Etch-a-Sketch
If Mitt Romney really wants to demonstrate that he's not simply pandering when he tells us how conservative he is, he needs to fire his campaign adviser Eric Fehrnstrom. On CNN, Mr. Fehrnstrom said that no matter how conservative the governor may sound on the campaign trail now, come the fall campaign he can "hit a reset button." He went on to say, "It’s almost like an Etch-A-Sketch. You can kind of shake it up and restart all over again.”
As Yuval Levin noted on National Review's The Corner, if you had asked what would "do the most damage to Romney’s support among conservatives, and ... then strained to imagine the stupidest thing they could possibly say, [you] might well have come up with something like Eric Fehrnstrom’s comment on CNN.
By any objective measure, it's of course unjust to fire a man for one errant remark. Politics, however, isn't fair, and neither is the presidency. Mr. Romney's problem is not his policies or programs; his problem is his credibility: many people just don't believe he really believes what he is telling us. Firing Mr. Fehrnstrom would be a welcome signal that Mr. Romney is offended by any suggestion, no matter how much it might be later explained away, that he does not really believe what he says -- and is ready, willing, and able to erase it away when he thinks he needs to. The worst part is that Mr. Fehrnstrom does not appear to have chosen unfortunate words that distort what he ways trying to say. To the contrary, his problem is that he appears to have inadvertently expressed what he, and by extension the Romney campaign, really does think.
This is a tough decision for any candidate. We'll learn something by Mr. Romney's reaction.
- Comment (55)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
Comments:
Apr '11
Re: Etch-a-Sketch
James Of England
This seems like an odd selection of compromises to predict. English immersion education was a Romney policy that he fought hard for...
The John Bolton endorsed candidate chose to increase naval spending despite the lack of any obvious electoral advantage.
He's long been keen on mining and drilling, and cutting spending is his highest priority.
DoEd is probably fair. Gas tax hikes are possible, if unlikely. · 2 hours ago
These aren't predictions I'm making, they're predictions I'm asking for.
As a conservative I'm being told to grow up, face facts, and realize that only Mitt Romney, running as a moderate, can beat Obama.
Fine.
But if he's elected, isn't he going to have to govern as a moderate as well? He will want to win re-election in '16 after all.
So I'm just asking: What compromises are in store for me during a Romney presidency?
Will it be George H. W. Bush level compromise?
Or W. level compromise?
Or Schwarzenegger level?
Feel free to speculate, what does the future hold for us conservatives?
Dec '10
Re: Etch-a-Sketch
I don't understand your point #1. The hallmark of a business manager is the ability to act decisively to ensure that his staff is highly competent and performing at a high level. Firing is an important managerial skill and one that Romney himself famously and very publicly put high on his list of favorites not that long ago.
Dec '10
Re: Etch-a-Sketch
Not likely, since he expressly stated that knowledge:
Dec '10
Re: Etch-a-Sketch
I disagree: he should definitely not fire Fehrnstrom, because that would just create a disgruntled ex-employee with a reason to write a tell-all book or get gigs on Sunday news shows giving the "inside dope" on the Romney campaign's problems.
If he's smart, he'll assign Fehrnstrom to a desk job and prohibit him from speaking for the campaign on or off the record. And if he's clever as well, he'll ensure that someone gives Fehrnstrom occasional nuggets of disinformation to see if Fehrnstrom keeps them to himself or leaks them to the media.
Oct '10
Re: Etch-a-Sketch
billy
Feel free to speculate, what does the future hold for us conservatives? · 5 hours ago
To quote Mr. T in Rocky III: "Pain."
Oct '10
Re: Etch-a-Sketch
"We'll learn something by Mr. Romney's reaction."
I certainly hope we don't learn that he would fire a valuable advisor at a key juncture, in a patently symbolic gesture that will never reassure those conservatives who won't believe a word he says in explanation anyway. Shifting strategies between primaries and the general election would be utterly pedestrian political fare if confirmation bias weren't running riot these days.
Lighten up! Embrace the Etch-A-Sketch, if only for its entertainment value. Has Newt Gingrich ever looked sillier than he did on the stump with Etch-A-Sketch in hand? Is there anything that says silly season like an Obama Etch-A-Sketch campaign ad?
Shoot, Etch-A-Sketch is almost as American apple pie. It may be made in China now, but the family run Ohio company that sells it is still the toy business today. Buy 'em in bulk, draw a flag on 'em and hand 'em out to parents with sullen youths in tow at the mall; take 'em along when you're knocking on suburban doors and keep the kids busy while you reassure Mom that there's no Republican war on women....
Sep '10
Re: Etch-a-Sketch
Romney is a pandering moderate. The proof of this is that he is about to get the GOP nomination. Since Reagan only pandering moderates have been nominated by the GOP. The cheer-leading pseudo-conservative press would like to pretend otherwise, but that does not change the obvious. Romney and the GOP are quickly turning into jokes.
Nov '11
Re: Etch-a-Sketch
Let me get this straight.
Romney's "problem is his credibility: many people just don't believe he really believes what he is telling us," viz that he's really a conservative.
