Friday, November 11, 2011

Is Romney's problem with the far right more about attitude than Conservatism?

Michael Medved seems to think so.

He points out in an article, that back in 2008, Romney had the support of much of the far right:
“I think now, based on the way the campaign has shaken out, that there probably is a candidate on our side who does embody all three legs of the conservative stool, and that’s Romney,” Rush Limbaugh told his huge audience. “The three legs of the stool are national security/foreign policy, the social conservatives, and the fiscal conservatives.”

After Rush highlighted the de facto endorsement in his newsletter under the headline “One Candidate Now Represents All Three Legs of Conservatism,” the rest of syndicated talk radio—Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Michael Savage, Glenn Beck—largely followed suit. Laura Ingraham introduced Romney at CPAC as a “true conservative” and “a conservative’s conservative.”
Romney hasn't changed in the past 4 years. He hasn't taken any stances that could cause conservatives to look elsewhere. If anything, just the opposite
On no major issue did he move to the center in the last four years, and on several, such as Medicare reform and environmental regulation he moved decisively, even boldly, to the right.
Medved's argument is that conservatives are so upset with Obama and where he's taken the country, that he thinks that perhaps Romney doesn't outwardly channel that anger with his calm demeanor.
In this atmosphere Romney looks suspect to many activists on the right not because he isn’t conservative enough but because he isn’t angry enough. His real problem isn’t a question of ideology, it’s a matter of attitude. Mitt can’t keep himself from looking self-possessed and unflappable, cool and collected, reasonable and restrained.
Medved may be on to something.

Romney is not a loudmouth or a blowhard. Just calm, competent, intelligent, has the right experience, well versed on all the facts........oh, and PRESIDENTIAL.

Read the full article HERE.

Please check us out on Facebook and If you like what you see, please "Like" us. You can find us here.

50 comments:

Stephen Monteith said...

Here's a thing. Activists, by nature and definition, are both proactive and reactive. In the case of Romney's candidacy, both nerves are being tickled.

The proactive cannot act unless he has a choice. Since the beginning, the only choice has been between Romney and someone else. Proactivists have worked hard to ensure there always is someone else. Because "there's no reason to commit to anything at this stage".

Likewise, the reactive hate being told that anyone's nomination is inevitable; especially when it is. They'll do whatever they can to ensure that it IS "evitable".

So, the "res" pick apart Romney while the "pros" prop up someone else; anyone else. Personally, I think it's good for Romney, because he's learning how to defend himself on all fronts and defeat a number of different opponents. That's probably not why the activists are doing it, but the net result will be the same: Romney is better prepared to face President Obama in the general.

Terrye said...

I think this is true. In fact, I think it is the same reason so many of these screaming ninnies do not like Mitch Daniels. He is too calm. He does not get outraged. They were willing to overlook a lot of Christie's more moderate positions because of his aggressive attitude.

But I don't really want a reality TV show personality for President. I want someone who knows what he is doing.

DanL said...

I read this article yesterday at the Daily Beast and thought it was very insightful. I think that this is a valid theory and would explain quite a bit of the anti-Romney angst, but not all of it.

Anonymous said...

I think I'll just start calling myself the Happy Conservative. Because I am conservative, and I do support Romney.

-Martha

Anonymous said...

Let's face it, though. Romney makes some people in the party uncomfortable. They relate much better to candidates who drop their G's all over the place.

-Martha

leighrow said...

I completely agree with this article. The conservatives think you have to be yelling and screaming verses methodically persuading the other side why conservative values trump liberal values.

The Far right is going to ensure Obama of 4 more years. If they pick Gingrich they will lose the women's vote and independent vote. Gingrich is too polarizing and has too much baggage. Cain will definitely lose the women and hispanic vote as well as several independents who think Cain's lack of foreign policy expertise is scary and his 999 plan dubious and unrealistic.

Anonymous said...

Martha,

You weren't the "Happy Conservative" when some thought that Palin might be running! More like the "Angry Obsessed Conservative". :)

A.J.R.

Anonymous said...

Martha,

I don't think you dropped your G's though.....maybe you muttered a few F-bombs to yourself whenever you saw Palin. :)

A.J.R.

Ohio JOE said...

"In fact, I think it is the same reason so many of these screaming ninnies do not like Mitch Daniels. He is too calm." However, he is gaff prone.



"They were willing to overlook a lot of Christie's more moderate positions because of his aggressive attitude." Speak for yourself, while I do not hate Mr. Christie, I am not impressed with him just because of his aggrssive without being a loose cannon.

Ohio JOE said...

