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:
Aug '10
Re: Here's Why Romney Had A Not-So-Super Tuesday
With three ABRs running and neither Newt nor RP showing any intention of withdrawing, I don't know if Mitt needs to do any more convincing. At this point it is what it is.
Why not let it play out, win ugly over the ABRs and wear it proudly come the general?
I am not convinced by him, but I am way off the core conservative radar. If I were Mitt I would be hard pressed to see any upside in trying to convince the base, they have made up their minds.
Even with Newt and RP magically disappearing and all the ABR support locked in on Santorum, Santorum needs to pull more like 60% of the delegates from now on.
I don't see a big upside to dialing up the sweet talk toward the base, they are not going to bite on it anyway.
Edited on March 7, 2012 at 4:45pmFeb '11
Re: Here's Why Romney Had A Not-So-Super Tuesday
Horace: ..... ABRs are impervious to the fact that Romney's platform is every bit as conservative as Santorum's .....
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.
Sorry Horace, but you're still missing the point. And now you're just insulting those of us who have legitimate concerns about Romney’s depth, grounding, and ability to win the general. It’s never been about the platform that he supports on paper; he checks most of the right boxes. It’s not that the ABR’s don’t have flaws of their own; they do. What the ABR’s have, in varying degrees, is the ability to articulate their ideological views and tie them to policy proposals. Romney lacks that. He also lacks the good sense to stop defending the one part of his resume, Romneycare, that makes it difficult for him to argue against and deliver the promised repeal of Obamacare.
Re: Here's Why Romney Had A Not-So-Super Tuesday
Palaeologus
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. · 6 minutes ago
I guess I missed the principled rhetoric here:
“He passed Obamacare. I’ll repeal Obamacare.”
On what grounds will Romney repeal? Why in the world will he do it? Inquiring minds desperately want to know!
Re: Here's Why Romney Had A Not-So-Super Tuesday
Mittmentum!
Aug '11
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.
Let's also remember that when he did explain his reasons for repealing Obamacare during the recent debate, for him it was all about the cost. Not a word about liberty. You might have heard me yelling at him through the TV screen.
I'm not convinced he understands what's wrong with it. He only knows that it's something he's supposed to say. After all he has changed from his earlier statements that he would "repeal the bad, keep the good" to now just plain saying that he'll repeal it. But as Mollie pointed out, he doesn't seem to understand why it is an affront to liberty.
Edited on March 7, 2012 at 4:57pmFeb '11
Re: Here's Why Romney Had A Not-So-Super Tuesday
Or maybe they're only tired of certain kinds of extreme. Again, extreme is no vice when you're right.
Jun '11
Re: Here's Why Romney Had A Not-So-Super Tuesday
Amen. Romney should do a better job of making the case, but he's clear about what he will do. Santorum was all over the place again -- telling us about how this wasn't "the best time to be running" -- when he was supposedly talking about Obamacare.
I'm more-than-OK with either of these guys, but this cheerleading from thinly-disguised partisans of the candidates is turning my stomach.
Palaeologus: 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. · 14 minutes ago
Aug '11
Re: Here's Why Romney Had A Not-So-Super Tuesday
Well, for what it's worth, I grow tired of my very legitimate concerns about Mitt Romney being dismissed as merely the ramblings of a "Romney-hater." That's uncivil, and I want the Romneyfans who use this tactic to knock it off.
Many of us have serious issues with Mitt Romney. Respect that, please.
Edited on March 7, 2012 at 5:11pmFeb '11
Re: Here's Why Romney Had A Not-So-Super Tuesday
Fricosis Guy: .....
I'm more-than-OK with either of these guys, but this cheerleading from thinly-disguised partisans of the candidates is turning my stomach.
What's wrong with cheerleading or partisanship during a primary? Isn't that what we're supposed to do?
Mar '12
Re: Here's Why Romney Had A Not-So-Super Tuesday
Yep, Mittmentum. The only real brand of momentum we've seen, and the only brand you will see up to the convention. Whining that you don't like it doesn't change or help a thing. Mitt is who he is, and asking him to be something he's not to soothe your political conscience is a waste of energy.
Jun '10
Re: Here's Why Romney Had A Not-So-Super Tuesday
I agree, little sister, but our party is split between pragmatists and principle-ists. The pragmatists are so fearful of another Obama term that they're willing to compromise, take the least offensive candidate with the best chance of winning (or so they think). Those of us who stand for principle know that a Romney victory will be hollow. Romney supporters are motivated by fear (whether they admit it or not). Santorum supporters are motivated by courage. It's the lack of courage that will doom us in the end.