But the "Etch-a-Sketch" remark was not inapt. It accurately "expressed what . . . the Romney campaign really does think."
So . . .
The best way for Romney to fix his credibility problem is to fire the person on his campaign team who told the truth.
The best way to fix a lie is to punish whoever tells the truth! Even if it's unjust to do so.
Hmmmm?!?!?!
This kind of logic might make some folks cynical, because cynicism usually fills the void left by the sudden dissipation of a pleasing and long-cherished ignorance.
Are Romney supporters feeling cynical?
Or are they still cherishing the pleasing notion that Romney is a conservative?
Nov '11
Re: Etch-a-Sketch
Nixon did China, price controls.
Thank Poppy for ADA, Vaughn Walker, David Souter.
After Poppy couldn't get NAFTA past Congress, Bubba implemented it with more GOP than Dem votes.
Bubba did welfare reform, but he and the smartest woman stalled on the ultimate liberal issue: healthcare needed an ideologue.
Dubya did "No Child's Behind Left Alone" and Medicare Prescription Drug.
A moderate always advances the other party's favorite domestic initiatives because the other party will support his "moderate" initiatives, while opposition to those initiatives within his own party will be leaderless, marginalized, unable to muster the unity to restrain a president who is "one of their own. "
Worship of "Bipartisan Compromise to Get Something Done for The American People" will sidle Romney from middleright to insidiously-left: Romney will repeal Obamacare . . . . and immediately replace it with New Romneycare, as bad as Obamacare--only more insidious. With bipartisan support, Romneycare's apparent political legitimacy will make it impossible ever to repeal.
Gradually . . . inevitatbly . . . everything you hate about Obamacare will accrete to Romneycare.
Conservatives will be holding an empty bag. Rather, they will wish it were empty.
Edited on March 22, 2012 at 1:18pmApr '11
Re: Etch-a-Sketch
billy
So I'm just asking: What compromises are in store for me during a Romney presidency?
Will it be George H. W. Bush level compromise?
Or W. level compromise?
Or Schwarzenegger level?
Feel free to speculate, what does the future hold for us conservatives? · 9 hours ago
These questions are category errors. W., for instance, was far more conservative than Reagan in his judicial philosophy and respect for the Constitution, about the same in his fiscal conservatism, and wished to repeat Reagan's amnesty error. How different were they in terms of foreign policy? Not at all easy to tell.
Where W., Reagan, and H.W. were good, they were often excellent; H.W. did more to cut the deficit than any other postwar President, appointed the finest justice on the SCOTUS, and achieved America's first unambiguous massive conventional military victory since Truman (albeit without follow up for a decade). 41 also repealed Reagan's medicare expansion, the biggest cutback to an entitlement program we've in American history, and passed the laws that led to Clinton's welfare reform.
All Presidents do great things (possible exceptions: Ford and W.H. Harrison), and all Presidents do terrible things.
Edited on March 22, 2012 at 2:10pmDec '11
Re: Etch-a-Sketch
James Of England
billy
So I'm just asking: What compromises are in store for me during a Romney presidency?
Where W., Reagan, and H.W. were good, they were often excellent; H.W. did more to cut the deficit than any other postwar President, appointed the finest justice on the SCOTUS, and achieved America's first unambiguous massive conventional military victory since Truman (albeit without follow up for a decade). 41 also repealed Reagan's medicare expansion, the biggest cutback to an entitlement program we've in American history, and passed the laws that led to Clinton's welfare reform.
(bold, underline, italics not in the original)
Reagan gave H.W. the Gramn-Rudman hammer. It required an equal reduction in military and domestic spending. Due to Reagan's policies the Soviet Union imploded and military spending could be safely reduced. H.W. could have balanced the budget without raising taxes by using the Gramn-Rudman remedy. He gave it all away and raised taxes.
Edit. ...and guaranteed the election of Bill Clinton.
Edited on March 22, 2012 at 2:47pmNov '11
Re: Etch-a-Sketch
James Of England
W., for instance, was far more conservative than Reagan in his judicial philosophy and respect for the Constitution.
Huh? Respect for the Constitution?
Dubya signed McCain-Feingold, even though he had said previoulsy he would veto it because he thought it an unconstitutional abridgment of the 1st Amendment.
As Prof. Rahe noted, Dubya's signing legislation he believed unconstitutional was a betrayal of the Constitution.
Even in the statement he issued when he signed McCain-Feingold, Dubya said, "Certain provisions present serious constitutional concerns. . . . by preventing all individuals, not just unions and corporations, from making donations to political parties in connection with Federal elections. . . . questions arise under the First Amendment. I also have reservations about the constitutionality of the broad ban on issue advertising, which restrains the speech of a wide variety of groups on issues of public import in the months closest to an election. I expect that the courts will resolve these legitimate legal questions as appropriate under the law."
(Cravenly shrugging it off to the courts, hoping they would repair the damage, did not satisfy the president's oath and duty to uphold the Constitution.)
