JONATHAN CHAIT MAY 18, 2011
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
One defense of the proposition that Mitt Romney can win the GOP nomination holds that Republicans accepted his health care position last time around. Will Wilkinson argues that this is precisely what makes conservatives so hostile to him now:
Mr Romney is infamous for his opportunistic waffling on policy, but in his principled refusal to flip-flop on Masscare he has become an intolerable living embodiment of the institutional right's incoherence on health-care reform. Mr Romney's very presence on the national scene reminds conservative editorialists of the fact that Obamacare, a policy they have demonised as incipient tyrannical socialism, differs little from policies many prominent conservatives once endorsed. The cognitive dissonance is too great to bear. So conservative opinionmakers are left with a choice: admit that individual mandates and many other features of Obamacare figured prominently in conservative health-care reform proposals just a few years ago, or throw Mr Romney to the wolves for the crime of leadership in health-care reform.
Wilkinson notes at the end that Romney may yet plug his way through to the nomination. I consider that highly unlikely, but you never know.
11 comments
Romney seems to be the Republican most likely to have a centrist appeal. If that makes him anathema to the Tea-Party and the newly far-right Republicans, then the centrists won't have a chance to vote on him. Frankly, the election is looking more and more like the Bush-I election. When Clinton was running the DNC, he tried to recruit qualified candidates, but the really good ones like Cuomo dropped out because Bush-I had just won a war. Now the good Republican candidates (Huckabee for one) are dropping out, because it looks like Obama is unbeatable. So with Bush-I, Clinton himself wound up running and winning. I really hope that doesn't happen this time with some Republican, we've still got a LOT of work to do implementing health-care and getting the economy running again.
- AllanL5
May 18, 2011 at 1:27pm
I have a confession to make. I supported Romney in South Carolina in 2008. And I had my sisters vote Romney in 2008.
- Konstantin
May 18, 2011 at 1:48pm
Of course that was in the primary, and we only voted that way in order to help split the state among Romney and Huckabee and whoever else was still getting votes at the time. I wanted to vote Biden the whole time, and settled for Obama/Biden when it mattered. Still, I don't know if I should feel at all dirty about that Romney vote, but I do.
- Konstantin
May 18, 2011 at 1:51pm
Konstantin - that's actually funny. You're right Allen, but I just don't get why he has centrist appeal - because he lies so shamelessly and stands for nothing? Remember his "Double Gitmo" line? Or his five sons who say they don't enlist in the armed services because it's more patriotic for them to make Dad President than to embody his uber-hawk shtick? Just ugh.
- WandreyCer
May 18, 2011 at 2:03pm
You are kidding, right, K? You write of directing your sisters on how to vote. That sounds more like a reader of Human Events than The New Republic, so I assume you are merely joking.
- liberalref
May 18, 2011 at 2:55pm
It was a team effort to get Republicans to waste money on candidates that had no chance. I foresee a family of votes this election season in South Carolina for. . . {holds envelope to forehead, unseals envelope, drumroll}. . . Newt Gingrich? Democracy works!
- Konstantin
May 18, 2011 at 3:17pm
Well, you didn't that you agreed among yourselves on strategy, you said that "I had my sisters vote Romney in 2008." I hope that The Nation's Katha Pollitt isn't reading this.
- liberalref
May 18, 2011 at 3:26pm
I'm now tempted to sarcastically claim that women's suffrage's main purpose was to multiply the votes of the man of the house, but I'll not risk the wrath of Ms. Pollitt. My sisters are politically savvy as well, and they appreciated my suggestion to subvert the right wing & its election budgets with our votes. If I hadn't convinced them to put their votes as officially unaffiliated nonpartisans to use, they would have felt left out of all the wacky South Carolina political fun. Although a vote for Obama in that red state may seem meaningless to them, a vote in a tightly contested Republican primary is not. You can all be my sisters! Come, TNR siblings & supporters in hopelessly red states! Vote for the 2nd or 3rd place Republican guy in the primary!
- Konstantin
May 18, 2011 at 3:38pm
Operation Mayhem. I like it. The Nutmeg State is deep blue and likely to remain that way, but I'll find some way to meaningfully contribute.
- Tristan
May 18, 2011 at 3:49pm
Jonathan, You said this at the end: "Wilkinson notes at the end that Romney may yet plug his way through to the nomination. I consider that highly unlikely, but you never know." Is it barely possible you are leaving the door open a little to the position regular commenatators on your posts such as myself and Liberalref, have been saying to paraphrase Mark Twain, that the death of Romeny has been greatly exxagerated?
- MikeB.
May 18, 2011 at 4:54pm
Well? I live on the Upper West Side of Manhattan - we're blissfully free of any political posturingby anyone, why bother? But my father is moving to South Carolina to retire (from Southern California), so I'm sure he'll be ready to be recruited for any mayhem...and BTW - Ms. Pollitt is much heartier, less touchy and in on the joke than she appears. She's one of us.
- WandreyCer
May 18, 2011 at 8:52pm