5 Reasons Conservatives Don't Like Romney

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]Sloth wrote:

And no, he wasn’t going to get the Democrats in DC to look past party. There’s isn’t/wasn’t a candidate capable of doing such. Next, you’ll claim he could walk on water.[/quote]

In 2012, perhaps not (although I don’t discount the power of moderate/conservative Democrats who can once again independently work across the aisle on fiscal matters once Obama leaves office - there is discontent among these folks, I can attest from personal knowledge), but a candidate like Hunstman could set the table by appealing the people if he had a sensible, pragmatic vision that the Democrats simply refused to get on board with. That’s laying the groundwork for real reform.

See, that’s the problem with many conservatives - they aren’t interested in playing the long game. They want to emulate the Obama playbook, and day one of a Republican presidency in 2013, they want instant change, come hell or high water. They don’t want to build political capital early, work up trust, and then go bolder when they’ve earned the blessing from the people to go bolder.

Nope, everything in the internet age has to be “right now!”. Look where that strategy got Obama. Conservatives should have better sense than to think that strategy will work for durable reform.

42

We’ve played the long game. And during that game debt ballooned under both parties. In education, US children became less competitive. Families continue to break down, promising a dim socio-economic future. Entitlements threaten to end US prosperity for good.

Socio-economically and demographically we’re nearly at a point where we probably can’t head off the upcoming National Financial-Entitlement crises. Republicans have been at best a speed bump along the way. But we’re supposed to believe that in moving leftward, or by being meek, Democrats will voluntarily run rightward? Bull, they’d understand they can move you even further left, having a better position to start from.

What is this virtuous middle-ground? The middle-ground is nothing more than it’s own partisan landscape. Right is wrong. Left is wrong. Only the middle can save the country! Who says, by the way? In nature hybrids are often poorly adapted, or infertile. Perhaps this hybrid ground is the WORST possible platform for a people.

43

[quote]Sloth wrote:

We’ve played the long game. And during that game debt ballooned under both parties. In education, US children became less competitive. Families continue to break down, promising a dim socio-economic future. Entitlements threaten to end US prosperity for good. {/quote]

That wasn’t playing the long game. Then, we weren’t even playing the game at all.

Who said anything about moving leftward or being meek? I am simply saying that whoever takes the office is wasting his time (and the country’s) if he tries to push legislation that is DOA because it’s too ideological or unrealistic for the people that hired him. Nothing wrong with going big in some respects, but no president serious about reform should open with the Hail Mary. That’s just unwise.

And - fully admitting I’ve tortured this metaphor to death, but hey, it’s Super Bowl weekend - the great failure of Obama as a leader is that he is the proverbial quarterback who thinks he has to throw for the end zone every play. He can’t dink and dunk, move the chains, get first downs, build momentum, and then go bold when the time is right. No, Obama sails every pass deep hoping for a prayer in the end zone, because he’s obsessed with his legacy.

It’s resulted in poor governance (setting aside his bad ideas generally) and an iniability to get his vision accomplished. And the GOP president that doesn’t learn from Obama’s mistakes is simply going to be a “conservatuive” version of the same ineptitude.

Conservatives not only need to contrast themselves by ideology, but also by practice and method. If something doesn’t work, don’t emulate it.

Is it? You’ve made the point that to truly come to grips with the entitlement crisis and prevent our children from being buried under the burden, we have to consider both spending cuts and raising taxes. It’s painful medicine, but it’s unavoidable. Republicans want it one way entirely (spending cuts) and Democrats want it one way another (raise taxes). Of course the answer has to be somewhere in that middle. You know that, right? Haven’t you recognized this reality before when discussing this issue?

44

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Is it? You’ve made the point that to truly come to grips with the entitlement crisis and prevent our children from being buried under the burden, we have to consider both spending cuts and raising taxes. It’s painful medicine, but it’s unavoidable. Republicans want it one way entirely (spending cuts) and Democrats want it one way another (raise taxes). Of course the answer has to be somewhere in that middle. You know that, right? Haven’t you recognized this reality before when discussing this issue?[/quote]

I did. Then I realized that I’d rather not watch spending get ramped back up with the next election, while the tax raises stay in place.

