Recently, there have been some rumblings by certain Tea Party leaders concerning their opposition to Mitt Romney on account of his healthcare plan in Massachusetts. Right or wrong, this is a major problem for Romney that he will need to address in the coming months if he is to claim the frontrunner status for the GOP nomination in 2012 that many pundits are saying is his to begin with.
However, in spite of Romney's failure to adequately address the more questionable parts of his record, the Tea Party must understand that the opposition to Romney within their ranks is based on one thing: irrational fear.
Based on issues alone, it would be logical to conclude that Mitt Romney is in agreement with the vast majority of Tea Party principles. He balanced the budget for four consecutive years in a blue state without raising taxes. Isn't that what the TEA in Tea Party stands for, Taxed Enough Already? The very premise of the Tea Party movement is in accordance with Romney's record.
But what about RomneyCare? RomneyCare, signed into law by Romney in 2006, is a state-based healthcare plan with striking similarities to ObamaCare. However, unlike ObamaCare, RomneyCare did not raise taxes. But the bigger and more important difference is that RomneyCare was a state program and not a federal one. If states' rights and federalism are truly important to the Tea Party, they would readily recognize this distinction. And on top of all this, Romney has consistently voiced his support for the repeal of ObamaCare.
Perhaps RomneyCare isn't the only thing that irks some in the Tea Party movement. Maybe it's his flip-flopping on abortion. Well, considering that he flipped (not flopped) his position to pro-life, wouldn't that mean that the majority of the Tea Party should agree with him now? Changing positions on the issue of life isn't uncommon in either party. Both Jesse Jackson and Al Gore became pro-choice after previously being pro-life. Republicans like George H.W. Bush, Henry Hyde, and some would even say Ronald Reagan each had somewhat pro-choice pasts before becoming pro-life. And besides, it would be difficult for the Tea Party to claim success with a pro-choice candidate like Scott Brown while pointing the finger at Romney.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - James
As a Christian, I am ashamed that so many in the Christian community reject Romney because he is Mormon. They always have some shadowy, secretive reason: "Mormons are very VERY different, they believe some very VERY strange things"
Yeah, well so does Obama. And the left united around him. If the right can't unite around someone as good as Romney the Republican party may as well dissolve.
2 - Dandini
I agree with this concept.
If the Tea Party and the extreme Evangelicals cannot learn from history, they will help reelect OBAMA.
3 - Joseph Cotto
Braden, it is highly doubtful that the TEA Party Movement will ever coalesce around Romney for the very reasons which you listed. The TEA Party's unreasonable demands of total purity in public officials as of late has served as a catalyst for my growing frigid with it. Also, it would seem as if now a schism of sorts is developing within the ranks of TEA Party regarding, of all things, the issue of abortion. This is a sad testament to the TEA Party's hijacking by the Religious Right and their fellow travelers in the so-called "moral values" movement. About one year from now, I would not be surprised if there are no distinguishable traits between the Southern Baptist and TEA Party conventions.
4 - Braden
Joseph, unfortunately you may be right.
5 - Doug
Yet the Tea Party coalesced around Palin, but she is definitley not "total purity". She left the state of Alaska with a substantial amount of debt. Some tea partiers split off from the original tea party and they no longer stand for what the original tea parties represented. I feel Mitt is the only one out there that can possibly pull the United States from the brink and he is the only one out there that stands a chance against Obama.
6 - Alan Kurtz
Joseph (#3), if your prediction holds true, then Romney not only doesn't need a Tea Party endorsement, he's better off without it. Maybe he should target the mainstream GOP and seek their nomination by running as a centrist compared to Sarah Palin. But do you think the GOP will be in a mood less than two years from now to nominate a centrist? I remember the 1964 Republican National Convention at which your hero, Nelson Rockefeller, was vanquished by Barry Goldwater, obviously far to Rocky's right. If Romney tries to position himself to Palin's left (meaning to the mainstream's center), he may meet the same unhappy fate as Rockefeller.
7 - zingzing
the tea party latched on to glen beck. a noted mormon.
8 - zingzing
glenn? or glen? glenn. right?
9 - Joseph Cotto
Alan, I believe that you are correct in your opinion about Romney forsaking what has degenerated into the TEA Party of today. Rockefeller's loss to Goldwater in 1964 proved, to all level headed Americans, that nominating a well spoken centrist for the presidency is the key to electoral success. When clear thinkers are snubbed in favor of reactionary loons, then the leftists are almost guaranteed to win without much of a serious contest, as was the case in '64 and this year with regards to the U.S. Senate races in Delaware, Nevada, and Colorado. It cannot be stressed enough that the TEA Party does not care about the survival of the Republican Party, which is the only viable organ for the promotion of center-right policies in the national political process, but only wishes to "make a point" and have the "voice of the people" heard, so long as the people are in lockstep with their ideas, of course. Many of the TEA Partiers of today, not necessarily the ones of 2009 and early 2010, seem to have no concept of strategic voting or the long-held "Buckley Rule" of electing only mainstream candidates in primaries. As long as the insidious Limbaugh-Beck-Hannity trio likes the way things are going, then that is the indisputably final word in the matter, correct?
I think both you and I, as well as nearly everyone else reading this, know the answer to that.
10 - Alan Kurtz
zingzing (#7), the voters of Nevada also recently reelected Harry Reid, another Mormon, to the U.S. Senate. I think you'll agree, though, that's not terribly predictive when it comes to Mitt Romney running for president. Becoming darling of the Tea Party (Beck) or senator from a state that's 11% LDS (Reid) is a far cry from becoming president of a nation in which Mormons constitute a mere 1.7% of the population.
11 - Dan
Thank you for writing this article. It articulates what so many of us are thinking in a very effective way. The last thing we should do is attack each other. We need to unite in our efforts to dethrone Obama
12 - Baronius
Let me put forward two additional problems that Tea Partiers may have with Mitt Romney. Number one, he lost to John McCain. McCain will not be remembered as one of the great campaigners. If the argument for supporting Romney is that you want to go with a potential winner, you've got to grapple with his loss in 2008.
Secondly, Romney hasn't done much more than write a few editorials in the past two years. The situation couldn't have been better for him. A fractured party in need of a leader; an anti-incumbent, anti-Washington groundswell; his signature issue. He should have been Man of the Year. Instead, a half-term governor and the third-highest-rated radio talk show host were dominant political figures. Between this and his 2008 loss, it's fair to question whether Romney is big enough for the job.
13 - zingzing
well, alan, i doubt the tea partiers voted for reid anyway. being a cursed democrat is far worse than any religious problems they'd have with a mormon. but i think beck's mormonism, combined with beck's messianic like sway over the tea party, suggests that they are open to a mormon who espouses their beliefs. maybe, dare i say it, romney could suck them back from the brink. i'm no fan of romney, but at least he's sane... not that i think beck is really insane either. he just spouts off nonsense because "we the people" lap it up.
that said, he's certainly a better shot for the presidency than palin. palin will bring out even the most disappointed obama voter. but i don't think anyone (at least around here) wants to see a palin presidency. actually, i don't think palin wants to see one either.
14 - Alan Kurtz
palin will bring out even the most disappointed obama voter. but i don't think anyone (at least around here) wants to see a palin presidency.
You're right in the first instance but wrong in the second.
Palin will bring out even the most disappointed Obama voters, but your unwritten assumption is that they will vote for him, rather than for her. I'm a disappointed Obama voter--so disappointed, in fact, that I'd vote for anyone but him. Most politicians betray their campaign promises. And most, upon being elected, demonstrate poor governance and a lack of true leadership.
But we voted for Obama precisely because he persuaded us that was different from most politicians.
Now that we understand how naive we were, or to put it another way, how duped we were, you can no longer count on "the most disappointed Obama voters" to support his reelection.
All of which makes you wrong about no one (at least around here) wanting to see a Palin presidency. I for one would prefer that to Obama II, and I suspect there may be others lurking in the shadows of these threads who feel the same.
15 - Leon Bird
Romney has created more privet sector jobs than all the other canidates combined. Romney has saved more componies from failure than all the other canadates combined. He did this without goverenment money.
Honesty first
componcy second
Libertarian Consertive third.
16 - Christopher Rose
"Privet sector jobs" - at a hedge fund presumably..?
17 - Declan
Braden, I'd also add to your list that Romney, in spite of perception, is outside of the establishment. While he appeals to the establishment type voter, the establishment itself was united against him in 2008. McCain, Rudy and Fred were all individuals who spent their lifetimes in and around government. Sure Fred acted in films, but before, during and after that he was at different times a government lawyer, lobbyist and elected official.
