« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Romney Must Coalesce Around Conservatives, Not Vice Versa

There is an interesting factoid that was overlooked from last night’s largely pro-forma presidential primaries.  According to University of Minnesota’s Eric Ostermeier, Romney was the first GOP frontrunner who failed to reach 60% in contests “conducted after his last major challenger dropped out of the race.”  Romney won just 56% of the vote in Delaware and 58% in Pennsylvania.

Over the past few months, we’ve been implored by the GOP establishment to coalesce around Romney in the all important battle to defeat Obama.  Undoubtedly, despite my serious concerns about the presumptive nominee, I plan to fully support Mitt Romney in the race for the White House.  The alternative is just too perilous. I suspect that there are millions of Republicans who feel the same way.  However, we must remember that ultimately it’s not conservatives who must coalesce around Romney; it’s Romney who must coalesce around conservatives.

During the Bush years Republicans in Congress (and many outside of Congress) abrogated their conservative principles to conform to the policies of the Republican president.  We must not make the same mistake this time around.  Again, it is vital that we replace Obama with Mitt Romney, but we must not corrupt our cherished principles in order to accommodate him.  Quite the contrary, it is he who must accommodate our principles.  After all, he is running as the Republican nominee.

It is in this vein that I call attention to this article from Alexander Bolton at the Hill about Republicans caving on the issues of Violence Against Women Act  (VAWA) and student loans:

Senate Republicans, seeking to avoid a public policy dispute with Mitt Romney, will let legislation on domestic violence pass the upper chamber despite having concerns about its constitutionality. […]

Senate Republicans lost political leverage last week when Romney’s campaign said the candidate supported the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. He stopped short of endorsing the bill Democrats crafted, however. […]

Senate Republicans have also closed ranks with Romney on Obama’s proposal to extend for one year low-interest loans for low- and middle-income college students, despite misgivings about the program.

Romney endorsed Obama’s proposal on Monday. On Tuesday, McConnell told reporters that Republicans would likely support it.

As we noted earlier this week, VAWA is unconstitutional and socially corrupt.  The student loan boondoggle will merely continue the inflationary pressure on the costs of higher education, engendering a further need for government assistance in a circuitous cycle of government/Big Education collusion.  Nonetheless, congressional Republicans are ready to go along to get along in order to accommodate Romney’s election strategy.

Yes – we know that this is all a grand strategy to take Obama’s demagoguery of “popular” issues off the table until the elections.  After Romney wins the election, we’ll really stand by our principles.  But will we?

At some point we have to be willing to draw a line in the sand and tell Romney not to cross it – before we endure 5 or so years of compassionate conservatism.

Cross-posted from The Madison Project

COMMENTS

  • goodgovernance

    Then at some point, I suspect he will cross the line in reaching out to independents, and that’s when we express our disapproval, while he watches his poll numbers drop. That will be the surest way to get his attention.

    If we withhold support now, though, Romney and his supporters will just assume we were never going to come to his side anyway. They’ll focus on a strategy that focuses solely on the independents. Which of course doesn’t work out for us at all.

    • renl57

      Those who refuse to support Romney because of any of the following:

      a) he’s a Mormon
      b) he was the originator of “RomneyCare”
      c) he’s a “Massachusetts moderate”
      d) he’s a flip-flopper on issues like Roe v. Wade
      e) he was a “vulture capitalist” at Bain

      are not going to change their minds based on whether or not Romney supports VAWA.

      It depends on whether a base conservative is making up his mind based on what Romney already did, or on what Romney might do as President.

      If it’s based on what Romney already did, then Romney may as well not bother to try to win him over.

      • renny

        If Romney is the nominee, he is it.

        You have Romney or Fearless Leader.

        Romney is pro-American, pro-business, pro-life, pro-success, pro-energy, and we need to be pro-Romney.

  • metairiemike

    GET ELECTED
    Rule number 2: Get Reelected
    You can’t do anything if you aren’t in power. Just ask President Goldwater.

    • tnguy

      A person who is true to God and true to his principles will be true to his country. If that doesn’t get him or her elected, so be it. Over the course of time, lying and compromising for the sake of a few votes will not be good for the man or the country. If freedom and truth were the principles of conservatives and republicans over the last 25 years and longer, our nation would be in so much better condition, economically and spiritually.

