Home > General > 3 Ways Romney is different from the “Old Establishment” (McCain, Dole, Ford, Bush 1)

3 Ways Romney is different from the “Old Establishment” (McCain, Dole, Ford, Bush 1)

First, let me say I agree with the premise that the general “establishment” type Republicans usually do very poorly in Presidential nominations. If you have ever read this blog, you would also know I am hardly the die-hard Romney fan, though I am “supporting” him as a practical choice. (And yes, I also agree in voting conviction over settling, but there is no candidate who is worth that vote either.)

I think McCain, Dole, Bush 1, Ford were all horrible candidates because they were all the same, boring, long-time Washingtonian moderate Republicans. However, Romney is very much different than any of these candidates. If anything, candidates like Gingrich and Santorum are far more like the McCains and Doles than Romney is. So, what makes Romney the least establishment establishment candidate ever and why do I think he can break the trend of loserdom?

1) Not of Washington: McCain had been in office for 24 years. Dole became a Senator in 1969 and stayed until his presidential defeat almost 3 decades later. George HW Bush started his career in 1964, and became a member of congress in 1966. Ford started his career in 1949 as a congressman. All of these establishment picks had been in, of, or for Washington for almost 3 decades when they ran for President. Romney took one shot at the Senate in an impossible battle…. when he was almost 50 years old.Romney is also the only candidate to have not made his millions by way of government (compare to any of the current candidates and Obama).

2) Business experience: Ironically, all of the “establishment” picks were in the Military in some fashion or another. This great service to the nation does little for electability (even on the Democrat side draft Dodger Clinton won while John “I was in Vietnam” Kerry lost a guy wasting hours in the National Guard. However, none of these candidates had meaningful business experience. This is a great advantage for Romney who was a very successful businessman and did an impressive job saving the Olympics from financial ruin. Again, Romney spent much more of his life running businesses than running for office. This is also a great point of contrast that Romney has against Obama compared to any other candidate on the GOP side.

3) Executive experience: None of the old hat establishment picks were Executives. In fact, very few members of Congress ever become President. 2008 was an obvious exception since both candidates came from the Senate. An advantage that Clinton had over Dole, Carter over Ford, Bush over Gore, etc. = Executive experience. We all argued against Obama in 2008 also in part due to his lack of preparation in the executive or business world. Romney is the only candidate with meaningful experience in both. And only Perry and Huntsman have meaningful experience as executives.

If anything, Romney is probably the least establishment “establishment” pick ever. On one hand, he fulfills many of the wishlist items that conservatives always argue in favor of: Executive experience and Business experience. And in a year when the Economy and Jobs is key, he is well-positioned here. That said, he does also fulfill the wish-list of “the establishment”: Doesn’t say stupid thing often; knowledgeable; and “most electable.” Yes, I am with you. I always laugh at who the Republicans deem most electable (McCain, Dole, really?).

While it is true that Romney has some liberalism in his closet (and frankly, I can lay out a strong case against all the GOP candidates on that front) he has moved to the right significantly over the past decade. If we are willing to forgive all other candidates past transgressions, Romney actually has one of the more conservative platforms of all the candidates. And no, he doesn’t say stuff that can be wildly blown out of context. And yes, he does come off as a wussy at times. Much of that has to do with him knowing how any misplaced word will be wildly taken out of context by the media and it will cause damage.

And it’s easy to dismiss Romney’s turn to the right as pandering. But at the same time, he refused to back down from his signature legislation in Massachusetts. And if he truly were a pander-monger, wouldn’t that have been the way to go? After all, who would he have pissed off? Earlier this year he backed ethanol subsidies. His views changed around the summer. And though he could possibly endear Iowans to vote for him he stands by a phase out of subsidies while Newt Gingrich is, figuratively, sucking the ethanol out of corn in diners across the state to show how much he loves subsidizing them. So maybe Romney is somewhat more genuine about his flip-flops. It’s also a lot more understanding to see someones views change early in their political careers than 30 years into it.


Categories: General
  1. John
    January 14, 2012 at 11:20 am

    The ONLY reason Romney is wining now is because the neocon’s, RINO’s, and warmongers together with the corporate owned media have been shoving Romney down voters throats at every turn. FOX, CNN, MSNBC, All of “conservative” radio have been Romney cheerleaders. Then, when one looks to where Romney gets his funding…….nearly %100 from the corrupt banking cartels and corporate handlers, it’s obvious why they cheerlead for him. He’s a good looking puppet to push on the unsuspecting American people. They know he’ll do whatever he’s told w/o question.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: