By now you should all know me to be a pragmatist and a bit of a Machiavellian. I look at politics politically, meaning that I view politics in terms of people forming strategies to accomplish their goals. Every living soul in Washington DC knows that their principles will only get them so far, and if they want to gain any sort of ground, they have to work around the competing interests of their colleagues. So when I say that Mitt Romney is probably the Republican Party’s best shot at beating Obama, know that I say it out of a sense of strategy rather than conviction.
If I had my ‘druthers, I’d probably throw my support to Ron Paul. Myself being a moderate, supporting Paul might come as a surprise to some of you, but I think that he has some policy ideas that are essential for our prosperity as a nation. Be that as it may, we all know that Ron Paul’s views are a bit polarizing. I don’t view Paul himself as a polarizing figure like Michele Bachmann, who seeks to divide rather than unite, but Paul has some views that some people just can’t get behind.
He’s got some good support, but it’s not what we need to win the election. Elections are won by accomplishing two things: motivating the base and luring the independents, moderates, and undecided voters. Could Ron Paul motivate the base? Although it pains me to admit this, I honestly don’t think so. We’ve seen of late how the GOP seems to be marginalizing him, and we know that he butts heads with the party establishment. He’s a Tea Party favorite, but the Tea Party is nowhere near a majority of the GOP makeup. Just as well, he’s an easy target for the Democrats because some of his views are very radical. If he were to run against Obama, the Democrats would run non-stop ads showing how “radical,” and “crazy,” he is. Moderates and independents would likely never get behind Paul.
What about Rick Perry? I know a lot of Republicans have expressed excitement over his candidacy, but he’s not a winner for several reasons. First, he has some ideas about changing the Constitution that are, in my opinion, absolutely ridiculous. For example, he wants to end the life-term for Supreme Court justices. He also wants to add an amendment that would ban gay marriage from the entire country. Sure, Perry would likely make the evangelical base salivate, but we have to face the fact that the Evangelicals alone are not going to win an election. His ideas are radical, and he makes no bones about being very, very Christian, and that would almost assuredly prevent him from winning any non-registered Republican votes. Let’s be honest, supporting the abolition of the federal income tax would probably be enough to end any presidential campaign, let alone the fact that many Americans might still be sour about Texans leading the free world.
Flip-flopper you say? That’s fine, too. He’s not a flip-flopper: he’s just pragmatic. He learns from his mistakes, and he’s not afraid to get his hands dirty. And unlike Ron Paul and Rick Perry’s radical views, and unlike Michele Bachmann’s polarization nature, Romney can be portrayed as someone who’s actually willing to advocate bipartisanship. Obama claimed that his goal was to bridge the gap between the two parties, but we’ve seen how that has turned out. Some in the Evangelical movement might have a hard time voting for a Mormon, but my guess is that their distaste for Obama will get them out to vote on November 2nd.
Romney is a governor with executive experience, and he’s willing to compromise. Radicals on both sides of the aisle hate the “C” word, but we have to remember that everyone else in between the radicals actually make up most of the electorate, and most Americans want compromise. The appeal to the middle is what wins elections, and right now Mitt Romney is the only candidate in the Republican field that has the potential to do that. Some Republicans want to make the GOP more radical, but that would almost certainly ensure the self-destruction of the party itself. Picking a far right-wing Republican would be almost as bad as just plain forfeiting the election and letting him run unopposed, or almost as bad as having a third-party candidate run.
If the Republican Party wants to beat Obama in 2012, then the GOP has to pick a candidate that’s not going to further polarize the electorate.
Related Posts
Tuesday, June 19, 2012 -- Exactly Who is Going to “Pull” Romney to the Right?
Monday, October 15, 2012 -- President Obama’s Second Term – The Devil Is In The Details
Sunday, September 9, 2012 -- Medicare Pilot Program Moves Seniors To Private Health Insurance
Thursday, August 23, 2012 -- Dealing With The Political Hurricane Of Todd Akin
Sunday, August 26, 2012 -- Mitt Romney Holds Extreme Views?
Monday, July 2, 2012 -- Congress – Last Chance To Repeal Obamacare
As I’ve said before, Romney has two things working against him: Mormonism and Romneycare. Born Against won’t vote for a Mormon because they consider him to be a Faux Christian. This is not theory it’s been shown. Conservatives won’t vote for him because of Romneycare. And Romney also punted on Global Warming saying maybe it’s real and we need to do something about it.
Perry hates Bush & Co. and Bush & Co. (Karl Rove, et al) hate him. That’s why this wing of the Republican Party is bashing him at every chance.
In truth Perry might make for some good articles and pithy retorts during the debate but I don’t trust him any more than I trusted either Bush. Too much swagger and false confidence. Combine that with the fact that the Texas governor actually does hardly anything regarding economic policy (according to the TX constitution) and you really don’t have much to show.
The only Republican candidate I could get excited about would be Paul Ryan. I do trust him and I think he’s a bright guy but will he run?
But how many conservatives will not vote for him knowing that the alternative would be 4 more years of Obama? They might not be enthused about voting for Romney, but my guess is that they would hold their noses and do it anyway
I can see Romney doing really well with young moderates.
You are talking about if Romney wins the nomination my points were more towards the process of deciding who will run against Obama.
If it were Obama vs. Romney then I think many would hold their nose and vote for him but I think the primary season will be particularly brutal on the GOP side for the issues discussed above.
Since it doesn’t matter who I vote for (Kalifornia always goes Democratic) I would most likely vote for somebody else as a write-in. When Bush ran against Kerry I wrote in John McCain’s name for example.
