Redstate

Maybe we can lose with McCain and win with Romney in 2012. I'm not saying I'd like that road, but one could argue that if McCain loses in 2008 that Romney will be the favorite in 2012.

If Romney supporters think Romney is the second coming of Reagan, I now understand the disconnect between them and primary voters.

And if you think the pro-life, anti-spending, anti-pork, strong on the War McCain is something like Ford, then I am understanding that disconnect as well.

Heh.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

Ford was The President. McCain is not.

Had Reagan been running against Maj. Leader Gerald Ford - or maybe even Gov. Nelson Rockefeller for an open seat, he probably would have won. Incumbancy is a powerful weapon - especially among Republicans.

Second. Romney has changed his views quite recently. Reagan turned to the right in the 50s, he was vocal and active as an anti-communist conservative. And he was elected to office AFTER his shift in philosophy. None of that can be said of Romney. We doubt he's been a true conservative for decades (as was Reagan when he ran), he was not actively conservative for years. His conversion to conservatism seems to have come SINCE he was elected, and he didn't run again on his new-found philosophy.

I do not see anything hopeful or optimistic in Romney, because I don't see any core principles in him. He's all things to all people, which means, to me, that he believes in none of it. You cannot be both for limited government and for bailing out the auto industry. You can't be for restrained spending and then attack your opponent for voting against another bloated entitlement. If you want to hear it, Romney will tell it to you. And what does that mean at the end of the day? For me it means that Romney is more like "govern-by-polls" Bill Clinton than Ronald Reagan.

Reagan was a Western Republican who had to fight against the Party's Michigan pragmatists like Gerald Ford and Governor George Romney (who was Goldwater's nemesis in 1964 while Reagan was giving election eve speeches for Goldwater), and the Northeastern Establishment types like Nelson Rockefeller.

Romney has chosen to fight against virtually everyone in the party this year. Some of his campaign's worst venom was used against Fred Thompson when it became clear he was going to enter the race and likely be capable of winning the Conservative vote that Romney had gone to all the trouble of changing his views to court in the primaries.

Reagan was a Conservative before he was a Republican. He was a Conservative Democrat, a traditionalist.

Romney has been a lifelong moderate Republican, much like his father George, and that other Michigan moderate Gerald Ford.

Reagan was a leader in the Conservative Movement since 1964 when he gave the Goldwater speech the night before the election. He earned his Conservative stripes by actually putting his reputation on the line for a man who was certain to go down to defeat in a landslide. He continued that through his Governorship and his campaigns for the nomination. He didn't change his positions to match up with the polls after the Party got demolished in 1974 when he ran for President in 1976.

Romney, on the other hand, courted the Log Cabin Republicans more than he courted Conservatives when he ran in 1994. Actually, he bashed Goldwater to try to curry favor with the LCR's. He aligned himself on numerous occasions with liberal Republicans like Bill Weld. I can't recall ever seeing him being a vocal supporter for any Conservative candidates ever. I can't recall ever seeing him get active and use his fortune to push for a Conservative-friendly ballot initiative or advocating anything that we stand for. Just the opposite, he went to the extraordinary length of spending millions of dollars to take out ads against Steve Forbes' Flat Tax proposal in 1996.

Reagan was a dedicated believer in limited government and the power of the individual to solve their own problems.

Romney, at every point in his public life, has advocated government solutions to people's problems. (see his healthcare bill in Massachusetts and his AWB law)

There is so little similarity between Reagan and Romney that I can't imagine how anyone could make that charge.

If Romney had been able to win this nomination, you would have seen a completely different candidate in the general election. He would have distanced himself from his Conservative views and ran as a competent technocrat alternative to Hillary. The only way he would have been considered conservative is in contrast to Hillary, whose campaign would have enjoyed pointing out all his flip-flops.

Romney and Kerry.

At least its better than pretending it is still a tight race - but not much more accurate. The similarities between Reagan and Romney pretty much end at the R in their names.