What would President Romney do?
More important, a close look at the composition of both the Senate and the House suggest the numbers would be there for Romney to pass some combination of spending cuts and the closing of tax loopholes, as he called for in the 2012 campaign. In the Senate, Romney probably would have courted the 12 red-state Senate Democrats, six of whom are up for reelection in 2014, to support some type of compromise. In the House, his task would be winning over recalcitrant conservatives. If House Democrats were united in opposition, he could afford 17 GOP defections, probably more if the few remaining moderate Democrats joined with the GOP. It’s a little bit easier to do when your party holds the White House, as opposed to fighting in the minority.
The point of the thought experiment isn’t to relive the Romney campaign but to demonstrate there was a very plausible path for a Republican president to win support for a middle-ground budget proposal. The Senate has more red-state Democrats than blue-state Republicans, and most of them are up for reelection. These same Democrats who are giving Obama trouble on gun control would be looking to cut a fiscal deal as they prepare for reelection. Win over just five of them, hold enough House Republicans in line, and voila – there’s the bipartisan compromise. It wouldn’t be easy, but it doesn’t take a political scientist to figure out the contours of such a deal.
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
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Right about now, were he President, Mitt Romney would be trying as hard as possible to distance himself from anything that might remotely be construed as conservative that he said during the campaign and going back to his center left ideas he supported all the rest of his life.
Warner Todd Huston on February 22, 2013 at 12:00 AM
He would run a poll and then convene a focus group. That’s what he’d do.
Seriously, most likely he would be doing capitalistic things which would benefit both the government and the people.
platypus on February 22, 2013 at 12:02 AM
I don’t think he would have gone off to dinner and then bed when Benghazi was happening.
VorDaj on February 22, 2013 at 12:38 AM
Well for starters, the payroll tax holiday wouldn’t have ended. And a budget would’ve been passed. And Obamacare would’ve been stalled(repeal is an impossibility with a GOP Senate).
Doughboy on February 22, 2013 at 1:03 AM
Calling all TruCons, commence Romney bashing now. Already off to a great start with the first snarky comment.
I get that you all hate Romney and virtually everyone else in the Republican Party. What I will never understand is how your hatred and sanctimony benefits the country. You’re so busy undermining the only opposition Obama has that you’re helping rather than hindering the guy you claim is out to destroy the Constitution.
The fact that Romney wasn’t the rightwing’s dream candidate doesn’t mean he wouldn’t have tried his best to right the economy and return the country to the traditions that made it great–hard work, self-reliance, etc. I think he would have done those things, and perhaps a few others that you might have actually (begrudgingly) approved of. The guy was friggin’ Ward Cleaver, for crying out loud. Does he really deserve to be vilified at every opportunity?
He most certainly would have been better than the radical, America-hating lefty we have now. Can’t you at least admit that much?
Meredith on February 22, 2013 at 1:28 AM
Romney didn’t let the party down. Conservatives did that and continue to ruin any chance of unity the GOP might have. If they’re determined to take their marbles and go home, do it already and let’s get on with the new Era of Good Feeling and clear the field for the someone who can stand up to the Dems without a bunch of infighting and bitching at each other by spoiled children.
This country clearly doesn’t want strict libertarians and they don’t want rigid religious zealots. They clearly like Social Security and Medicare, although for their own good these have to be trimmed somehow. Someone needs to point out how unfair they are by covering people who can get along without them, but the fact that the Dems have been successful in blaming anybody who suggests reforms as wanting to push Granny off a cliff, shows how poorly understood these giveaways are.
Romney would have kept his promises and immediately set about cutting everything he could. He is an honest man, despite all the slurs aimed at him in the press and his own party. He believes what he says and in the Constitution and he understands its checks and balances and how to negotiate. a
But if he had to deal with a Democrat Senate, I think Kraushaar has it right. He would not have been content to do nothing. He’d have been looking at government spending with a red pencil and finding ways to cut waste and limit spending.
flataffect on February 22, 2013 at 1:36 AM
Merideth’s idea of convincing people of something is to spew as much bile as possible at them. “Hey f#*k head, don’t you agree?”
Dongemaharu on February 22, 2013 at 1:48 AM
Meredith is spot on. Well said!
Romney didn’t let the GOP down; Conservatives did that by attacking him mercilessly and providing the media and Obama with all the ammo they needed to defeat him. You can tell yourself we’re better off without him, but you’re out of your mind if you do. Obama is doing damage that may never be repaired in our lifetimes.
