaugh at This Very Hour
Republicans have no chance of winning the Presidency.
Dec '10
Re: Rush Limbaugh at This Very Hour
Peter Robinson
I know if he had denounced RomneyCare months ago, I would have an easier time liking him. Choosing to stand by it indicates to me 1) he is not all that persuaded by conservative arguments about the dangerous coercive power of big government and 2) he isn't all that politically savvy. He's only ever won one election, so maybe we shouldn't be surprised.
Aug '11
Re: Rush Limbaugh at This Very Hour
Casey
Republicans have no chance of winning the Presidency. · Dec 8 at 11:03am
Republicans should have no problem winning the Presidency, given the current occupant. But nobody snatches defeat from the jaws of victory like the Grand Old Party.
Aug '10
Re: Rush Limbaugh at This Very Hour
For me, if Romney had aggressively pushed a states-rights defense of Romneycare, I'd be much more sympathetic. If he'd repeatedly and loudly stated that health care is a state responsibility and that what might be acceptable in one state is in ABSOLUTELY NO WAY appropriate for the federal government, I would personally be satisfied with that.
In other words, if yer gonna defend Romneycare, you'd better be sure your defense is aggressive, robust, and sustained. A milquetoast defense is simply not gonna cut it.
Aug '11
Re: Rush Limbaugh at This Very Hour
Misthiocracy:
In other words, if yer gonna defend Romneycare, you'd better be sure your defense is aggressive, robust, and sustained. A milquetoast defense is simply not gonna cut it.
Well, that's the whole issue with Romney in a nutshell, isn't it? There's no aggressive and robust anything.
Newt is leading the polls because he's shown that he's a fighter, a happy warrior, a candidate who says "bring it on!" when Nancy Pelosi threatens him.
Americans love that stuff.
Meanwhile, Romney is sending out his surrogates to do the attacking for him, and it's not working. Sending John Sununu to attack Newt for not going along with the G.H.W. Bush tax increases? Er . . . yeah.
And Newt's response? Bring it on!
Edited on Dec 8, 2011 at 11:33amRe: Rush Limbaugh at This Very Hour
I'd completely agree--with one caveat: In Romney's case, running to Newt's right will involve more than simply championing, all of a sudden, conservative positions. I'm pretty sure that It will first require an act of--well, of contrition. He'll have to come clean. He'll have to fess up. He'll have to say RomneyCare was a mistake--he'll have to say it.
Am I wrong? (That's not rhetorical. I feel that I'm right, but, not having thought it all the way through, I'm not quite certain.)
Apr '11
Re: Rush Limbaugh at This Very Hour
I believe you are correct. It's not enough to start taking conservative positions. Romney has to state why he is taking those positions now as opposed to before, why now he sees Romney-care as bad (or at the very least an attempt at a solution for just one state rather than an entire nation).
Moreover, when he's accused of waffling, he has to address critics -- admit that this is a change in ideas yet at the same time prove that he holds fast to the new ideas he touts. Admittedly, this is no easy task in a month to go. It would be easiest if he truly believed in this change. Integrity of beliefs can be the most convincing.
However, I remain a pessimist. I also expect the GOP to masterfully snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Jul '10
Re: Rush Limbaugh at This Very Hour
There is too much recent videotape of Romney singing the praises of RomneyCare for an election-time denunciation to carry much weight. When RomneyCare passed, my attitude was that it was a bad idea, but still less awful than the single-payer system some Massachussetis were pushing. The Heritage endorsement of RomneyCare has led to the rhetorically irritating effect of enabling the argument that conservatives only object to individual mandates in Democrat legislation.
In a period requiring fiscal restraint and prudence, why do the Washington GOP elite push a candidate whose health care related blunders are comparable to Obama (ObamaCare) and Bush (the unfunded Medicare Part D bill)? That certainly strikes me as defeat from the jaws of victory in an election season with a maturing tax revolt/smaller government movement afoot.
Oh, right, I forgot. Harry Reid assures us that the Tea Party is no longer a factor in the face of angry dozens of stinky, crime-ridden astroturf. Never mind.
Aug '10
Re: Rush Limbaugh at This Very Hour
Misthiocracy: For me, if Romney had aggressively pushed a states-rights defense of Romneycare, I'd be much more sympathetic. If he'd repeatedly and loudly stated that health care is a state responsibility and that what might be acceptable in one state is in ABSOLUTELY NO WAY appropriate for the federal government, I would personally be satisfied with that.
