Mitt Romney’s Conservative Initiation
| Posted by: Matt Lewis at 10:42 AM |
 I’ve tried to make this point in previous blog posts, but I don’t think I have effectively — or eloquently — expressed my rationale for why I believe Mitt Romney’s future is brighter than ever. I’ll try to do so here…
Ironically, by graciously withdrawing from the race, Mitt Romney was able to do accomplish something he could not do by staying in the race; finally fully establish his conservative bona fides. (It’s kind of a Catch-22). Let me explain … It’s fairly obvious that too many conservatives never fully trusted Mitt Romney — and for legitimate reasons: Just a few years ago, he was a liberal Republican governor from Massachusetts. To many, it appeared that he essentially “re-cast” himself as a conservative, in order to run for president this year. What is more, his polished style helped cement the narrative that he was “casting” himself as a conservative. For those who value authenticity, Romney was viewed with suspicion. (It is understandable why many conservatives felt this way, after all, we have been misled a few too many times in the past.) Now, let me explain why I believe Romney has finally cleared the conservative hurdle… Most institutions, such as fraternities, for example, have sort of tribal rituals that one must complete before becoming a full-fledged member (Fraternities are overt about their rituals, while most organizations are not. For example, it might be known that you don’t get to park in the front row of your office parking lot until you’ve worked there for a year). Similarly, I believe that, by running for president as a conservative in 2008, and by so graciously stepping aside for the good of the party, Mitt Romney has sort of “paid his dues.” Think of this as his “initiation” into the conservative movement. The hazing is over! In four — or eight years — assuming Romney remains conservative — he will have held his conservative views for about a decade. I think that’s a respectable amount of time to assume that he is sincere in his views. By stepping down at CPAC, Romney demonstrated that he is willing to sacrifice his own personal glory for the good of the cause. I believe that, at that moment, he became a real conservative in the eyes of his skeptics. Now, he has the chance to either be a conservative voice in the Administration, the “loyal opposition” to a moderate Republican Administration, or, should a Democrat win, possibly the leader of the conservative movement — and the conservative heir apparent. |
February 10th, 2008 at 12:15 am
You are so right and the way things are beginning to shape up Romney could hold all the power at a brokered convention. It is conceivable that Huckabee comes close to McCain in delegates with neither one going over the top. That means Romney will have the power to swing his delegates to the candidate of choice, or after a stunning speech by Romney, the Republicans see the light and decide that Romney is the only one who can stand shoulder to shoulder with Obama in intellect and inspiration. The sight of McCain or Huckabee debating the issues and the future of the country with the brillance of Obama will be real entertainment. I’m laughing my head off because the drive-by media and the McCainiacs thought they were so cute in boosting Huckabee to the level of Romney- giving him all the free media and passes on discussion of anything substantive. Now that the republican base is rallied behind the conservative movement Huckabee gets the benefit. McCain will reap his reward for making deals with the devil (no pun intended). This is far from over and Romney now has the clout to be a real political player. Advantage ROMNEY!!!
February 10th, 2008 at 12:41 am
Can anyone answer the following:
Q1. Is it possible that Huckabee could win the nomination? I shuddered at Huck’s win in Kansas today. If so, I’d be extremely disappointed with Romney’s decision to “gracefully” bow out. For as much as I dislike McCain, I find Huckabee absolutely deplorable. And ultimately Clinton would retake the White House- the exact thing Mitt wished to avoid.
Q2. What’s the difference, if any, between ending your campaign and “suspending” a campaign?
Q3. Who has control of where Mitt’s delegates are alloted?
February 10th, 2008 at 12:50 am
As much as I was disappointed that Mitt suspended his campaign, I felt it was the correct move to make. As tonight and many other primary results have proved, Huckabee and Romney were splitting the conservative vote, therefore providing McCain his big wins in key states. If he were to continue on, tonight would probably give the same outcome. As for Huckabee, he still has an extremely low chance of winning the nomination, but at least he is proving that McCain is a very weak nominee.