      This eagerness to compromise in the hopes of winning an election just leads to further compromise, which has led us to the brink of ruin.

      • http://www.tooncesthecat.wordpress.com tooncesthecat

        Elections have consequences. Obama won and we see the results. I don’t recall any Republicans voting for ObamaCare. And how many Republicans crossed the aisle to vote for the stimulus? Am I wrong, or was is Republicans who blocked cap-and-trade? How about the “Buffet Rule.” I for one am not willing to lose another election just because Romney doesn’t share my views on 100% of the issues. The choice is Romney or Obama, like it or not. But your “principles” won’t save the country from ruin.

        • avgjo

          From the gang of Fourteen and compassionate conservatism to Boner bending over on the debt ceiling, not to mention the compromises the churches of America have made with secular culture, compromise has brought this country to the brink of disaster, financial and moral.

          It’s the DEMOCRATS that don’t compromise. (Sure, they’ll take 25% TODAY, and we’re dumb enough to think it’s a compromise. But it’s not. They’re just biding their time until they can get the other 75%.) And look how far they’ve come. The Founders won on principle.

          Principle wins. Compromise in the guise of ‘being realistic’ or ‘pragmatic’ always ends in disaster.

    • raceison

      I read a lot about proper “connections” and “likability” when it comes to Romney. I am an Evangelical and Romney was not my first choice, but he is now my choice. I will vote for him, work for him and donate to his cause.
      His speech last night was excellent, and I believe he will fight hard and, once elected, will move this country toward a much better place.
      To all of you worried about “connections,” you will end up connected one way or another. If Obama is president for four more, you will be be standing in a pot of water with your finger connected to a light socket with your children and grandchildren holding on to you with no choice of relief.
      I certainly will push for the causes that matter to me, but I won’t sit in the corner and suck my thumb because I can’t have my way in all things.
      Hope you do the same.

  • jkines

    articulates precisely my fears about a Romney presidency, which I have delineated at some length in various posts since the commencement of primary season. As a libertarian republican (of the Gary Johnson not Ron Paul variety) I have profound disagreement with Romney on a plethora of issues. Even on the economy, I perceive him as being not free market but corporatist. Furthermore his (in)ability to embrace exigent tax reform in conjunction with little more than lip service on entitlement reform has left me decidedly unenthusiastic.

    All of that being said, the alternative is so onerous not only to freedom but to my portfolio (i.e. Taxmageddon) that I have no choice but to vote for Romney and hope for the best. However, quasi-abandoning my principles in order to do so, especially when I honestly do believe the Romney administration will be “compassionate conservatism” redux will not be easy. Currently my plan is to take election day off, partake most liberally of Grey Goose and grapefruit and have a designated driver take me to the polls to vote for Romney. I’m just not certain it’s a vote I can cast sober, . . :/

    • http://www.tooncesthecat.wordpress.com tooncesthecat

      Is that Conservative have to buy a bottle of liquor in order to vote and Liberals will vote for whoever buys them a bottle of liquor.

  • clintonformccain

    At this point, I think that Don Rumsfeld’s term is probably apt for major Republican figures who still refuse to endorse the nominee, Mitt Romney.

    Hopefully, this list will change in the coming days, but as of this morning the list of dead enders still includes:

    Rick Santorum
    Newt Gingrich
    Sarah Palin
    Michele Bachmann
    Rick Perry

    I think that the dead enders will be coming under increasing pressure.

    • goodgovernance

      lasted longer than Rumsfeld himself did. Just pointing that out.

      • clintonformccain

        He could have had a big media moment with a home state endorsement and campaign appearances with the nominee. Now, his endorsement, should it ever come, is pretty much irrelevant.

        I don’t know what Rick Perry is holding out for. He has some serious rebuilding of his brand to do within the party and being a high visibility surrogate for the nominee would be a terrific opportunity to do so.

        Who knows with Palin. Hopefully she doesn’t start teasing a third party run….

        • goodgovernance

          he really could have toppled Romney and been the giant killer if he’d won Michigan.

          And I’ll even agree he’s being peevish and short-sighted now. But Romney is not blameless in all this. The way he campaigns is dirty, and not anything to be proud of. Everyone who’s been on the receiving end of Mitt’s shenanigans end up despising the guy, and there’s no real love for him even amongst the establishment portion of the GOP.