45

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

  1. Like me; he felt that the most important thing we needed to do was to get our “fiscal House in Order”. Everything else, while there may be some importance, were secondary to this.

  2. He had a clearly drawn out plan for both revising the Tax Code to a) make it simpler and more fair for the individual and b) making it much more business friendly.

  3. He understood China, and stated clearly from the beginning that going to “war” with them economically was not in our best interest. (Like many were advocating). Also, it was extremely important to make them a strategic security “partner”.

He just seems like a steady, pragmatic problem solver, which I think we need right now.

[/quote]

All of these…

Also, for what it’s worth…most of the Mormons that I work and socialize with (educated, professional types) preferred Huntsman to Romney.

He was a VERY popular governor here…among non-LDS folk as well.

46

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Is it? You’ve made the point that to truly come to grips with the entitlement crisis and prevent our children from being buried under the burden, we have to consider both spending cuts and raising taxes. It’s painful medicine, but it’s unavoidable. Republicans want it one way entirely (spending cuts) and Democrats want it one way another (raise taxes). Of course the answer has to be somewhere in that middle. You know that, right? Haven’t you recognized this reality before when discussing this issue?[/quote]

I did. Then I realized that I’d rather not watch spending get ramped back up with the next election, while the tax raises stay in place.
[/quote]

By the way, was I missing something about Huntsman’s platform? How was he the “raise taxes, cut spending candidate?”

Note: I wasn’t anti-Hunstman. He wasn’t my choice, but he SEEMED honorable enough, at least. In fact, when Romney went after him about being an ambassador under the Obama administration, I thought it was pretty disgusting. I silently applauded Huntsman’s counter. But where exactly is the ‘moderate’ fiscal platform? The “raise taxes, cut spending?” His spending/tax policy seemed typical right-wing.

47

http://jon2012.com/issues/jobs-economy-tax-reform

That’s not remotely moderate.

http://jon2012.com/issues/jobs-economy-energy-independence

Standard right-wing stance, really.

48

I really liked it when Huntsman started talking Mandarin Chinese. I could see his poll numbers dropping right in the middle of that sentence. I’m sure he’s a decent enough guy and obviously bright, but his political ear is tone deaf.

49

[quote]Sloth wrote:

http://jon2012.com/issues/jobs-economy-tax-reform

That’s not remotely moderate.

http://jon2012.com/issues/jobs-economy-energy-independence

Standard right-wing stance, really.[/quote]

I don’t think his stance is all that “moderate” on these issues, and in any event, I have no interest in moderation for moderation’s sake. My point is not that the next candidate be the ulitmate “moderate” - my point was (and is) that the next candidate needs to be ready to get reform done by reaching across the aisle.

Perfect example - look at Huntsman’s tax plan. Could he get all of those tax-reform nuggets passed at once? I doubt it. But he could get the Bowles-Simpson-ish pieces of it passed first with help from some Blue Dogs, and then with that victory under his belt, he could push for lower corporate tax reform, and so forth.

It’s a somewhat moderate method to achieve conservative results. Build consensus, build trust.

This is and has been Obama’s folly, and proof he has no idea what he is doing. Not everything needs to be a colossal “Grand Bargain” or “transformational policy”. Smart policy is breaking policy into up into chunks, even if there is a bigger vision it is attached to. Pass the chunks you can get passed early with lots of votes. Get done what you can get done. Leverage that success into the other chunks that you don’t yet have consensus on. You’ve proven you can work across the aisle (which is what the people want) and now if the other side doesn’t want to play ball, make the case to the people that they need to vote in some who do.

If the other side plays ball, that’s better, of course.

I want a candidate who gets this, and has some inkling of how to get things done. Ideologues just talk to hear themselves talk - we’re past that. We need action. And the action we need is something akin to turning around the Titanic, and this illusion that we can parachute some action-hero “constitutional conservative!” into the White House who will eliminate swaths of federal agencies before breakfast while clearing up the deficit within a week’s time with “bold reform” is exactly that - an illusion.