I hope Romney does not accept VP and go on to carry the mantle for conservatives. I’m not confident a Republican can win the WH this year, so why be on a losing ticket? Plus he will be stronger than ever in 2012, even though we really need him now don’t we?
February 10th, 2008 at 1:22 am
CNN just interviewed Huckabee about his win in Kansas or was it Louisiana. He keeps saying that his campaign is very pleased to have done so well tonight. People voted for him because Romney stepped aside. It’s not that Huckabee is liked much more than Romney. Huckabe also said that Mitt Romney embarrassed him in Florida and in California. Poor Huck! Playing the victim. He did not mention what mean things he has said about Mitt Romney.
February 10th, 2008 at 1:48 am
Huckabee is a big fat liar. He said that Mitt and Fred caused him to lose South Carolina. Hello? Don’t we all remember that Mitt side-stepped South Carolina for Nevada? And Newsweek doesn’t even correct him! I hate that guy. I never thought I’d be rooting for McCain, but I guess now I am. But if Huck does gets the nomination, he’ll go down spectacularly, paving the way for Mitt to run in 2012. Then Huck can go back to his trailor park forever.
February 10th, 2008 at 1:50 am
Romney did the classic “take away” at the CPAC Convention. I’ve been in sales for a long time and the “take away” is a very effective way to get people to want the product you are offering.
I don’t know if Romney did this purposefully, but it is effective. He “took himself away” from the Conservatives — just when they were beginning to endorse him and recognize that he was ‘their man.’
“The first step in getting people to take immediate action is for them to perceive your product or service as being in demand or in limited supply. People want what is “hot” right now.
Psychologists have proven, people find more value in things they have a difficult time obtaining. If you’re told you can’t have something, you want it even more.”
http://www.fromtheheartsalestraining.com/persuasion-technique.html
Another brilliant move that Romney made in his CPAC speech is this:
John McCain has been using his real and perceived strength in the War on Terror (surge, etc.) to put Mitt down.
As for the War on Terror another brilliant thing that Mitt did at CPAC was sort of an aikido move:
“Aikido focuses not on punching or kicking opponents, but rather on using their own energy to gain control of them or to throw them away from you. It is not a static art, but places great emphasis on motion and the dynamics of movement.”
Mitt Romney, in one brilliant speech, took McCain’s major strength and used McCain’s energy on the subject to gain control of McCain and throw him away from himself.
When Mitt said that he was stepping aside for the greater good - the War on Terror — he trumped McCain.
Whether any of this was intentional or not, I don’t know.
But I would never underestimate Mitt Romney’s understanding of human nature and his ability to negotiate to achieve success.
This guy — our Mitt Romney - is a genius. But it is not his time right now.
His time is coming.
Stay tuned!
February 10th, 2008 at 6:38 am
S. Clark,
Q1. Is it possible that Huckabee could win the nomination?
Mathematically, I don’t think it’s possible now.
McCain has 724 delegates, Huckabee has 232. You need 1191 do win the nomination.
From my count, there are still 20 states left to award delegates. Their delegate total is 905.
McCain needs 467 delegates to clinch the nomination, Huckabee needs 959 - so mathematically, it’s not possible.
I’m starting to think that’s the reason why Mitt suspended his campaign, instead of withdrawing - technically, those delegates are still “his” - and cannot go to another candidate (meaning they couldn’t go over to Huckabee - giving him 532, and making it a mathematical possibility that he still could get enough delegates).
Q2. What’s the difference, if any, between ending your campaign and “suspending” a campaign?
From what I understand, by “suspending” his campaign, Mitt can still choose to get back into the campaign - and still has control of his delegates. If he were to withdraw from the campaign, I believe that it releases his delegates, so they could go to another candidate.
Q3. Who has control of where Mitt’s delegates are alloted?
My understanding is that because he has suspended his campaign - rather than ending it because of withdrawing - Mitt (or more accurately - his campaign) still retains control of his delegates.
This is just my opinion, but I would imagine that once McCain clinches the nomination, Mitt will officially end his campaign, and formally release his delegates.
