Romney and the Reagan coalition

John Hinderaker of Powerline makes an excellent point:
"...on whether the Reagan coalition has irretrievably splintered. I don't think the conservative coalition has fallen apart, by any means. But the relative emphasis that should be given to each component of the conservative philosophy varies from time to time and from candidate to candidate. Ronald Reagan himself gave different weight to different aspects of conservatism in different races. He was elected Governor of California largely on the basis of his stout opposition to the counterculture that was infecting California's universities and other institutions at the time. When he ran for President, his emphasis was on the economy first, foreign policy second, and the social issues a distant third, if they were on the radar screen at all. Those priorities were dictated by the Carter administration's disastrous record on economic policy and by Reagan's own decades-long study of, and opposition to, Communism. Governor Romney should take a lesson from Reagan's political history and adapt his campaign to the needs of the moment. The time has come to talk, not just expertly but passionately, about the economic issues that are rapidly taking center stage. The jury is still out on whether Mitt Romney can be a formidable enough campaigner to capture the White House. I'm certain, though, that the more he focuses his campaign on the issues to which he has devoted his life and his career, the better his chances will be."

And I would add: this has always been the case with post-World War II political conservatism. Take Barry Goldwater in his 1964 campaign for the presidency. He too placed different emphases on the different pieces of conservatism. He focused on foreign policy and the battle against communism first; the economy and the dangers of government spending and over-regulation, second; and social issues third, and not very loudly (mainly there he talked about crime).

Note also that Hinderaker, perhaps without knowing it, explains also why Rudy Giuliani can still easily be a factor in this race. For what Hinderaker urges Romney to do above--is what Giuliani has been doing all along.

What's the meaning of Mitt's victory

Perhaps ABC's "The Note" and others have it right:
"This much is clear: Romney, R-Mass., has found a product he's comfortable selling -- optimism. There have been many iterations of his candidacy, but this was probably the best fit from the start: the turnaround artist, the businessman, the overall optimistic leader who (even if he can't quite fill himself with empathy on command) conveys a sense of competence. "Just as important as Mr. Romney's personal ties was that he found himself, after setbacks in Iowa and New Hampshire, in an economically downtrodden state that has shed millions of jobs," Michael Luo writes in The New York Times. "The economic woes here played neatly into his strengths as a candidate, and his newly retooled message centered around his private sector experience and a promise to bring change to Washington."

A bit more on Mitt Romney

Here's a full text of his speech. Like others, I have a problem with this: "Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone."

Sentence 1 I don't buy. I know personally atheists who are big enthusiasts of freedom, and who practice it. Indeed, Ben Franklin was pretty close to being an atheist, and he certainly promoted freedom.

Sentence 2 is well-put.
Sentence 3--well, maybe. I suppose this fits within Frank Meyer's old tried-and-true fusionist thesis: that we must seek the True and the Good. But the True and the Good is only worth anything if it is freely chosen; and freedom, without some sense of God and morality, can easily sink into libertinism. Maybe that's what Romney was getting at.

Still, suggesting that freedom REQUIRES religion is rather untenable ground.

Mitt Romney gives his speech

In which he urges voters not to reject him because of his Mormon faith, and stresses the areas of agreement he has with the mainstream of American voters: ""If I am fortunate to become your president, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause and no one interest. A president must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States," Romney said a crowd of 400 to 500 people at the George H.W. Bush Library at Texas A&M University.
With surveys suggesting up to half of likely voters have qualms about a Mormon president, Romney said he shares "moral convictions" with Americans of all faiths. "I believe in my Mormon faith and I endeavor to live by it," Romney said. "My faith is the faith of my fathers. I will be true to them and to my beliefs." Nonetheless, he said his faith doesn't define his candidacy. "A person should not be elected because of his faith, nor should he be rejected because of his faith." Romney said. "Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions. Their authority is theirs, within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin," Romney said."

What jumped out at me immediately upon reading about the speech is that, although Romney's people had been saying earlier this week that this was NOT to be a reprise of John F. Kennedy's 1960 don't-reject-me-because-of-my-Catholicism speech...it did remind one of JFK's Houston moment.

On the other hand, as the Washington Post points out, Kennedy spoke out mainly for separation of church and state--while Romney does not seek to keep religion out of the public square.
"But he was equally emphatic in defending the idea that there is a place for religion in public life. Arguing that the doctrine of separation of church and state had been carried too far, Romney said some have pushed to remove "any acknowledgement of God" from the public domain. "Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life," he said. "It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America -- the religion of secularism. They are wrong."

But still, it does remind one of Kennedy in Houston. Only this time the faith is Mormonism. We'll see how it plays out.

Mitt's Mormonism

Mitt Romney plans to make a major speech dealing with his Mormon faith--polls show his situation is dicey: "Not surprisingly, the survey documented that there is greater bias among voters toward a candidate who is a Mormon than there is to a candidate who is African American or female. "We clearly see that people are more reluctant to vote for Mormons than they are blacks or women," Geer said Tuesday morning in a telephone call."

Former Bush administration official Peter Wehner has an idea of what Romney will seek to do:
"I don't think he wants to focus his argument on either separation of church and state or demystifying the Mormon faith," Wehner wrote in a message Tuesday morning. "I'd be shocked if he gets into Mormon doctrine at all. Rather, he wants to argue that his fundamental values are the same as most Republicans and most Americans, and that should be the acid test."

Which, from a properly-understood conservative point of view, sounds like the kind of thing that might help Romney.

