James Pethokoukis has a column pointing out that Mitt Romney's support for TARP is going to cost him support in a contested Republican primary. Likewise, Tim Noah had a terrific piece in Slate pointing out that Romney's health care position in Massachusetts was nearly identical to President Obama's. (Noah has a fun quiz mixing and matching Obama health care quotes with Romney health care quotes, and challenging readers to identify who said what.)
Romney is a useful marker in the frightening right-wing turn of his party. The GOP has been moving rightward for the last thirty years, but that shift has dramatically accelerated just since the fall of 2008. After Obama won the presidency, Republican officeholders and conservative pundits decided almost-unanimously was that the party's failure had stemmed from being too moderate.
The sudden ideological isolation of Romney is a case in point. During the 2008 GOP primary battle, he took a lot of heat for his former socially liberal positions. But his health care plan in Massachusetts attracted very little controversy. It was a classic moderate Republican plan, and one could very easily imagine Romney implementing something like it -- which is to say, something resembling the Obama plan -- had he won the presidency. Now it's seen as socialism, if not the end of American freedom. Likewise, the Bush administration and most Republicans favored TARP, but it, too, is now widely seen among Republicans as some dystopian attack on free enterprise ripped straight out of an Ayn Rand novel.
Romney's dilemma is compounded by the fact that he had to abandon some of his liberal social views to run for president in 2008. This gained him a reputation as a flip-flopper, which he's largely managed to put behind him, but he can hardly afford to do the same thing again this cycle. He's trapped with a 2008 issue profile running in a far more radical 2012 party. I think at this point it would take an enormous fluke for Romney to win the nomination. (Flukes do happen, of course -- see McCain's crazy path to the 2008 nomination -- but I consider Romney a decided longshot.)
For more TNR, become a fan on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.
Print
The current insanity sweeping the GOP and the conservative movement greatly disturbs me daily.
This morning I listened to a news story about how some in the GOP, like Jim DeMint, are working hard to keep the Teabaggers inside the Republican tent. While this may be a good short term strategy, the resulting damage to the party will be incalculable.
Will all Republican candidates start sounding like General Jack D. Ripper?
The current insanity sweeping the GOP and the conservative movement greatly disturbs me daily.
This morning I listened to a news story about how some in the GOP, like Jim DeMint, are working hard to keep the Teabaggers inside the Republican tent. While this may be a good short term strategy, the resulting damage to the party will be incalculable.
Will all Republican candidates start sounding like General Jack D. Ripper?
The current insanity sweeping the GOP and the conservative movement greatly disturbs me daily.
This morning I listened to a news story about how some in the GOP, like Jim DeMint, are working hard to keep the Teabaggers inside the Republican tent. While this may be a good short term strategy, the resulting damage to the party will be incalculable.
Will all Republican candidates start sounding like General Jack D. Ripper?
The current insanity sweeping the GOP and the conservative movement greatly disturbs me daily.
This morning I listened to a news story about how some in the GOP, like Jim DeMint, are working hard to keep the Teabaggers inside the Republican tent. While this may be a good short term strategy, the resulting damage to the party will be incalculable.
Will all Republican candidates start sounding like General Jack D. Ripper?
The GOP has been moving rightward for the last thirty years, but that shift has dramatically accelerated just since the fall of 2008.
I disagree, it went rightward in 1980 but Reagan got progressively more leftward as President, the first Bush was even more so. Then the Republicans nominated Bob (the tax collector for the welfare state) Dole, little Bush and Maverick McCain. Based on that history there doesn't seem to be any trajectory.
Right now I give Romney much higher odds to win than Chait. If not him, then who? The nominee has to win primaries through all 50 states. What no one hears is that there are plenty of Republicans in the blue states, they just don't have much representation in ... view full comment
The GOP has been moving rightward for the last thirty years, but that shift has dramatically accelerated just since the fall of 2008.
I disagree, it went rightward in 1980 but Reagan got progressively more leftward as President, the first Bush was even more so. Then the Republicans nominated Bob (the tax collector for the welfare state) Dole, little Bush and Maverick McCain. Based on that history there doesn't seem to be any trajectory.
Right now I give Romney much higher odds to win than Chait. If not him, then who? The nominee has to win primaries through all 50 states. What no one hears is that there are plenty of Republicans in the blue states, they just don't have much representation in Congress. Their votes count just as much in the primaries. (and lets also not forget that many states have open primaries, Obama is a lock for the Democrats so that will free up a lot of independents and even Democrats to vote for who they want to)
blackton, there is a difference between who can get nominated for President, and the rank and file Republicans that make up the party. It's the latter that have gotten dramatically more conservative over the years. It's these people who were ready to string up GHW Bush for raising taxes, and hounded Clinton like a pack of rabid animals. The election of Obama has just finally uncorked all the Bircher-Randian madness that has lurked beneath the surface of the conservative movement.
blackton, there is a difference between who can get nominated for President, and the rank and file Republicans that make up the party. It's the latter that have gotten dramatically more conservative over the years. It's these people who were ready to string up GHW Bush for raising taxes, and hounded Clinton like a pack of rabid animals. The election of Obama has just finally uncorked all the Bircher-Randian madness that has lurked beneath the surface of the conservative movement.
Except that the votes of blue state Republican do not count as much in the primaries. Both parties, I believe, weigh the number of votes given to each state's convention delegates according to formulas that take into account how well its party's candidate did there in the last presidential election. Even assuming that Republican primary voters in states such as New York and California are or will be more moderate than those in other states (and the wing-nut insanity seems to infecting those states as well), application of the formula will yield those states a disproportionately small voice in who gets the nomination.
If a Republican hopeful wins Florida and Texas, he or she will almost cert ... view full comment
Except that the votes of blue state Republican do not count as much in the primaries. Both parties, I believe, weigh the number of votes given to each state's convention delegates according to formulas that take into account how well its party's candidate did there in the last presidential election. Even assuming that Republican primary voters in states such as New York and California are or will be more moderate than those in other states (and the wing-nut insanity seems to infecting those states as well), application of the formula will yield those states a disproportionately small voice in who gets the nomination.
If a Republican hopeful wins Florida and Texas, he or she will almost certainly win the nomination. Romney is highly unlikely to win either of those states. His only hope lies in the prospect that a different rival wins each of those two states and that the right flank can't figure out a way to coalesce around one candidate. And, if such coalescing is required, the prospect of Romney getting the nomination provide the catalyst for it.
Worth remembering that if the GOP awarded delegates on a proportional basis, instead of statewide winner-take-all, Romney almost certainly would have won the nomination in 2008. As the closest thing the national GOP has to a non-ideological pragmatist with an actual record of achievement in life, if Romney were ever going to be nominated for president as a Republican, it would have been in 2008. The party has long since stopped trying to distance itself from the ideological clusterfuck of the George W. Bush presidency, so the window for an un-Bush like Romney is closed.
Worth remembering that if the GOP awarded delegates on a proportional basis, instead of statewide winner-take-all, Romney almost certainly would have won the nomination in 2008. As the closest thing the national GOP has to a non-ideological pragmatist with an actual record of achievement in life, if Romney were ever going to be nominated for president as a Republican, it would have been in 2008. The party has long since stopped trying to distance itself from the ideological clusterfuck of the George W. Bush presidency, so the window for an un-Bush like Romney is closed.
I disagree, rhubs, but 2012 is a loooooong way off. Mitt will be in the mix, in any case and could be the nominee. He certainly has a record of achievement, in politics and out. of course, he's never been a community organizer. :-)
I disagree, rhubs, but 2012 is a loooooong way off. Mitt will be in the mix, in any case and could be the nominee. He certainly has a record of achievement, in politics and out. of course, he's never been a community organizer. :-)
you all make great points, I still have a hard time linking all that Bircher-Randian madness with the party that nominated John McCain in 2008. I understand you can view it as wishful thinking on my part, but at the end of the day I simply don't believe the Republican party will nominate a lunatic like Sarah Palin or Boss Hoggs (Gov. of Alabama) or any other person like that. I really hope rhubarbs is wrong.
you all make great points, I still have a hard time linking all that Bircher-Randian madness with the party that nominated John McCain in 2008. I understand you can view it as wishful thinking on my part, but at the end of the day I simply don't believe the Republican party will nominate a lunatic like Sarah Palin or Boss Hoggs (Gov. of Alabama) or any other person like that. I really hope rhubarbs is wrong.