          A little acrimony is always to be expected amongst fierce rivals. But Mitt really does behave worse than other politicians.

          • clintonformccain

            NT

          • goodgovernance

            even if Barry wins.

            You should instead hope Romney turns out to be a much campaigner (and a much better leader) than anything we’ve seen so far would lead us to believe.

          • clintonformccain

            This was a pretty mild primary. Heck, nobody even got accused of fathering any black babies in South Carolina. Pretty gentlemanly affair by historic Republican dirty campaigning standards.

          • clintonformccain

            Typo alert.

          • clowngirl

            no text.

          • http://www.tooncesthecat.wordpress.com tooncesthecat

            yes, this was softball.

            Our governor was accused of having not one, but two extramarital relationships during the Republican gubernatorial primary.

          • clintonformccain

            Just your usual garden-variety misrepresentation and exaggeration of opponents’ posiitions.

            Probably the closest thing to real sleaze in t he campaign was Bachmann’s gardasil attack on Rick Perry. That was dripping with innuendo.

          • clowngirl

            the time to find fault with him is past and I won’t expand on why I disagree with you.

            Except to say that I don’t think it’s “garden variety” misrepresentation to accuse your opponent of “resigning in disgrace” and to give credence to a bunch of old hyper partisan and false attacks.

            That’s sleazy in my eyes.

            But the main things that were different about Romney’s campaign was the amount of money he put behind it — the choice to win by burying opponents with his superior resources — and so much of the media being in the tank on his behalf.

            In fairness, you can’t really blame Romney for his establishment support or his large resource advantage — but it still feels like he didn’t play “fair”

            He won by tearing down his opponents not by winning people over to him.

            Speaking as somebody who really liked — and still likes – Newt — I’m really disgusted at the way he was smeared. It wasn’t just the content of each individual smears so much as the massive and coordinated effort to tear him down whenever he got any momentum.

            the since of the game being rigged.

            I don’t really care if other campaigns at other times have been arguably just as bad or even worse. But I can’t think of a Republican primary where there was such an intense, sustained and public an effort to tear down a candidate.

            At least the South Carolina smears against McCain were supposedly not approved by Bush.

            Whether or not you personally feel or understand it – I wouldn’t underestimate the damage to the good will of many Republicans.

            I went from reading the National Review fairly regularly to not reading it at all — to reading Krauthammer every week and usually almost compulsively “sharing” it to possibly never reading him again — I haven’t watched Fox News in at least 3 months (except for – come to think of it – one episode of “Red Eye” on line )

            I went from an early stance of trying to have an open mind about Romney back to a very visceral dislike.

            At this point it’s not even about his positions — I just flat out don’t like the guy.

            Will I vote for him assuming he’s the nominee – yes. Obama for a second term is bound to be much worse than a Romney who presumably will be beholden to the GOP and kept in line by a Republican Congress (assuming, God willing , we keep the House and take the Senate) but it’s hard to imagine (at least right now) getting to a point of ever wholeheartedly supporting him.

          • ken58

            Like you at the very beginning I was open minded about Romney though he was never my frist choice. As the primaries progressed I grew to despise him and his attacks on his fellow Republicans– he gave no reason to vote for him other than tearing apart his betters. Now I cannot stand the man. Unlike you, I won’t be voting for him in November. In my state Obama is going to win anyway, so it will make no difference and at least I’ll have the satisfiaction of not voting for a candidate the GOP elite has been shoving down our throats. Nor will I donate any money to his campaign. Instead I’ll reserve my donations to real conservatives running in other races.

          • annie54

            in Michigan since it was such a momentum killer.

            Look at Iowa. Mitt got the momentum but later-and-too-late, Rick was found to have won it.

            Let’s hope Mitt’s “luck”(?) continues in NOV 2012.

            If you can’t lick ‘em, join ‘em. Right now, Mitt’s our man.

    • clintonformccain

      FOX News reports that Rick Perry has endorsed Mitt Romney tonight.

      • cheetah2

        He wouldn’t change as long as Gingrich was still in the race. He switched ASAP when he could though!

