Conservatives can still win. Just not Mitt Romney’s sort.
Conservatives the world over need to grasp the difference between being pro-market and being pro-business. Sometimes the two positions happen to coincide; often they don’t.
Republican congressional candidates ran successfully on anti-corporatist and anti-elitist platforms. Mitt Romney, by contrast, supported the bailouts, and seemed a throwback to the preppy, northeastern, unsuccessful GOP of the mid-20th century. Like so many European rightists, he seemed to smile upon crony capitalism. As in Europe, voters were unimpressed.
The Tea Party movement and the Occupy movement were both, in a sense, complaining about the same thing, namely the use of public money to rescue failed banks. It’s not often one gets the chance to write this but, when it comes to the bailouts, especially the euro bailouts, Marxists are right. Working people are being forced to support a privileged few.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Romney was not a conservative. Neither was McCain. They both took the conservatives in the GOP for granted.
Wethal on November 9, 2012 at 9:27 PM
This is mostly correct, although I can’t say it’s necessarily a winning proposition in a national election (unfortunately). However, Daniel Hannan has no credibility on conservatism, since he endorsed Barack Obama in 2008.
Oathkeeper216 on November 9, 2012 at 9:28 PM
Love this guy. Wish he was an American citizen because I’d vote for him in a heartbeat.
KickandSwimMom on November 9, 2012 at 9:31 PM
What
couldwill go wrong?http://www.newsday.com/news/new-york/nyc-mayor-launches-rapid-repairs-program-1.4206784
davidk on November 9, 2012 at 9:33 PM
Fiscal conservatism is a winner.
Social conservatism is a loser.
Moesart on November 9, 2012 at 9:38 PM
Just yesterday I was looking at this old column of Hannan’s.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100005897/vexing-the-ghost-of-thomas-jefferson/
If Americans understood our heritage as he does, Obama would not have made it to the WH.
INC on November 9, 2012 at 9:38 PM
Can the GOP stop nominating the ‘next in line’ candidate?
Pretty please?
Being next in line doesn’t mean you actually: know how to campaign nationally, know how to put together a national campaign, or actually can appeal to a broad spectrum of voters. Basically, if you try to run through the primaries and fail, that should be it for you: get a new crop of people willing to try their hand. I’ll trust the dedicated amateur over the skilled professional because they might actually WORK AT IT and not expect it to fall into their laps.
ajacksonian on November 9, 2012 at 9:39 PM
Full frontal, red meat conservative.
Anything less, and I’m not going along for the ride yet again.
Got it?
Scribbler on November 9, 2012 at 9:39 PM
“Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.): ‘We are immensely grateful for General Petraeus’s decades of work on behalf of our nation, our military, and our security. Our thoughts and prayers are with him and his family’”
So a great man sells his soul for a little p*****. Pffft.
davidk on November 9, 2012 at 9:40 PM
I like this guy more..some great rants.
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=nigel+farage&mid=C35D6AC9659679284FFAC35D6AC9659679284FFA&view=detail&FORM=VIRE4
Mimzey on November 9, 2012 at 9:42 PM
File under “What is wrong with people?”
“Rep. Peter T. King (R-NY): ‘I hold General Petraeus in the highest regard, regret his resignation, and wish him and his family the very best’”
Nobody died! The man committed adultery.
davidk on November 9, 2012 at 9:43 PM
You want to have this fight? Fine, we’ll have this fight. Good luck winning the presidency ever again without social conservatives.
NotCoach on November 9, 2012 at 9:51 PM
Why do I keep picturing Charston Heston..” out of my cold dead hands”?
wolly4321 on November 9, 2012 at 9:52 PM
All the single mothers and broken homes out there want their checks now, Moesart. Don’t expect to have fiscal conservatism with a broken culture that promotes single motherhood, broken families, and celebrates ignorance.
Punchenko on November 9, 2012 at 9:55 PM
>conservative
>Mitt Romney
heh.
Also, you can be smart with money and not be a social conservative. Just because liberals have no standards or common sense doesn’t mean that those things are exclusive to social conservatism.
mintycrys on November 9, 2012 at 10:01 PM
Conservatives can win, if they can get a nomination by the GOP.
hawksruleva on November 9, 2012 at 10:02 PM
Not necessarily. But social conservatives need to learn how to speak without alienating huge blocks of voters.
Apparently our party hasn’t noticed, but it’s not the IDEAS that win or lose, it’s the packaging. I still believe that good ideas can provide an advantage, but not if they’re poorly packaged.
hawksruleva on November 9, 2012 at 10:03 PM
AbsoFlukinglutely right. Fiscal conservatism alone will never win if everyone becomes a God damned dependent of the state. The destruction of our liberty was never about spending, and always about destroying the moral underpinnings of our nation. You can’t sell the likes of Julia by offering free stuff alone. You must also destroy any semblance of personal responsibility or shame.
NotCoach on November 9, 2012 at 10:08 PM
Yep.
NotCoach on November 9, 2012 at 10:11 PM
Are you saying that I shouldn’t be saying things like, “It’s easy being pro-abortion when your not the one being slaughtered.” or “Pro-choice is a euphemism for murder.”?
davidk on November 9, 2012 at 10:12 PM
No, it means we shouldn’t be saying things like lady parts have magical forcefields that stop a violent rapists sperm. Hell, drop the subject of rape entirely. We can worry about saving the last 0.1% of the unborn after we save the first 99.9%.
NotCoach on November 9, 2012 at 10:16 PM
Union run schools did thier job well. I only caught the beginning of the putsch, and was lucky through AP courses.
Man,, If you have kids in public schools, get them out. Now.
wolly4321 on November 9, 2012 at 10:16 PM
Since when is Mittens a conservative?
Browncoatone on November 9, 2012 at 10:43 PM
this is why we need a true conservative to lead the party.
Palin 2016
ChuckTX on November 9, 2012 at 11:15 PM
Exactly. The Dems break out the “War on Women” attack, and then two Senate candidates pour gas on the fire. Romney cut ties with Akin, trying to distance himself. But he knew we really needed Murdock’s seat. It didn’t matter- both of their statements stuck to Romney, and hurt all of the Republicans running. I know George Allen lost votes in Virginia because of those rape comments.
hawksruleva on November 9, 2012 at 11:21 PM
Oh knock it off, if we had the same kind of government as the UK, conservatives would be in their third year of leading the government and wouldn’t even have called an election this year. Our problem is how the DemocRATs have gamed the electoral college, period. Fix that (from within, just like they broke it) and we’ll have solved the problem.
Knott Buyinit on November 9, 2012 at 11:34 PM
funny but Mitt got more of the soc con vote as a % then McCain and Bush. If not for the soc cons Mitt would have lost by an even bigger margin.
Fiscal conservative + social conservatism + national conservatism (military patortism ) is the winner. Without the three legs of the stool the GOp can not jhope to win and furthermore if you are not a social conservative in some form you will never be a fiscal conservative because you have no internal moral compass telling you they don’t need that money for that program. Let the churches do that work let the individual handle that problem. Without national security you can’t have a country and without social conservatism you can have the needed checks and balances on fiscal matters.
Mitt was a LOSER with a capital L and yet you still support the failed strategy that has no cost us two winnable elections against a socialist.
unseen on November 10, 2012 at 12:17 AM
poppycock. branding packaging do you think for one sec voters do not see through the lies. The Problem with Mitt wa she might have said the right things a ttimes, presented them well but at the end of the day his RECORD as GOv AND a businessman gave the lie to the words he was speaking the the dems showed voters those inconsistencies. You need a person with the right IDEAS who has also governed under those ideas and not done one thing and saying something just to get elected. packaging is jus t another term for lie. We have the correc tideas we need to present those ideas with a person that has walked the walk. Mitt was mister flip flopper.
It’s alsways the salesman that determines if you make the sale. not the product not the packaging and not the branding. A good salesman can sell crap to a pig farmer. A bad salesman can’t sell water to a desert dweller. You combine a good product and good ideas with a good salesman and you get a victory.
unseen on November 10, 2012 at 12:25 AM
All evidence to the contrary.
The fiscal-only-cons don’t grasp that you need all allies on deck, and you go after your opponent on all issues. Instead, their paranoia leads to ignoring national security and everything else that isn’t the economy.
Well, guess what. There are a lot of voters who don’t care. All it takes to unravel the economy message is for the media to continually paint a portrait of a recovering economy while blaming all problems on the last Republican.
All barrels. And yes, contrary to your assertion, there are many issues where social values are a major winner for the right. There’s a reason Republican presidential candidates used to talk (sometimes at tiresome length) about family values.
tom on November 10, 2012 at 5:44 AM
Really? Seems to me the Marxist in Chief went about his entire campaign championing the bailout of GM and Chrysler. He also supported TARP. Not to mention all the taxpayer dollars lost on Green Energy bankruptcies. Looks like the Marxists are the ones throwing all the bailout money at companies.
bgibbs1000 on November 10, 2012 at 6:11 AM
I think any fair or honest comparison between Romney and Obama would show that Obama had a much worse record. But that only matters if you as a candidate are able to communicate that.
I saw three primary problems with the Mitt Romney candidacy:
1) He never was able to persuade why Obama’s approach was wrong and his was better. He never talked about ideas, just pushed the narrative that he was more competent. “I know how to do it” was an effective message, but he needed to be able to say, “This is why your approach is failing, and will continue to fail.”
2) He was positively allergic to talking about any issues besides the economy. Obama screwed up huge in Benghazi. Mitt didn’t have to make wild accusations. There was plenty of room to destroy Obama over the whole fiasco.
3)Romney’s one major selling point was: “I’m not Obama.” Yet somehow, all during the third debate, he kept saying, “I agree with the President.” This seriously undercut all reason to vote for him.
There were other problems, like the failure of their “Get out the vote” system, and Chris Christie telling everyone what a great president Obama was just a few days before the election. But I think it really goes back to the candidate himself.
I NEVER thought he was a good candidate. And yet, I was greatly disappointed when he lost, because that meant we were stuck with you-know-who.
tom on November 10, 2012 at 6:22 AM
It’s not often one gets the chance to write this but, when it comes to the bailouts, especially the euro bailouts, Marxists are right. Working people are being forced to support a privileged few.
Ryan and Romney also supported TARP, the auto bailouts, and ethanol subsides.
Thank you for your invitation to embark on a cooperative northeast process to reduce the power plant pollution that is harming our climate. I concur that climate change is beginning to effect on our natural resources and that now is the time to take action toward climate protection.
We are the first state to enact a cap on CO2, implementing regulations that, by 2008, will reduce these emissions by 10%, removing 6,750 tons of Co2 per day. Furthermore, Massachusetts, along with the other New England states and Canadian provinces, has a target of reducing greenhouse gases and improving the efficiency of the grid substantially over the next 20 years.
I believe that our joint work to create a flexible market-based regional cap and trade system could serve as an effective approach to meeting these goals.
The truth is that both Romney and Obama were throwing cash at large corporations, and boondoggle global warming schemes. Obama is clearly worse but he is in a position to do worse damage. Romney did his share of damage when he had the chance.
You are correct that Obama certainly championed the leftist cause for his liberal audience, while Romney had a conservative audience and he championed a more restrained approach. Most of what they said probably had more to do with pandering for votes than anything they really believed.
sharrukin on November 10, 2012 at 6:44 AM
Cherry picker. I’ve posted dozens of statements here where Mitt expressed considerable doubt regarding the theory of AGW.
It’s true that you can’t have fiscal conservatism without a socially conservative population. At the same time you cant sell social conservatism if you take extreme positions like insisting that a rape victim must not have access to abortion services.
Mitt lost because of the 17% who voted for Obama because he cares and because of the conservative purists and bigots who stayed home. Mitt won Independents. He did his job. The Republicans who stayed home will now suffer the consequences of their refusal to support a moderate conservative. The GOP will now move to the left in order to survive.
Mitt was the GOP’s last chance to remain a conservative party.
Basilsbest on November 10, 2012 at 7:07 AM
Hey don’t go jumping on my case about all this mess. Yeah I agree the socialist GOP isn’t much better than the Marxist dems. And I’m not a big fan of Romney or Ryan but would’ve certainly taken them over the Marxist in Chief.
bgibbs1000 on November 10, 2012 at 7:13 AM
You can also post statements about Romney being on every side of just about any issue under the sun. That’s part of the problem.
Romney’s a progressive, not a conservative.
Don’t believe me? Well what about Romney himself?
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/12/13/romney-in-2002-my-views-are-progressive/
“My views are progressive”
Do you think he’s lying about that as well?
sharrukin on November 10, 2012 at 7:18 AM
I am not attacking you. Just pointing out that we aren’t exactly in a great position to sneer at the left about a lot of these things because between Romney and Bush, the GOP has drifted much to far towards the big government model of ‘compassionate conservatism’.