The Dems are the enemy but our lack of unity and loyalty to our own side just helps them. When you bitch about Romney, you’re really indicting yourself.
flataffect on February 22, 2013 at 2:05 AM
Demanded that Obama-care be called Romney-Care?
Panther on February 22, 2013 at 6:04 AM
But I thought we were hindering Romney! You can’t claim that we’re undermining the only opposition Obama has, and then point to that opposition as someone who agrees with the jerk.
You’re right. He would have been so busy spitting on the 47% that people would have had to be a whole lot more hard working and self-reliant to survive his presidency once we got his Bain management style federalized. And he would have let the genocide of abortion continue unencumbered, the spread of gay marriage to continue like a disease, illegal immigration to go uncurbed as he offered to staple a green card to every diploma, and cap and trade to be enacted, as well as fully implementing his own Romneycare model at the national level: Obamacare.
When you support gross injustices on social issues and snub your potential supporters at every turn (the Chick-fil-A voters aren’t part of my campaign), then yes. Yes he does deserve it. May the b*stard rot in Hell.
Nope. You can’t admit something that isn’t true.
Stoic Patriot on February 22, 2013 at 6:47 AM
Oh Meredith Boo-Hoo; who Cares what he MIGHT have done…let’s also ask what would have Jimmy Carter have done, or Bob Dole or AlGore might have done, too!
IF Romney or the Mitt-bots would like there to be less anger, have Mitt GO AWAY and don’t talk about him…”Hey what’s Mitt’s next job”-who cares? “Hey is Mitt gonna be on Fox”-Again, who cares? “Hey, what would Mitt have done in his first month?”-Moot point, who cares?
Mitt HAD his chance to “do” something…he blew it….just like McCain, or Kerry, or AlGore, or Mondull….I really don’t care what the Losers do or would have done, they lost.
Say what would Colin Kaeperneck (sp) or Tom Brady have done with their Super Bowl rings? Again who cares, they didn’t get one…Joe Flacco got one, HIS ring I care about…..
JFKY on February 22, 2013 at 6:53 AM
Meredith is right.
The rest of you are just a bunch of jackass clowns who make up the regular HotAir.com peanut gallery.
bluegill on February 22, 2013 at 6:56 AM
He’d fire people, abuse dogs, kill Big Bird, outlaw birth control and bite the head off a bat.
forest on February 22, 2013 at 7:02 AM
…Says the guy who endlessly went on about what a conservative Mitt was, all evidence to the contrary — a guy who proclaimed Romney’s electability, and still hasn’t been sufficiently embarassed by reality to realize when his credibility’s become toast.
Enjoy Mitt’s 300+ electoral vote win with Michael Barone and George Will at the soiree!
Stoic Patriot on February 22, 2013 at 7:03 AM
And give people cancer after firing them.
forest on February 22, 2013 at 7:03 AM
Nice. Of course you identify as a Conservative Christian I suppose. Palin supporter are you?
Marcus on February 22, 2013 at 7:16 AM
Still after the last 4 or so months of a second term people will still rather have a communist/Marxist/radical/racist/liar who will start a second civil war over a swishy conservative moderate who is so radical they what warm water and dry toast for breakfast.
tjexcite on February 22, 2013 at 7:28 AM
You are not just a moron, but a nasty moron. Romney would be doing what he has done his entire adult life. Fix things.
Basilsbest on February 22, 2013 at 7:36 AM
The only reason I voted for Romney was that he wasn’t Obama. And yes, I held my nose doing so, figuratively speaking.
The MOST important thing this last election, in my opinion of course, was to NOT give Obama a second term. Those who voted for someone besides Romney were casting a ballot for Obama’s second term. Now we are just beginning to see the consequences of those votes.
Let’s recognize that the Libs have made changes incrementally. And to regain our country those tactics, which have worked, need to be applied in return.
We have three choices: evolution, revolution or extinction.
Evolutionary changes, as we saw with the election in 2010, are small and slow. But work. (Ex: outdoor plumbing to indoor plumbing!)
Revolutionary changes are in the air now, but the cost will significant. (Ex: Revolutionary War)
Extinction. We go the way of the dinosaur. A page in the history books.
Voting for Romney was an “evolutionary” vote…hoping to turn things around a bit at a time. Those that want “instant” reform are no better than the radicals on the Left such as ecoterrorists.
What’s worked? What specifically worked for the Left? Gradual, but persistent, change. We should learn from that. Expectations for decades not days.