In other words, if yer gonna defend Romneycare, you'd better be sure your defense is aggressive, robust, and sustained. A milquetoast defense is simply not gonna cut it. · Dec 8 at 11:14am
Romney has defended Romneycare as a state's rights issue, and has done so aggressively. For obvious reasons he doesn't want to make it the center piece of his campaign but that doesn't mean he isn't making the case.
Why anyone would think that making the mother of all flip-flops by repudiating Romneycare would help Mitt is beyond me. I believe he could have approached the issue better by saying he tried the best he could given a nearly all Dem legislature and there are some things he would change in hindsight, but a full-fledged reversal would not have helped him.
Aug '10
Re: Rush Limbaugh at This Very Hour
double post
Edited on Dec 8, 2011 at 12:01pmAug '10
Re: Rush Limbaugh at This Very Hour
Frozen Chosen
Misthiocracy: For me, if Romney had aggressively pushed a states-rights defense of Romneycare, I'd be much more sympathetic. If he'd repeatedly and loudly stated that health care is a state responsibility and that what might be acceptable in one state is in ABSOLUTELY NO WAY appropriate for the federal government, I would personally be satisfied with that.
In other words, if yer gonna defend Romneycare, you'd better be sure your defense is aggressive, robust, and sustained. A milquetoast defense is simply not gonna cut it. · Dec 8 at 11:14am
Romney has defended Romneycare as a state's rights issue, and has done so aggressively. For obvious reasons he doesn't want to make it the center piece of his campaign but that doesn't mean he isn't making the case.
He made that statement yesterday. I'm not sure that qualifies as a robust, sustained defense.
However, if he keeps it up then I'll say "good for him!"
Edited on Dec 8, 2011 at 12:02pmRe: Rush Limbaugh at This Very Hour
Peter Robinson
I'd completely agree--with one caveat: In Romney's case, running to Newt's right will involve more than simply championing, all of a sudden, conservative positions. I'm pretty sure that It will first require an act of--well, of contrition. He'll have to come clean. He'll have to fess up. He'll have to say RomneyCare was a mistake--he'll have to say it.
Am I wrong? (That's not rhetorical. I feel that I'm right, but, not having thought it all the way through, I'm not quite certain.) · Dec 8 at 11:30am
Rush is right, Peter, and so are you. What made the Bret Baier interview so devastating was that Romney was clearly lying when he denied having changed positions. Long ago, his people told him that flip-flopping would be the charge against him, and so, in a manner mechnical, he denies that he has changed his mind.
Dec '10
Re: Rush Limbaugh at This Very Hour
George Savage: Exactly. If Mitt had only said that Romneycare was a well-meaning mistake, I think conservatives would have long-since rallied to his flag.
If Romney begins running to Newt's right, then he will win the nomination and the presidency. And Gingrich will have done the nation a service via his sudden surge in polls. · Dec 8 at 10:52am
It wouldn't have even been a contest of Romney had disavowed MassCare. Even with all of his other sins of moderation, this would have been enough.
In fact, if he'd played it as, essentially, a sinner seeking contrition, he could have used it to his advantage.
But maybe this is Romney's fundamental problem: As a managerial progressive, he can't be seen to be in error. A managerial progressive that can't manage isn't of much use.
Edited on Dec 8, 2011 at 12:08pmMar '11
Re: Rush Limbaugh at This Very Hour
I agree with the first part of Rush's statement. Yes, if Romney had months ago admitted Romneycare was a flop, his situation now would be a lot better than it is. Not to say he still can't pull this out.
But I disagree with the second part. I'm not sure now a move to the right would help him. It would appear to be an act of desperation now that he is behind in many polls. It would feel totally fake and there is no way the electorate could be sure he would stick to the new positions if he became President.
And this is really the issue, isn't it: For Mitt to get more conservative, he has to have pressure from the Right. It's not his natural, default position. Not saying he CAN'T be conservative, but it's not his first instinct.
I think of it this way: Had Romney been leading Republicans in the House in 1994, would they have won as much as they did? Would they have been as conservative? I can see Santorum or Bachmann leading a conservative House overhaul. Romney? It's harder to imagine.