Hope this helps!
February 10th, 2008 at 9:34 am
I have to disagree with your statement that GMR was a “liberal” governor. The facts do not back this up. The democrats and liberals hated Mitt here. His record as governor was that of a conservative. He ran for govenor as a right-of-center candidate in Mass. However, all his actions were right-of-right.
Please, as a Mitt supporter, you also need to get your facts straight on Romney and don’t take MSM spin as gospel.
February 10th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Bethtopaz, if you have been in sales for a long time, you should know a snake-oil salesman when you see one.
February 10th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
“He ran for govenor [sic] as a right-of-center candidate in Mass.”
so that center would be somewhere around Ted Kennedy’s nose? He didn’t run “right” of anything, except for perhaps his 1994 failed campaign for senator.
in his 2002 campaign for governor:
-while he stated a personal disagreement with gay marriage, he opposed a constitutional amendment banning it and supported same sex domestic partner benefits
-he went against the NRA in 2002 by supporting the Clinton Federal Ban on Assault Rifles
-abortion- these are direct quotes from in 2002 campaign literature:
“As Governor, Mitt Romney would protect the current pro-choice status quo in Massachusetts. No law would change. The choice to have an abortion is a deeply personal one. Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not the government’s.” Romney promised to “preserve and protect a woman’s right to choose” and declared “I will not change any provisions in Massachusetts’ pro-choice laws”.
-he proposed indexing minimum wage to inflation (a great idea, btw, but not a conservative one)
February 10th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Mitt Romney,
I hope this Sunday the Lord finds you and your family well.
I wanted to write to you and thank you for the wonderful and sacrificial gesture you made to the Nation in getting out of the race for the White House. You are the unsung hero of the Republican Party; for who else with your popularity would have dropped out? No one. After the Super Tuesday results, you demonstrated your savvy business sense, and the foresight to clearly see that with three strong candidates in the race the nomination would surely have been handed to John McCain, so you selflessly dropped your own political ambition for the greater good of the party and America. You, sir, are a great American! I look forward to you running for the office of President in the future.
What now? I say go and get involved in making sure that John McCain does not get the nomination. Demonstrate further that, though out of the race, you will not be a spectator on the sidelines, but you will seize this time as Mitt Romney’s opportunity to be seen as a man to unite the republicans, becoming the new Ronald Regan (I mean, Regan was a Democrat, he changed his mind, too; no one’s perfect). You would again have achieved greatness in doing something that even the great conservative mouthpiece Rush Limbaugh could not do: unite the party behind a candidate who is not a compromise of our conservative principles.
For the sake of the Republican Party, American, and the poor people of Iraq, I hope that you will take your selflessness one step further by endorsing Mike Huckabee. You see, a small number of voters are still voting for you; in Louisiana an endorsement by you may have put Mike Huckabee over the fifty percent margin that he needed to get the delegates, and in Washington state, your endorsement would have surely meant victory for Huckabee rather than McCain. So you see, you are still a factor in the nomination process; you’re not a loser, you still have an important role to play. With you out of the race, Huckabee is the conservative alternative to McCain. I am sure that before Saturday you were aware that there were still 1031 delegates available to decide the nominee, plus the 196 delegates that Mr. Huckabee already has, which means that John McCain can still win about 200 delegate, but still lose the nomination—which, no matter what anyone says, would be a victory for conservatives and the world.
I haven’t seen any one congratulate you on showing true leadership in stepping aside for the good of the party, so let me be the first in saying “Thank you for being you, a man of character”. And thank you for not letting your ego destroy the dream. . It would be a hypocritical shame for the Republican Party to nominate Senator McCain, and it would be a definite lose in November to the democrats. Make the dream a reality by endorsing Mike Huckabee.
February 10th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Thanks Flint!