I think a lot of the madness we are seeing is BECAUSE they nominated John McCain in 2008.
"Oh, if we had only nominated a REAL conservative instead of this mavericky RINO..."
I think a lot of the madness we are seeing is BECAUSE they nominated John McCain in 2008.
"Oh, if we had only nominated a REAL conservative instead of this mavericky RINO..."
Well, community organizing is a job that doesn't pay much, in $$ at least, so I don't imagine it held much attraction for young Mitt.
Well, community organizing is a job that doesn't pay much, in $$ at least, so I don't imagine it held much attraction for young Mitt.
Excellent point, irony. :-) Smart boy, that Mitt.
blackie, I'm with you. I suspect the nominee will be a governor or former governor, because that 's who we nominate/elect - at least until 2008. But it won't be Palin, because like you, I just don't think we're that loony.
Excellent point, irony. :-) Smart boy, that Mitt.
blackie, I'm with you. I suspect the nominee will be a governor or former governor, because that 's who we nominate/elect - at least until 2008. But it won't be Palin, because like you, I just don't think we're that loony.
The subversive Bircher-Randian crowd will control the Republican party for the foreseeable future. I don't give Reagan any quarter; he turned the party in that direction. They won't nominate Romney, Colin Powell, or any other grownup. They will nominate a kindred spirit like Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota. Romney would have better luck as a Democrat or 3rd party candidate, as improbable as that seems, in 2012. I'd vote for Romney over Obama, who has dilly-dallied with health care and failed to effectively confront Iran. If we get too much more of this subversive Right and ineffectual Left, we'll end up with a more fragile Union.
The subversive Bircher-Randian crowd will control the Republican party for the foreseeable future. I don't give Reagan any quarter; he turned the party in that direction. They won't nominate Romney, Colin Powell, or any other grownup. They will nominate a kindred spirit like Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota. Romney would have better luck as a Democrat or 3rd party candidate, as improbable as that seems, in 2012. I'd vote for Romney over Obama, who has dilly-dallied with health care and failed to effectively confront Iran. If we get too much more of this subversive Right and ineffectual Left, we'll end up with a more fragile Union.
blackton, you underestimate the degree to which the McCain campaign is responsible for (A) introducing and (B) empowering the current Bircher/Randian/seditionist craziness on the right. It was John McCain, not Ron Paul or Glenn Beck, who made a hero of Joe the Plumber, who raised "redistribution of wealth" as a campaign issue, who started throwing around the "socialism" lie, and who elevated Sarah Palin. Hell, go back to the primaries and it was McCain who simply lied about Romney in exactly the same terms the right now lies about Obama.
blackton, you underestimate the degree to which the McCain campaign is responsible for (A) introducing and (B) empowering the current Bircher/Randian/seditionist craziness on the right. It was John McCain, not Ron Paul or Glenn Beck, who made a hero of Joe the Plumber, who raised "redistribution of wealth" as a campaign issue, who started throwing around the "socialism" lie, and who elevated Sarah Palin. Hell, go back to the primaries and it was McCain who simply lied about Romney in exactly the same terms the right now lies about Obama.
Another good article this week about Romney, reviewing his new book and current political stakes, from National Journal's Ron Brownstein (see link below).
Not that I would ever vote for Romney, but it's sad to see a talented guy having to become such an artificial politician to get through the right-wing bottleneck of Republican primary politics.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/politicalconnections.php
Another good article this week about Romney, reviewing his new book and current political stakes, from National Journal's Ron Brownstein (see link below).
Not that I would ever vote for Romney, but it's sad to see a talented guy having to become such an artificial politician to get through the right-wing bottleneck of Republican primary politics.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/politicalconnections.php
Blackton writes: "Right now I give Romney much higher odds to win [the Republican nomination] than Chait."
Well, yes; but only because the chance that the Republicans will nominate Chait is well nigh infinitesimal.
Blackton writes: "Right now I give Romney much higher odds to win [the Republican nomination] than Chait."
Well, yes; but only because the chance that the Republicans will nominate Chait is well nigh infinitesimal.