The real, post-election Mitt Romney

The New Mitt Romney Documentary Is Fantastic, And It Exposes The Fundamental Flaw In A Lot Of Campaigns

[...]

 One of Mitt's sons, Josh, was asked by Whiteley in the midst of the 2008 primary if he ever thought it wasn't worth the trouble to run.

Josh responded with two different answers — one from his media "training," and one that he said was the truth.

Here's the answer he gave as if he were speaking to the media:

"The opportunity [is] for someone like my dad to come in and run the country. And the challenges we face right now in this country, to have someone with my dad’s experience, his knowledge, and his vision for America, someone that can come in and do this. It’s worth whatever it takes for us to get my dad into office."

Here's the "translation":

"This is so awful. It’s so hard. They always say, why can’t you get someone good to run for president? This is why. This is why you don’t get good people running for president. What better guy is there than my dad? Is he perfect? Absolutely not. He’s made mistakes. He’s done all sorts of things wrong. But for goodness sakes, here’s a brilliant guy whose had experience turning things around, which is what we need in this country. I mean, it’s like, this is the guy for the moment. And we’re in this, and you just get beat up constantly."

[...]

“Mitt,” Al Gore, and Our Identification With Presidential Losers

[...] Many reviews of “Mitt” have noted its humanizing effect on Romney: he is revealed to be thoughtful and gracious and, in scenes with his family, funny and self-aware. There are even murmurings that such a portrait, had it been released before the election, would have helped him to shed his reputation as an ambitious automaton and to forge a closer connection to voters. Maybe he would have won. But, in the heat of a campaign, the documentary would have been greeted differently, as a purely political object—mined for ready clues to his political positions, spun predictably by supporters and detractors. What did the fact that he listened to “This American Life” or quoted “O Brother Where Art Thou?” or attempted to iron his clothes while wearing them say about his ability to be the President? Surely his handlers wouldn’t have wanted anyone hearing him call himself “the flipping Mormon” or noting, rather bitterly, that he may have been a “flawed candidate.” But there is not much utility in a retrospective gaffe; seen now, the documentary is more intriguing for its general tone, which is one of pathos and quiet regret. [...]

Meanwhile, the RNC struggle to expand and find unity within itself continues:

RNC showcased update, while losing image remains

The road ahead is looking rather long.

   

Ann Romney, the "comeback kid" politically

How Ann Romney learned to stop worrying and love politics

[...] The 63-year-old mother of five and grandmother to 18 has emerged as an important humanizing force for Romney on the campaign trail. While the presumptive Republican nominee can come across as stiff and awkward on the stump, Ann charms the crowd with personal stories, casting her husband in a softer light. At a rally in Michigan on Friday she choked up while expressing gratitude that so many supporters in her home state had shown up. "Mitt and I grew up here, we fell in love here, and this is a special place for us," she said.

Despite her ongoing struggle with multiple sclerosis, which she was diagnosed with in 1998, Ann has attended hundreds of campaign events and often comes across as having more energy on the stump than her husband. She was at her husband's side at virtually every rally during the long primary—working the rope line alongside her spouse and often delivering a mini stump speech of her own.

In one instance, she tells the story of being a stay-at-home mom in charge of five "very naughty" sons when her husband, then a consultant with Bain Capital, was traveling. "He would call home, and he'd hear a very exasperated wife at the end of the phone," Ann said during a rally in South Carolina in January. "And he'd remind me to hang in there. It would be okay, that actually my job was more important than his job. And the cool thing was he meant it."

"You couldn't pay me to do this again"

Ann now seems so skilled and smooth in interviews it's hard to believe that she is actually something of a comeback kid, politically speaking.

During her husband's unsuccessful bid for a Massachusetts Senate seat, the Boston Globe blasted her in a scorched-earth profile that portrayed her as a chatty, over-privileged woman living a life so perfect it bordered on creepy. The two lines from the interview that most haunted the campaign: Ann's insistence that she and her Ken-doll-looking husband had never once had a fight during their marriage; and her statement that the couple was "struggling" when Mitt was getting his graduate degrees at Harvard. The two were supporting themselves by selling off American Motors stock given to Mitt by his wealthy father—something that didn't exactly resonate with voters working two jobs to survive. ("Mitt was still in school and we had no income except the stock we were chipping away at. We were living on the edge, not entertaining. No, I did not work. Mitt thought it was important for me to stay home with the children, and I was delighted," she said at the time.)

In an article titled "Daughter of Privilege Knows Little of Real World," the Boston Herald ripped off the most unflattering of the Globe's quotes. The experience left Ann incredibly angry, she later admitted. When a reporter asked her after her husband's defeat whether she would ever help him launch another race, she retorted: "Never. You couldn't pay me to do this again."

Writer Ron Scott, a Mormon who wrote MITT ROMNEY: An Inside Look at the Man and His Politicsand who lived in the same stake—sort of the Mormon version of a diocese—as the Romneys, said he remembers "gasping" when he first read the Globe profile, instantly recognizing it as a disaster. But now, Scott thinks the incident just shows how fully Romney trusted his wife—for good or for bad. Despite her political inexperience, her husband was willing to let Ann do an hour-long one-on-one interview without media training or a PR team to hold her hand. And Ann was happy to take that risk, confident she could come out on top.

Perhaps that assurance was misplaced at the time, but it seems fitting now.

"She looks...like she's enjoying the campaign," Scott said. "I think if you were to contrast between now and '94, I don't think she really enjoyed that campaign or the 2008 one, but this time around I think she really looks like she's come alive." [...]

   

A Romney-Ryan Ticket? I'd be pleased.

Ryan to be named Romney's running mate

NORFOLK, Va. – Rep. Paul Ryan will be named Mitt Romney's running mate on Saturday, ending weeks of speculation about the No. 2 slot on the GOP ticket.

The Associated Press and several TV networks confirmed the news.

Ryan, 42, is best known as the chairman of the House Budget Committee and author of a dramatic plan to overhaul Medicare, the government-run health insurance program for senior citizens.

Romney is set to reveal his running mate here at a museum next to the U.S.S. Wisconsin, a retired battleship, before setting out on a bus tour of key swing states to highlight his economic plans for the middle class.

In an interview with NBC on Thursday, Romney said he was looking for someone with "a strength of character" and "a vision for the country that adds something to the political discourse about the direction of the country."