There are some definite lines in the sand being drawn and it may call for Revolutionary action. But that started the day Obama was given a second term. As Obama was clearly hear to say “After My Election I Have More Flexibility’” and now we reap what you that didn’t vote to get him OUT of office have sowed.
Man up and accept the responsibility for being part of the reason we face a second Obama term.
ProfShadow on February 22, 2013 at 7:37 AM
Stoic Patriot on February 22, 2013 at 7:38 AM
Great post Meredith but you can’t reason with Romney-haters. They are self-loathing morons who have no clue that you can’t get anything done in democratic politics without compromise.
Basilsbest on February 22, 2013 at 7:44 AM
They have nothing left but sniping and reinforcing each other. The Great Conservative Pumpkin failed to come to the pumpkin patch in both 2008 and 2012 and they’re bitter and scared. Psssstttt…. The Great Conservative Pumpkin ain’t coming in 2016 either (and they know it). Reagan ran in 3 primaries before winning. Who have they got who can actually win a primary? (sound of crickets chirping) Throwing turd balls from the sidelines is all they have left. Go ahead and form a third party… remember how well the Deformed party worked out. Fistfights wasn’t it?
rhombus on February 22, 2013 at 7:52 AM
If by getting anything done you mean “make the situation worse,” then here’s a thought: gridlock is better than compromise.
I prefer the following analysis when it comes to Washington-speak on getting things done:
“Comprehensive” + [Subject] + “Reform” = Total Fiasco
Examples:
“Comprehensive Healthcare Reform” = Obamacare
“Comprehensive Immigration Reform” = Amnesty
Stoic Patriot on February 22, 2013 at 7:52 AM
Fold like the “Ruling Class” cheap suit that he is! Next?
Jayrae on February 22, 2013 at 7:57 AM
The choice was Romney – who proposed an Immigation policy based on the Rule of Law – or an Internationalist who believes in open borders.
You should have compromised and given your full support to Romney. You have elected Obama. Enjoy your purity.
Basilsbest on February 22, 2013 at 8:10 AM
You mean Romney, the guy who would have granted full amnesty, just like Obama. Romney, who is beholden to corporate interests that want open borders for cheap labor even if it results in higher unemployment for Americans.
I refuse to compromise for a guy who wants open borders, dead babies, and implemented gay marriage and Obamacare at the state level. Romney was an echo, not a choice.
If you want to win, next time don’t pick someone who sucks.
Stoic Patriot on February 22, 2013 at 8:13 AM
That should say “without a GOP Senate” not “with”. Must proofread!
Doughboy on February 22, 2013 at 8:14 AM
Wow, there are still people defending Romney?
He lost. He wanted to lose. I’m pretty sure that he can afford that nice long vacation now.
ElectricPhase on February 22, 2013 at 8:15 AM
You choose to ignore Romney’s Immigration Policy. As I said above, people like you can’t be reasoned with. You have elected Obama. Congratulations.
Basilsbest on February 22, 2013 at 8:19 AM
Tagg Romney was saying his father ran out of a sense of duty, not political ambition. Romney has devoted a substantial part of his life to the needs of others. This is probably a concept with which you are unfamiliar.
Basilsbest on February 22, 2013 at 8:23 AM
Do I think Romney would be disappointing us? Yes. But not to the extent the SARAHPALINORBURNBURNBURN folks here think. He would have been much better than the Choad in Chief.
Sekhmet on February 22, 2013 at 8:25 AM
Folks like you elected Obama when you nominated Romney. You said, “Look! Replace the Black Obama with the White Obama! It’ll be soooooo different!”
And Romney’s immigration policy was to staple a green card to every illegal’s college diploma — but only after he won the primary of course. Before that it was all about shutting off magnets. Sound like another candidate you’ve heard of before? Build the dang fence, indeed.
Stoic Patriot on February 22, 2013 at 8:25 AM
Not really, ad hominem boy.
If he had wanted to be President, he would be. Anything else is spin.
ElectricPhase on February 22, 2013 at 8:29 AM
Santorum wouldn’t have gotten 40% of the vote.
Basilsbest on February 22, 2013 at 8:30 AM
You’re right. He would have been around the 50% range. Maybe a bit lower, maybe a bit higher.
Stoic Patriot on February 22, 2013 at 8:31 AM
Stoic, I would have had to seriously hold my nose to vote for Santorum. And Santo is a poster-boy for the sneery city-dwelling Left. The Romney fanboi is right. Of the people who actually ran, I liked my governor the best. Texas as a model I think really could have sold.
