Will the GOP eventually bite the bullet and start nominating "moderates?"

[ShadowOfTheWave]

If the GOP nominates Romney or Crist in 2012 they earn my vote, while if they nominate Palin or Huckabee they lose it.

[Vepres]

In hindsight, Romney was the best GOP choice for November 2008. He wasn't the best GOP choice in January 2008, though, so he didn't win.

Maybe, but then you would've eliminated the GOP's best chance (among current likely candidates) to win in 2012.

Romney would have been a good candidate in 2008 because, at the end of the election campaign, all anyone cared about was the economy. Romney was all about the economy, and actually had real, tangible experience where Obama and McCain clearly had none.

He's wishy-washy as all hell when it comes to social issues, but that would have been largely irrelevant.

And for what it's worth, unless the economy is still in the dumps in Nov. 2012 (God help us if it is), Romney will be a terrible candidate for President that year. He's a niche candidate.

If he runs as the guy who won the Massachusetts governorship, or the guy who almost unseated Ted Kennedy, than he would be a very strong candidate. He has the opposite problem of McCain, he needs to loosen up and let people get to know what his positions really are (whereas McCain was, rightly or not, viewed as erratic and indecisive).

[Smash255]

If he runs as the guy who won the Massachusetts governorship, or the guy who almost unseated Ted Kennedy, than he would be a very strong candidate. He has the opposite problem of McCain, he needs to loosen up and let people get to know what his positions really are (whereas McCain was, rightly or not, viewed as erratic and indecisive).

I agree.  Like I mentioned before, I think that comes from his father's openness doing him in.  Mitt just took being careful too far and appeared to be hiding something.  If you've spent as much time as I have studying Romney (weird I know) you'd know that what he was doing was not being dishonest or acting in self-interest, it was trying to be everyone's candidate.  You can see in his debates from each of his races the adjustments he made to appeal more to his target audience.  He never changed positions, he simply accentuated different ones and focused his campaign on certain things.  He floated around uncomfortably for too long in 2008 trying to find his image.  He had been able to zero in on clear messages in his platform in 1994 and 2002, but was clearly unsure about his position among the candidates in 2008.  He could easily have run as the moderate or the conservative, but he couldn't choose which one.  And by that I don't mean there were two Mitts, I mean there were two distinct directions he could take his campaign that emphasized different aspects of his platform.  This turned into what looked like a desire to ignore his socially moderate positions.

He went from a social moderate to a hard right fundie.....

[Lunar]

He did reach out to hard-right fundies like Hagee and Dobson while in 2000 he called them "agents of intolerance" but McCain never really beat the abortion drum or the pro-life more than he had previously.  Part of the reason why McCain did poorly was that all he really cares about is foreign policy and earmarks, and the scope of the economic problems we were facing went beyond earmarks...

Probably the biggest argument in Smash's favor is the Palin pick.  But at the time, McCain apparently was more interested in her ant-establishment political persona taking on the corrupt Murkowski and Knowles status quo up there.

[Badger]

 If you've spent as much time as I have studying Romney (weird I know) you'd know that what he was doing was not being dishonest or acting in self-interest, it was trying to be everyone's candidate. 
[/quote]

Says it all. Funny how many Republicans went from decrying Kerry as a "Massachusetts flip-flopper" to supporting Romney only a few years later.....

[Badger]

If you've spent as much time as I have studying Romney (weird I know) you'd know that what he was doing was not being dishonest or acting in self-interest, it was trying to be everyone's candidate. 

Says it all. Funny how many Republicans went from decrying Kerry as a "Massachusetts flip-flopper" to supporting Romney only a few years later.....

Nice cherry-picking on top of assuming I was one of those Republicans.  All around great post, thanks for your input.

1) Note I said (accurately) "many Republicans", not "fezzyfestoon".
2) Sure I could've gone on at great length about Romney's undeniable 180 degree flip on countless major issues, instead I chose that one sentence as a concise summary of a defense of an indefensible proposition---that Mitt Romney is no more wishy-washy or ungrounded or unprincipled than any other politician.

Seriously, can anyone think of another prominent politician who has changed his standing so completely and quickly on so many policies?

[??????????]

Seriously, can anyone think of another prominent politician who has changed his standing so completely and quickly on so many policies?

Barack Obama from January 19th until January 20th.

[Sewer]

Seriously, can anyone think of another prominent politician who has changed his standing so completely and quickly on so many policies?

Barack Obama from January 19th until January 20th.

[ChrisJG777]

Seriously, can anyone think of another prominent politician who has changed his standing so completely and quickly on so many policies?

Barack Obama from January 19th until January 20th.

You'd think so, wouldn't you? 

[sg0508]

By the way, Romney didn't really come close to Kennedy in 94.  It was 59-41%, which is a decent showing, but not really that close.

