Here's Why Romney Had A Not-So-Super Tuesday
Last night in a comments thread, some of us discussed how the standard for Mitt Romney always seems to be so much higher than for his opponents. A perfect example of this is what happened in Ohio. If Rick Santorum had pulled out a victory there, everyone would be congratulating him on his huge victory. When Romney wins, we get all sorts of people opining on how weak he is. He absolutely trounced in the delegate count last night and we're being told he had a bad night?
And yet, I'm hearing the same thing from people I respect. Jim Geraghty writes "Mitt's Got Trouble. Right Here In River City." And Byron York writes:
[Ohio Attorney General Mike] DeWine, who famously endorsed Romney and then left to join Santorum, had a point. For the Romney campaign, Super Tuesday was supposed to be the day the long, disorganized, and often painful effort by conservatives to deny the inevitability of Romney's claim to the nomination effectively ended. Instead, despite his narrow win in Ohio and victories in his home state of Massachusetts, Vermont, Virginia, Idaho, and Alaska, the day's results left Romney's opponents, especially Santorum, with reason to stay in the race, and Romney himself, still, after these many months, a weak frontrunner.
As the polls closed yesterday, I was willing to accept the inevitable. These post-Super Tuesday essays are not what I expected. One Romney supporter asked on Twitter:
Again I ask, what Romney positions do you disagree with?
I'm sure it's frustrating for those on board with Romney that the rest of the GOP electorate is so resistant. But if they earnestly want to understand the problem, they simply have to address what both Geraghty and York mention in their posts: Obamacare and the trust issue.
I'm going to steal this directly from The Weekly Standard's Jeffrey Anderson, because I can think of no better way to make the point. It's long, but for a reason:
Here’s what the two leading Republican presidential candidates said last night, in total, about Obamacare:
Mitt Romney (from 10:35 to 10:40):
“He [President Obama] passed Obamacare. I’ll repeal Obamacare.”
Rick Santorum (from 8:12 to 16:00):
“We have people who believe that America’s best days are behind us. They believe that it’s no longer possible for free enterprise, a free economy, and free people to be able to build strong communities and families and be able to provide for themselves and their neighbors. No, we now need an increasingly powerful federal government to do this for us. [Cries of ‘No!’]
“The reason that Karen and I ultimately decided to get into this race was because of that issue and, in particular, one issue. I’ve said it [in] almost every stump speech I’ve given. If it wasn’t for one particular issue that to me breaks the camel’s back with respect to liberty in this country — and that is the issue of Obamacare.
“What we will go to in a very short period of time — the next two years — a little less than 50 percent of the people in this country depend on some form of federal payment, some form of government benefit, to help provide for them. After Obamacare, it will not be less than 50 percent. It will be 100 percent.
“Now every single American will be looking to the federal government, not to their neighbor, not to their church, not to their business or to their employer, or to the community or non-profit organization[s] in their community, [but] will be looking always to those in charge, to those who now say to you that they are the allocator and creator of rights in America.
“Ladies and gentlemen, this is the beginning of the end of freedom in America. Once the government has control of your life, then they gotcha.
“That’s why we decided to step out. As you look, I mean, Karen and I [have] seven children, ages 20 — ages 20 to 3, not exactly the best time to be out running for president of the United States. We’ve given up our jobs. We’re living off our savings. Yeah, we’re makin’ a little sacrifice, for a very, very big goal — and that is replacing this president, on November [6th] of this year.
“In order to make that happen, the Republican party has to nominate somebody who can talk about the broad vision of what America is. As I talk about in every one of my speeches, I talk about how important it is that [we] remember who we are. Ronald Reagan, in his farewell address to the American people, worried about whether America would remember what made us great — that we are not a great country because we have a great and powerful government; we are a great country because we believe that rights don’t come from the government, but as…our founding document, the Declaration of Independence says, our rights come to us from our Creator.
“The government’s job and the Constitution of this country was intended to do one thing — protect those rights, so each and every one of you would have the opportunity to build their own life, to take your own path, to create a strong family, strong neighborhood, community, state, and country. That’s what made America great. We built a great country from the bottom up.
