I don’t know what will happen in the January 5 Georgia runoffs which will determine which party will control the U.S. Senate, but I do know that Mitt Romney really ought to caucus with the Democrats irrespective of the results there. I don’t say this because I have much respect for Romney. He ran the most dishonest presidential campaign in history prior to Donald Trump. I say it because he has no future in the Republican Party and on the most critical issues facing the country, he’s clearly on the side of the Democrats.
That’s clear from Romney’s latest statement on “the egregious ploy” by Ted Cruz and several other of his Senate colleagues to challenge the results of the 2020 presidential election.
Romney sees the “ill-conceived endeavor” as dangerous and completely indefensible, and asks, “Has ambition so eclipsed principle?”
That’s a rhetorical question. Romney may be appalled, but he knows that there’s not much principle left in his party, and none with the party’s base. He can see that his colleagues are responding to pressure from Republican voters and that all the rewards will go to those who “dangerously threaten our Democratic Republic.”
There’s no chance that Romney will ever again be the party’s presidential nominee, and there’s a good chance he’d lose a competitive primary even though Trumpism is weaker in Utah than other bright red states. If his chances of reelection are poor regardless of which party he represents, he might as well serve with the party that is on the side of the Constitution.
As for whether the Democrats should welcome Romney, that’s a tougher call. If it means they get control of the Senate, it’s a no-brainer, but that would only happen in the case of split-decision in Georgia. Otherwise, Romney would add a little bit here and there, but also take up valuable slots on committees where his input and vote would not be consistently aligned with the party’s agenda. Romney would often be more valuable as a Republican offering a bipartisan sheen to a few issues than as an actual tie-breaker.
Plus, every time a sane Republican defects to the Democrats, it makes the GOP just a little more radical.
If we win in GA I’d be fine with it if and only if it means meaningfully moving legislation. Romney supports a child allowance and has worked with Michael Bennet on the issue. He is very conservative on immigration, but maybe he’d abandon that to support some sort of immigration reform. The child allowance is the only major issue I know for sure he has an interest in.
What other overlap is there (aside from the obvious topic at hand)?
The thing about Romney is he’s relatively unprincipled*. He started out politically as an independent and voted for Paul Tsongas in 1992. He ran as a pro-choice Republican against Ted Kennedy in 1994, and as a “moderate” with “progressive” views for governor of Massachusetts in 2002. As governor, he raised fees on gun licenses, cut corporate tax loopholes, signed health care reform legislation, and changed his stance on abortion (in advance of running for president). He ran for president in 2008 as moderate and in 2012 as a “hard-core conservative” who opposed the ACA (which was based on “Romneycare”).
Romney’s not going to turn into a liberal, but if he thought it was to his advantage, it’s easy to imagine him having a voting record similar to the most conservative quarter of Democratic senators.
*Not necessarily a bad thing for a politician! Politics is, to a large degree, the pragmatic negotiation of compromises; it helps to be “unprincipled”.
I think there’s a lot of truth to that, but I don’t think voting for trumps impeachment was advantageous for him and he voted for it nonetheless. While he is an opportunist, and politicians in general will move, they do have some principles. Romney seems committed to opposing immigration for example.
Thanks for your response. Currently, Romney describes himself as being to the right of Donald Trump on immigration. In the mid-2000s he was in favor of a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. As with many issues, he’s changed his views, and more than once*. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Mitt_Romney#Immigration
*Again, not necessarily a criticism. The country could use more Republican officeholders who are willing to cut deals…and more Democratic ones who are good at cutting deals.
I remember a little of his tenure in Massachusetts, and my understanding is he was someone you could work with.
Has he always been hostile to immigration? I ask because Mormons have a history of being friendly to immigrants, largely due to their experience in Mexico when many, including Mitt’s grandpa or great-grandpa left the US when they weren’t allowed to practice polygamy.
Yeah, Mitt likes holding and wielding power. As with many issues, his views on immigration have “evolved” over the years (and give every sign that they could “evolve” again if he saw some political advantage to it). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Mitt_Romney#Immigration
I don’t think Romney has the slightest intention of becoming a Democrat. I think he has more influence as a Republican. And I do think he could win reelection in Utah.
https://kutv.com/news/local/romneys-job-approval-rating-climbs-in-utah-according-to-new-poll
Also, he is not in the same position as during the impeachment trial, because not all Republican senators will get on board the crazy train opposing the election results. Even the Trumpies know that. More likely the “sane” Republicans are mulling over the possibility of a third party; if they did that, they could cripple what’s left of the GOP on the national level, and they would probably have the support of all the Republicans who voted for Biden this election. Whether this would help or hurt the Democrats is debatable.
“Romney sees the “ill-conceived endeavor” as dangerous and completely indefensible, and asks, “Has ambition so eclipsed principle?”
Romney said that? Fuckin’ Mitt Romney, poster boy for ambition eclipsing principle in 2012? Good Lord!
Don’t forget he also sidled up to Trump to try get a cabinet appointment after first declaring himself a never Trumper. If anyone has ever made clear his soul is for sale, it’s pretty-boy Mitt.