Problem was, they got Romney to drop his 2008 bid essentially by promising him the 2012 nomination. If Rick Perry’s back were better, and he needed fewer drugs (or if the GOP hadn’t deliberately picked debates where all the candidates had to stand the entire time knowing it would disadvantage Perry) we could have won.
Sekhmet on February 22, 2013 at 8:44 AM
I believe Romney would be much better than Obie..Much better..
Dire Straits on February 22, 2013 at 8:48 AM
I wouldn’t worry at all about the sneering city-dwelling left. They’re never going to vote for the GOP candidate anyway. George W. Bush never would have won election once, much less twice, if they were the end-all, be-all of politics.
I like Rick Perry too, although I did cringe at his flubs during debates (and I was mad at the ‘heartless’ comment). Regarding the matter of “electability,” I think that does more actual damage than offending the left’s social issues sensibilities, but had Perry been the candidate I would have been more than happy to vote for him.
I think Perry was a viable candidate. Sure, the left would have tried bringing up the N*ggerhead ranch and a whole lot of smearing garbage, but I think he could have survived it. Although I prefer Santorum, I wouldn’t mind voting for a bit of Texas swagger. He had an awesome answer on the death penalty in his first debate.
Stoic Patriot on February 22, 2013 at 8:49 AM
Note that they really would have had to reach with Perry, whereas the Left didn’t have to reach that far to smear Santorum. Given 0bama’s targeting of low-infos, it would have been fatal.
Sekhmet on February 22, 2013 at 8:57 AM
Well said.
They had their chance but chose to indulge their anger rather than take 75% of what they wanted.
Now we got Obama for four more long and blistering years and they are still bitching about Romney as if there was somebody better.
Romney WAS Ward Cleaver and a good and honest man and 100 times better than what we have now.
NeoKong on February 22, 2013 at 9:07 AM
Yes, if only the spoiled-brat “trucon” voters would get over being sick and tired of helping GOP liberals get elected and watching them get rich at the country’s expense while the country’s financial health deteriorates. If only the stupid embarrassing freaks who like to think of themselves as the “base” of the GOP would just keep their mouths shut in public and vote the way we tell them to, and move to the left along with the rest of us in the GOP, then there would be no infighting, and Republicans can start winning again, so we can get more Republicans on important committees in Washington.
/sarc
No thanks. I’m not voting anymore unless I can vote for someone I can actually believe will be part of the solution and not part of the problem. Obviously there are some here who believe wholeheartedly that Romney was part of the solution. Romney’s problem is that there are a lot of us whom Romney needed to convince of this, and he didn’t. And no, I don’t just assume that he would have turned things around just because he was the head of a financial company — his Romneycare program is bankrupting the state he imposed it on. Why would I look at that and assume that Romney would be fixing the country if he were President?
Aitch748 on February 22, 2013 at 9:11 AM
He would be doing the exact same things as Obama, because there is no difference between them.
/
Mimzey on February 22, 2013 at 9:19 AM
I think a variant would apply today to those who “opted out” this last election.
You are letting “liberal incrementalism” win. And as a result, you lose. Along with the rest of us who think Obama and his ilk are bad for the US.
Was Romney the right choice? No. But slowing the slide and perhaps working towards changing the direction would have been a better move than letting Obama drive us into the ditch and then accelerating over the cliff.
I personally don’t want to have to take arms against my fellow citizens. But I sure want to have that option. One that seems more likely because Obama was re-elected, courtesy of those who opted out.
ProfShadow on February 22, 2013 at 9:24 AM
This.
Mimzey on February 22, 2013 at 9:29 AM
The problem is that liberal incrementalism is winning whether it’s Democrats or Republicans running things in Washington. If people are “opting out,” that’s probably one reason why.
Aitch748 on February 22, 2013 at 9:35 AM
Does anybody here really believe that “President Romney” would have stopped creeping progressive incrementalism dead in its tracks? Really?!
gryphon202 on February 22, 2013 at 9:37 AM
Creeping? It hasn’t been “creeping” for about 4 years.
Does anybody here actually believe that Romney would be heading up an all out war on conservative solutions to the financial mess the left has put us in, or the destruction of the ability to use our natural resources? Really??
Mimzey on February 22, 2013 at 9:50 AM
Hmmmmmmmmm…
Stoic Patriot on February 22, 2013 at 9:57 AM
Even more from that incident.
Stoic Patriot on February 22, 2013 at 10:00 AM
Doesn’t matter.
Fallon on February 22, 2013 at 10:24 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »