Romney CPAC – Severely Conservative Governor of Massachusetts? – Failure To Connect with Conservatives - Analysis

The Contenders: Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, Paul - no clear front-runner at this stage: image from issues2000.org

Mitt Romney’s Speech at CPAC included a line that rang hollow with some of those in attendance:

“I fought against long odds in a deep blue state, but I was a severely conservative Republican governor.”

(Red State)

The fact that his statement is at odds with the way that he mostly governed in Massachusetts, appearing most moderate at times – which is understood to work for Massachusetts, given the alleged high number of Democrats in the Bay State – what is true, is that the state has few Registered Republican’s by percentage (11%), and more registered Democrats (36%) with the majority of the state clearly “unenrolled” - of those, given the chance the vote will go towards the least offensive of the two party candidates – or the candidate that connects most with the people. In Romney’s case, he was elected as the least offensive, given Shannon O’Brien’s remarks on parental notification for abortions being lowered below the age of 18 – a statement that saw a steep decline in her poll numbers three weeks before the election in 2002. Up until that point she was leading in all polls, given her stellar record on gun ownership, she was what would be called today – a “blue dog” Democrat. It was the massive amount of unenrolleds voters that pushed the election to Romney. It was perceived as Romney being more moderate and winning an election by the GOP, in the same way that the more moderate Weld is perceived. That said, it may work in Massachusetts, or be perceived as working in Massachusetts, but it does not work in the heartland or in areas of the nation where the electorate is clearly conservative – rather than “severely conservative”.

Sarah Palin who was a keynote speaker at CPAC, noted on Fox News Sunday that:

I trust that his idea of conservatism is evolving, and I base this on a pretty moderate past that he has had, even in some cases a liberal past," Palin said. "He agreed with mandating on a state level what his constituents needed to be provided, needed to purchase, in the way of health care, and Romney care which of course was the precursor to Obama care. Now that’s a problem."
"He’s still in the 30 percentile mark when it comes to approval and primary wins and caucus wins," she said. "He still hasn’t risen above that yet, because we are not convinced."

(from Politico)

One can be sure that Mitt Romney wants to be President, and that he feels that he is able to do the job, given his experience with the Olympics, for example, however, it is his failure to connect to the average guy, and his record as a moderate, that has conservatives running in any direction but towards the former Governor.

From the standpoint of someone who survived the proverbial frying pan (Romney), only to get tossed into the fire (Deval Patrick), it is difficult to tell if there was much of a difference in policy at times – there is still the focus on entitlement programs, there are still consistent “fee or tax increases”, it is a given that one will be taxed or “fee-ed” in Massachusetts now, be it a Republican Governor in the mold of Romney or a Democrat in the mold of Deval Patrick. To be fair to Romney he did balance the budget in Massachusetts, but not without raising “fees”, a sticking point with most Conservatives in the “Bluest State”. For example, fishing licenses, for those who enjoy casting into a trout stream, are the fees that were raised to the point where most families could no longer enjoy a day trout fishing in Massachusetts. There is a very thin line between the very poor in Massachusetts and those working for a somewhat living wage, one pays the fees and taxes to support the other (or in Mitt Romney Speak - the safety net) – a case one might suspect is the same in most states that have costly entitlement programs such as: universal mandatory health insurance for example.

The aforementioned makes Romney a hard sell – he could stand on the fact that he was elected Governor while running as a Republican, and leave it at that. Severely conservative however, is a stretch.

On Friday, on drive time talk radio WRKO’s “Howie Carr” managed to get Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell on the phone at CPAC - on-air (Paraphrased) Carr: Governor, I understand you’re a conservative, both fiscally and socially? Governor McDonnell: Yes I am. Carr: Then why are you supporting Mitt Romney?!

McDonnell then gave a statement that screamed "patented by the Romney campaign". The usual talking point on Romney’s ability to get elected, his experience as a businessman, etc., which when a surrogate is speaking on Romney in that manner, is known in Massachusetts as “Romney calling in favors” – it is the fact that his PAC (which he no longer can control) supported so many Conservatives and moderates during the 2010 election, who now elected, are his stepping stone(in terms of their being both surrogates, as well as delegates (super delegates by virtue of the office held or prior office held),) to the nomination – in Romney’s plan.

Unfortunately, there is that nagging electorate to which he cannot seem to connect – those looking for a candidate that has a consistent conservative message, a candidate that connects with the people, not only conservatives, but the total electorate – 100% of the people.

Of course the aforementioned is somewhat utopian, but not impossible, even with the partisanship that exists today, like never before, it is not impossible for an individual perceived as honest, and willing to lead the nation, without dictating to the nation, someone who stands on the principles of the Constitution, someone who is a conservative, without being “severely” conservative. These individuals exist, and they are generally found standing at the podium to the right and left of Mitt Romney.

According to Beltway mentality – it is simply “Romney’s Turn” perhaps, in the same manner is which any moderate is “next in line” if a previous election were lost (see the nominee history of the Republican party over the past few decades, and no more explanation is necessary, with only one glaring exception – Ronald Regan. However, there is no Ronald Reagan, there will never be another Ronald Reagan, there are, however, fiscal and social conservative packages, again standing next to Romney at the podiums. One almost feels sorry for Romney, who again, it not his desire to serve that is questioned, it is his Conservative Credentials – constantly – it is almost as if he should, in some people’s minds, be mounting a challenge against Barack Obama, as a registered Democrat.

To be fair, people do change their minds, on one issue or two, but changing one’s mind, on all issues, over and over again, begins to appear to be a case of pandering to get elected. It could be true that Romney has changed his viewpoint on Abortion or on Taxes. It is not that he is insincere either, it is, again, the perception of insincerity and the perception of non-conservatism that will follow him through the remainder of this campaign. It may have been, to those in the Beltway, “his turn”, but to those voters seeking change, and leadership and fiscal or social (or both) conservatism, it is apparently, not his turn at all.

The "problem with the lower turnout at the elections" would also be improved if those in the rank and file did not know, for instance, that Romney is the Frontrunner, or the Eventual Nominee. This message is pushed down the throats of Republicans and those who might vote in a Republican primary causes apathy – pure and simple. A why bother to go and vote when it has already been decided who is going to win state of mind. With the realty being that no one has this nomination secured, by a long mile, and that it should be noted that there is clearly no one frontrunner, by virtue of winning states, rather there is, for the first time in a long time, a competitive race for the GOP nomination. It should be: now get out and vote.

The strategy may have done more to hurt Romney than help him – or he may have suspended his campaign early, depending on the turnout and the outcome. It should have been run that way, but it was not. Republican’s and those who are leaning conservative or are conservative are still choosing, vetting each of the candidates that do well, and with Super Tuesday on the horizon, (slightly less super with some of the states opting to hold earlier primaries or caucuses), it will be the bellwether going forward as to which of the four remaining will be the contenders for the nomination. It is, form this standpoint, far from decided, and it is as it should be. The most conservative (speaking fiscally and socially): Rick Santorum, followed by Newt Gingrich, followed by the Libertarian Ron Paul, then there is Mitt Romney, those are the choices, all of which are capable, some of whom have baggage, (which is called making a mistake or simply governing to the will of the people of a particular state (in the Case of Rick Santorum – otherwise known as Squeaky Clean and, in this mind, the “eventual nominee” by virtue of his ability to connect, and his credentials), and some are perceived as having a weaker Conservative foreign policy than others (Ron Paul), but the later three are perceived as standing by their convictions, regardless, while those in the trenches, just are not sure where Mitt Romney stands – it comes down to trust – and all the aforementioned combined are what makes a candidate: electable.