With Ryan as his running mate, Romney appears ready to have a national conversation about federal spending and the growth of entitlements with one of the GOP's leading budget authorities at his side.

Ryan, a House member since 1999, has proposed to dramatically change both Medicare and Medicaid, the programs that have been a hallmark of the nation's compact to provide health care to senior citizens and the poor.

[...]

The Wall Street Journal said in an editorial Thursday that choosing Ryan as Romney's running mate would underscore "the nature and stakes of this election."

"More than any other politician, the House Budget Chairman has defined those stakes well as a generational choice about the role of government and whether America will once again become a growth economy or sink into interest-group dominated decline," the Journal editorial said. [...]

I'll still wait for the announcement. I'll be pleased if it's true, but it will be a tough time for Ryan. It will be tough for ANY Republican.
     

When "Boring" really is Better

Why Mitt should pick a boring Veep:

Romney, make a boring pick for VP

[...] Vice presidential picks are not an opportunity to make a game change, at least in a positive direction. When McCain turned to Palin, he did so in an effort to overcome many of his perceived weaknesses against candidate Obama -- his inability to attract the base of his party, fears that he would appear to look like the "older" candidate in the race, as well as the concern that he was a less charismatic candidate in the eyes of the media.

Clearly the Palin pick backfired. What can Romney and others learn from this episode?

The first lesson is that vice presidential picks should be boring. In the end, Mitt Romney must overcome his weaknesses as a candidate by what he does on the campaign trail, not by who he picks as his running mate.

Having the right person stand beside you rarely will change the way the public sees you. But calling on the wrong person can draw all the focus away from the campaign's main themes and raise serious concerns about the competence of the candidate.

Very often, less than exciting candidates -- Dick Cheney in 2000, Sen. Al Gore in 1992 or George H.W. Bush in 1980 -- turned out to be perfect primarily because they didn't cause much of a stir. When it comes to vice presidential candidates, less attention is better.

A second lesson is that candidates must make sure that their running mate can handle the national spotlight in the modern media age. It's far different to be a rock star in Anchorage than it is in Washington.

With all the outlets for news today, with cable television, the Internet and social media constantly finding and supplying information, it is very difficult to contain charges or gaffes before they go viral.

And despite all the criticism that our current politics are shallow, the fact is that competence can matter very much when candidates stand before the media. When Palin stumbled in her interviews on national television about basic foreign policy questions, the media immediately exposed her flaws.

Katie Couric's questions did huge damage to Palin in 2008 in a manner that most Democrats could only have dreamed of doing.

A third lesson is that appealing to the party's base during the general election is not always the best move to make. After all, Romney's chief asset remains the fact that he is the moderate Republican in the campaign, the Republican who has the best chance to win over independents and disaffected moderate Democrats in November. [...]

Read the whole thing. And lets remember, Obama also made a boring Veep pick, and it worked out well for him.

Sometimes boring really IS the better choice.
     

Mitt and the Mormon Question. No Problem.

At least it shouldn't be. Here's one good reasoned viewpoint on the subject:


Would A Mormon President Subvert American Democracy?

[...] What follows below is not a Romney-fan’s propaganda. Actually, my favorite used to be another aspirant. The LDS affiliation of Mitt Romney exposes us again to the temptation to make religion into a criterion for picking a candidate. Now then, the theological validity of Mormonism’s version of Christianity is beyond my competence and my interest. To many, the implications of a President embracing that creed are of concern. However, American public life and her high-level politics have created indicators that Mormons will not kidnap America and replace its system with their theocracy.

The record of Utah State, when it was ardently LDS, is also an argument. In practice, LDS keep the worldly realm separated from the private pursuit of heaven. Yes, Mormonism involves a way of life. Furthermore, the Church is interested in conversions. Nevertheless, the instinct to “rescue souls” stops short of imposing the “right way” upon non-believers. Unlike the Sharia, it refrains from making outsiders to adhere to enforced norms that limit every aspect of life. Since Mormons know a personal realm, the faith can place politics outside of religion’s sphere. Accepting or rejecting Mormon theology does not have political consequences. The faith does not command unquestioned obedience in the public realm. At any rate, it does not do so to a larger extent than does the now discarded scarecrow of “Popism”.

The second point issues from an old moral obligation. To those that had no contact with Mormons such testimonials could be revealing. Nevertheless, at the outset a cautionary note is needed. We tend to judge exotic groups by the first “samples” we encounter. The resulting generalization can be quite misguided. I recall my college roommate and now best friend “I have never met a Hungarian before. So this is what you guys are like.” Since I am rather unlike other Magyars, I thought that this “discovery” was ironic.

Now to my story. In the seventies, we were moving back to the US. We knew that we had abandoned a secure existence to face uncertainty. On the plane, we sat near to a large group. Soon a gentleman came over and congratulated us because of the behavior of the children. Given our trepidation, this felt reassuring. I told Mr. Hugh Smith that much and explained our probable predicament. He then identified himself as a Mormon returning from Israel. [...]

Read the whole thing. Mr. Smith sounds like many of the Mormons I've known.
     

A National Health Care Preview, and a lesson from Natasha Richardson's experience

I had posted about Mitt Romney's health care plan for Massachusetts years ago. Some folks warned me that it was doomed to fail, and it seems that is the case. It seems that these sorts of things have been tried before, and the results are always the same:

National Health Preview: The Massachusetts debacle, coming soon to your neighborhood.

Praise Mitt Romney. Three years ago, the former Massachusetts Governor had the inadvertent good sense to create the "universal" health-care program that the White House and Congress now want to inflict on the entire country. It is proving to be instructive, as Mr. Romney's foresight previews what President Obama, Max Baucus, Ted Kennedy and Pete Stark are cooking up for everyone else.

In Massachusetts's latest crisis, Governor Deval Patrick and his Democratic colleagues are starting to move down the path that government health plans always follow when spending collides with reality -- i.e., price controls. As costs continue to rise, the inevitable results are coverage restrictions and waiting periods. It was only a matter of time.

They're trying to manage the huge costs of the subsidized middle-class insurance program that is gradually swallowing the state budget. The program provides low- or no-cost coverage to about 165,000 residents, or three-fifths of the newly insured, and is budgeted at $880 million for 2010, a 7.3% single-year increase that is likely to be optimistic. The state's overall costs on health programs have increased by 42% (!) since 2006. [...]

The article goes on to look at the usual ways governments use to attempt to fix these problems... and the flaws inherent in them. The article also claims that if this plan is applied on a national level, the results will be even worse, because MA had a far smaller percentage of its population uninsured than the national average.

Yet we are now about to adopt this plan on a National level?

Our current health care system would work better if some government controls were removed, such as the silly laws that forbid people from buying health care across state lines. Such as not taxing health insurance that people (like me!) buy for themselves.

If government is to have a roll in improving our health care system, they need to allow us more choices, not less. They need to stop over-burdening the present system with needless restrictions, and let competition lower prices. And our politicians definitely need to learn from the many mistakes of others who have gone before them. Many of them don't seem to have a good record of learning from mistakes. Hopefully the voters will.


There is a great deal to be learned from other National Health Care systems. Natasha Richardson's experience in Canada is a good example:

CANADACARE MAY HAVE KILLED NATASHA

COULD actress Natasha Richardson's tragic death have been prevented if her skiing accident had occurred in America rather than Canada?

Canadian health care de-emphasizes widespread dissemination of technology like CT scanners and quick access to specialists like neurosurgeons. While all the facts of Richardson's medical care haven't been released, enough is known to pose questions with profound implications.

Richardson died of an epidural hematoma -- a bleeding artery between the skull and brain that compresses and ultimately causes fatal brain damage via pressure buildup. With prompt diagnosis by CT scan, and surgery to drain the blood, most patients survive.

Could Richardson have received this care? Where it happened in Canada, no. In many US resorts, yes. [...]

Read the whole thing. It's not hard to see why CanadaCare failed her. In fact, look at this example of a little girl in the US, with a very similar injury to Natasha's:

Natasha's lesson helps save Ohio girl

[...] The McCrackens took Morgan to the emergency room at LakeWest Hospital in neighboring Willoughby, where doctors ordered a CT scan and immediately put Morgan on a helicopter to Rainbow Babies and Children's Hospital in Cleveland, with her father by her side.

"I knew it was bad when she had to get there by helicopter in six minutes, instead of the 30 minutes it would have taken to get to Cleveland in an ambulance," McCracken said.

When the helicopter arrived at Rainbow, the McCrackens were greeted by Dr. Alan Cohen, the hospital's chief of pediatric neurosurgery. He whisked Morgan into the operating room, pausing for a moment to tell McCracken that his daughter had the same injury as Richardson: an epidural hematoma.

McCracken remembers standing in the emergency room, feeling like the life had just been sucked out of him. "My heart sank," he says. "It just sank."

Unlike Richardson's, Morgan's story has a happy ending. [...]

It was a happy ending for Morgan because of quick action and ample availability of treatment and equipment. The very thing's that did not work out in Natasha's favor under CanadaCare.

There IS a reason why so many Canadian's come to the USA for medical treatment. They don't want to die waiting for treatment in Canada.

I'm sure that there are plenty of things we can do to improve our health care system in the United States, to make it more affordable and accessible. But policies that have a proven track record of failure should not be among them. We have to create better ways.


Related Links:

Health Insurance and Medical Expenses

Lowering Health Care Costs for Everyone

PRIVATE HEALTHCARE ... SAY IT AIN'T SO!

There's No Place Like Home: What I learned from my wife's month in the British medical system.
     

McCain and Republican Party Struggles

Just some quick links here to articles I found interesting:

McCain detractors decreasing
A report on the status of McCain’s conservative buzz in Wonkosphere.

Quelling the McCain Mutiny
A call for patience to give conservatives time to warm up to McCain, and a plea to not call them stupid. Fine... but how about if they stop calling us RINOs?

McCain supporters urge Republicans to unite
In Michigan, the Republican Party tries to rally support around McCain with the help of Mitt Romney. But Huckabee's wife Janet is there to grab as many delegates from McCain as she can for her Husband.
     

Back to reality... where to from here?

The Editors of National Review Online have published an editorial, I'm going to repeat the whole thing here, because it's short:

The Comeback . . . Adult

Mitt Romney is a smart and talented man who has run a vigorous campaign based mostly on conservative issues. He vows to keep fighting all the way to the convention. But he took third place in several Southern states on Super Tuesday, a dismal showing for someone attempting to rally conservatives. He has our support. But it is now up to him to identify a plausible path to the nomination.

Sen. John McCain’s amazing comeback is a testament to the power of perseverance, conviction, and luck. It has been good to see his strength on Iraq rewarded. For the Republican nomination to be worth his having, however, he needs to consolidate his support on the Right — ideally, before the fall.

Doing that will require ignoring some of the spin coming from his allies on immigration. They say that McCain’s victories prove that opposition to amnesty is a losing issue. Actually, the anti-amnesty candidates — including Mike Huckabee, who has been running as a deportationist — have gotten majorities in most states. Even in Florida, where strong Hispanic support gave McCain a decisive win, the anti-amnesty candidates got nearly half the vote. McCain’s success proves that Republican politicians can survive supporting amnesty if they have compensating strengths. It does not prove that the issue helped him. As Ramesh Ponnuru writes in the upcoming issue of National Review, conservatives cannot reasonably ask McCain to abandon his convictions on immigration. But they can ask him to say that he will defer any action on amnesty, or guest workers, until a few years after enforcement has been put into effect.

Immigration reform is the policy issue that gives conservatives the most concern about McCain. But they worry as much about his priorities as his policies, so he will not be able to win their support merely by listing all of the topics on which he agrees with them. Aside from his opposition to pork-barrel spending, there is no domestic conservative cause that McCain has taken up. We believe that a President McCain would prefer to appoint conservative judges, for example. But would he fight for them or cut a deal with Pat Leahy? That is the fear that underlies the complaints about McCain’s membership in the Gang of 14.

He has not always taken the lead even on national-security issues. Republicans in Washington want to extend and reform an intelligence-collection law, but Democrats are balking, threatening an interruption in operations. McCain’s voice would be helpful here, if he chose to use it.

McCain can win over most conservatives, but their support is not his by right. They will rally to him if he demonstrates that he believes that a broad range of conservative policies are among the things that are, to quote the title of one of his books, worth the fighting for.

The calm voice of the editors of NRO, helping us keep our eye on ball and focused on where it is in the bigger picture. Thank You NRO.