February 10th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
Rusty, I too am thinking that Romney need to solidate his conservative stand, but I think the best way to do it is to work for a conservative thinking tank, like Hertiage Foundation. There are two serious problems presently — the attack against the basic societial unit that is family is at all time high, and the average American has no understanding on what makes this country great. It is all about the people themselves, not the government. We have lost the JFK vision of “asking not what the government can do for us, but what we can do for the country”.
So, with those in mind, we have seen what he can do as the top guy in the company. Now, image him working for a thinking tank — what kind of changes can we expect to see, at least, at the state level. I mean, for example, he could start to work with some states closely on their healthcare issues, with others on their economic issues (Michigan, where he promised to work with), and yet, with others on some independent energy solutions. Mitt is a very capable man, and many of what he has promised in this campaign are still implementable. Sure, they won’t have the same impact as if he was the president, but still, this will go a long way toward his conservative credibilities, especially if he is consulting various governments from within a conservative thinking tank.
This is what I am hoping for!!! Go, Romney 2012, Go!
February 10th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
Pierce and Mark:
Going on and attacking other candidates page is not nice. Isn’t it enough that your candidates are attacking Mitt? It’s perfectly satisfactory to express your opinions but do it in a way that is factually accurate and have sources to prove it.
I believe it was Ann Coulter who said that she had lunch with a friend of hers and that she asked him who he was voting for. The guy said McCain and Ann said “what?”. Then she said why doesn’t she vote for Romney - the guy said he was a flip flopper and that Ann said “tell me one thing besides abortion he has flipped on”. The guy couldn’t come up with an answer, just goes to show you how the MSM spreads half truths.
February 10th, 2008 at 11:08 pm
Steve,
Not to attack McCain - but the irony is that he’s flipped on several big issues:
He’s “seen the light” about immigration.
He was against the Bush tax cuts - now he wants to make them permanent.
We had the TV on yesterday, and we saw part of Obama’s speech - and he started talking about McCain and how he was originally against Bush’s tax cut - but then he changed, and now’s he’s in favor.
I half expected to hear Obama to say something like this “John McCain voted against the Bush tax cuts before he voted for them” (playing off the whole “voted before it, before I voted against it” from John Kerry).
February 11th, 2008 at 12:48 am
Steve,
Try they gay card, he flipped on that as soon as he thought of running for the oval office.
want more? bring it on but this site filters things that they feel can hurt Mitt.. so, I dont know if they will publish all the facts I can throw at you..
PS
I’m a Mass boy who has followed Mitt since he arrived, so test me all you want..
February 11th, 2008 at 2:26 am
Why am I the only one being asked for my sources? Where are yours? Mine are right on Romney’s *old* website, thankfully kept alive by the internet archive
http://web.archive.org/web/20021218005104/www.romneyhealey.com/issues/
And how is this attacking? Someone earlier said he ran “right of center” in 2002, but if you look at that link you can see he ran pro-choice, pro-domestic partnership, pro minimum wage increase, and pro gun control. That is not right of center to me.
Here he is signing a “no new taxes” pledge last year, and the article specifically mentions him refusing to sign it during the 2002 campaign http://www.boston.com/news/local/politics/candidates/articles/2007/01/05/romney_finds_no_new_taxes_promise_suits_him_after_all/
That is not attacking with opinions, its attacking with facts. And need I remember you which former candidate was the first to attack this campaign?
February 11th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
Hello everyone,
I believe that Governor Romney had a post on this board and is under the title of “CNN, MCCAIN, ROMNEY, CONSERVATISM”, with post # 11. Please go there and read it. He seemed very optimistic about the future.
February 12th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
heh heh, pierce still sniping away, Mark fanning the flames, twisting facts to their advantage. But let’s put them in context, shall we.
About taxes.