I think in my mind I might have combined your comment with someone else’s, lol. Good call though.
The question is, do you want to compromise with a left wing that is so hysterically extreme that you question even the sanity of the whole pack. Pelosi? Reid? Wasserman? Would you even want to compromise with that crowd? If you believe in America first you would be a fool to do so. That said, I still don’t see a Republican I can comfortably support in 2012. I see the lesser of two evils as business as usual.
It’s not about a desire to compromise with them, but it’s rather about the necessity to compromise with them. They’re there on Capitol Hill, they are law makers, and until they are not reelected we have no choice but to compromise.
If we believe in the principles of democracy and liberty, then we shouldn’t have such a problem compromising. American government is not about getting 535 men and women who all believe the exact same thing in a room. In a country of 311 million people, it’s impossible for the entire populace to be on the same page politically.
Believing in republican government means you have to believe that everyone gets a voice, and you have to believe in the common good.
You make a compelling case for Romney, but I think it will be hard for him to beat Obama because the Obama campaign will paint them as being not all that different. Between RomneyCare and gay marriage (which happened in Massachusetts under his watch) I think Romney will have a hard time getting conservatives out to the polls. However all that changes if the economy continues to spiral downward.
I think that issues like Romneycare and gay marriage could be enough for the Romney people to discredit any ad trying to equate him to the other Republicans
Plus, for conservatives that hate him for Romneycare, he’s said time and again that he made some mistakes with it, particularly the idea of individual mandate. The individual mandate seems to be the biggest liberty issue that conservatives have with Obamacare, and Romney has made it clear that he thinks the individual mandate is wrong.
You make a “mistake” when you forget to feed your dog and he eats your sofa. That’s what you tell the wife. Signing into law socialized healthcare does not fall under this type of “I’m sorry” category.
What Romney is really saying is “Sorry it didn’t work out and you won’t vote for me because of it.”
Well sir, you’ve certainly put together a compelling and pragmatic argument. I guess what it boils down to for some of us, is our perception of how far “down the road” we are as a country. Personally, I don’t know that we have any chance to survive with our liberties and way of life intact, unless we make a RADICAL change of course.
I honestly don’t know that electing a RINO leads to a different destination than re-electing the current administration. We’ll just get there marginally faster with the Marxist in chief.
I could vote for a bunch of people that aren’t running -):
Paul Ryan
Allen West
Marco Rubio
even
Chris Christie
As for those on the field:
I could vote for Bachman, although I don’t think she is ideal and doubt she has a chance in hell.
I could maybe vote for Perry, still researching that.
Paul reminds me too much of the crazy aspect of Ross Perot with some of his foreign policy stance. I might be able to vote for him, but don’t think he has a snowball’s chance.
I can’t vote for a RINO. I can’t vote for Romney. I’m sick and tired of the establishment Republicans.
Well I’m looking at it this way. Obama promised everyone hope and change and a different course in American politics, and it has already been made clear that despite whatever intentions he had, there’s no real different course.
Romney is going to have to distinguish his path from Obama’s, and if Romney wins then he’ll have to stick to whatever path he laid out before the campaign. If he doesn’t give us a truly different direction, then he would run the risk of being a 1-termer like Obama.
I think you summed it up pretty well.
Jack says, “If the Republican Party wants to beat Obama in 2012, then the GOP has to pick a candidate that’s not going to further polarize the electorate.”
That is the truth, and it is simple enough to understand for all of those not suffering from tunnel vision, which I think is the majority of Americans.
Even though I dislike Mitt Romney a great deal, you make a good case for him. This discussion is exactly why I asked you to write the post.
In the end, even though I care not one whit for the man, and he hasn’t a chance of getting my vote in the primary, I suppose I would vote for him in the general. I wouldn’t like it, but defeating Barack Obama takes precedent in this case.
If “beating Obama” is your goal, what, exactly, does that mean? For example, your entire case for Romney (at least presented here) failed to mention what a President Romney offers. I mean, “beating Obama” is an empty goal if all it means is more of the same. So, what does Romney bring to the table?
Romney supported TARP and the bailouts. RomneyCare gave birth to ObamaCare. Romney’s chief economic advisor is a Keynesian (just like Obama’s). He hearts Bernanke. Etc. Seriously, I can’t find one substantive difference between the two.
Simply “beating Obama” is a risky game. It makes us stare at the driver instead watching the road … until we lose track of where we’re even going. Based on his past actions and current advisors, it’s obvious Mitt intends to stay on the current status quo road. Are we supposed to forget his past and project onto Mitt whatever future we’d like to see? Should we just hope Romney has changed?
Because that sure sounds eerily Obama’s promise to me … and quite frankly, we can’t afford anymore of the same.
As I mentioned above, I don’t think Romney will be more of the same. Obama should serve as a lesson that if as president you’re offering a new path, a different direction, then you damn well better deliver one.
Still sounds like “hope and change.”
Although I really like Mitt Romney, I doubt that if he gets elected he will change much. Recently I started to believe that presidents don’t actually hold enough power to change things. They are under too much pressure from different sources. But I keep hoping with every new election.
The real question is what is appealing about Ron Paul, Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, Barry Obama, lima beans, brussel sprouts? The answer is nothing. It is truly a sad commentyary on a nation of 330 million people when bi laterally the final contestants are qualified and deserving of support as potential leaders of this once great country as the above mentioned veggies would be as horderves at a political dinner party. I’ll wait for the pigs in a blanket. .
Trackbacks: