Yesterday I cast aside Mitt Romney's Republican challengers for the 2012 presidential nomination. Today I will make an affirmative case for his candidacy.
I must begin by disclosing the fact that I was a McCain delegate in 2008 and a co-chair of the Illinois Young Professionals for McCain. Governor Romney was a bitter rival and in my mind lacked the authenticity to claim the Republican mantle to run opposite the historic campaign of then Senator Barack Obama.
This time around, I saw three viable contenders for the opportunity to knock off an increasingly vulnerable incumbent: Tim Pawlenty, Jon Huntsman, and Mitt Romney 2.0. TPaw exited stage right after a poor showing in the meaningless Iowa Straw Poll (ask Michelle Bachmann).
I signed on as co-chair of Huntsman's Illinois YP group, finding him more consistently conservative than Romney, and well-positioned on wedge issues like immigration and civil unions for same-sex couples. His campaign failed to gather steam from the get-go. Huntsman positioned himself as a moderate and media darling at the time when all of the energy is on the ideological poles and bashing the MSM is a blood sport among conservatives. Given Romney's late surge in Iowa and comfortable lead in the Granite State, his fellow Mormon is looking like he'll be one and done come January 10.
2012 will be a referendum on the incumbent and the economy he has presided over for four years. The latter is expected to remain lethargic at best, so the Republican contender's task is to present himself as a plausible alternative, and to build credibility that President Obama lacks on the fiscal side of the policy equation. Mitt Romney, given his experiences at Bain Capital, stewardship of the 2002 Winter Olympics, and successful term as a fiscally conservative Governor in deep blue Massachusetts, represents the GOP's best fit for next fall.
My task in the remainder of this post is to dismiss concerns about the nominal frontrunner who has struggled to break the 25% threshold in national polls and among early primary states where he doesn't reside.
Concern 1: Romney is a flip-flopper without a moral core who will say anything to get elected. Political debates centering on sound bite volleys fail to capture the complexity of the issues they engage. Romney, according the Ronald B. Scott, author of a recent objective biography of the potential 45th President (Mitt Romney: An Inside Look at the Man and His Politics, Lyons Press, 2012), has wiggled little from the positions he has espoused over the course of his political career. While his evolution on abortion is well-documented, he has always been personally pro-life with exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother, consistent with his faith. He remains a proponent of gay rights, but opposes gay marriage. Civil unions are an acceptable, if last resort, compromise (Note that President Obama holds the same position, although his views are "evolving").
Concern 2: Romney is a big government conservative. His Massachusetts health care plan is central to this claim. Bottom line: he delivered coverage to 98% of state residents and worked with a legislature dominated 4-1 by Democrats. It has become fashionable to bash the mandate that made the plan function, but the Heritage Foundation, Newt Gingrich, and other prominent conservatives were early proponents. Romney has pledged to repeal Obamacare upon inauguration, and to grant states waivers to address reform in a fashion fitting to their unique political environments. While his work in Massachusetts is an albatross in the GOP nomination sweepstakes, it's a trump card in the general election as Romney has accomplished what the President has promised and cannot deliver. Outside of Romneycare, Mitt cut spending and taxes while governor, raising user fees, and delivering a string of budget surpluses in a state known to conservatives as the People's Republic of Taxachusetts.
Concern 3: Romney fails to connect with voters in a personal way. This concern is admittedly apt. Romney is a trained technician who feels at home in front of a spreadsheet and delivering nuanced policy solutions to complex problems. He is not made for retail politicking, as his early losses in Iowa and New Hampshire in 2008 laid to bare. This would be a deal breaker if he was up against a genuine populist who connected with "Bubba" like Bill Clinton or even George W. Bush, but he'll square off against a guy who feels at home in Harvard Yard or the arugula aisle at Whole Foods. The economic fixer-upper is what the doctor ordered in November 2012, and Mitt Romney is the right man for the job.
Concern 4: Romney's Mormonism is anathema to the Religious Right. Rick Perry's pathetic campaign was a true threat on this front as he could have galvanized the Evangelical vote and garnered the resources for an epic marathon to Tampa. Splintered allegiances in Iowa will eliminate at least a couple of contenders for the conservative alternative to Romney, and Rick Santorum's potential show won't sell outside of Des Moines and Cedar Rapids. Republican voters are slowing coming to the same conclusion as me: Priority #1 is making Barack Obama a one term president, and Mitt Romney is our best bet to seal the deal. Unlike Huntsman, Romney is really Mormon, having served as a high-ranking lay leader within the faith. Like John Kennedy and Barack Obama, he will likely have to bare all at some point in the campaign and lead the electorate, and especially his own party, past this denominational hurdle. Bottom line, Mormonism embraces conservative values. Romney is a man of true faith. Both belong squarely at the center of the GOP. This realization, and the more pragmatic political calculation articulated above, will provide the nation with a Mormon moment akin to JFK's Catholic coronation a half century ago.