From Jim Geraghty at NRO's The Campaign Spot:
Hugh: Put Humpty Dumpty Together Before St. Paul

[...] Hugh is a party man, and a conservative, and a guy who keeps his eye on the long term. (Like him, I never buy into arguments that you win later by losing now.) [...]

Whatever our disappointments presently, let's keep our eye on the long term. That means using with whatever we have now, and making it work.


I think it's safe now to say the Reagan Coalition is dead. If you MUST have a post-mortem, try this one:
Religion and the death rattle of the GOP?

[...] So the South thinks it voted for a real conservative by voting for the Huckster? As I've said many times before, scratch a southern Republican, and you'll find a big-government Dixiecrat which is what Huckabee is. The Goldwater/Reagan conversion of Dixiecrats to Republican was skin deep.

What has amazed me is the depth of anti-Mormonism in evangelicals (not all - I know many who are practical and sensible when it comes to politics.) I find this completely illogical given that all religion is personal and subjective but then I'm not a domineering, authoritarian, dogmatic control freak as some religionists seem to be.

As for California: this is the first time that they have had a say in the primaries. In the 25 years that I lived there, it was all over by the time we voted in May and many people didn't even bother to vote. So far it looks like McCain is ahead with 44% (still not the magical 51%) but we won't know till tomorrow for sure. If I were Mitt, I'd concede now and not spend another dime of my own money on ungrateful and self-centered Republicans.

I've said before I'll settle for McCain. He could win against the Clintons but maybe not against the feel-good Obamania sweeping the country. Maybe the blundits are right and Americans are sick of Republicans and their endless pontificating and moralizing. [...]

The Reagan Coalition may have worked in it's time, but that was then, this is now. Now we have to form a new Coalition if we can. That coalition will consist of the willing. I'm willing, are you?
     

Is the Romney Surge the Last Chance for Evangelicals and the "Reagan Coalition"?

Dee at Conservatism with Heart has a good post at her blog about why she if voting for Romney today:

Why I'm Voting for Mitt Romney on Super Tuesday

[...] I will be honest and admit (as most of you are aware) that Romney was not my first choice. Yet, as I look at what is at stake in this November's election I think it is crucial that we pick the most conservative candidate for our nominee. I am a pretty loyal Republican and I like, probably 80% of our guys. Why we are somehow stuck with several candidates that are a part of the 20% is very frustrating, to say the least.

Anyone who has read my blog for any length of time knows that I have had HUGE issues with McCain for many years. The fact that he is now the possible nominee for our party is just beyond dis-heartening. It is like driving a stake through the heart of Reagan Conservatism. I cannot sit by silently while what so many of us have worked for is dismantled by someone as liberal as McCain. Therefore, it is expedient to support the one conservative left in this race, Mitt Romney. [...]

Dee is a conservative Christian, and I'm seeing more and more evangelicals rallying around Romney to oppose McCain. But will there be enough, and will it be in time? The polls keep showing McCain as far ahead. But the polls can be wrong; remember when the polls predicted that Hillery would lose New Hampshire? So I think it's more important to just vote, and see what the polls say later.

One of the links on Dee's post was about Huckabee as a spoiler. On that blog (Article VI Blog), I found an article by John Schroeder that was quite interesting, about the evangelical vote, conservatism and the Republican party, and how the evangelicals are about to lose their political voice, if they don't rally around Mitt Romney NOW. Here are some excerpts (bold emphasis mine):

What Is At Stake

[...] When I was first introduced the the idea via Hugh Hewitt and Robert Novak that Evangelicals would not vote for Romney because of his faith, one thought ran through my mind: “political suicide.” Only one thing could result from such a bias and that was the Evangelical political voice being cast to the side. I wanted to protect that voice. Thus my half of this blog was born.

As is almost always true in politics, the journey has been quite different than I expected, but I truly believe that the Evangelical political voice is now at stake. If Mitt Romney loses - far from a foregone conclusion - his religion will be but one of many factors in that event, and while important, I do not think it will have been determinative.

However, as the race has narrowed down to two and the spoiler, the conservative voice in the Republican party is at stake - everybody agrees on that, and Evangelicals are the energy, motivator, and banner carrier for that voice. Conservatives lose and Evangelicals are on the bench, if they are in the stadium at all. In other words, we stand on the precipice I feared from the beginning. The current electoral calculus is such that a vote for Mitt Romney is the only way to preserve that voice.

[...]

There is much discussion in this cycle by evangelicals of feeling like they are “taken for granted” by the Republican establishment. There is some truth to that, but there are two vitally important points I want to make.

The first point is - grow up. It is politics, not church. This is not about making friends and feeling good about yourself. It is about gathering enough support, meaning people, to your particular cause, concern, or issue. That is definitionally about “using” people. Once you have secured someone’s support, you have to move on to the next someone. Is that taking you for granted? In a way, it is, but no more so than your employer that fits you in a spot on the assembly line. And if you quit your job because you think your employer takes you for granted, all you really lose is a paycheck. Best have someplace else to go before you make that move, I don’t care how “hurt” you “feel.”

A brief personal aside on this point. Through the course of things it has been my privilege to meet Mitt Romney on multiple occasions. I have had extensive and personal conversations with some of his family. Over the years, I have met presidents of this country in intimate settings, and I have met presidents and potentates of many other nations. Almost all of these people have referred to me as their “friend.” When I was young, I thought that meant we were going to start hanging out and having beers together - yeah, right. But when Mitt Romney called me his friend, I knew that if time allowed, there might not be beer involved, but we could enjoy some conviviality. Simply put, the man is as genuine in his connection to the people he meets as the circumstances can possibly allow - more so than any individual of such position, and higher, that I have ever met. I can assure you, Evangelicals could never be “taken for granted” by Mitt Romney. They might get less attention than they think they deserve, but that is their problem, not his.

The second point is a far more important one. Party politics is how you get things done in this nation. In those rare instances where independents manage to get themselves elected, they are relegated to the role “the speech everyone sits through politely” or the “class clown” a la Jesse Ventura. Accomplishing things in government requires rounding up enough of the right people - yeah, it’s social networking. Political parties are the infrastructure necessary to build that network.

Political parties thrive on loyalty. If they cannot, at least from time-to-time, take you for granted, they have to move on to people and groups that they can depend on so that they can accomplish their goals. It is a simple exchange. You give the party your dependable loyalty and in return they give you the means necessary to make your voice heard.

[...]