Yes, to be sure, part of Mr. Romney's problem is not that he is a non-Conservative per se, but that he has an attitute problem with regards to Conservatives and Conservatism. He has not promoted Conservatism on quite a consistant basis.

Ohio JOE said...

What are Gs anyway? Perhaps I do not want to know.

Anonymous said...

OJ,

I would assume it is an insult to Southerners and (in her opinion) their lack of intelligence.

A.J.R.

Anonymous said...

Ha ha. Maybe I should have written droppin' their G's.

-Happy Conservative

Anonymous said...

"You weren't the "Happy Conservative" when some thought that Palin might be running! More like the "Angry Obsessed Conservative". :)

True, AJR, but I've changed my ways. Now I'm happy all the time. Well, almost.

-Happy Conservative

Anonymous said...

Yes, AJR. It was my slap to southern Republicans. Let's just say that I don't relate to them very well. And I don't think they're all that conservative, either.

-Happy Conservative

Anonymous said...

"Yes, to be sure, part of Mr. Romney's problem is not that he is a non-Conservative per se, but that he has an attitute problem with regards to Conservatives and Conservatism. He has not promoted Conservatism on quite a consistant basis." -OJ

But he has OJ. He has promoted conservatism at every turn. Maybe you just don't like the WAY he promotes it--as the article by Medved suggests.

-Happy Conservative

Anonymous said...

Martha,

Why do I doubt that you will stay the "Happy Conservative" for too long? Unless you are taking some "happy" pills, knocking a few drinks back or smokin' the doob...you will return to Martha soon enough!

You do realize that without the "stupid" Southern Republicans that Romney will get crushed by Obama.

A.J.R.

Anonymous said...

AJR, yes I know we need southern Republicans. Unfortunately.

And thanks for your vote of confidence! Hee hee.

-Happy Conservative

Anonymous said...

I think the reason people don't like Hunstman and Santorum is because they're both arrogant. By all rights, Hunstman should be a higher in the polls. But he's about 1%. He just comes off as an ass.

Santorum also should be doing better--he knows the issues, and has good ideas and experience. But he also has a terrible attitude in the debates.

-HC

Anonymous said...

Martha,

What would your solution be to the "Southern" problem. I know Pablo wants them (as well as the Tea Party supporters) purged from the GOP in favor of his ReFrumlican dream party. What do you want?

A.J.R.

Anonymous said...

AJR,

I'm only half kidding, you know. But it has been frustrating to me over the past few years to see such downright ignorance and bigotry on the part of some people in our party. It just so happens that a lot of the bigotry against Mormonism is concentrated in the south. That's just a fact.

So while I agree with Medved on the style factor, there is also the anti-Mormon component in the anti-Romney crowd.

And lest OJ come back and deny it, it's in the polls every single day. There's still a significant % of people who will not vote for a Mormon, and the highest number is with Evangelicals.

-HC

leighrow said...

HC

You have a very good point. My husband believes the same thing with regards to the Evangelicals bigotry towards Mormons. They would prefer to vote for an adulterer and a candidate with multiple sexual harrassment allegations than a Mormon....and they have the nerve to call themselves socially conservative.

Noelle said...

With all due respect, Martha, I think the more accurate differentiation between the so-called "Rombots" and the so-called "Romnots" is that the anti-Romney coalition is angry, and the pro-Romney coalition is optimistic. Besides Newt's history and baggage, I think the thing that separates Gingrich from Romney is optimism. And Romney, just for clarification purposes, is the optimistic one (as is reflected in his campaign theme "believe in America"). So you can be the "Happy Conservative" and I'll be the "Optimistic Conservative."

Ohio JOE said...

"They would prefer to vote for an adulterer and a candidate with multiple sexual harrassment allegations than a Mormon....and they have the nerve to call themselves socially conservative."

Ah, so the Black man should be considered guilty until proven innocent despite the fact that 60% of his accusers have been proven to have serious issues. Niiiiiiice, play the religion card, but throw the Black guy under the bus. Ya gotta love the double standard.

Ohio JOE said...

"and the so-called "Romnots" is that the anti-Romney coalition is angry" Yes, we are angry at Socialists, but at least we don't make accusations that certain certain are not ready for the job or dream up sexual allegations.

craigs said...

A lot of big time Conservative Flip Floppers here. Romney is castigated for positions he took 5 to 10 years ago, but nobody says anything about his conservative 2008 supporters who Flipped in 2011

Dr.D.G.H. said...