Edited on March 22, 2012 at 2:55pmDec '11
Re: Etch-a-Sketch
Astonishing
...A moderatealwaysadvances the other party's favorite domestic initiatives because the other party will support his "moderate" initiatives, while opposition to those initiatives within his own party will be leaderless, marginalized, unable to muster the unity to restrain a president who is "one of their own. "
Worship of "Bipartisan Compromise to Get Something Done for The American People" will sidle Romney from middleright to insidiously-left: Romney will repeal Obamacare . . . . and immediately replace it with New Romneycare, as bad as Obamacare--only more insidious. With bipartisan support, Romneycare's apparent political legitimacy will make it impossibleeverto repeal.
Gradually . . . inevitatbly . . . everythingyou hate about Obamacare will accrete to Romneycare.
Conservatives will be holding an empty bag. Rather, they will wish it were empty.
A perfect analysis. A President McCain would have given us "cap and trade." He would have compromised his healthcare bill to eliminate the "preexisting condition exclusion." Eliminating this exclusion will make private health insurance and thus private healthcare impossibly expensive.
Astonishing, perhaps you could start a new thread with an expanded version of your comment.
Feb '12
Re: Etch-a-Sketch
Astonishing, I second Ralph's idea (although, I admit, I'm biased).
Feb '12
Re: Etch-a-Sketch
Ralph Baskett
Astonishing
Conservatives will be holding an empty bag. Rather, they will wish it were empty
A perfect analysis. A President McCain would have given us "cap and trade." He would have compromised his healthcare bill to eliminate the "preexisting condition exclusion." Eliminating this exclusion will make private health insurance and thus private healthcare impossibly expensive.
To be fair to McCain, he also would have put two new justices on the Supreme Court, replacing two hard-left justices. Even if he'd nominated only 2 more Kennedys, imagine the difference. On half the big questions before the Supreme Court, we'd have a 7-2 majority. (On abortion and other key precedents, no, which would be tragic.)
Furthermore, McCain would not have retreated fully from Iraq but kept a reserve contingent there, as we did in Germany and Korea, so that we would have a strong ally and a base of operations in the geographic center of the war on radical Islam.
Finally, McCain would have reduced taxes and spending both.
His presidency would have been messy, but not awful.
That said, as a general matter, I agree with Astonishing.
Apr '11
Re: Etch-a-Sketch
Astonishing
Huh? Respect for the Constitution?
Dubya signed McCain-Feingold, even though he had said previoulsy he would veto it because he thought it an unconstitutional abridgment of the 1st Amendment.
As Prof. Rahe noted, Dubya's signing legislation he believed unconstitutional was a betrayal of the Constitution.
(Cravenly shrugging it off to the courts, hoping they would repair the damage, did not satisfy the president's oath and duty to uphold the Constitution.) ·
Dubya's judges and Dubya's law have left us with stronger protections for political speech than we've had for a long time. Bush's rhetoric does seem to have played a part in that.
South Dakota v. Dole, the response to Reagan's decision to make state drinking ages a matter of federal law, remains one of the biggest holes in the 10th Amendment, partly with the help of Reagan justices O'Connor and Kennedy.
Apr '11
Re: Etch-a-Sketch
Ralph Baskett
(bold, underline, italics not in the original)
Reagan gave H.W. the Gramn-Rudman hammer. It required an equal reduction in military and domestic spending. Due to Reagan's policies the Soviet Union imploded and military spending could be safely reduced. H.W. could have balanced the budget without raising taxes by using the Gramn-Rudman remedy. He gave it all away and raised taxes.
Edit. ...and guaranteed the election of Bill Clinton. ·
Gramm Rudman, like the doc fix, current sequester, and a host of similar projects, is based on a threat of self harm that has never worked. Paygo, which Bush replaced it with, was a somewhat more effective system, although still far from ideal; it turns out that there really is no alternative to self discipline for congressmen.
Bush reduced non-military spending as well as military spending, and did so in part by repealing Reagan's massive Medicare expansion. Each of Reagan's eight years are filled promises to cut the deficit and axe spending, and schemes to do so. Blaming Bush, who did it, for the failure of one of Reagan's already failed schemes seems perverse.
Jan '11
Re: Etch-a-Sketch
I'm with McGurn on this: Fehrnstrom must go.
One of the things that's becoming increasingly clear to me -- and I credit Peter Suderman for his superb profile Consultant-in-Chief for helping me understand this -- is that Romney can be counted on to bring his competence and energy to solve problems as defined by his client at the time. This is the only convincing explanation I've heard for Romney's late conversion to orthodox conservativism; he switched clients, so he modified (possibly sincerely) his positions to suit his new client's needs.
For the past seven years, that new client has been the Republican base. The more Romney sees himself as working for and accountable to us, the more likely we're going to get what we want out of him (having majorities in congress would be at least as important). As others have said, Romney can be manipulated; we need to keep manipulating him.
Re: Etch-a-Sketch
Excellent comment but I just want to mention that people close to Romney say that such talk is laughable. Apparently Fehrnstrom and Romney are incredibly tight and this is not going to happen.
May '10
Re: Etch-a-Sketch
On a related note, my liberal friends were talking about the Etch-a-Sketch gaffe this morning after having heard CNN talk about it yesterday. So the wishy-washy image isn't a problem only for conservatives but also for swing voters.