        • annie54

          n/t

  • Kyle-MI

    This diary does seem to fall into this category. We definitely should point out where he strays from conservatism. We also need to offer solutions which include more than just holding the line.

    For instance, all politicians seek to promote issues that are popular with the public, fall in line with their philosophy, and force their opponents to oppose the public (or a voting block). This is certainly Obama’s strategy with student loans. On principle conservatives oppose the federal student loan program itself, let alone keeping the interest rate low. Unfortunately, young people and college students would rather have student loans completely forgiven and definitely look with favor on keeping interest rates low.

    Conservatives seem to be in the dilemma of either being the adults in the room, demanding responsibility from students, and fiscal responsibility for the federal budget, but at the cost of the youth vote; or abandoning principle to mitigate the damage. However there are other options. One way would be to attack the fundamental reasons for the rising costs of education, which include among other things the increasing numbers of administration and bureaucrats at the universities. There is less education and more bureaucracy caused by federal government regulations and mandates.

    We also need to remind the public that university degrees are not magic objects that guarantee high pay or even a job in the first place. Education in a skilled trade is hardly the road to poverty, either.

    It is a little bit more to sell to the public than Obama’s pandering policy but it is worth it. It is also worth it to point out the pandering and that it will not solve the problem in the short term.

  • Kyle-MI

    Romney should propose tying student loan rates to the default rate at the university, at least for incoming students. This would give the students some feedback on which universities are worth taking out loans for.

    Now if you want a real free market solution, I had a suggestion a while back.

  • clowngirl

    What if Newt were to somehow pull out a win in North Carolina? And then does very well in May? It would seem that – however unlikely – it’s still mathematically possible for him to block Romney and force a contested convention.

    I know that Deleware is supposed to prove Newt is totally irrelevant (just like any number of other states before it -starting with Iowa) but 27% in a really blue state, when he has no money, and Romney has supposedly already won – actually seems kind of high to me.

    Still hoping against hope for a contested convention.

    • APA Guy

      It’s over…Romney is the nominee…PERIOD.

      • clintonformccain

        The Newt must instinctively know that he’s burned all his bridges and that, as soon as he ends his “campaign/book tour”, nobody is going to care what he has to say. He should have gotten out after the Florida shellacking and been a visible Republican surrogate. I guess, for a minute there, his ego probably tricked him into thinking he was actually a contender instead of a vessel for the “not Romney” vote in South Carolina.

        • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

          Typical.

      • clowngirl

        Maybe after a grieving period, I’ll find a way to actively support Romney— no way to tell now. Doesn’t feel like it now.

        Hopefully enough people will support him strongly enough that he beats Obama.

        Wanted Newt to try North Carolina — but can’t blame him for suspending his campaign at this point.l

  • jon11

    …he had better get what he can from mitt and endorse.

    I say this for 2 reasons.

    1) polls show mitt already has over 90% of his base…which is as much as obama has on the democratic side.

    2) I don’t think santorum supporters are or were particularly loyal to him. He’s not Ron Paul. He doesn’t have devoted followers.

    He wasn’t anybody’s first choice. He was simply the last not-romney standing

    I think its largely out of sight out of mind for Santorum.

    TN guy…

    I agree with you broadly speaking…but what politician hasn’t pandered for votes?

    We all know Gingrich savaged the ryan plan when he thought it would help him politically., then walked it back when he saw he’s stuck his foot in it.

    Santorum enthusiastically endorsed mitt romney in the last election saying if you want a real conservative you have to vote for Romney… then spent the final days of this primary implying we might as well keep obama as elect mitt.

    And he talked about voting for bills that ‘went against his principles’ in the AZ debate…taking one for the team and the like.

    Id prefer politicians behave in the manner you described but I’m not aware of one who ever has…over the long haul.

    Except, possibly, Ron Paul.

    And we all see where he is.

    • goodgovernance

      Romney’s just like the other politicians, so he can skate by on “they all do it.”

      He’s actually been worse than the rest, which is one of the reasons the other politicians despise him. He’s even worse than they are.

      But it is what it is. Romney is not a caricature of evil, and he has good aspects to his character. I just hope those come to the fore, even as I expect that he’ll act as he always has, and ultimately may serve to embarrass our party.

      • Repair_Man_Jack

        Those are your other choices. When you say Romney is worse than all the rest, do you mean BHO should be reelected?

        • ennaneko

          Santorum’s endorsement isn’t going to fix anything.

          Romney has to win over Santorum’s base by appealing to regular old conservatives and social conservatives directly.

          They only backed Santorum because of the idea that Romney was going to run around in a dress passing out free vouchers for government funded abortions and gay marriages in San Francisco with Nancy Pelosi. The more conservative Santorum sounded, the more voters he gained in the South with his leftover pocket money.
          .
          Romney may have kissed up to too many liberals in the past to get elected in Massachusetts and he never disavowed his ties to liberalism.

          He should have come out and said he hated their guts… never liked them and he was cheating on them with the LDS church and washed his hands after shaking theirs. That would have made conservatives happy.

  • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

    I call complete BS on the bogus ‘statistic’ about Romney being weak.

    Is Newt Gingrich chopped liver? Does the fact that a guy who won 2 states and was a top the polls at a time not count?

    After John McCain’s #1 rival (Romney) dropped out in 2008, McCain still barely won 51% in the Texas primary against the remaining rival, Huckabee. He too took a while to garner support.

    Actually, yesterday’s primary was a strong showing for Romney that completely closes the door on any brokered convention, Newt Gingrich, etc. Above 55% is a strong showing and enough to collect all the delegates he needs soon.

    PS. Now that Newt is reportedly deciding to suspend, it appears he endorses this interpretation.

    • Seedyrom

      have produced stronger results despite your misgivings about the win. The lower numbers plus many states had lower turnouts than McCain did suggest people are staying home and or voting for someone else. While things should turn around, fact is Santorum received nearly 30% of the vote in PA even though he dropped out.

      Romney has some problems and you are in denial. There will be no brokered convention but the good news is the man has more time to garner support because he’s going to need it after running the wreck less scorched earth campaign. He started it and won, but now many are alienated and the media are trying to continue alienating people from him to give Obama a better chance. Which is exactly why the GOP has the never speak ill of a fellow republican rule.

      • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

        I ask again: Is Newt chopped liver?

        NEWT WAS IN THE RACE!

        Why are you saying others are ‘out of the race’?

        Newt was in it! And Romney still got around 60% on average on Tuesday.

        “Santorum received nearly 30% of the vote in PA even though he dropped out”

        Makes perfect sense to me. I would have done the same as well, register who my preferred guy is even if he wasnt in it. I’ve been there in most of these primary elections.

        Still, Romney got 58%. A majority. That’s enough in an election.

        • Seedyrom

          to move closer to 80% wins. His numbers are low, this has been discussed on several diaries including a couple with stats from all states. More is better because it shows not only closure but also proves turnout will be better unlike McCain and Dole.

          Santorum was out at the time of the response above plus Newt was a goner after Mississippi. While most will say Florida, fact is Newts decline was steady after FL. More like Ron Paul after Georgia.

  • annas

    If Romney won by 100% would that then be enough for Redstate?

    • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

      Which Redstate writer(s)?

  • Marcus_Traianus

    What’s this us vs. them gambit all about? It’s conservative vs. Romney or vice-versa with a subtle hint of continuing anathema? I would have to question that tactic given the stakes and Mr. Romney’s growing strength as a candidate.

    I am certainly not suggesting we stop fighting for positions in which conservatives strongly believe. Mr. Romney is a practical person and relishes a strong argument in favor of well-thought out positions which appeal to a wide majority of our citizens. Make that argument, in a salient way and it strengthens both the candidate and those supporting him. We can still make strong arguments absent the artifice of words such as “must”- then implying such actions are tied to a high degree of support: can’t we?

    This election has many moving parts and I am frankly amazed at the fairly expert way Mr. Romney has juggled them. I am not surprised at his abilities- one does not get to be a successful businessmen by being an incapable idiot. I am more astonished at the meaningful way he has applied those skills to the political environment- and my guess is that as of now so is Team Obama.

    This is about ideas for bringing people together and restoring our children’s future. That does not always mean doing what’s popular or pursuing self-serving political memes. Haven’t we had enough of that from the Democrats and Mr. Obama? Taking that approach only from the right of our political spectrum is undoubtedly a recipe for failure. You think people only hate the Democrats in Congress? No they also hate small-minded, calculating, political buffoons like Boehner and McConnell too.