Having Known the Romney's (Geo & Mitt)as personal friends for 33 and 50 years respectively I can speak to and attest to Mitt Romney being the most honorable, decent, moral, ethical, reputable, respectable, responsible, truthful and trustworthy man of the highest degree of integrity one could ever hope to meet and know... he is well educated and very successful with a proven track record in the world of business and especially in the turnaround arena... He is the last, best band ONLY hope for saving America, restoring the U.S. Constitution, rebiuilding our nations reputation in the world and rebuilding the economy for a prosperous future.

The bigots and the fanatical neo-con ideologues seem to strangely ignore the fact that their flavor of the week last summer Tim Pawlenty... their flavor of the week last month Chris Christy are now both highly promoting and supporting Mitt Romney as i have done for 50 years!!! It makes the motives of my fellow conservatives who are not yet on board highly suspect!!! They are not focused on the E Pluribus Unum common good best interests for all America and for all Americans, first and foremost... and that is the most important principle necessary for the continued success and survival of this great democracy ...

Dr. DGH
Boca Raton, FL
DGHQ1@aol.com

Anonymous said...

craigs,

I would imagine they haven't said anything because support for someone 3-4 years ago doesn't equate a lifetime endorsement. I'm sure a lot of people who voted for Obama aren't too happy. Using your logic, they have to support Obama for the rest of their lives...regardless of what he has said or done.

Romney was supported by my of these "flip-floppers" in 2008 because he was the most Conservative compared to McCain & the Huckster. Now they think that others are more Conservative. That is their opinion and prerogative. Be it right or wrong they choose not to support Romney during the PRIMARY season. I am certain that if/when Romney is the GOP nominee, most of them will come around to support him. The cost of not doing so is too great. Let's face it, a toaster oven would be a better President than Obama and these "flip-floppers" realize this. In fact, Limbaugh (the product of much scorn around here) has said repeatedly that he will support the GOP nominee and that all the candidates running (including Romney) are better than Obama. He has also stated repeatedly that a 3rd party run from the right would cause Obama's re-election.

A.J.R.

Noelle said...

OJ said "Yes, we are angry at Socialists, but at least we don't make accusations that certain certain are not ready for the job or dream up sexual allegations."

I will say that there are some who are not ready for the job. But I have not dreamed up any sexual allegations. Accusations were made toward Herman Cain, and he handled the situation poorly, even with a heads-up 10 days before the story broke. I am not prepared to judge his innocence or guilt regarding the allegations, but I will judge his handling of them, and it was not well done.

Noelle said...

AJR, not to speak for CraigS, but it is not the same to withdraw your support of Obama after seeing how poorly he has done his job.

Romney, on the other hand has only improved over the past 4 years. It is inconsistent to say that 4 years ago he was the candidate who best personified the conservative position, but today he is a liberal establishment hack. There is no logic there.

Anonymous said...

People wake up...Romney sucks. Don't get me wrong, if he is the nominee, I will vote for him but there is nothing authentic about the man...and I am not talking about his personal life or convictions...I am talking about the way he portrays himself in the public arena.

His careful campaign has been embarrassing and ill-advised. He refuses more speeches and interviews than Palin has ever refused, yet the Rombots can now find good reason for his lack of openness. His only concern is to become POTUS and he will do or say anything to attain that goal...even if it requires him to refuse interviews and snub certain parts of the party.

How anyone can claim that people flipped on him when it is so obvious that he has decided not to run as a conservative this time around, is beyond me.

Again, I am not talking about his personal convictions or beliefs but how he chooses to be perceived by the electorate. Since a lot of his support is garnered from a sect of the social conservative wing, I do not understand why some of you are not offended by his ability to ignore his so-con roots for political expediency?

jerseyrepublican

Anonymous said...

Jersey, I don't think Romney is ignoring social conservatives, but rather focusing on the most important problems at hand. He has not changed one single position. Yes, he is running a different campaign this time, but that is because we have different problems to face. I think last time he had to prove his social conservative bona fides, and so he focused more on that. But it doesn't mean he's changed.

I do not believe there is a better person--more tailored or qualified for what is needed than Romney. I mean, come on, name one.

-HC

Noelle, I think optimistic conservative is better, and it fits Romney to a T.

Anonymous said...

I also believe that the fire-breathers TURN independents OFF. We need them, we can't win without them!

Romney is doing it exactly right. He is all the things social conservatives and tea partiers could want. He's just not crazy. He can appeal to rational people who are sitting in the middle.

-HC

Anonymous said...

HC, you cannot hide from who you are - no matter how many interviews you refuse. He knows the so-cons will reject him(not due to his religion but due to his perceived, both path and present, stances on the issues) He also knows that the indies will reject him if they know how devout a man he really is.

jerseyrepublican

Anonymous said...