We need someone who can get things done in a system that is intentionally built to slow down things from getting done. That person will need to not get distracted by the call for instant gratification and stay focused on investing in a process that will take years to yield fruit.

50

Well then, I propose that we have two choices, both with major legislation as testament of working-across-the-aisle-ability. Each with different outcomes.

Individual mandate (partially funded with federal dollars) that became the model for Obamacare.

Or

Welfare reform.

51

[quote]ZEB wrote:

I really liked it when Huntsman started talking Mandarin Chinese. I could see his poll numbers dropping right in the middle of that sentence. I’m sure he’s a decent enough guy and obviously bright, but his political ear is tone deaf.[/quote]

I wouldn’t exactly be doing cartwheels on this, given Romney’s clumsy “I’m not concerned about the poor” soundbite after the Florida primary. In any event, what does this have to do with the point we are discussing re: Huntsman?

52

Ok, but to finish my thoughts about Huntsman…

My point is that I never understood how he became the moderate, outside of a few jabs at the base. Which of course the media loved. But on the issues, the guy, was pretty damn solid as a conservative. I hate to say it while we have some Huntsman supporters present, but it sometimes seemed like he wanted to liked by the media on appearance alone. While, again, policy-wise he seemed to be a fairly solid conservative. Foreign Policy may have been his biggest apostasy, but I’ve often rejected our current policy as ‘conservative.’

In the end, I never had a visceral rejection of the guy. He just never was my first choice. There was a point when I briefly thought he might be able to surge in NH. In talking to conservative family members who suspected the same, we all agreed he wouldn’t be so bad. Most certainly preferable over Romney and Gingrich.

In short, said things to make the center-left ‘like’ him. Policy-wise, pretty damn conservative. Ultimately, neither side was comfortable with what he was selling.

53

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Ok, but to finish my thoughts about Huntsman…

My point is that I never understood how he became the moderate, outside of a few jabs at the base. Which of course the media loved. But on the issues, the guy, was pretty damn solid as a conservative. I hate to say it while we have some Huntsman supporters present, but it sometimes seemed like he wanted to liked by the media on appearance alone. While, again, policy-wise he seemed to be a fairly solid conservative. Foreign Policy may have been his biggest apostasy, but I’ve often rejected our current policy as ‘conservative.’

In the end, I never had a visceral rejection of the guy. He just never was my first choice. There was a point when I briefly thought he might be able to surge in NH. In talking to conservative family members who suspected the same, we all agreed he wouldn’t be so bad. Most certainly preferable over Romney and Gingrich.

In short, said things to make the center-left ‘like’ him. Policy-wise, pretty damn conservative. Ultimately, neither side was comfortable with what he was selling.[/quote]

I think Hunstman made the mistake of trying to gear himself toward independents/moderate voters before the general election, and did so to the exclusion of the voting block he needed for the primaries. He played to the media so they would help burnish his credentials as a moderate. That isn’t necessarily a bad move, I just don’t think you commit (overcommit) to that presentation before a bruising primary where you have to establish your conservative bona fides.

And, I don’t think he was faking - I think he is naturally a likeable candidate for moderates. I just think he blew it by giving the stiffarm to primary voters.

And, you’re right - Hunstman has a conservative record. His record in Utah is more conservative than Romney’s as governor. And there’s that whole competence issue - he didn’t just give speeches, he enacted policy.

Some have suggested that Huntsman wasn’t “all in” with this election, and that he was merely establishing a national name for himself for the next election - he wanted to raise some money, get himself out there, see if he could catch fire, but his real sights were set on 2016. After all, a la Romney, he would then have 4 years to build a big organization, funds, etc.

Might very well be true. He’s young (only 51) and pretty dynamic, and he’s already been a governor and ambassador, and is wildly successful in the private sector. What else would he bother doing?