As things have turned out, Evangelicals have not refused, so much, to vote for Mitt Romney because he is Mormon, they have instead chosen to vote for Mike Huckabee because he is “one of us.” How much a role suspicion and bias against Mormonism has played in that somewhat more positive-appearing choice is a determination that will ultimately be up to pollsters and psychologists in the years after the election to determine. And while it may not be “bigotry” it is identity politics, and they are as suicidal as pure bigotry.

No identity group is sufficiently large to carry a presidential election. A coalition is required. What Mike Huckabee has done is peel off one section of the traditional conservative coalition, Evangelicals, and claimed it for himself. With the coalition split, neither Evangelicals or the greater conservative coalition can win.

The presidential candidate for a party leads that party. That leader is going to pay attention to and drive the agenda of the coalition that got him there. Not only are Evangelicals not part of the coalition that has gotten John McCain this far, McCain has in the past loudly and actively found Evangelicals distasteful. [...]

He goes on to describe the consequences of evangelicals leaving the coalition, the consequences for both evangelicals and the conservative movement as a whole, and Huckabee's terrible role in bringing this about. Huck is promising evangelicals something he can't deliver, and following him will lead to political suicide.

It's a well thought out article, and worth reading the whole thing, I think there is a lot of wisdom in it.

I'm not an evangelical, nor are all their concerns my own. But I do acknowledge that they have been vital in the past for holding the "Reagan Coalition" together. If enough of them pull out of that coalition now, it will collapse, and a new coalition will form without them. John McCain's candidacy is just the first sign of things to come. If you are unhappy about it, you can thank Mike Huckabee and his followers for that. If it's going to be turned around, it needs to be done soon.
     

The Romney Surge is Beginning...

At least I think so. Romney is gaining support, and isn't giving up:

Romney Expects to Fight on Past Tuesday

Despite John McCain's building political momentum, Mitt Romney said Saturday he does not expect the Republican presidential nomination to be settled during the coming week and he is planning to continue campaigning beyond Super Tuesday.

The former Massachusetts governor said the number of states up for grabs, his prospects of succeeding in some of the 20-plus GOP contests that day, as well as a growing concern within the Republican Party about conferring the nomination on McCain give him reason to fight on.

[...]

During a news conference late in Minneapolis, Romney celebrated a caucus victory Saturday in Maine, noting that it came despite McCain's backing by the two U.S. senators in Maine, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins.

"This is a people's victory," Romney said. "It is, in my view, also an indication that conservative change is something that the American people want to see. I think you're going to see a growing movement across this country to get behind my candidacy and to propel this candidacy forward. I think it's a harbinger of what you're going to see on Tuesday."

[...]

Romney also said his campaign has seen an uptick in donations - $345,000 in one day last week versus a typical daily take of $50,000 - as the race has crystallized into a two-man contest between him and McCain.

Two other candidates, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, have lagged in national public opinion surveys and the GOP delegate count.

"I think one of the dynamics that changed is that conservative Republican and mainstream Republicans, all over the country, in the last 48 hours or so, have concentrated on the prospect of Senator McCain being our nominee and are saying, 'That's not the direction we want to go,'" Romney said. [...]

Good! If Super Tuesday doesn't decide it, he will keep going and may yet make it to the White House, as splintered parts of the Republican party now unite to rally around him.

Win Mitt Win!!!

Related Link: Good News For The Romney Camp?
     

Romney or McCain? Or the alternative...

I came across this article from the New York Observer (Oct. 22nd 2007), that claims McCain dislikes Romney, for the following reason:

What Mitt Romney Doesn't Need: A Furious John McCain

If John McCain thinks he deserved just a little better from Mitt Romney, well, it’s pretty understandable.

Five years ago, Mr. Romney’s political career was on the line. Just a week before the 2002 election, he found himself one point behind in the race for governor of Massachusetts, and his Democratic foe was about to receive some high-profile campaign assistance from Hillary Clinton.

And so Mr. Romney called in his secret weapon: Mr. McCain, who in those bygone days was the most popular national political figure in Massachusetts, where he scored a 65-11 percent favorable rating in a fall 2002 poll.

As the cameras rolled, Mr. Romney paid tribute to Mr. McCain’s “straight talk.”

"That's the kind of leadership we need in Massachusetts—not a curved talker,” he said, taking a shot at his gubernatorial rival. Mr. McCain also lent his voice to automated phone calls that flooded Massachusetts, and Mr. Romney pulled out a last-minute victory.

But now Mr. McCain and Mr. Romney are running against each other for the presidential nomination, and it’s Mr. McCain who’s calling Mr. Romney the curved talker. His exasperation has begun to boil over. In Sunday night’s debate in Orlando, Mr. McCain reacted harshly to Mr. Romney’s suggestion that his rivals are less pure conservatives than he is. [...]

The article goes on to say that in 2005, Romney called McCain's immigration plan "reasonable", but later on when they began competing as rivals, Romney began calling it “amnesty” for illegal immigrants.

You can read the rest for details, it's written by a McCain supporter I believe, so be warned. ;-) I haven't verified every detail, but it would explain a lot of things. It also touches on an accusation that has followed Mitt throughout his campaign: Flip-Flopping.

Most of these flip flopping accusations are about liberal positions Romney used to hold, which have been displaced by more conservative ones. Romney claims that with age and with his experiences as Governor, he has become more conservative as he has grown into an understanding and appreciation of the conservatism of Ronald Reagan.

Many would say this is plausible. Many say this is not flip flopping, to move from one position to another; it's only flip flopping if you move from position "A" to position "B" and then BACK to "A" again.

Mitt's detractors maintain that he pretended to be liberal to get elected as governor, and now uses conservatism to get elected as president. But his father, George Romney, was known as a moderate Republican, so many would say it is plausible he was really more liberal in his youth.

I for one can't read his mind. And even now, not all his positions would be considered conservative. While he may have become more conservative on some issues, I think of him as being overall more moderate than hard right. He has explained much of his reasoning about his positions quite clearly; some people believe him, some don't.

Neither McCain nor Romney is perfect, and I have some reservations about both of them, although I still favor Romney. I don't know which one will come out ahead in this. But whatever happens, my GUT instinct about all this is... vote for the Republican. Whichever one wins. Here is a good explanation as to why:

The GOP: what's good for business is good for America

[...] Voting for a Republican is a crap-shoot just like business - and life in general. You pick your cards and roll the dice and hope for the best - but you've made the effort to remember which cards have already been dealt and you make an educated guess.