    I for one am thus far comfortable with an approach which is navigated by ideas, not tribal loyalty. When has the latter served us well? Rhetorically- never.

    • clintonformccain

      This election has many moving parts and I am frankly amazed at the fairly expert way Mr. Romney has juggled them.

      The most impressive thing to me is that he had the discipline to win the nomination without pandering to the right wing and taking a lot of positions that would need to be walked back in the general election. For example, he resisted the temptation to go for easy applausing coming out against contraception and so forth. Obama may try to say that Romney was forced into extreme positions, but he really wasn’t. In fact, it’s fair to say that Romney won the nomination entirely without the support of the right wing of the party.

      That made winning the nomination a lot harder, but he’s much better positioned for the general election. In fact, he’s positioned about as well as any Republican nominee could possibly be.

      He was lucky that the candidates to his right were so weak and ineffective, but that surely entered into his calculations. Plus, he had tried the pandering approach last time and it didn’t work.

      • renl57

        …is like attacking Wonder Bread.

      • streiff

        no one has “come out against contraception.” I want you to understand that because peddling lefty falsehoods is not permitted.

        The issue is religious liberty and whether the federal government has the right to make religious organizations, even self insured organizations, pay for medical procedures that violate their teachings.

        The next time you use this phrase will be the last time.

      • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

        ” he resisted the temptation to go for easy applausing coming out against contraception”

        Oh, puleeeze. That’s way off base and is concern trollism or just plain dumb. Nobody has a public policy position ‘against contraception’ not even Santorum who ended up pointing out his votes to fund Federal funding of it.

        So stop being so absurd.

        That said, Romney will repeal Obamacare and its numerous onerous and silly rules, including its attacks on religious institutions wrt healthcare ethics.

  • Seedyrom

    What we need is for the media to ask Romney directly how he plans to coalesce voters and he must provide specifics because this man talks in vagaries much like Obama. He’ll bend our way or at least show some support but I don’t expect a lot because he’s quickly moving towards independents plus the media are scaring him away from being labeled an extremist. Remember, anyone who doesn’t subscribe to liberal media ideals is quickly labeled and MSDNC has already called Romney “far right” which is ridiculous.

  • angryguy77

    Guess what folks, if we’re having problems with Mitt already, just wait until he wins. It’s too late, Mitt will not turn more conservative once he gets the nomination, he will do the opposite because he is a lib at his core.

    Conservatives already sold out by making him the nominee(I know its not official yet). Conservatives wanted to beat Obama so bad that they already tossed their core out the window all for the sake of winning. They took the easy way out to justify it, “well if we let Obama win, America is surly doomed!” they said. Well friends, conservatism is going to be hurt much more than the US is going to be with another Obama term. Yes, another 4 years will be bad, I get it, but the only thing that can save this country is going to be conservatism, not light liberalism. So instead of giving ourselves a chance at a real conservative and a real chance to save America this election(there were a few that did run) or in 4 years, we nominated this clown. In doing so, we also damaged the power that the tea party had gained over the last few years.

    Yet I hear the line “we must elect true conservatives this time”, but it never happens because conservatives ALWAYS SETTLE and don’t demand better. If conservatives were sports fans, they would surely love the Cubs and would believe Lucy really will hold the ball in place next time.

    As I’ve said all along, if Mitt wins, prepare for all the buyers remorse to flood RS and other conservative outlets.

    Here a question: How far removed from our core beliefs would a republican nominee have to be before you would decide not to vote for him in the general against Obama?

    • clintonformccain

      How far removed from the center would a Republican nominee have to be before you would decide not to vote for him/her in the general against Obama?

      A successful candidate must be able to satisfy BOTH of those questions to win in November.

      • Filibuster Keaton

        Or am I all by my lonesome here?

        • http://www.rightspeak.net/search/label/-Right%20Wingnut rightwingnut2

          nt

          • Filibuster Keaton

            Thanks.

  • streiff

    I really don’t agree with this line of reasoning at all. We showed that Romney’s natural ceiling in the GOP is around 25% when he’s faced with conservative opponents. Unfortunately, we couldn’t find a solid, viable conservative to challenge Romney.

