Comparing and Contrasting

There has been a great deal of debate recently concerning which Republican candidate provides the best contradiction against President Obama for the purposes of the general election. Of course, President Obama's greatest vulnerabilities are his views on health care and cap-and-trade, and the best method of attacking President Obama is to attack those viewpoints. 

Unfortunately, Governor Romney has supported and promoted views that mirror President Obama's in both of these areas. We all know that Governor Romney's primary accomplishment while Governor of Massachusetts was the passage of MassCare - a plan that contains the two key components of Obamacare in a mandate to purchase insurance and subsidies to the poor to allow them to purchase the plans. Most people don't realize that he also supported the idea of a global cap-and-trade system.

Speaker Gingrich has similar problems. He promoted a plan for health care that included both mandates and subsidies while demonizing those making more than $75,000 a year and refusing to buy insurance as the cause of much of the problems in health care. He also strongly promoted the idea of global warming and cap-and-trade type schemes.

Looking at other issues, the similarities between Obama, Gingrich, and Romney continue. All three men supported the TARP program in some manner, and all three men support foreign policy and domestic security issues similar to President Obama's. Senator Santorum also shares some similarities with the current administration. All four men supported gun control measures in the form of the Domestic Violence Offenders Act, all four support the National Defense Authorization Act, all four support the PATRIOT Act, all four support action against Iran, all four supported action against Libya, and all four support keeping Guantanamo Bay open.

Today, Romney claims that his past actions on MassCare are irrelevant to the discussion, and he denies his previous support for global warming measures. Gingrich denies everything. Unfortunately, the evidence in these cases is overwhelming and that evidence will be rolled out as soon as either of them win the nomination.

Conservatives could ask themselves whether Gingrich and Romney can win the general election given how much time they will spend overcoming past statements. However, the big question should be why conservatives would want such a candidate. Is it realistic to debate whether Gingrich or Romney have better proposals when both men have documented histories of saying anything to get elected and then governing however they see fit? What difference does it make who claims to be more conservative now when their records both indicate that neither is truly conservative when it matters?

Making the 2012 general election cycle about rejecting President Obama is a losing idea unless the Republicans present an alternative. Putting forward a candidate with a documented history of the same viewpoints as those he is now demeaning will only convince uncommitted voters that Republicans are disenginous, and only further serve to discourage actual conservatives from turning out to vote.

This is not to say that Santorum or Paul have superior plans or would make better Presidents than Romney or Gingrich. It is merely a statement of fact that it is purposeless to debate the merits of the ideology and plans presented by Gingrich or Romney when they have shown themselves so willing to dismiss previous ideologies whenever politics dictate such a move to be beneficial. We must first look at whether we can believe what the candidates are saying before we can discuss the merits of what they are saying.

The table below shows a number of issues in which the four remaining candidates have expressed viewpoints similar to President Obama's in the past. It shows just how many issues that Gingrich and Romney share with the current administration.