For those of us that lived in MA during the run up the to the Governorship, Romney rightly declined to sign the no tax pledge because they were looking at quite a shortfall (thanks to the Tax and spend mentality up there) and he didn’t see how he could overcome such a huge deficit with one hand tied behind his back (keep your options open. Hmm, common sense over ideology. Well isn’t that refreshing. I’ll take pragmatism over an Ideologue any day). But once he got in, he hit upon a sure fire way to balance the books without resorting to tax increases: shrink government. He didn’t fully realize how effective he would be. So paint it however you like, I call it conservative pragmatism. Taxes as a LAST resort, but only after you have stopped the spending spree (and unlike Huckabee, who used taxes are a FIRST resort to continue to feed the beast). In MA, the story was “Eliminate Government Bloat”. Anyone who says Washington isn’t ripe for the same diet is delusional. So Romney correctly signed the “No Tax” pledge. That’s just smart money (management).
So enough of that.
About the Gay Marriage issue:
It wasn’t a about Gay Marriage until after he was elected. It’s disingenuous to parse old statements and positions when the battle lines have so dramatically shifted. We don’t hide from the old facts, just realize they represent an old reality. An old world that sadly doesn’t exist anymore. And you have it backward, it is society’s moral decline that led his thoughts to a presidential bid (and politics in the first place), not the other way around. Why is it so difficult for you rampant and habitual cynics to believe anyone still has altruistic motives? Is that so completely foreign to you that you can’t see it when it stands before you? If so, we don’t want you or your ilk rising to positions of power because power can be used well or less well, depending on the character and inclination of the man or woman that wields it.
Again, nice try, but we still don’t believe
Next…
February 13th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
it was “about gay marriage” on May 7, 2002 when Goodridge v. Department of Public Health was decided, setting off the gay marriage debate in MA (where I live as well, thank you). And it was “about gay marriage” enough for him to use that specific term and clearly state his position on his 2002 campaign website and literature (see above, its still available). I didn’t parse an old statement, I put it up verbatim. Look up that word, its somewhere between “saw” and “with”, I’m sure you have those pages tabbed.
February 14th, 2008 at 12:59 am
This country has spoken, it’s not ready to elect a president that wears magical underpants.
February 14th, 2008 at 7:55 am
Mark,
But apparently the people of Massachusetts were?
Making fun of something a group people believe is sacred is pretty low.
One would hope that you could be respectful of another’s beliefs, even if you don’t agree with them.
February 14th, 2008 at 11:50 pm
When one believes in something as crazy as that, one has to wonder how that person can run the greatest super power on earth. Nothing disrespectful about that, just something people need to be aware of that’s all.
As for the state of MA electing him, do your research – he was a shoe-in, heck anyone was. The former governor (Weld) left office, the lt. governor took a 6 month leave of absence to have twins, came back and got caught being corrupt during her campaign – anyone, I mean anyone even Elmer Fudd would have won – it was the corrupt candidate or the good looking, sweet talking Mitt – no other choices were available..
Also, the majority of Massachusetts citizens aren’t prejudice, but governor Romney turned out to be, so when he attacks and pushes down others in order to pull himself up, or for further political gain ( like appeasing to national conservatives ) - it’s fair game to attack him for who he is and for what he believes.
February 15th, 2008 at 12:00 am
When one believes in something as crazy as that, one has to wonder how that person can run the greatest super power on earth. Nothing disrespectful about that, just something people need to be aware of that’s all.
As for the state of MA electing him, do your research – he was a shoe-in, heck anyone was. The former governor (Weld) left office, the lt. governor took a 6 month leave of absence to have twins, came back and got caught being corrupt during her campaign – anyone, I mean anyone even Elmer Fudd would have won – it was the corrupt candidate or the good looking, sweet talking Mitt – no other choices were available..
Also, the majority of Massachusetts citizens aren’t prejudice, but governor Romney turned out to be, so when he attacks and pushes down others in order to pull himself up, or for further political gain ( like appeasing to national conservatives ) - it’s fair game to attack him for who he is and for what he believes.
February 15th, 2008 at 12:00 am
Flint, I ask you to reverse that question and ask it to Mitt, he disrespected thousands of Gay’s, lesbians for who they were and put them through living hell and I mean hell - for what? For being themselves? Hurting no one? No, he did it for political gain, he knew that was the only way the Republican Party would accept him, and you know what? that didn’t even work.