    Now Romney is our nominee. Quite honestly, I’d be rather shocked if he tried to build bridges with us in the general election when he didn’t in the primary. That’s a lick on us.

    Romney will run the campaign he will run to get elected. I fully intend to help him any way I can short of lying for the guy. When he wins, then I’ll start trying to influence him and his administration. But we owe it to the man to let him run his campaign as he sees fit.

    BTW, I liked and respected Bush43. I don’t think his presidency was some unmitigated disaster other than his refusal to defend his actions and go after his enemies. If Romney turns out to be another Bush43 I, for one, will be ecstatic.

    • Bill S

      …but that’s not to say that he SHOULDN’T try to build those bridges. And if he doesn’t, that’s not really an excuse to not support him. The idea is that he could get a lot more solid support overall if he would try to connect better with the conservative base.

      He’s not obligated. He should be (or at least he should feel such).

      • clintonformccain

        I don’t think he wants to touch social issues with a ten foot pole in this election. There’s just no upside in taking the focus off the economy and Obama’s failed leadership.

        • acat

          Romney has made his position on social issues quite *un*clear… and inspired the Larsen Brothers Comedy Revue to try to cherry-pick data points to “prove” Romney’s a conservative.

          There’s just no upside – especially after the tar-and-feather job Gov. Daniels received – for Romney in going there in *specific detail* as he’d both not be believed and would offend some sub-group.

          That said, Romney does have to do enough of the “vision thing” to present an alternative… it’s not going to be bold primary colors, but it will be better than Obama.

          I am not sure where he’s going to go on States Rights .. that’s got some tricky Civil Rights implications .. but he seems to be doing okay so far.

          On the upside, Romney is taking the fight to Obama – and I can forgive much for a candidate who will fight.

          Mew

          • clintonformccain

            It seems to me that the big loser in this election cycle is the group of religious right leaders (Tony Perkins et al) who kept meeting in Texas trying unsuccessfully to identify a candidate and have some influence on the nomination battle. That group, it seems to me, now has virtually zero leverage on the Republican nominee and the Republican nominee has no incentive to address their issues in the fall campaign. Economic issues trump social issues this time around. It is quite possible that the era of the religious right dominating Republican politics has simply run its course after 20 some years.

      • streiff

        It would be great if he did try to reach a rapprochement with us, but I don’t see that happening.

    • http://redmeatconservative.blogspot.com/ Daniel Horowitz

      My main focus isn’t so much Romney. You’re right that he will run the campaign he chooses and we’re stuck with him because of the alternative. I’m mainly addressing conservatives inside and outside of Congress and declaring that we shouldn’t water down our views on specific issues just to accommodate him. If he wants our votes against Obama, fine. Even money and GOTV, fine. But not our principles.

  • Tbone

    if that is what Romney brings as opposed to the racist, Marxist totalitarianism that we have had for the last 3+ years.

    As for Romney, conservatives DESERVE Romney for being so stupid ad to run to and fro among Cain, Newt, Bachmann, Perry and Santorum. Anyone with a triple digit IQ should have recognized that of that group Perry was the only one of presidential caliber.

    So, my fellow conservatives, buck up and support Mitt or STFU about Obama.

    • clintonformccain

      As for Romney, conservatives DESERVE Romney for being so stupid ad to run to and fro among Cain, Newt, Bachmann, Perry and Santorum. Anyone with a triple digit IQ should have recognized that of that group Perry was the only one of presidential caliber.

      I still think it was because Perry touched the third rail of conservative politics: illegal immigration.

      On the other hand, I can’t believe that he was oblivious to how that would play outside of Texas and the need to have a strong answer.

      The conservative wing of the party has had a real setback in this election cycle. It’s time for some soul-searching and a changing of the guard in conservative leadership (and candidates).

    • acat

      Precisely, Tbone.

      Conservatives didn’t come together before Iowa.
      No* Conservative candidate was clearly running in 2009.

      We’ve seen this show before .. and it’s no surprise we’re here again.

      Time to get to work.

      Mew

      * Palin was clearly running between 2009 and 2011… but didn’t run when it counts. Romney has been running since 2006. Draw from this what you will.

      • westcoastpatriette

        Perry now.

        • clintonformccain

          challenge an incumbent Republican President in 2016.