Dec '10
Re: Here's Why Romney Had A Not-So-Super Tuesday
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
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.
I share your concern about Romney's resolve to repeal Obamacare fully and completely, but it's not my greatest concern. In truth, I don't trust Republicans in general to take up this fight in full measure. This is the hill to die on, and I just don't see this bunch getting it done. I expect we'll end up with a load of, er, compromise that will retain a foothold for the relentless march toward socialized medicine. Having thus resigned myself, my greater concern is the next, unknown, statist solution that Romney is apt to come up with -- something that isn't yet on the radar. Mitt has demonstrated an inclination to use big government to solve problems. What will his next "solution" be, and how much damage will it do?
Oct '10
Re: Here's Why Romney Had A Not-So-Super Tuesday
If Mitt's inevitable, then it shouldn't upset anyone when I vote against him in my state's primary (if it ever happens).
I don't know about anyone else, but I am not generally excited about things that are inevitable. Death and taxes come to mind.
Dec '10
Re: Here's Why Romney Had A Not-So-Super Tuesday
Albert Arthur: 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. · 2 hours ago
You're missing the context. There's a difference between being a loser and being a weak candidate and, especially, a weak frontrunner -- particularly one who has been dubbed inevitable.
Re: Here's Why Romney Had A Not-So-Super Tuesday
Conceding that he lacks principle isn't exactly a great way to get people on board, is it?
Jul '10
Re: Here's Why Romney Had A Not-So-Super Tuesday
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
Palaeologus
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. · 6 minutes ago
I guess I missed the principled rhetoric here:
“He passed Obamacare. I’ll repeal Obamacare.”
On what grounds will Romney repeal? Why in the world will he do it? Inquiring minds desperately want to know!
I understand that such things are important to you Mollie. But are they to the voting public? Wasn't that the issue?
I suspect that mostly his rationales will involve costs and poor care. While that might go over like a lead balloon on Ricochet, it seems to be working fine among voters.
He isn't running to be the president of the Federalist Society, and he isn't issuing an opinion from the bench. He has a governing agenda and he is telling us what it is. We have an ideologue-in-chief now and the problem isn't only that he holds the wrong ideology, but also that he is incompetent.
Edited on March 7, 2012 at 5:33pmDec '10
Re: Here's Why Romney Had A Not-So-Super Tuesday
Mitt has professed many things that give conservatives pause. They have been well documented here and elsewhere. But your point, that he is generally staking out the right positions, simply underscores Mitt's severe credibility problem. People tend to discount what you say when they don't trust you.
Jun '10
Re: Here's Why Romney Had A Not-So-Super Tuesday
I'm breaking my vow (my fingers were crossed) on commenting on the Republican contest.
Facts:
Remember after Santorum's big night (Minn. and Mo.) when everyone said Romney couldn't win in the rust belt. After being down double digits in both states, he beat Santorum in Ohio and Michigan. [Yes, both were close, but Mitt won them both, and Rick didn't].
Remember that neither Gingrich and Santorum, both once front-runners, have organizations that could get them on Virginia's ballot. Oops.
Remember that Newt won 47% of the vote his home state while Mitt won 72% in his.
Mitt won a lot more delegates last night than anyone else.
Point: Santorum is a good candidate (and a great guy). Newt is, well, Newt. It's easy to say Mitt is weak--Mitt didn't bowl over the other candidates. What does that say about Santorum and Newt? Weaker and weakest. If they're so good, why aren't they exploiting Mitt's horrible weaknesses?
Drew says he has serious problems with Mitt that we should respect. Heck, I have problems with Mitt. But Mitt is going to be our candidate: the non-Obama, if you will.
Dec '10
Re: Here's Why Romney Had A Not-So-Super Tuesday
Ed G.: 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.
It's also worth noting that Mitt's remarks are prepared while Santorum speaks without notes. So that one sentence, devoid of argument or principle, calculated and packaged, was all Mitt saw fit to muster. Santorum, on the other hand, obviously feels the case is worth making, and has thought enough about it to lay it all out extemporaneously.
This is a contrast in depth.
May '10
Re: Here's Why Romney Had A Not-So-Super Tuesday
DrewInWisconsin: Well, for what it's worth, I grow tired of my very legitimate concerns about Mitt Romney being dismissed as merely the ramblings of a "Romney-hater." That's uncivil, and I want the Romneyfans who use this tactic to knock it off.
Many of us have serious issues with Mitt Romney. Respect that, please.
I think they either really do believe we are idiots or obstinate bigots, or else they somehow believe talking down to us will persuade us to fall in line.