Bruising anti-Romney piece

From John Heilemann, special writer for Wired & New Yorker.

JH starts with the now common list of Romney's "sins" relative to the far right base of the Republican caucus---Mormon and used to be a moderate (sane?) Republican. He has, as Heilemann notes changed his position on all the major hot button issues to the so-called social conservatives: gun control, stem cell research, abortion, gay marriage.

The timing of the changes is of course quite suspect. If the conversion experience Romney speaks regarding these are sincere, then I think the old Romney sounded like a better candidate. Although by all accounts he did handle health care well in Mass.

Heilemann notes that in the age of YouTube this flip-flopping is blasted daily in video form across homes and voters. To see on paper, as the story notes, a change in position is one thing to see the man's face, to hear his voice (less than a decade old) say sincerely (it would appear) the exact opposite of what he says now is more emotionally impacting.

But what Heilemann notes that I had not seen before is the following:

Needless to say, what matters isn’t what people like me might say but whether Republicans find Romney’s account of his switcheroos persuasive. And here the news is no less grim for Mitt. According to the latest Fox News poll, Romney’s support among Republicans nationally fell from 8 percent in December to just 3 percent at the end of January. To a large extent, Romney’s desultory numbers reflect low name recognition. But that they’re trending down instead of up should be, must be, freaking him out, even at this early stage.

Heilemann argues the Romney flirtation (and will it involve into a crush/falling in love or die out is the question I guess) is more about the lack of an authentic conservative--as defined today--than Romney himself it would seem. George Allen "fumbled" (sorry) the ball. Bill Frist was a complete flop and had sense enough to not even try. McCain and Giuliani will never completely win over the social cons, whether or not they can at least stomach them is another question, and Brownback is way too wacky (although a possibly strong VP Cand.). Leaving Romney.

Heilemann again:

The case for Romney’s viability, therefore, boils down to this: He’s the minimally acceptable man to the right who has a chance of winning. “Social conservatives rarely get their first choice, but they have veto power,” says Schnur, McCain’s communications director in 2000. “Romney doesn’t need to be their best friend; he just needs to be better than McCain or Giuliani. He needs to be the tallest jockey at the track.”

JH predicts Romney is headed to downfall--comparing him to Pete Wilson (ouch!!). I think that's a little premature and below the belt frankly. But the poll number he cited I think is very disturbing for the Romney camp.

[To listen to a Romney interview (with Hugh Hewitt who is definitely on the Mitt-wagon) go here. Some interesting issues on savings, global warming, but also wants to make permanent the Bush tax cuts--how can we be cutting taxes and starting wars simultaneously? Why is the burden all on the military and their families?].

I was raised a moderate Republican and that was how I self-identified as a youth---e.g. although I was too young to vote I wanted George HW Bush to win over Bill Clinton in '92. I wanted pre-Iraq War McCain to win in 2000--the straight talk express Johnny not the McCain Doctrine Surge Johnny.

I linked to the George Will article the other day to suggest that heaven forbid the Republicans actually use this as an opportunity to self-examine: is being beholden to the NRA and having to vote against bans on assault weapons (whose hunting a deer with an assault weapon?) to prove one's conservative cred really a way forward? Is being locked into views that honestly 25-20% of the electorate hold a prescription for our country's future. Like I said the apparently Romney 1.0 sounds in some ways more appealing to me than the 2.0 version.

That Republican party I can't be a part of or identify with. In the 92 campaign there was the infamous Buchanan speech (which turned out to be true although perhaps a self-fulfilling prophecy on part of conservatives) declaring a coming Culture War. The Republicans then went into the exile and looked scarily as if headed in that isolationist way.

Rove and Bush rallied disparate forces into big-tent conservatism but relied to their folly on continuing to play to the bases, believing the country to be almost even divided as opposed to having the courage to bridge some of the differences.

If the Republicans lose this presidential cycle they will find that the Rove-Bush new right is perhaps headed to a death like paleo-conservatism was with Buchanan.

Mostly I don't win Hillary because I don't want the replay of the 90s and the far right being re-energized and the re-igniting of the Cultural Intifadah from the far right and left. I like Obama's message of transcending, of audacity and hope, but his policies are left-leaning and he needs a much stronger foreign policy mind with him (readers will know who I think he should assemble on that front). But we shall see.