Thursday, December 29, 2011
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
All aboard the Romney Express
Nominal Republican presidential frontrunner Mitt Romney is the establishment candidate in a decidedly antiestablishment era of American politics. He's been pining for the Oval Office since leaving the Massachusetts Governor's Mansion in 2007, if not earlier, and lacks the "belly up the the bar and share a frothy mug of draft beer" aura that Presidents Clinton and Bush mastered, and Obama has attempted (and albeit failed) to authenticate at a Pennslyvania bowling alley and the aptly named Beer Summit. The 2012 Republican field has cycled anti-Romney candidates in and out since last spring in search for an authentically conservative candidate to at least test Mitt's inevitable coronation in Tampa next August. The current mix has failed and is nearing its expiration date with Romney positioned for both early victories in January primaries and caucuses, and also for the long slog, if need be, to the convention floor. All aboard the Romney Express.
While I remain a fan of former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman, his candidacy never gained traction, and he will soon face reality in the Granite State, where he has placed all of his eggs in one basket and will lose soundly to adopted native son and bitter Mormon rival Romney. Huntsman would be wise to play nice and position himself for a Secretary of State position within Romney's cabinet The two of them stand as Republicans' only chance to unseat the incumbent and deliver conservative majorities to both houses of Congress.
Newt Gingrich peaked two weeks too early, and the subsequent attacks from all sides revealed the former House Speaker for what he is: an intellectual leader of the conservative establishment lacking the moral bearing, discipline, and humility to head a ticket, much less a country.
Ron Paul has already reached his ceiling in Iowa and elsewhere. Even a victory in the Hawkeye State won't generate the "big mo" he needs to convince conservatives that the Republican Party needs a libertarian makeover, particularly in the foreign policy space where isolationism remains a relic of the 1950's Taft Wing of the party.
The remaining contenders can be cast aside in one broad brushstroke: Each in unelectable in a general election and would set the GOP up for a rerun of the 1964 Goldwater train wreck. Santorum was clobbered in his own swing state of Pennsylvania in his 2006 reelection bid, Perry lacks intellectual heft to say it gently, and Bachmann is Sarah Palin with a little more polish.
Romney's rivals dismissed before a single voter caucuses or head the the polls, I'll return tomorrow with my case for the former Massachusetts governor.
While I remain a fan of former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman, his candidacy never gained traction, and he will soon face reality in the Granite State, where he has placed all of his eggs in one basket and will lose soundly to adopted native son and bitter Mormon rival Romney. Huntsman would be wise to play nice and position himself for a Secretary of State position within Romney's cabinet The two of them stand as Republicans' only chance to unseat the incumbent and deliver conservative majorities to both houses of Congress.
Newt Gingrich peaked two weeks too early, and the subsequent attacks from all sides revealed the former House Speaker for what he is: an intellectual leader of the conservative establishment lacking the moral bearing, discipline, and humility to head a ticket, much less a country.
Ron Paul has already reached his ceiling in Iowa and elsewhere. Even a victory in the Hawkeye State won't generate the "big mo" he needs to convince conservatives that the Republican Party needs a libertarian makeover, particularly in the foreign policy space where isolationism remains a relic of the 1950's Taft Wing of the party.
The remaining contenders can be cast aside in one broad brushstroke: Each in unelectable in a general election and would set the GOP up for a rerun of the 1964 Goldwater train wreck. Santorum was clobbered in his own swing state of Pennsylvania in his 2006 reelection bid, Perry lacks intellectual heft to say it gently, and Bachmann is Sarah Palin with a little more polish.
Romney's rivals dismissed before a single voter caucuses or head the the polls, I'll return tomorrow with my case for the former Massachusetts governor.
Friday, December 23, 2011
Walking the plank
This morning's passage of a two-month extension of the payroll tax cut is welcome news for those worried about the early Christmas present the Republican House was leaving President Obama as he navigates a strong undercurrent in his path toward reelection next November.