I’m super skeptical he’d consider caucusing with Democrats. It’s Utah and he’s a popular Mormon so maybe he could win an election as an independent. But I doubt he could if he caucused with Democrats. He could vote like a true independent but then he’d have no committee assignments. I don’t see it happening. I think Mitt will do what he perceives as best for Mitt and that means doing his best to fight off challenges from the right while remaining a Republican.
“Romney would often be more valuable as a Republican offering a bipartisan sheen to a few issues than as an actual tie-breaker.”
Yep. And would be even more valuable as part of a “Blue Dog”-like caucus with other centrist Republicans. Apologies to those who’ve heard this before from me, but the failure of centrist Republicans over the past 12 years to create such a caucus with which they could wield the balance of power in the Senate remains (to me) the single biggest political mystery in Washington. (Closely followed by the single biggest journalistic mystery: that nobody has written a bestselling book about this story.)
In 2009 members of that caucus could have been (for example): Collins, Lugar, Murkowski, Snowe, Specter, Voinovich.
In 2021 they could be: Collins, Murkowski, Romney, Portman, Sasse. (Add or subtract names to suit your fancy.)
As much as we on the left complain about Democrats not using their power to its full extent, there’s a good case to be made that centrist Republicans are (and have been) even worse at using their power to create and strengthen a non-fascist wing of their party.
They don’t do it because they don’t want to face primary opponents. They’re more afraid of them than of us. If they just make a moderate noise every now and again but don’t actually step on toes, they feel themselves far safer.
Yeah, I get that, thanks. What I don’t get is that their current strategy seems even worse. Basically, instead of hanging together, centrist Republicans have spent the past decade-plus hanging separately.
There’s a litany—Snowe, Specter, Corker, Flake, Voinovich, etc.—of centrist GOP senators who’ve individually made decisions that resulted in the end of their careers. One of them criticizes the Tea Partiers, or disagrees publicly with Trump, and then gets absolutely hammered by, you name it: party leaders, Fox News/talk radio, hard-right activists, big money donors…until that individual gives up or gets defeated.
Wouldn’t there be at least *some* protection in numbers if a group of them made clear that an attack on one would be treated as an attack on all? Or, better yet, don’t attack individually; attack as a group…thereby making it harder to pick them off one by one.
It’s mystifying. This is Politics 101. It seems like there’s got to be a reason (and that it would make a good story to tell).
Witnessed Mitt “saving” the Winter Olympics for Utah (he knew what palms had to be greased without skimming too much off the top). He’s got at least two more terms left before his warranty expires.
We’re clearly in the midst of some sort of realignment. My best hope is that we will eventually come out of it with two essentially moderate parties led by competent people committed to constructive compromise. A mass movement of moderate Republicans to the Democratic Party might be the next step necessary in the short run but that would probably abandon the Republican Party to their hard right wing and lead to a painful split within the Democratic Party down the road. To sum: I dunno.
On this – is there any point in worrying whether the GOP will become more radical? Emphatically NO.
I have felt that Trump will be the fining agent that will coagulate all the particulates in the radical right. The pied piper of the swamp.
Perhaps there will be a new principled opposition that will rise from its ashes – and Rmoney can be the crystal seed for that. He was the former presidential candidate – more than anyone else he has the stature to do so.
Can he stay a Republican (rather than e.g. changing to an independent) and caucus with the Dems? If Dems get one more seat elsewhere, that would depose Mitch and be a way of saying “I claim leadership of the Republican party from those who have shirked their duty to the nation.” Not that any Republicans would listen….
Chances just went a bit up with the latest tape
Romney finds himself in an interesting space. There’s this strange fissure in the GOP that isn’t necessarily about ideology per se but more about whether or not to value democratic institutions in this country. As much as I think of Romney as an ass, he’s on the “value democratic institutions” side of that split. He has a handful of vocal Senators who agree with him. As of this writing there are about seven or so Representatives who appear to also be on the “value democratic institutions” side of the equation. The rest of the party (to be Captain Obvious about it) has given up on democracy, preferring authoritarian rule. The Democratic Party’s got it’s problems, and its own divisions – but those are largely ones about policy and tactics. They aren’t existential divisions. This division within the GOP is very existential in nature. One can wonder if the GOP as we know it is about to go the way of the Whigs. At bare minimum, for the time being, it isn’t even a conservative party anymore. It is an authoritarian party that happens to have a core of alienated conservatives, of which Romney is one. Regardless of how things play out later this week, it’s going to be rough sledding for a good while as this all shakes out. Fasten your seatbelts.
Rmoney isn’t an ally, but he could be useful. IF the Democrats take both seats, Rmoney switching, or at least caucusing with the Democrats, could net him a Chairmanship.
Heck, if Romney wants to be the sole savior of the republic and Democrats take only one Georgia Senate seat, that might be an even more appealing scenario to him. He (or any other similarly ambitious/conscientious) Republican senator could go to Schumer and say, “I’ll vote to make you majority leader if you give me X”. He’d control the balance of power all by himself.