JR,

HC (Happy Conservative) is Martha. I think he has hit Happy Hour early today. :)

A.J.R.

Anonymous said...

Meant to say "she has hit Happy Hour early today".

A.J.R.

Ohio JOE said...

"but nobody says anything about his conservative 2008 supporters who Flipped in 2011" That is in part because there are most Conservative options this year. Mr. Cain is not a super Conservative, but he is more Conservative than Mr. Romney. Thus, people no lnonger support him. Simple.


"It is inconsistent to say that 4 years ago he was the candidate who best personified the conservative position, but today he is a liberal establishment hack. There is no logic there." Then why is he pandering to the liberal establishment?

Anonymous said...

OJ,

1. In what way is Cain more conservative than Romney? I don't think you can find one. The big difference is in qualifications. Cain is 1/2 inch deep on the issues.

2. How is Romney pandering to the liberal establishment? I haven't seen it.

These are false perceptions, and easily debunked.

-HC

Ian said...

When I was in the military one of the things I always tried to help my Marines learn was embodied in a qoute from Sun Tzu's The Art of War. "He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight." I believe this applies in Romney's case. Being in an uproar all the time, though at times helpful, is not sustainable. Knowing how to balance the two, anger and prudence, will do more good over time.

Happy Veterans Day and Happy Birthday Marines.

Noelle said...

Good point, Ian.

Terrye said...

Ohio Joe...no Mitch Daniels is not gaffe prone...he just does not say what some people want to hear. An honest man...what a terrible thing that is. You see, that is the problem, too many conservative say they want a real and honest person and then when they hear one they say he is gaffe prone.

Terrye said...

Ohio Joe...I also think your constant references to the fact that Cain is a black man is silly. Believe it or not, I know he is a black man and I am bothered by the fact that he has handled the whole sexual harassment thing like a complete idiot. That has nothing to do with the fact that he is black, and your constant innuendo that it does is race baiting. Plain and simple.

GetReal said...

Martha - Romney is going to need support from every region of the country, please try not to alienate anyone because of where they are from. Actually, that's pretty much always good advice. Two wrongs don't make a right, you know.

OJ - I, too, would like to hear about what makes Herman Cain more conservative than Mitt Romney. All I can think of that you might say is that he didn't sign Romneycare...but we don't know what he would have done in Romney's shoes. Cain has never held elected office.

Ohio JOE said...

Mr. Daniels may be an honest man, but the fact that he did not know what Mexico City was, was a serious gaff.

"That has nothing to do with the fact that he is black," Then I ask you and many others around here to get it through your heads that the fact that some of us are non Romneyites has nothing to do with his religion, but at least a few of your friends do not get that. I am waiting for you guys to accuse me of being against my religion because I am anti-Gingrich.

BTW, if you think that some of your antics against Mr. Cain does not come across as racism then you guys are not as media savvy as you claim.

Ohio JOE said...

Well GetReal, I suppose we do not know exactly what Mr. Cain would do because he has not been elected to office. On the other hand, those of us in in the Tri-State (PA, OH, WV) area and Georgia among other places. Know quite a bit about Mr. Cain's policies relative to others.

Somewhat unfortunately, it is a bit of a mixed bag. He is not quite as Conservative as I would like. He is sort of Romney-lite in many regards. The fact that he was in the banking industry is not a feather in his cap because he did not learn from that particular experience in his life.

Nevertheless, he is no non-sense when it comes to both government regulations and taxation. Thus thus feel that he is the best of the 3 or 4 major candidates, but I for one will probably vote for somebody further to the right than him in the end. Like many others, I still find his political personality refreshing and I am tempted to vote for him just to teach the liberal Whites a lesson, but enough other people will do that for me.

MassCon said...

Herman Cain wouldn't be where he was if he weren't black. It's a fact, and you all know it.

Pretend Herman Cain was called "Jim O'Malley."

Would "Jim O'Malley" - a guy with zero political experience and no knowledge of foreign affairs, be leading the polls?

Nope.

F&B said...

Well MassCon,

If he was Jim O'Malley and was going through this and holding his own in the polls, would it be because he is white?

Ohio JOE said...

"If he was Jim O'Malley and was going through this and holding his own in the polls, would it be because he is white?" Good one!!!

MassCon said...

"If he was Jim O'Malley and was going through this and holding his own in the polls, would it be because he is white?"

Lol. We both know that would never happen. Never has, never will.

Herman Cain is leading because he's black. GOP voters like the idea of putting up a black Conservative against Obama. I know because I talk to average people and that's what they say they want.

GetReal said...

You guys are ignoring the fact that Cain is very charismatic and also rides some of that "Washington outsider" momentum.