The party may not want to admit it, but it cannot win on a nat. level or in bluish states without the pro-choice/pro gay rights moderates like myself.

[Keystone Phil]

By the way, Romney didn't really come close to Kennedy in 94.  It was 59-41%, which is a decent showing, but not really that close.

Exactly. That's a "close race" for Kennedy but still an easy victory for anyone else.

[sg0508]

Now, the fact that he broke 40% in a nat. race (Pres/Senatorial) in MA and against Kennedy?  That's impressive.  I will say that.

The GOP's best shot though at a Senate seat in my lifetime in MA was Bill Weld vs Kerry.  Weld had him on the ropes in the summer of 96, until the debates saved Kerry bigtime in the fall.

[Rob]

Now, the fact that he broke 40% in a nat. race (Pres/Senatorial) in MA and against Kennedy?  That's impressive.  I will say that.

... in 1994, and people thought it was going to be a lot closer.

[??????????]

I now remember why I supported Romney in the first place.

[Badger]

If you've spent as much time as I have studying Romney (weird I know) you'd know that what he was doing was not being dishonest or acting in self-interest, it was trying to be everyone's candidate. 

Says it all. Funny how many Republicans went from decrying Kerry as a "Massachusetts flip-flopper" to supporting Romney only a few years later.....

Nice cherry-picking on top of assuming I was one of those Republicans.  All around great post, thanks for your input.

1) Note I said (accurately) "many Republicans", not "fezzyfestoon".
2) Sure I could've gone on at great length about Romney's undeniable 180 degree flip on countless major issues, instead I chose that one sentence as a concise summary of a defense of an indefensible proposition---that Mitt Romney is no more wishy-washy or ungrounded or unprincipled than any other politician.

Seriously, can anyone think of another prominent politician who has changed his standing so completely and quickly on so many policies?

1) Then why quote me if I have nothing to do with the Republicans you're mentioning?
2) Go right ahead and do so.  In case you don't know already, there are volumes of factual information available regarding Romney's actual record (not the one manufactured to smear him) in my post history.  I reccommend you read up on that before spewing the repetitive, debunked nonsense I have spent years now dismissing.  And yet somehow, people still think they're being original and intellectually challenging by questioning Romney's record on social issues.  Thanks but no thanks.

1) My quoting you to critique your defending Romney and the comparison of many Romeny supporters criticizing Kerry as a flip-flopper were largely unrelated. The latter was merely a tangent I went off on. Again, "many Republicans", not "Fezzy Festoon".

2) No, I don't think questioning Romney's blatant wholesale flip-flopping on many issues is either original or intellectually challenging. It's like challenging DeMint or Inhofe for being extremely conservative, or former Rep. Bob Ney for being corrupt: Obvious on its face and well-documented in the public record. That's why I tried to be concise (though am obviously failing the longer this back and forth goes on).

Now defending Romney as a man of principle who sticks to his guns--that's "original and intellectually challenging", to put it nicely.

(BTW: Although I only recently began posting to the forum I've been an active lurker for almost three years. So trust me that I've read your and others' valiant attempts to spin Romney as ideologically consistant, I just don't buy it as all evidence is clearly to the contrary.)

[Rob]

Now defending Romney as a man of principle who sticks to his guns--that's "original and intellectually challenging", to put it nicely.

lol

[Badger]

(BTW: Although I only recently began posting to the forum I've been an active lurker for almost three years. So trust me that I've read your and others' valiant attempts to spin Romney as ideologically consistant, I just don't buy it as all evidence is clearly to the contrary.)

Then you must not have done a very good job and as usual have already decided against Romney before looking into the facts behind his record and positions.  Go lurk some more and read up on my posts about Romney as I'm sure you actually have not, based on your posts about him.  When you do you'll come across some startling facts *gasp* that serve as real evidence of Romney's record.

I really need to master all the icons for posts; I've never needed a rolling eyes emoticon more than now. kthxbye

[Wiz from Wis in Mass]

I like how this thread went from "will we nominate a moderate" to "will we nominate Romney?"

Does anyone care to discuss the question posed?

[Badger]

(BTW: Although I only recently began posting to the forum I've been an active lurker for almost three years. So trust me that I've read your and others' valiant attempts to spin Romney as ideologically consistant, I just don't buy it as all evidence is clearly to the contrary.)

Then you must not have done a very good job and as usual have already decided against Romney before looking into the facts behind his record and positions.  Go lurk some more and read up on my posts about Romney as I'm sure you actually have not, based on your posts about him.  When you do you'll come across some startling facts *gasp* that serve as real evidence of Romney's record.

I really need to master all the icons for posts; I've never needed a rolling eyes emoticon more than now. kthxbye

You're going to fit in well here, nice and oblivious...yet somehow shockingly arrogant about it.  Interesting how politics draw in people like this.

kthxbye²

[Communists For McCain]

I like how this thread went from "will we nominate a moderate" to "will we nominate Romney?"