54

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Some have suggested that Huntsman wasn’t “all in” with this election, and that he was merely establishing a national name for himself for the next election - he wanted to raise some money, get himself out there, see if he could catch fire, but his real sights were set on 2016. After all, a la Romney, he would then have 4 years to build a big organization, funds, etc.

Might very well be true. He’s young (only 51) and pretty dynamic, and he’s already been a governor and ambassador, and is wildly successful in the private sector. What else would he bother doing?[/quote]

I don’t doubt it. He’s got his name out there on the national stage now. If he starts working at in the mean time, he’ll be much better positioned for the next cycle. One other thing, he’s gotta work on his debate presentations. Guy too often sounded like he was trying to sell insurance policies. Both in tone and gesticulation. He gave far better interviews. In his response to Romney’s implying that his ambassadorship was somehow disqualifying, he gave a great and genuine response.

Like I said, I wasn’t anti-Hunstman, though I ended up with Santorum. I hope Huntsman does run again.

55

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Some have suggested that Huntsman wasn’t “all in” with this election, and that he was merely establishing a national name for himself for the next election - he wanted to raise some money, get himself out there, see if he could catch fire, but his real sights were set on 2016. After all, a la Romney, he would then have 4 years to build a big organization, funds, etc.

Might very well be true. He’s young (only 51) and pretty dynamic, and he’s already been a governor and ambassador, and is wildly successful in the private sector. What else would he bother doing?[/quote]

I don’t doubt it. He’s got his name out there on the national stage now. If he starts working at in the mean time, he’ll be much better positioned for the next cycle. On other thing, he’s gotta work on his debate presentations. Guy too often sounded like he was trying to sell insurance policies. Both in tone and gesticulation. He gave far better interviews. And his response to Romney’s implying that his ambassadorship was somehow disqualifying, he gave a great and genuine response.

Agreed. I think he fell into the trap of placing too much faith in political “consultants” who tried to coach him up. He needed to simply be himself - prepare, but be himself and be more fluid.

Although, due to the targeted questioning and deference to candidates who are polling better, lesser candidates are often on a footing of trying to squeeze too much (and often irrelevant to the question at hand) information and come off as square-peg-round-hole. Frontrunners have to deal with less of this, and if he runs again, he might find he has more of an opportunity to say what needs to be said (in addition to learning from his mistakes).

56

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

I really liked it when Huntsman started talking Mandarin Chinese. I could see his poll numbers dropping right in the middle of that sentence. I’m sure he’s a decent enough guy and obviously bright, but his political ear is tone deaf.[/quote]

I wouldn’t exactly be doing cartwheels on this, given Romney’s clumsy “I’m not concerned about the poor” soundbite after the Florida primary. In any event, what does this have to do with the point we are discussing re: Huntsman?[/quote]

Sloth said he seemed like an honorable guy, I agreed and gave you one reason why I thought he failed in the primary race.

I know you liked Huntsman you said that a couple of times on prior occasions. But yeah they all make gaffe’s. It’s just that in my view Huntsman was never cut out to play on that level politically. He had a really hard time relating to people at the level you need to capture the nomination.

57

[quote]Sloth wrote:
One other thing, he’s gotta work on his debate presentations. Guy too often sounded like he was trying to sell insurance policies. Both in tone and gesticulation.[/quote]

BINGO!

58

[quote]ZEB wrote:

I support anyone who can beat Obama. But naturally I’ll support whomever the republican party nominates. And Paul is exceptionally unappealing to the voters. I told you that months and months ago. And where is he now? About where I thought he’d be, in last place.

That my friend was an easy call. [/quote]

I agree, problem is, I don’t think any of the candidates can beat obama. Americans have a notoriously short memory to begin with. You throw on top of that a very friendly media, and a charismatic speaker and you got obama for 4 more years.
I think the only way obama can lose is if the economy down ticks again. People already forgot the stimulus fail. So it will take a fresh event to stick it in people’s minds.
Keep in mind that the people that will largely decide this election are scarcely aware there is going to be one in a few months. All they know is their favorite idol got booted last night and they think Kim Kardashian is a fucking genius.
Most of us already know who we’re going to vote for.

60

(-_-)zzz