They all were lifelong friends, too. So much so, in fact, that Rudy sandbagged his entire campaign out of deference to McCain. This gave the moderate to liberal GOP primary voters entirely to McCain, which kept him alive early. Fred split social conservatives between Romney and Huckabee. Now, as Huck himself was not an outsider, he was more than willing to do its bidding by staying in the race far too late--after he was mathematically eliminated--for the sole purpose (well, dual for Mike) of denying Romney a late run against McCain.
Despite the top tier aligning against him, Romney had the most secondplace finishes and had the broadest appeal across the spectrum. Plus, what's more is the fact that of the 2008 candidates, only Romney remains relevant today. While Huckabee polls competitively now, it's only logical that it's based on his persona brimming with charm and humor. That's no different than 2008, but a second run by him will not be met with a rerun of underestimation by his opponents; his record will be examined and ripped to shreds: more pardons/commutations than the previous three (Democrat) governors of Arkansas COMBINED...based on rationale such as that he was convinced rapists found Jesus in the joint; tax raiser, big time; criminal violence on son's behalf; campaign hiatus taking for personal income; and all sorts of pandering a la Charlie Crist.
The Huckabee tangent aside, the point I'm making is that just because Romney is successful and always civil doesn't mean he's of the establishment. He was the only one in 2008 who had an actual career outside of always seeking higher and higher political office, and that'll mostly be the case again in 2012 and hopefully your readers, republicans, independents and tea partiers will be intellectually honest enough to acknowledge it and vote accordingly because the number one qualifier for any candidate is Electability and Romney's got that more than anyone.
Cheers.
18 - Jordan Richardson
I Googled "componcy" because I couldn't figure out what it meant. I came up with another Leon Bird comment that basically said the same thing with identical "spelling." With all due respect to Mr. Bird and his priorities, I should think education should rate somewhere on that list.
19 - Alan Kurtz
C'mon, Jordan, don't play dumb. Componcy means being good at one's job. Mitt Romney is an extremely component individual.
20 - El Bicho
I'm guessing "spelling" is not even fourth on Leon's list
21 - Niemsters
#16 Christopher - at a Private Equity firm not a hedge fund. Vastly different businesses. Private Equity firms buy poorly performing companies, make big changes and improve efficiency (sometimes this means laying people off), and them selling them for more than they bought them for. Before that Romney was "King of Consultants" fixing complicated problems at businesses.
22 - zingzing
"I for one would prefer that to Obama II, and I suspect there may be others lurking in the shadows of these threads who feel the same."
yeah, well, i really doubt there are many people out there who are so disappointed with obama, they'd vote for palin. i am very, very surprised you voted for obama, given your opinion of things. just doesn't seem to match up. and i don't see you as the mushy type who voted for obama "because he was different from most other politicians." washington is a machine that spits people back out its ass. also, the president is not a dictator. how you expected his "difference" to affect massive change in the directions you would desire are beyond me. if you believed in what he had to say (i don't much see that in you to begin with), one would be a fool to believe he'd be able to take his supposed vision to washington and reproduce it easily and completely.
you were a fairweather friend to obama to begin with, if that's why you voted for him. if you'd rather have a reality tv show star in the white house, good for you, but you'll get what you ask for. i think most people, including sarah palin, view her now as a television personality rather than a politician. because that's what she is.
23 - Alan Kurtz
zingzing, on Aug 26 you wrote (comment #22): "putting alan aside, as his politics are a complete fucking mystery …"
Today, on Nov 22, you write (also comment #22--what is it with 22 here?): "i am very, very surprised you voted for obama, given your opinion of things. just doesn't seem to match up."
Evidently in less than three months my politics have passed from being "a complete fucking mystery" to you, to being thoroughly understood by you. Which of us is responsible for this change? Was it something I said?
24 - El Bicho
"how you expected his 'difference' to affect massive change in the directions you would desire are beyond me."
Because apparently Alan like many Obama voters didn't pay attention to the "we" in "yes we can". They incorrectly thought Election Day 2008 was all the effort they had to make and left Obama on his own after he explicitly said it needed to be a joint venture. What's amusing is how they are now unaware they are partially responsible for what they see as Obama's failures.
Not sure if it's amusing or creepy that Alan brings up three-month-old comments. Do you think it's part of a shrine he dedicates to you, zing, or does he keep all comments made that reference him?
25 - Alan Kurtz
Is there a time limit on past comments? Do they turn rancid after a while? Most of yours are rancid to begin with, so I see no harm in bringing up past comments if they're pertinent to what I have to say.