The President, invoking the bully pulpit in a manner that would have made Reagan and Clinton proud, clearly won this latest partisan skirmish on style by staging "average" Americans and their use of $40 per paycheck freed up by the 14-month and counting 2% payroll tax holiday. The House GOP, and the Tea Party Caucus in particular, may have substance on their side, but positioned themselves as the Grinch who was about to "steal" Washington's latest gift. Calmer heads prevailed and Whoville is happy, but the volleys will continue once the President returns from his Hawaiian Christmas Day.
I feel as if the substance of this holiday season standoff was lost in the deeply entrenched and redundant talking points uttered by both sides. First, our economy remains stagnant, and falling unemployment numbers are a mere mirage as folks have simply given up in their quest to find a job. The payroll tax cut certainly didn't hurt matters when employed last year. The problem is that taxes have risen elsewhere (the 67% income tax increase in Illinois is case in point), offsetting the $1,000 we were to have gained annually. My original inclination was that the stimulus package should have contained true demand side shocks like a payroll tax cut, not to mention directly addressing the mortgage crisis. While the housing market continues to harness the economic recovery, the latter arrived too little, too late.
Second, Michelle Bachmann and the Tea Party Caucus are right that the payroll tax cut is not sustainable, having already blown a $100 billion hole in a trust fund falling off a cliff. Instead of resuscitating a program on life support, we have further wounded the patient and punted our promises to the next generation.
Third, Speaker Boehner is correct that businesses rely on predictability, and a two-month extension of the payroll tax cut doesn't even provide that for the first quarter of 2012. True, an extension throughout the balance of 2012 is inevitable, but it doesn't take a cynic to see that the Democrats love the fact that this nightmare will recur once more in an election year.
Fourth and finally, the aforementioned three points are little more than footnotes to the failure of leadership that the President, the Democratic-controlled Senate, and the Republican House collectively own. The President ignored his own debt commission's recommendations to lower tax rates and simultaneously close loopholes, not to mention the urgent need for entitlement reform yesterday. The Senate hasn't passed a budget of its own for three years, but did manage to reject its President's dereliction of duty unanimously. The House, to its credit, embraced the Ryan budget which included changes to entitlements and requisite spending cuts, but it never stood a chance with Harry Reid and Barack Obama standing in the way.
The path forward requires tax reform, with lower rates more than offset by loophole closures. It also encompasses spending cuts (with the Pentagon part of this mix), not to mention entitlement reform. This will take bipartisan cooperation as it did last time both occurred in the 1980's with a Republican President (Reagan) and Senate finding common ground with a Democratic House and a Social Security reform commission led by Alan Greenspan. Unfortunately, this brazen but necessary path is impossible in an election year, and arguably in 2013 and beyond with the current trio of "leaders" in Washington.
The President, invoking the bully pulpit in a manner that would have made Reagan and Clinton proud, clearly won this latest partisan skirmish on style by staging "average" Americans and their use of $40 per paycheck freed up by the 14-month and counting 2% payroll tax holiday. The House GOP, and the Tea Party Caucus in particular, may have substance on their side, but positioned themselves as the Grinch who was about to "steal" Washington's latest gift. Calmer heads prevailed and Whoville is happy, but the volleys will continue once the President returns from his Hawaiian Christmas Day.
I feel as if the substance of this holiday season standoff was lost in the deeply entrenched and redundant talking points uttered by both sides. First, our economy remains stagnant, and falling unemployment numbers are a mere mirage as folks have simply given up in their quest to find a job. The payroll tax cut certainly didn't hurt matters when employed last year. The problem is that taxes have risen elsewhere (the 67% income tax increase in Illinois is case in point), offsetting the $1,000 we were to have gained annually. My original inclination was that the stimulus package should have contained true demand side shocks like a payroll tax cut, not to mention directly addressing the mortgage crisis. While the housing market continues to harness the economic recovery, the latter arrived too little, too late.
Second, Michelle Bachmann and the Tea Party Caucus are right that the payroll tax cut is not sustainable, having already blown a $100 billion hole in a trust fund falling off a cliff. Instead of resuscitating a program on life support, we have further wounded the patient and punted our promises to the next generation.
Third, Speaker Boehner is correct that businesses rely on predictability, and a two-month extension of the payroll tax cut doesn't even provide that for the first quarter of 2012. True, an extension throughout the balance of 2012 is inevitable, but it doesn't take a cynic to see that the Democrats love the fact that this nightmare will recur once more in an election year.