“And we need people to go up against President Obama and his vision of a top-down [model of] government control — of not just health care, but of energy, and of manufacturing, and of financial services, and who knows what else is next? But this is a president who believes that he simply is better able to do this than you are; that he will be fairer than you are with your fellow man.
“Ladies and gentlemen, this is an election about fundamental liberty, and the signature piece — the signature piece of legislation that points this out, where you have economic ‘rights’ created by the government, and then the government using its heavy hand to force you to buy insurance, to force you to take policies that you don’t want, and of course to force you to take coverages that may even violate your faith convictions….
“In this race, there is only one candidate who can go up on the most important issue of the day and make the case — because I’ve never been for an individual mandate, at a state or federal level. I’ve never — I’ve never passed a statewide government-run health-care system when I was governor because, well, I wasn’t governor. But Governor Romney did.
“And now we found out this week, not only did he pass it in Massachusetts, he advocated for it to be passed in Washington, D.C. in the middle of the debate on health care.
“It’s one thing to defend a mandated, top-down, government-run health-care program that you imposed on the people of your state. It’s another thing to recommend and encourage the president of the United States to impose the same thing on the American people. And it’s another thing yet to go out and tell the American public that you didn’t do it.
“We need a person running against President Obama who is right on the issues and truthful with the American public.”
Some people are willing to put their faith in Romney. Some need much more convincing. More than six words devoid of any principle or reasoning, that is.
This is not an unfixable problem, but it is one that needs addressing soon.
- Comment (183)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
Comments:
Oct '11
Re: Here's Why Romney Had A Not-So-Super Tuesday
You know what everyone conveniently forgets to mention is that this year's nominating contest is structured much different than in 2008. If it were structured the same as 2008, wouldn't Romney be the prohibitive nominee? Even so, Romney's gotten like 1.2 million more votes than Santorum, and has more than twice as many delegates. Yet he's somehow weak. I don't buy it.
All this, "his winning makes him a loser" talk really drives me crazy, I don't mind saying.
Jun '10
Re: Here's Why Romney Had A Not-So-Super Tuesday
I might have to, in the end, but I wouldn't pick Mitt Romney to be my chief advocate for conservatism anymore than I would pick him to be my bartender.
Oct '11
Re: Here's Why Romney Had A Not-So-Super Tuesday
"Some people are willing to put their faith in Romney. Some need much more convincing. More than six words devoid of any principle or reasoning, that is."
Then maybe quote more than six words of his speech?
Re: Here's Why Romney Had A Not-So-Super Tuesday
Albert Arthur: "Some people are willing to put their faith in Romney. Some need much more convincing. More than six words devoid of any principle or reasoning, that is."
Then maybe quote more than six words of his speech? · 1 minute ago
Was Anderson wrong? Did Romney say more than six words about Obamacare last night?
That's the whole point. I get that it's frustrating, but if you want people to get on board with Romney, this simply can't be ignored.
I'm one of those people who is motivated by my principled dislike of Obamacare more than almost anything else. To say that Romney hasn't convinced me that he's the guy to lead the charge against it is a gross gross understatement. As York points out, even his own voters are saying they're worried about his leadership on this issue.
Mar '12
Re: Here's Why Romney Had A Not-So-Super Tuesday
Romney doesn't need to do any more convincing. He's made his arguments, if you don't like him, you will never like him. The fact is that he is inevitable. Period.
The numbers have already been crunched and even if Santorum gets 50% in all the remaining contests, including by winning 50% of the congressional districts, he can't get to 1144 delegates. And that analysis was before last night.
Romney outdistances himself farther and farther from the field in terms of delegates virtually every round of elections. But this silly meme continues, kept alive by people who refuse to accept reality.
Sorry folks, the numbers don't lie. This thing is over.
Re: Here's Why Romney Had A Not-So-Super Tuesday
Mittmentum!
Jun '10
Re: Here's Why Romney Had A Not-So-Super Tuesday
Examine the Ohio results by county. In rough numbers Mitt took 8 highly urban districts to Rick's 75 or so rural counties. My guess is that urban voters, even Republican urban voters, are more comfortable with government and are thus looking for a managerial candidate. People in rural districts are more independent and self-sufficient, more family oriented, and distrustful of government. They see Santorum as the social conservative more in line with their own values. This same pattern has played out in other states, so there's something to it. My interpretation might be off by a bit, but the pattern is definitive.
Mar '12
Re: Here's Why Romney Had A Not-So-Super Tuesday
In any other election year Romney would now be within spitting distance of the required delegates and Santorum and Gingrich would likely be dropping out. A winner take all set of rules like the GOP has always used would have killed all this "zombie candidate" nonsense long ago.
This meme is purely a function of a change in the rules, and the only people who don't see that are people whose livelihood is made more interesting by having this thing drawn out, or by people who can't see beyond their own ideological blinders and realize how politics actually works.
Mar '11
Re: Here's Why Romney Had A Not-So-Super Tuesday
Ron Paul won't get out, because he has the Libertarian Gospel, with much of which I agree, to spread. Newt won't get out, because of his ego, but he should and endorse Santorum, if he really doesn't want Romney as the nominee. He doesn't seem like he wants to be Romney's spoiler a la Huckabee~McCain. But I have to agree with Horace and Albert; Romney's winning and handily. Unless there's a big shake-up, Romney's our Presidential candidate. The ticket will be Romney-Christie.
Feb '11
Re: Here's Why Romney Had A Not-So-Super Tuesday
Horace: Romney doesn't need to do any more convincing. He's made his arguments, if you don't like him, you will never like him. The fact is that he is inevitable. Period.
The numbers have already been crunched and even if Santorum gets 50% in all the remaining contests, including by winning 50% of the congressional districts, he can't get to 1144 delegates. And that analysis was before last night.
Romney outdistances himself farther and farther from the field in terms of delegates virtually every round of elections. But this silly meme continues, kept alive by people who refuse to accept reality.
Sorry folks, the numbers don't lie. This thing is over.
Horace, you're attitude (which has been floating around for almost a year now) is a big reason folks like me won't give in. You're case isn't tied to ideas even one little bit. Winning for winning's sake, as if ideas didn't matter or promises will be kept if there's not some ideological grounding to them. Well, that's not for me just yet. Besides, if he's so inevitable then my dissent won't matter anyway.
Mar '12
Re: Here's Why Romney Had A Not-So-Super Tuesday
Sorry Ed, but people have explained Mitt's ideas and plan for governing for months and months. ABRs are impervious to the fact that Romney's platform is every bit as conservative as Santorum's on just about every plank, more conservative on many planks (like Santorum's industrial policy for the manufacturing industry, and coziness with big labor). Mitt has professed to support the same social positions that Santorum has. On an ideological basis, there is no problem with Romney.
Romney haters aren't basing their dislike on ideas, their basing it on conspiratorial beliefs about him being a wolf in sheep's clothing and on questions of his stiff personality and delivery. To pretend that there is something truly substantive about the opposition from conservatives to Romney just doesn't hold water.
Edited on March 7, 2012 at 4:21pmJun '10
Re: Here's Why Romney Had A Not-So-Super Tuesday
Horace: Romney doesn't need to do any more convincing. He's made his arguments, if you don't like him, you will never like him. The fact is that he is inevitable. Period.
The numbers have already been crunched and even if Santorum gets 50% in all the remaining contests, including by winning 50% of the congressional districts, he can't get to 1144 delegates. And that analysis was before last night.
Romney outdistances himself farther and farther from the field in terms of delegates virtually every round of elections. But this silly meme continues, kept alive by people who refuse to accept reality.
Sorry folks, the numbers don't lie. This thing is over. · 17 minutes ago
This Newt Gingrich guy...has he ever done anything unexpected, on the spur of the moment, like drop out of a race for example?
You'd have to admit, that if Gingrich did that, it's a whole new ballgame. It's not completely over. Not yet.
May '11
Re: Here's Why Romney Had A Not-So-Super Tuesday
It seems Romney needs Gingrich and Santorum to continue to split the anti-Romney vote.
He got that.
If Romney can win CA (winner take all) and also at least picks up scraps in the numerous proportional states, he wins. He also may be the only one with a shot at winning without CA.
Thus, what would it take for Santorum or Gingrich to win CA?