Voting for a Democrat is not a crap-shoot. You know for sure that you're going to get more commie crap. So my educated guesses have nearly always led me to vote for Republicans. Yes, deep down inside, I have ideals and wish for politicians who understood the wisdom of the Founders' limited government Constitution but we've strayed so far off course over the centuries that just a modicum of Americanism satisfies me nowadays. [...]

That's it in a nut shell; the rest of Pat's post spells it out, and it's those very thoughts that have been nagging at the back of my mind in all of this primary political juggling. Reading it spelled out, it's like someone turned on the windshield wipers, and the view is clear once more. I can see the way forward; I'm going to vote for the Republican in November, hope for the best, and do what I can to make the best happen. That's bound to be better than the Democrats certain alternative. If you aren't certain, follow the link and see.
     

Vote for Mitt Romney, stop McCain/Huckabee

Romney aims for a split in California

DENVER - Republican Mitt Romney is conceding the bulk of the Northeast to rival John McCain, counting instead on his home state of Massachusetts, a split in California and wins in a series of caucus states to extend his presidential campaign beyond Super Tuesday.

[...]

If he fails to capture enough delegates to offset McCain's likely wins in other states and strong showing in California, where the Arizona senator has the backing of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Romney could end his campaign in Boston on Wednesday.

During a news conference Friday outside a Ford dealership here, he passed up three opportunities to declare he would carry on if he fails to surpass McCain in the Super Tuesday voting.

"I really thought it would all be over, you know, early in January, and now we're going to go into February, and I just can't predict what will happen in February," he said, "so we'll see what happens."

This week the multimillionaire former venture capitalist authorized only a modest $3 million advertising buy, after committing $35 million of his own money last year in an effort to lock up the nomination early with back-to-back wins in Iowa and New Hampshire.

While Romney won in Wyoming, Michigan and Nevada, McCain beat him in major head-to-head battles in New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida. Huckabee prevailed in the leadoff Iowa caucuses. He has vowed to remain in the race, taking critical conservative support from Romney.

Currently, Romney trails McCain in delegates to the Republican National Convention, 83-59. A total of 1,191 are needed for the nomination.

Simple mathematics highlight the challenge confronting Romney. [...]

Read the entire article for all the details. I don't like the sound of this at all. Huckabee may take just enough votes away from Mitt to sink him. Where is Huckabee getting his money to continue on? He can't win, but can only drag Romney down.

The Mack and Huck Show

[...] Where is Tonya Harding when you need her? Huckabee should have been kneecapped back before South Carolina. He has no money to run ads in the 23 Tuesday states but just having his name on the ballot is going to steal votes from Mitt. If I were a conspiracy-minded person, I would say that Mack and Huck have done a private dirty deal to take votes away from Mitt.

That leaves a bad taste in my mouth. If Mack picks Huck for VP, then it pretty much confirms my suspicions and I could not, in good conscience, bring myself to vote for them. I'd rather see them both in hell than in the White House. [...]

This is all like a nightmare to me. I won't get to vote until April, and if the MSM is right, it could all be decided on Feb. 5th. It stinks.

Tonya, where ARE you?
     

The state of the Reagan Coalition, as it is today

I've done two other posts, linking to articles that question whether the Reagan Coalition is as influential as it once was, or if it's even still the Republican base.

I think the questions are important. But to be clear, I'm not saying the Reagan Coalition is DEAD. But if we end up with McCain as our candidate, then clearly something has changed or gone terribly wrong. The situation we find ourselves in could possibly be explained thus:

1.) The coalition may be smaller; it's eldest members have certainly passed on, as has President Reagan himself. Have many new members of like mind replaced them? If not, then the coalition would be smaller, and therefor less influential.

2.) A coalition needs a leader to unite them as one political force. The coalition has not rallied around any of the candidates. It has, in fact, been split.

A segment of evangelicals has gone for Huckabee. These folks were once Democrats, and like big government. They are reverting back to their roots, and Huckabee has split them away from the coalition.

Giuliani and McCain may have split away many of the National Security member's of the coalition. The Fiscal conservatives drafted Fred Thompson into the race, but he entered so late that many potential supporters had already committed themselves elsewhere; his campaign staff was too small and couldn't cope quickly enough to build the support he needed.

The coalition has been fractured and scattered; now we find ourselves looking at John McCain as the potential front runner. I say "potential" because the primaries are hardly over yet; the MSM may be pushing him as having already won, but that's typical of them, trying to create the news instead of reporting it.

The coalition, however fractured and reduced it may be, it's members, however scattered about they have been, still have a chance to regroup. I see that they have two choices left:

1.) Rally around and support Mitt Romney on Super Tuesday February 5th. He is really the only alternative to McCain right now. He may not be your ideal candidate, but in politics we often don't get our ideal; we get reality. We vote for the best person AVAILABLE, and we work to make the most of it.

2.) Vote for McCain, and take the consequences. You might get a few things you want... if he can even win. The MSM wants him to be nominated, because they know he's unpopular with the base. Once he gets the nomination, I have no doubt the MSM will turn on him, play up the aspects about him that Republican's hate, play that tape of him ranting like a lunatic about lettuce and lazy Americans... you get the idea?

If Mitt gets the Nomination, he will also be given a very hard time. Either way, it's going to be a tough battle. But I believe that Mitt Romney is the best candidate, not necessarily the perfect one, but the best one available. He has many fine qualities, and should be given serious consideration. The left absolutely despises him, for reasons that conservatives would love. Even conservative Democrats. Yes, remember, conservative Democrats were always a part of the Reagan coalition too.

Now that the many candidates that have distracted and splintered the coalition have been narrowed down, we have an opportunity to unite again. The coalition may have changed; times change, the players change, but certain conservative truths don't change, and that is what unites the coalition. So let's not sweat the details too much, and unite and pick the BEST candidate on Super Tuesday.

I feel that candidate is Mitt. If it turns out to be McCain, I'll deal with it if and when I must. But I live in Oregon; our primary won't be until April. Those of you who get to vote in Super Tuesday have a chance to reunite the coalition, in whatever shape it might be today. I hope you will. It's up to you.


Related Links:

Is Romney appealing to a conservative coalition that no longer controls the GOP?

Is the Reagan Coalition Gone? What's next?