The trouble withf Mitt Romney

Dan Balz of the Washington Post sums it up nicely. Fundamental: if folks have a hard time identifying one or two big things you stand for, you're in trouble. Quote:

In part Romney's challenge is to articulate a bigger message than sweeps some of these issues to the side. He has had many messages throughout the year -- competence, freshness, conservatism, a three-legged stool. Lately, because of the jumbled nature of the Republican race, he has been focused on persuading Republicans he is the true conservative.
But it is difficult to sum up exactly what his candidacy is based upon and exactly who he is. That's not the case for Giuliani, certainly, even though his conservative credentials are open to challenge because of his liberal views on abortion and gay rights.

The new hardball politics: websites

For example, a nasty anti-Thompson website, it turns out, was linked to someone...who works for a firm...which is a major player in the Romney campaign in South Carolina. The Romney campaign now disavows the site. They claim the guy who put it up wasn't an "employee" of theirs. Oh, but he was certainly an employee of a company with direct links to the Romney campaign.

Cheap, hardball politics in the internet age. Romney's man didn't cover his tracks very well. The Romney campaign seems awfully ham-handed at times.

Romney's confusing abortion position

Details can be found here--basically Republican candidate Mitt Romney has said in the last week or two that he's both 1] in favor of leaving the question of abortion up to the states but also
2] in favor a constitutional amendment banning it. Ooops.

Many are railing about this being a "flip-flop." I don't know that I come down there. To me, the biggest problem with this little flap for Romney is that his position seems confused. From a conservative, principled point of view he's obviously anti-abortion, and that's the important thing. But his position here became hard to grasp, and that's his main problem. Maybe that's the problem with having changed your position recently on the issue...

Speaking of Mitt Romney...

If you go here, you can watch his off-air, unscripted "debate" with a radio host who kept insisting that Romney should discuss his Mormon faith in great detail. Romney disagreed. And this time, he's right. Presidential campaigns aren't an occasion for the candidate to hold seminars on his religious faith. John F. Kennedy didn't make the 1960 race all about his Catholicism. Nor should he, given that he made it clear his church and his Pope, though important to him, would not dictate what he did. Romney has made it clear that it will be the same way with him and his church, should he become president. That falls well within the American tradition.

I don't blame Romney for not going back on that radio show.

A waitress, a hot diner, Mitt Romney, a campaign moment, and isolationism...

Republican candidate Mitt Romney and a waitress at a New Hampshire diner get into it over health care. Not that surprising, really, though the media loves it (one of those "unscripted moments") and it provided good fodder for a YouTube clip. What I find significant about it is something else, though. What prompted the waitress's question was Romney going into a spiel about how he'd fight the global spread of AIDS. "What about our nation? How 'bout the USA? C'mon!", responded the waitress in question, 12 year vet Michele Griffin. Later, after the exchange was done, Griffin said: "I just want him to start taking care of us Americans," she said. "You know? Stop worrying about everyone else right now."

And that's what's significant. I fear Ms. Griffin isn't alone. When overseas wars don't go well, and there's a perception of economic trouble here at home, Americans pretty quickly move towards isolationism. Bring the troops home, we've gotta take care of our own and worry about ourselves, etc. We saw it after Vietnam. We saw it during the Great Depression. It's understandable. But it can be dangerous (see for example the rise of Hitler, Mussolini, and Japan, largely ignored at the time by many Americans). It helps explain why polls show that majorities of Americans want us out of Iraq. But did I mention this kind of thinking can be dangerous?

Mitt Romney goes brimstoning about on the campaign trail

In Iowa, in one of his "Ask Mitt Anything" campaign stops, as reported by the NY Times, Mitt attacks Senator Clinton: "But Mr. Romney hardly spared Mrs. Clinton from criticism this morning. He made sure to get in a dig at her as well, attacking her call for shared responsibility as a society. “That’s like, out with Adam Smith and in with Karl Marx,” he said.

Please, now, former Governor Romney, no need to go around shrieking out wild rhetoric and sounding like a member of the John Birch Society. You had some legitimate criticisms of Barack Obama in that same meeting, and I don't want the relatively liberal Senator Clinton in charge of this country's domestic policy either. But she's not like "Karl Marx", and it's ridiculous to suggest that she is. That kind of rhetoric can help the opposition make all Republicans out to be wild-eyed, shrieking extremists. Tone it down.

Who's the GOP front-runner?

According to an undoubtedly-intentionally-leaked strategy memo from the Mitt Romney campaign, Romney claims he's now the front-runner. Kind of a weak argument, in my view--it leans heavily on the fact that Romney leads in Iowa and New Hampshire (where it just so happens he's advertised heavily). But if you look closer at other data, a different picture emerges. Examples: Giuliani leads in national polls of Republicans; Romney's barely over 10%. Meanwhile, state polls show Giuliani leading in South Carolina; he leads pretty comfortably in Florida; he leads big in California; he leads in Michigan; and he leads big in New Jersey. Romney's camp likes where they are in Nevada, I guess, though the latest poll there actually has Thompson leading.

It's still an open race for the Republican nomination, and nobody has anything locked up; but I think the Romney camp's attempt to steal some momentum by claiming to be the new front-runner just won't stand up to scrutiny.

Mitt Romney's biggest problem

He's articulate, he's handsome, he seems the ideal presidential candidate, and many Republicans like the conservative things he's saying these days. But many see him as a flip-flopper, grabbing onto conservative ideas rather late in the game. The Politico finds another example today:

Former Gov. Mitt Romney attacked Sen. Barack Obama yesterday for purportedly wanting sex education in kindergarten.It turns out, Romney himself once indicated support for the same sort of sex-ed approach -- "age-appropriate" -- that Obama backs.In a Planned Parenthood questionnaire he filled out during his 2002 gubernatorial run, Romney checked 'yes' to a question asking, "Do you support the teaching of responsible, age-appropriate, factually accurate health and sexuality education, including information about both abstinence and contraception, in public schools?"