        • avagreen

          (^_~)

          • runner12

            Perry 2016

        • acat

          We’re heading into the “speak no evil” window…I’m not thrilled with Romney, but I’ll push for him until the election’s over.

          After that, win or lose, I hope to see much more of Gov. Perry.

          If Romney wins, then Perry gets to critique Romney on energy for 4-8 years.

          If Romney loses, Perry can consolidate his support for 4 years, taking shots at Obama the whole time, and come back stronger in 2016.

          Mew

  • ennaneko

    The chatter is all about people on both sides being disenfranchised.

    Voter turnout won’t be as high as it was in 2008. Obama has lost many of his supporters, particularly young white voters.

    Romney also isn’t very popular with a lot conservatives, the group of people who are more likely to be politically active in the Republican Party and who would volunteer their time to get a Republican elected.

    There is still a lot of grumbling about his candidacy.

    The Romney camp let social conservatives slip through his fingers. He’s a former missionary, he invests in his church, and Mormons are known to be very socially conservative. Romney may not even smoke, drink alcohol, or sip on coffee.

    Romney is going to get negative press for being a Mormon. He gave money to the LDS church and the LDS church has fought gay marriage.

    Since he’s going to get flack for helping out social conservative causes indirectly he should make nice with social conservatives. IN FOR A PENNY, IN FOR A POUND!

    For social conservatives, Romney is a better bet than Obama. To many Christians Romney may be heretical but Obama backs god hating liberals. Romney has at least espoused Christian and social conservative values at least at some point in his life.

    Romney needs to make friends fast and get the voter turnout in his favor.

    If you are a small government conservative, he may not be so bad. Of course, he was governor of Massachusetts and couldn’t deliver on small government types having their way but if he’s president he’s got more Republicans to back him.

    Anyhow,

    Obama’s fabled “youth support” is fractured. Many in his key demographics have turned Ron Paul supporters or Occupy Wall Streeters. Even if he allegedly has a lot of boots on the ground, he won’t enjoy the same hype he did in 2008.

    Romney should be himself. If he’s a rich Mormon from the East Coast then he is what he is and he shouldn’t be trying to make himself an “everyman” like John Kerry did. Looking fake is bad.

    Hopefully Romney can enjoy the grass roots support Santorum and other conservatives have enjoyed because Obama allegedly has a lot of people on the ground.

  • writescribe

    why does Romney have to coalesce around conservatives? He has effectively secured the Republican nomination in spite of conservative efforts, by and large, not because of them. He owes us nothing, except maybe disdain for making it more difficult for him to fulfill his ambitions.

    • ennaneko

      Muscling his way to the nomination of the Republican party is one thing, winning the presidency is another.

      I doubt he has as much pull with Democrats as he does with Republicans.

      Obama allegedly has a robust network of people who will campaign for him. He has armies if union thugs, ACORN like organizations, and volunteers who will run around for him. He has a billion dollars. He also has a zealous base that will do anything for him… like stuff ballots and commit voter fraud.

      Santorum gave Romney hell with almost no money at all just by tapping into the human resources of conservatism… particularly social conservatism.

      Romney isn’t Ron Paul and he isn’t a Tea Party candidate and he hasn’t endeared himself with people who gravitated to Santorum. He has had a problem with people who are most likely to give up their time for a political cause and happen to favor Republicans.

      He needs to get people to get excited for him.

      Read blogs, read editorials, listen to soundbites, pay attention to the chatter… a lot of people who’d you’d think would really love to see Obama go feel like Romney sucks and is a liberal activist masquerading as a conservative.

  • http://www.rightspeak.net/search/label/-Right%20Wingnut rightwingnut2

    This isn’t much different that what I said a couple weeks back, and got called a troll for it.

    http://www.redstate.com/rightwingnut2/2012/04/13/conservatives-make-romney-earn-your-vote/

    The only difference is that I suggested that conservatives withold their support to in order to encourage him to not stray to far from the conservative principles he’s laid out over the past year. If he thinks he has conservative votes in his back pocket, I fear he’ll stray too far left, and alienate enough conservatives to allow Obama to win the turnout battle.

  • Pingback: Scott Goubeaux

  • Pingback: Paul Cozzy

  • Pingback: Stan Benzee