The early primaries are the problem
     

Is Romney appealing to a conservative coalition that no longer controls the GOP?

Michael Scherer asks that very question:

Is Romney Fighting the Last War?

From the start, Mitt Romney had a clear strategy for winning the White House. He would run as the candidate of the ideological establishment, the Republican old-guard, the coalition of Ronald Reagan, with that three-legged stool of social, fiscal and national security conservatism. He would become the inside man in a presidential field filled with outsiders.

[...]

And yet, his candidacy sputtered. His narrow loss Tuesday to John McCain in Florida was just the latest in a series of disappointments that began in Iowa and New Hampshire, two states where he had outspent his rivals and once led in the polls. His failures have many causes, which will be raked over by historians. But they also suggest a broader shift: Romney may be running to lead a Republican Party that no longer exists.

As has become increasingly clear, the ideological coalition Romney so eagerly courted no longer controls the fate of the GOP, at least in the early voting states - which have favored Mike Huckabee, a populist who trumpets the occasional role of larger government, and John McCain, a legislative maverick who does not always play by the Republican rulebook. Romney tried to run as the establishment candidate, only to find that the establishment no longer held the power. [...]

The article goes on to talk about some of the new strategies the Romney camp plans to move forward from here.

I think it is quite possible he's been appealing to a coalition that either no longer exists, or is smaller, weaker or otherwise changed from what it once was. The Reagan Coalition was formed almost 30 years ago. Many of it's members, like president Reagan himself, have passed on. Times have changed.

The best winning strategy that Mitt can use right now is, IMO, to just be himself, and not try to fit into a conservative straight jacket. He won't be conservative enough for the extreme right, but how likely is he to get their votes anyway? He has potential appeal to a lot of more moderate conservatives, including conservative Democrats. He should use this to his advantage, rather than play it down.


UPDATE 01-31-08
I just want to state that I'm not saying the coalition is dead, but I am trying to understand what has happened to bring us where we are now, so we can understand what needs to be done next. I elaborate more on that here:

The state of the Reagan Coalition, as it is today


Related Links:

Is the Reagan Coalition Gone? What's next?

Hope!!
     

Why I support Mitt Romney for President

Because Fred Thompson dropped out? Well yeah, there is that. ;-) But even then I wanted Mitt for veep. But here is why I now support Mitt for president:

1.) Mitt was a Governor. I much prefer Governors to Senators as presidential candidates. Seeing how they governed a state gives you some clues as to how they might govern a nation, and if they are up to the job or not.

2.) He was Governor of Massachusetts. A Republican Governor, in a state where only 14% of the population is registered Republican. That's quite a feat.

I grew up in nearby Connecticut, and went to college in Boston for a year. I dropped out, got a job and continued living and working in the state for a while, till I saved up money and moved to California. I explored a lot of left wing political groups while I worked there. I'm no stranger to Massachusetts and some of it's political workings.

Anyone who is Governor of that state HAS to work with Ted Kennedy; he isn't just a Senator; he's a local "god". Whatever you think of him, you'd better find a way to work with him, or you will accomplish NOTHING.

The fact that Romney had enough appeal to get elected in such a blue state as MA is a wonder in itself. The fact that he could actually work with Ted Kennedy to accomplish anything is... probably more than I could do! In college, I learned very quickly to choose my words about the Senator very carefully when talking to the locals. Blasphemy was not looked kindly on.

3.) Democrats DID vote for Mitt! Ronald Reagan also had that talent. In a national election, it can be a handy appeal to have if you want to WIN.

Some conservatives don't like that he was Governor of a blue state. Even so, he lived and raised a family there; why NOT be Governor there?


We live in a country full of blue states as well as red. Being able to talk to and negotiate with the other side is not a bad thing. In fact, many would say it's necessary and important.

4.) He is a successful business man, with a long track record of successes. He lives in the real world, not Washington D.C. He's turned around many a failing business. He has an excellent understanding of economics and the things that cause an economy to flounder or thrive. Clearly that's something we are in need of now.

5.) He's a Washington D.C. outsider. He understands why many of us think Washington stinks, and we are fed up with it. He wants to turn it around, like he's done with many a failing business. That's a tall order, but I think the can bring the experience, the diplomacy, and a fresh perspective and the know-how to get it done.

6.) He is now the most conservative candidate running on the Republican side. To those he claim he's not conservative enough, I suggest that you look at who you might end up with instead.

Different people have different requirements about what makes someone a conservative or not. I don't require a 100% conservative straight jacket for any Republican candidate, and I'm pretty sure that most of the American voting public doesn't either. Mitt is conservative enough in the ways that matter to most. We don't vote for perfect candidates, we vote for the best one available for the job. The "perfect" is the enemy of the "good". Accept the good when it's offered to you, or you're likely to get... less. Much less.

7.) The Editors of National Review have endorsed Mitt. This means a lot to me. I've been a National Review fan for many years. I've found it's commentary and analysis over the decades to be thoughtful, considered and well reasoned, and I believe the editor's endorsement of Mitt is likewise. Thank you, NR.


8.) As Governor of Massachusetts, he introduced health care reforms by making existing systems function more efficiently, by assembling a task force to find out where the problems were, why people were not insured, and what they could do about it, and all without creating more taxes or a socialist bureaucracy. Some conservatives have unfairly called this "Hillerycare". Romney is in fact one of the few Republicans that has even tried to address this issue by actually doing something tangible about it. And he is FAR MORE open to the private sector and non-governmental solutions than Hillery would ever dream of. He is willing to think outside of the box. That is often how solutions are found.

Mitt is my new horse in the race. I hope you will consider him, too.


Related Links:

Romney to the Rescue

The Real Mitt Romney? Is he electable?

The Romney Agenda: The Romney Economic Stimulus Plan
     

An invitation...

A post by Tagg Romney, at the "Five Brothers blog", part of Mittromney.com:

Welcome FredHeads

As I've been traveling around Florida this week I've met a lot of people who have approached me to say they had been with Fred Thompson prior to his leaving the race, but that they're now firmly with us. They like my Dad's position on the issues, his appeal to the Reagan coalition of conservatives, they like his business and executive experience, and they like his demeanor. I've had many say to me how much they appreciate that he is gracious but tough even to his enemies, he's not afraid to fight but they know he will fight fair (no push polls, no negative 527 groups, no personal animosity).