Feb '11
Re: Here's Why Romney Had A Not-So-Super Tuesday
Mollie,
I agree entirely. By not addressing this issue more substantively (by actually continuing to support Romneycare rather than rationalizing it) he has either spooked or lost a decent chunk of Republican voters who would otherwise have been solid supporters. That he doesn’t make the case like Santorum does here is in an indication that he won’t or that he can’t. If I’m ever to be comfortable defending Romney I need a little more assurance from him that he is properly grounded and positioned. How hard will he fight for repeal? What case will he make? What will he replace it with? Based on Santorum’s speech, I have some idea of where’s he’s coming from and where he’s going. I have no idea with Romney.
Sep '10
Re: Here's Why Romney Had A Not-So-Super Tuesday
After the dust has settled, in early 2013, things will look different for changing/repealing/replacing Obamacare. Exchanging one ideologue for another (which is how those on the other side of the aisle will see Santorum) will only damage the prospects of actually slowing down/curtailing/hindering this overweening trend toward bigger and bigger government. Of the two candidates, only Romney has a chance of advancing the cause through the Congress, especially if more small-government representatives and senators are elected in 2012. Dennis Kucinich lost last night. People are tired of the extremes, and in the general election that's what Santorum would be viewed as, fair or not.
Mar '12
Re: Here's Why Romney Had A Not-So-Super Tuesday
Sorry etoile, but it is over. That analysis assumes Santorum win 50% of the vote in every remaining contes before last night. That will never happen, even if Newt drops out. And even if he did get 50% in every remaining contest, it still wouldn't be enough. Face reality.
May '10
Re: Here's Why Romney Had A Not-So-Super Tuesday
I read Santorum's speech and I think, "He is exactly right. He has it right. It's not the economy; it's liberty." Also, we need a fighter. The left is utterly ruthless, utterly mendacious. We can't win by putting up our most inoffensive candidate. We need to put up someone who knows he's up against "powers and principalities" and knows he fighting for the soul of our nation.
We need someone who will answer the relentless power grabs with a staunch reassertion of principle. Someone who will contrast the flood of lies and the manipulation of the electorate with truth and persuasion.
It's not Romney. It's Santorum. I pray it's not too late.
If it is, I'll fight for Romney. But I'll do it with a sinking feeling.
Feb '12
Re: Here's Why Romney Had A Not-So-Super Tuesday
I see there are some Romney supporters out there. But I am skeptical that the post is correct when it says:
Does anybody but squishes really support Romney because they support his policies? My impression is that he has two kinds of support:
1. Individuals and, especially, donors who want influence and would favor anybody they thought would win the nomination.
2. Individuals who think he has the best chance of beating Obama.
Type (1) will evaporate if anybody else gets the lead, because it is self-fulfilling. Romney can only outspend his rivals 4-1 because big donors think he's going to win.
Type (2) is not solid either. People may note that he has to outspend his rivals 4-1 to get a bare plurality, or that he can't clinch it against oddities like Newt and Ron Paul, or that he doesn't do all that well in national polling against Obama.
Feb '11
Re: Here's Why Romney Had A Not-So-Super Tuesday
Santorum is about principles of liberty when it suits him. However, he is a protectionist at heart and has no problems using the power of the state to push his social issues agenda.
If you want someone with pure principles, vote for Ron Paul.
I am no big Mitt fan, but I thanked God this morning that Santorum lost Ohio (albeit by a small margin).
Santorum will take the social issues bait and play into the Democrats' hands, turn off the unaffiliated voters, and ensure Obama's reelection. The faster he is off the national stage, the better.
Jul '10
Re: Here's Why Romney Had A Not-So-Super Tuesday
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
Albert Arthur: "Some people are willing to put their faith in Romney. Some need much more convincing. More than six words devoid of any principle or reasoning, that is."
Then maybe quote more than six words of his speech? · 1 minute ago
Was Anderson wrong? Did Romney say more than six words about Obamacare last night?
That's the whole point. I get that it's frustrating, but if you want people to get on board with Romney, this simply can't be ignored.
Yes Anderson is wrong. In fact he has it exactly backwards. The problem with Santorum is that he is too windy. Mitt has flaws and Rick has strengths, but this is a poor example.
I'll also note that if Mitt had wrapped that extremely clear statement in more verbiage then his doubters would just say he was equivocating or being sly in some manner.