Does anyone care to discuss the question posed?

Hahaha, good point.

Well I think it would be in the GOP's best interest to start nominating moderates. It seems the party planners in the GOP have forgotten that politics are regional. For example, my state is so far right wing that alot of the Democrats in the state (at least in elected office) are almost as conservative as the average Republican! While I think they should be at least a little more liberal (ie be prochoice, support alternate energy, nothing too excessive), this strategy is a little bit more effective than nominating a super liberal because that would be suicide. In fact, Oklahoma Libertarians are probably considered "far left" here compared to the Republicans and the Democrats. The point: Democrats are using regional politics to their advantage and thus moderates and even conservatives flock to their party. If the GOP just lets up a little bit on their stances and lets moderates run in pretty liberal areas like the Northeast or the Pacific Coast they could see some improvement. I mean if Republicans ran somebody in Oregon who is favorable to gay marriage or prochoice they could raise their chances of success dramatically. Believe it or not some people in those areas might be fiscal conservatives it's just the social issues scare them away from the voting booth.

What the Republican Party needs to do is nominate pretty moderate candidates in areas with very liberal Democrat candidates, because believe it or not, there are plenty of people who think the very liberal politicians are annoying just like there are plenty of people in the South who think the very conservative politicians are annoying. Now I know people are thinking "but so and so wins by a so and so large margin", but I think that wouldn't be the case if the opposing party nominated someone sane to run against the crazy. I acknowledge that so far this theory has failed in my state on the federal level (US Senators and US Representatives), but that is because the Democrats are more conservative than they are moderate. There is a difference between being a moderate and almost completely agreeing with your opponent. You don't want to look like your opponent with a different shirt on, that means voters will see very little difference between who've they've been voting into office and you, thus decreasing your chances. That is the point of the moderate politician, to weaken the extremists in the opposing party. Nobody likes extremists.

Now do I think they will start nominating "moderates"? Yes, I think eventually self-preservation of the party will outweigh any blind ideological allegiances.

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Now, the fact that he broke 40% in a nat. race (Pres/Senatorial) in MA and against Kennedy?  That's impressive.  I will say that.

... in 1994, and people thought it was going to be a lot closer.

Yes it was just after one of Ted's relatives(can't remember which Kennedy off hand) got in trouble and Kennedy's defense of him reminded people of Ted's past and made them wondered if he had learned anything at all from 1969. There was a poll, I remember seeing it on wikipedia, not sure if still on there though, that showed the race in a tie with a lot of undecideds.

[Storebought]

The real reason why the party is failing was already stated: The grassroots Republicans dislike the 'liberalism' of current Republican congressmen and governors, and trust even less the leadership ability of the GOP machine.

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The real reason why the party is failing was already stated: The grassroots Republicans dislike the 'liberalism' of current Republican congressmen and governors, and trust even less the leadership ability of the GOP machine.

You got it. To make it even worse is that both wings see the leadership as being there opposites politically. Moderates see the leadership as being too conservative, while conservatives see them as sellouts. Sometimes the agree on the reasons like lack of competence, over spending, corruption, others they disagree. The problem is we are running moderates and unless they start winning, conservatives are just going to say why bother to run them then and support there own candidates in those cases. You can't argue that we haven't run moderates. The truth is that until the moderates shut up about the platform, they will continue to scare the sh**t out of the social conservatives, the purging will continue.

[pogo stick]

Hopefully the party will welcome all ideologies. I rather we be populist and popular with Americans ,then One Ideology and have 1/4 or less of the Nation in the party.

[Mint]

In hindsight, Romney was the best GOP choice for November 2008. He wasn't the best GOP choice in January 2008, though, so he didn't win.

I disagree.  Romney was too inconsistent with where he stood on too many issues.

The public image fabricated by the media for Romney was inconsistent, not Romney.  Romney's only problem was that he learned too well from his father's mistake of talking too much and didn't talk enough.  He was too guarded and careful, which is what led to his being labeled a used car salesman and a snake in the grass.  The media had nothing on him and he wasn't giving them anything, so they made their own stories about him.  Romney was absolutely the best choice for us in the election and the only nay-sayers to that already decided a long time ago that they hate him.  He was articulate, intelligent, and careful and those characteristics in a candidate for President are highly useful.  He was arguably the only GOP candidate that could beat Obama in a debate.

Oh come on Fezzy. Romney went from running as a pro choice, log cabin endorsed, anti-gun northern Republican to running as a pro-life, vehemently anti gay marriage, NRA member. I'm not going to say he flipped on more issues than Obama or McCain. In fact I'd say they flipped on more ass. But as far as his image goes that's pretty much of his own doing. The good news is he has 3 years to stay on message and sell his strengths (business expertise, executive experience, etc.).