Over the last few days it's been an honor to pick up so many of Fred's former supporterson the team (Sen. Cochran, Morton Blackwell, former Rep. David McIntosh, numerous Georgia legislators, and several impressive legal advisors). We welcome all you FredHeads to Team Romney. He's in this to win it and to help fix Washington, and we really appreciate your support.

Some Fred supporters have already made the leap. I would definitely rather see Mitt than McCain in the Whitehouse.
     

Fredheads and the Mitt Romney Campaign

What a concert it was! The hall was too small, the show started late, and it ended too soon. Yet it was great while it lasted. But now that Fred has dropped out of the race, what are all of us Fredheads supposed to do now?

It seems some folks at Mitt Romney's campaign website have some suggestions for us:






It's almost like they read my mind. I have a suggestion for them to consider, too:

Fred for Veep!

For us Fredheads, the debate continues about what comes next. Visit the link to see a discussion about Romney, and other issues Fredheads are dealing with. What's a Fredhead to do? See what other Fredheads are saying.


Related Link: Patrick Cox: An Epilogue to Fred's Campaign
     

The Real Mitt Romney? Is he electable?

Smart, sober and chaste? Is the Real Mitt Romney a truly kind, nice guy?

“The Mitt Romney I know”

[...] I spent a lot of time with Mr. Romney that year, and I occasionally served as his volunteer driver, taking him to local campaign events. The Mitt Romney I got to know was warm and likable. He had an electric intelligence. He was unfailingly decent. He was totally committed to his family. He treated everyone with respect and kindness.

If you’re like most politically attuned Americans, you probably don’t agree with my description of Mr. Romney. You may consider him to be the personification of political ambition. You possibly believe he will say anything to get elected president. You might even consider him one of the least honorable politicians in the country.

As a longtime admirer of Mr. Romney’s, it pains me that many Americans believe these things. [...]

Follow the link to read the rest, including a convincing rebuttal to the claim that this is just political spin. I don't see any reason to believe it's not true.

Below is a photo of the Romney's, with their children (five sons), their wives, and the eight grandchildren: the extended Mormon family:



There has been talk about how electable he is, because of his Mormon religion. Personally, it's not an issue for me, but I have posted about it previously, because it would seem to be a concern for some people.

I came across this article in Meridian, an on-line LDS publication. It's an interview with Mitch Davis, an LDS filmmaker, who makes some interesting observations about Mitt making a bid for the presidency. It seems the interview was done before Mitt announced he was running, but it directly addresses the Mormon question, and some of the ways it might be dealt with. Some excerpts (bold emphasis mine):

Could a Mormon really become the President of the United States?

[...] MITCH: Right now the single largest impediment to Mitt’s election seems to be a widespread, negative impression of Mormonism. 35% of those polled nationwide by The Los Angeles Times said they could not vote for a Mormon for president. We conducted our own poll in South Carolina and got a 33% negative response to that same question.

We then asked South Carolinians why they felt so negatively about Mormonism. We didn’t have to go very far: 44% of them believe Mormons still practice polygamy, 50% believe we worship Joseph Smith, 27% think we don’t believe in the Bible, and 25% believe we are not Christian — with another 50% undecided on the topic.

On their face, those are very disappointing numbers. But I think they are actually good news for Mitt. They tell us that the basis of anti-Mormonism is ignorance rather than simple bigotry, and we can address ignorance.

MERIDIAN: How?

MITCH: We are going to produce a series of television ads that show who Mormons really are and why nobody should be afraid to elect one as President of the United States. Depending on funding, we will run billboards and newspaper ads as well. We just have to get rid of this widespread ignorance that breeds widespread fear.

MERIDIAN: Is it really possible for a grassroots organization to have that much impact on a national election?

MITCH: Absolutely! We modeled our organization after two groups: The highly conservative, “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth” and the ultra-liberal, “MoveOn.org.” Both have been extremely effective in having major impact on major elections the last few years.

[...]

MITCH: Let’s just say there are a lot of successful Mormons out there whose religion has not stopped them from stepping onto the world stage and performing at the highest level; athletes, musicians, business leaders.

Could you imagine anyone saying with a straight face: “A Mormon could never be a quarterback” or “A Mormon could never run a hotel chain” or “A Mormon could never be Senate Minority Leader.”

MERIDIAN: Wait a minute! You’re going to use Harry Reid (a Democrat) to campaign for Mitt Romney (a Republican)?!

MITCH: We’re going to use every arrow we have in our quiver, and we have quite a few.

MERIDIAN: Any landmines you need to avoid?

MITCH: Our biggest concern will be finding a way to address the issue of anti-Mormonism without fanning those same flames. The last thing any Evangelical Christians want is to feel that by voting for Mitt Romney, they are voting for or promoting Mormonism.

MERIDIAN: Aren’t they?

MITCH: No. They are voting for the best candidate to run for the office of president in a long, long time, and he just happens to be a Mormon. They are voting against ignorance and bigotry. They are voting for Article Six of the Constitution that prohibits a religious test “to any office or public trust under the United States.” They are voting for a man who is clean and smart and sober and chaste. They are voting for someone whose values mirror their own, never mind doctrinal quibbles.

MERIDIAN: Why are Evangelical Christians so key to this election?

MITCH: Because they wield tremendous influence in the Republican Party, and throughout the South.

MERIDIAN: Any bright signs?

MITCH: Jerry Falwell just stated that he wouldn’t have a problem voting for Mitt Romney, and Christian Broadcast News did a positive piece on him three or four weeks ago. You can find links to all of this stuff on our site.

MERIDIAN: www.RunMittRun.org?

MITCH: Don’t leave home without it.

One thing I have learned, as I've read more and more about the Evangelical community in the US, is that they shouldn't be seen as a big monolithic group that agrees on everything. They might well agree on many issues, like abortion, but even there they might disagree about strategies to deal with it. Evangelicals can be a diverse group, with diverse options about a lot of things. About how the majority of them would feel about voting for Mitt Romney, I can't say. But I do see some sense in Mich Davis' strategy for getting the word out. Give people the facts, so they can decide.

Mitt is not my first choice; I'm backing Fred Thompson for president. Yet there is no denying that Mitt is a major player, and if he doesn't succeed in getting the presidential nomination, he might still succeed in another role... perhaps as Veep? Whatever happens, he's still in the running, and I'm not counting him out.