Mitt Romney is Unelectable
This week while sitting in my work break room I heard former-Clinton-administration-turned-pundit Donna Brazille ranting against Mitt Romney, who had made a speech on the campaign trail blasting the Obamacare mandates for religious organization to fund contraceptives and abortions. She called his attacks hypocritical, since those provisions in the law were modeled after health care plan in Massachusetts that Romney sponsored. This demonstrates Romney's problem, and why he will never be elected President of the United States:
First, if he is the nominee, he will have difficulty attacking Obama's record unless he repudiates his own. This will mean that he will be asking the American people to throw out a failed President only to replace him with the person whom he modeled his greatest failure after. Given the reluctance of American voters to defeat an incumbent this does not bode well for the governor. The problem with Obama care is the same problem with Romney care they both adds a huge regulatory, (Obamacare creates 139 new federal agencies), tax and entitlement burden on a government all ready swimming in debt.
Second, Romney's problem is again his record. Romney is an honest and capable administrator. There are hundreds of thousands of capable administrators who have come out of the business world who now work in the federal government, Timothy Geitner for example. Herbert Hoover whose policies contributed the great depression was an effective businessman. Business acumen does not translate into government reforms. Some of the most transformational Presidents (whether their reforms were positive or negative) were terrible business leaders, Theodore Roosevelt on the Republican side and Harry Truman on the democratic. Business accomplishment seldom translates directly to public policy transformation.
When Romney is asked why his judicial appointments in Massachusetts were liberal he says, I think quite sincerely, that he would have rather appointed conservatives but their was review committee headed by liberal judges that he had to get appointments through. In other words, because he was opposed predominantly by a liberal establishment he was forced be less-liberal than they were rather than forcing them to be conservative even if not as conservative as he would have liked.
This shows an incredible lack of political adroitness. When Ronald Regan was governor of California he was at odds with perhaps the most entrenched liberal establishment any governor has faced. Yet he was able to govern conservatively. When he was President both houses of Congress were against him and the Supreme Court was far more liberal than the current court. Yet he governed conservatively. His Supreme Court nominations are an example of how he did it. Take the Bork nomination for example: he nominated a strict-constructionist with impeccable conservative credentials, who was overwhelmingly rejected. So he nominated another conservative. He continued to nominate conservatives until he found one who the judiciary committed could nominate. He did not get someone who was as conservative as many of us would have liked,nor did he get someone who satisfied the liberals. In Massachusetts Romney should have told the judicial appointment group that he had been elected by the people to advance a conservative agenda. He was going to continue to nominate conservative justices until he found one they could live with or the seat would be vacant during his term. Rather than moderating or capitulating he should have lead. What we need in the modern climate is not moderation but transformation.
Another difference between he and Reagan, is that when Reagan promised he was going to Reform government, he had a history in California of accomplishing that reform. When governor Romney promise to Reform the federal government he can not point to the same history in Massachusetts, and the forces aligned against him on the federal level are far larger and far more complex that either Massachusetts or a failing business. He can not point to a record of successful government reform in a hostile environment.
In point of fact, for all his flaws there is only one candidate on the Republican side who has a record of "large scale" conservative government transformation in a hostile environment, that is Newt Gingrich. Now let's be clear to accomplish his first Contract with America he had to shake up not only democrats, but entrenched comfortable Republicans. He had to decide what the big issues were, which made him life-long enemy's establishment democrats and republicans. He also knew which issues he could win and what battles not to fight, which made enemies with the more ideological Republicans like Santorum.
Santorum too, although having many good ideas maintained his power by choosing not to take on the liberals in his own stat like Arlen Spectre or the labor unions in his own state. When he did run on a pro-Conservative, pro-life ticket consistent with values he lost in the General election. Although he has left the conservative plantation less than Newt, he has not succeeded in advancing his agenda when he faced with strong opposition.
Newt Gingrich like Reagan before him has a lot of enemies in side and out of the Republican party, and is in the establishments disfavor, precisely because he is an iconoclast who is unafraid to challenge the establishment. Look everyone who knows the history understands that the 300 ethics charge raised against the Speaker were in direct retaliation to his charges against former Speaker jim Wright (which lead to his resignation) and his involvement in the effort to impeach Bill Clinton (which succeeded). The thing we forget is that of those 300 charges he was only sanctioned on 1. Later investigation of the charge by the IRS resulted in no charges being filed. It is true he resigned and paid a fine. This was to take the focus of attention off himself and put it back on a President who had purgered himself.