Fourth and finally, the aforementioned three points are little more than footnotes to the failure of leadership that the President, the Democratic-controlled Senate, and the Republican House collectively own. The President ignored his own debt commission's recommendations to lower tax rates and simultaneously close loopholes, not to mention the urgent need for entitlement reform yesterday. The Senate hasn't passed a budget of its own for three years, but did manage to reject its President's dereliction of duty unanimously. The House, to its credit, embraced the Ryan budget which included changes to entitlements and requisite spending cuts, but it never stood a chance with Harry Reid and Barack Obama standing in the way.
The path forward requires tax reform, with lower rates more than offset by loophole closures. It also encompasses spending cuts (with the Pentagon part of this mix), not to mention entitlement reform. This will take bipartisan cooperation as it did last time both occurred in the 1980's with a Republican President (Reagan) and Senate finding common ground with a Democratic House and a Social Security reform commission led by Alan Greenspan. Unfortunately, this brazen but necessary path is impossible in an election year, and arguably in 2013 and beyond with the current trio of "leaders" in Washington.
Thursday, December 22, 2011
Small "r" Republican
This blog represents the thoughts, whims, and ruminations of a lifelong Republican who longs for the party of Lincoln to return to its roots. The age-old recipe of limited government, low taxes, and constitutional conservatism has led to a long string of electoral and policy successes. However, when the elephant enters the bedroom and stands for an exclusive version of family values, and when the party that freed the slaves seeks to deport the latest wave of newcomers in what was always a nation of immigrants, Republicans retreat to the wilderness of ideological purity.
Governance requires pragmatic compromise. We each enter the process with entrenched values which we refuse to violate. Moreover, elected officials represent constituents with their own individual and collective interests. Elected officials must balance these sometimes competing strains in order to yield the common good.
This classic formula of governance no longer works in application. We live in a fractured republic where polarization reigns. Members of each party seek to score "points" for their respective "teams," and the resultant vacuum has yielded unprecedented spending and related borrowing, broken entitlement programs, and a public alienated from the institutions that collectively constitute our small "d" democracy. Voters sway from one party to the other in search of economic stability, upward mobility, and more than anything, good governance.
The electorate is still searching, and recurring disappointments have opened the door to first the 21st Century incarnation of the Tea Party, and more recently, the Occupy Wall Street movement. Republicans were able to at least partially co-opt the former during the 2010 midterm elections, but have been stymied in their turn at the tiller of governance with a congressional caucus bent on blowing up the very institution they constitute. Democrats will without doubt seek a partnership with the latter come November 2012, and the results will be similarly predictable.
My design for a resurgent Republican Party draws from our rich history of embracing human rights and equality of opportunity in the legacy of Lincoln's "new birth of freedom." It embraces limited government, recognizing its role in helping those who cannot help themselves, building infrastructure, and maintaining rule of law. It holds steadfast to conservative values, but embraces pragmatism and compromise in the interest of the country as a whole.
I invite you to join me in my effort to restore our small "r" republic through the channels of the political party I have always called home.
Governance requires pragmatic compromise. We each enter the process with entrenched values which we refuse to violate. Moreover, elected officials represent constituents with their own individual and collective interests. Elected officials must balance these sometimes competing strains in order to yield the common good.
This classic formula of governance no longer works in application. We live in a fractured republic where polarization reigns. Members of each party seek to score "points" for their respective "teams," and the resultant vacuum has yielded unprecedented spending and related borrowing, broken entitlement programs, and a public alienated from the institutions that collectively constitute our small "d" democracy. Voters sway from one party to the other in search of economic stability, upward mobility, and more than anything, good governance.
The electorate is still searching, and recurring disappointments have opened the door to first the 21st Century incarnation of the Tea Party, and more recently, the Occupy Wall Street movement. Republicans were able to at least partially co-opt the former during the 2010 midterm elections, but have been stymied in their turn at the tiller of governance with a congressional caucus bent on blowing up the very institution they constitute. Democrats will without doubt seek a partnership with the latter come November 2012, and the results will be similarly predictable.
My design for a resurgent Republican Party draws from our rich history of embracing human rights and equality of opportunity in the legacy of Lincoln's "new birth of freedom." It embraces limited government, recognizing its role in helping those who cannot help themselves, building infrastructure, and maintaining rule of law. It holds steadfast to conservative values, but embraces pragmatism and compromise in the interest of the country as a whole.
I invite you to join me in my effort to restore our small "r" republic through the channels of the political party I have always called home.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)