|
|
Is Romney Another McCain?
Jeffrey Kuhner
RightBias.com
February 4, 2012
|
Conservatives are asking a reasonable question: Will a Mitt Romney candidacy turn
into another debacle like
Sen. John McCain’s in 2008? The Arizona maverick was said to be the
most “electable” of the Republican nominees. Many
GOP voters held their noses and supported
Mr. McCain.
Yet he was defeated - convincingly - by
Barack Obama. Following
Mr. Romney’s crushing victory in Florida’s Republican primary
this week, many rank-and-file activists are wondering whether history is about to
repeat itself.
The emergence of Newt
Gingrich isn’t being driven by a love for the former House speaker.
Rather, many conservatives are rallying behind him because he is the only viable
alternative to Mr. Romney.
Unlike the former Massachusetts governor, Mr. Gingrich is willing to wage a frontal
assault on President Obama’s
leftist policies. He is not afraid to attack Mr. Obama relentlessly - and with passion,
emotion and courage. Gingrich Republicans argue that Mr. Romney possesses no ideological core,
that he lacks any fundamental conservative convictions.
Moreover, Gingrich
supporters think Mr. Romney
is simply another moderate Republican in the mold of Bob Dole and Mr. McCain. Just as those men crashed
and burned, so will Mr. Romney,
in their view. In their eyes, the
Republican Party is about to commit suicide: By abandoning its principles
in favor of power, the
GOP will lose both. Hence,
Mr. Romney must be stopped - even if it means backing a flawed
candidate like Mr. Gingrich.
This is why his followers are urging him to fight on in the remaining 46 states.
There are similarities between
Mr. Romney and
Mr. McCain. Both are establishment Republicans. Both are distrusted
and disliked by large segments of the conservative movement - especially talk radio.
Both have signature issues - Romneycare,
McCain-Feingold - that constitute major political liabilities. And
both lack personality and charisma. Yet that is where it ends.
In fact, the two men could not be more different. Mr. Romney is a much stronger candidate. He
is more articulate, telegenic and disciplined and possesses a considerably deeper
grasp of the issues. Mr. Romney
would be the first
GOP nominee since President
Reagan to be able to defend Republican positions effectively.
The Bushes, Mr. Dole
and Mr. McCain
were all dismal failures regarding a key aspect of politics: communication. This
alone makes Mr. Romney
a serious threat to Mr.
Obama’s re-election.
Most important, there is one overriding difference between
Mr. Romney and
Mr. McCain: The former venture capitalist
is not a creature of Washington. The Arizona senator had spent decades on Capitol
Hill. He was and still is the consummate insider. During the 2008 campaign, he came
across - like Mr. Dole
in 1996 - as a career politician, someone obsessed with process and Senate wheeling
and dealing.
Mr.
Romney is the exact opposite. He has spent most of his life in the private
sector, running a successful business and turning around troubled corporations.
He has what Mr. McCain
never had: genuine executive experience. Also, unlike
Mr. McCain, Mr. Romney understands free-market capitalism.
He is a pro-business Republican who will repeal Obamacare, slash burdensome regulations,
cut government spending and unleash the economy’s animal spirits. The divergent
perspectives of the two men can be seen on illegal immigration.
Mr. McCain has championed amnesty;
Mr. Romney staunchly opposes it.
Mr. McCain
embodies Beltway Republicanism, while
Mr. Romney adheres to more traditional
GOP beliefs such as states’ rights,
market-driven growth and a thriving entrepreneurial class.
Mr. Romney is running to loosen Washington’s
suffocating grip on national life;
Mr. McCain cannot imagine life without Washington’s daily involvement.
This was Mr. McCain’s
Achilles’ heel in 2008.
The great irony is that it was Tea Party conservatives - running on a platform of
limited government, low taxes and balanced budgets - who propelled the
GOP to make historic gains in the 2010
election. Yet the two leading candidates for the movement’s presidential nomination
come from the establishment. The right is understandably demoralized.
His rhetoric notwithstanding,
Mr. Gingrich is not an insurgent. In fact, he is less electable and
less conservative than Mr. Romney.
The former House speaker’s record is littered with betrayals on a wide range of
issues - he supports massive ethanol subsidies, something even Al Gore concedes
is a clean-energy boondoggle; he championed a health care individual mandate for
more than a decade, including publicly praising Romneycare in 2006; he backed caps
on carbon emissions and demanded government action to combat climate change, including
filming a TV ad with then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi; he voted to create the Department
of Education; he believes in some form of amnesty; he took $1.6 million from Freddie
Mac; and he wants to spend hundreds of billions of dollars in massive projects,
such as building a space colony on the moon, establishing a huge power-grid corridor
across the Northeast and modernizing ports in Charleston. S.C., and Jacksonville,
Fla. In short, Mr. Gingrich
is a big-government corporatist masquerading as a conservative populist.
Mr. Romney has
serious weaknesses. He is certainly not a Reagan nationalist - my kind of Republican.
But he has several indispensable qualities: He can beat
Mr. Obama. He can stop America’s decline
into a second-rate power. He can reverse our slide toward socialism and economic
ruin. He can turn around the bankrupt corporation that is America. “The perfect
is the enemy of the good,” wrote the French philosopher Voltaire.
Mr. Romney is far from perfect. He is,
however, good enough. He is not the second coming of
John McCain. He can win in November.
For that alone, he deserves conservative support.
Jeffrey T. Kuhner is a columnist at The Washington Times and president of the Edmund
Burke Institute.
|