It is now obvious that neither Romney nor Santorum have the credentials, the record or the vision to defeat Barak Obama. There is only one candidate with a bold vision and a record of transformational leadership.Newt Gingich is the only electable candidate in the Republican field.
First, if he is the nominee, he will have difficulty attacking Obama's record unless he repudiates his own. This will mean that he will be asking the American people to throw out a failed President only to replace him with the person whom he modeled his greatest failure after. Given the reluctance of American voters to defeat an incumbent this does not bode well for the governor. The problem with Obama care is the same problem with Romney care they both adds a huge regulatory, (Obamacare creates 139 new federal agencies), tax and entitlement burden on a government all ready swimming in debt.
Second, Romney's problem is again his record. Romney is an honest and capable administrator. There are hundreds of thousands of capable administrators who have come out of the business world who now work in the federal government, Timothy Geitner for example. Herbert Hoover whose policies contributed the great depression was an effective businessman. Business acumen does not translate into government reforms. Some of the most transformational Presidents (whether their reforms were positive or negative) were terrible business leaders, Theodore Roosevelt on the Republican side and Harry Truman on the democratic. Business accomplishment seldom translates directly to public policy transformation.
When Romney is asked why his judicial appointments in Massachusetts were liberal he says, I think quite sincerely, that he would have rather appointed conservatives but their was review committee headed by liberal judges that he had to get appointments through. In other words, because he was opposed predominantly by a liberal establishment he was forced be less-liberal than they were rather than forcing them to be conservative even if not as conservative as he would have liked.
This shows an incredible lack of political adroitness. When Ronald Regan was governor of California he was at odds with perhaps the most entrenched liberal establishment any governor has faced. Yet he was able to govern conservatively. When he was President both houses of Congress were against him and the Supreme Court was far more liberal than the current court. Yet he governed conservatively. His Supreme Court nominations are an example of how he did it. Take the Bork nomination for example: he nominated a strict-constructionist with impeccable conservative credentials, who was overwhelmingly rejected. So he nominated another conservative. He continued to nominate conservatives until he found one who the judiciary committed could nominate. He did not get someone who was as conservative as many of us would have liked,nor did he get someone who satisfied the liberals. In Massachusetts Romney should have told the judicial appointment group that he had been elected by the people to advance a conservative agenda. He was going to continue to nominate conservative justices until he found one they could live with or the seat would be vacant during his term. Rather than moderating or capitulating he should have lead. What we need in the modern climate is not moderation but transformation.
Another difference between he and Reagan, is that when Reagan promised he was going to Reform government, he had a history in California of accomplishing that reform. When governor Romney promise to Reform the federal government he can not point to the same history in Massachusetts, and the forces aligned against him on the federal level are far larger and far more complex that either Massachusetts or a failing business. He can not point to a record of successful government reform in a hostile environment.
In point of fact, for all his flaws there is only one candidate on the Republican side who has a record of "large scale" conservative government transformation in a hostile environment, that is Newt Gingrich. Now let's be clear to accomplish his first Contract with America he had to shake up not only democrats, but entrenched comfortable Republicans. He had to decide what the big issues were, which made him life-long enemy's establishment democrats and republicans. He also knew which issues he could win and what battles not to fight, which made enemies with the more ideological Republicans like Santorum.
Santorum too, although having many good ideas maintained his power by choosing not to take on the liberals in his own stat like Arlen Spectre or the labor unions in his own state. When he did run on a pro-Conservative, pro-life ticket consistent with values he lost in the General election. Although he has left the conservative plantation less than Newt, he has not succeeded in advancing his agenda when he faced with strong opposition.
Newt Gingrich like Reagan before him has a lot of enemies in side and out of the Republican party, and is in the establishments disfavor, precisely because he is an iconoclast who is unafraid to challenge the establishment. Look everyone who knows the history understands that the 300 ethics charge raised against the Speaker were in direct retaliation to his charges against former Speaker jim Wright (which lead to his resignation) and his involvement in the effort to impeach Bill Clinton (which succeeded). The thing we forget is that of those 300 charges he was only sanctioned on 1. Later investigation of the charge by the IRS resulted in no charges being filed. It is true he resigned and paid a fine. This was to take the focus of attention off himself and put it back on a President who had purgered himself.
It is now obvious that neither Romney nor Santorum have the credentials, the record or the vision to defeat Barak Obama. There is only one candidate with a bold vision and a record of transformational leadership.Newt Gingich is the only electable candidate in the Republican field.
Comments
Post a Comment