Yeah, it’s a mess.
sharrukin on November 10, 2012 at 7:21 AM
Sarah Palin announced she was not running just days after a story surfaced claiming she had a one night stand with a black NBA player. She is not going to drag her family through the mud for the privilege of being ridiculed in the media. She wouldn’t have a prayer even if she did win. The party will now embrace Rubio and amnesty. Six months ago I said Mitt picking Rubio as his running mate was a no-brainer, however I was thrilled when Mitt picked the best person in the country to help him balance the nation’s books. And yet the ABR morons claim Mitt is not a fiscal conservative.
The country has been changed by George Bush’s open borders and by George Bush not defending the Iraq war after 2006 (even as he made the decisions, for which Obama now takes credit, which won the war).
The country has moved to the left. The ABRs, who returned here in force election night to gloat, will reap the whirlwind along with the rest of us.
Basilsbest on November 10, 2012 at 7:29 AM
Once again cherry picking. To put Mitt’s statement – which was made when he ran against Ted Kennedy (something only a conservative would have done)- in context I posted a one hour video on this site where Newt Gingrich said he was a progressive and that FDR was the country’s greatest president.
Dishonest people who are willing to cherry pick can always find something to support their posturing.If Romney was a progressive he would be a Democrat. They would be thrilled to have someone with real credentials and a lifetime of accomplishments and good deeds rather than propping up an economic incompetent with a hidden past.
Basilsbest on November 10, 2012 at 7:40 AM
The irony…it burns.
sharrukin on November 10, 2012 at 7:47 AM
damn shame Team Mitt and the mittbots did what they did to keep Palin out of the race one of the reasons he lost IMO was a lot of the people that supportted Gov Palin and the other candidates/potential candidates couldn’t stomach the posion that become the Mittbots in their effort to drive not only her but every other candidate out from the race. She is a Very good conservative who would never follow the bush type of conservatism and would have beat Obama because unlike Mitt Gov Palin would have wnet for Obama’s throat. As far as that “story” The left doesn’t seem able to make up their mind either she is a major r acist or loves black guys. IMO she didn’t run because the GOPe made it clear they would never support her. they wanted Mitt for the loss. Daman shame. Rubio? I doubt he will survive 2012 unscathed. The media if they see him as a threat will train their firepower on him and ty the time they are done they will have you believing he raped 5 black women and only was in it for the money..
unseen on November 10, 2012 at 7:50 AM
Mitt and Newt were and are classic politicians willing to say and do anything to get elected. Which was why Newt lost the primary and why Mitt lost the general. Voters couldn’t believe a thing they said because they have said and done whatever the polls told them to do at that time to get elected niether have any major core standards they were not willing to sacrifice for a couple extra votes. In our next nominee you need someone that the dem candidate can’t point to and say well he did it too. You need a real choice and since the country has been run by liberals since 1988 the only type of choice you can offer the Americian people to change course is conservatism.
unseen on November 10, 2012 at 7:56 AM
Well since there’s sooo many of you and that the country is 60% conservative according to the ONE, YEARS old poll that Rush Limbaugh and AM radio have grasped onto for years, then why can’t you even gather enough of them to win the REPUBLICAN primary?
You can’t blame “demographics” for the primary. Republican voters elected Mitt Romney. There aren’t even enough of you to win your own primary and you expect the party to cater exclusively to you above and beyond all others and at the COST of other voters, not to mention expecting the country to let you rule from the minority like an entitled child?
Boomer_Sooner on November 10, 2012 at 8:32 AM
Revised history? I remember it a little more clearly than you.
Newt lost the primary because every supposedly conservative media outlet at the exact same moment decided they did not want him to win, that, along with Romney’s money which was 99.5% negative advertising spent in Florida drove Newts numbers down. I cannot remember exactly what the numbers were, but in most of the states, Romney drove the primary vote down significantly from 2008 numbers. That should have warned all the “most electable” voters that Romney was not electable. People said that Romney would not get the base and votes needed to win.
astonerii on November 10, 2012 at 8:34 AM
Palin didn’t run because she knew she had no chance of either winning the nomination or the election and she was unwilling to see her family dragged through the mud for a hopeless cause.
Neither she, nor Santorum, nor Gingrich would have garnered 40% of the vote. You ABRs stayed home. You won. We lost.
Basilsbest on November 10, 2012 at 9:58 AM
People like you didn’t vote for Romney. The country has moved to the left. The GOP will move to the left to keep up. I hope you like amnesty.
Anyone stupid enough to call for a brokered convention to pick a nominee to run agasint an incumbent president with the support of 90% of the media and an election machine that’s been in place for 6 years is, frankly, too stupid for words.
Basilsbest on November 10, 2012 at 10:03 AM