Mitt's Speech: Riskier Than it Seemed
From the lead editorial in today's Wall Street Journal:
The immediate media consensus, especially on the political right, seems to be that Mitt Romney "did what he had to do" in his GOP convention speech Thursday. He repaired an image battered by Obama attack ads, showed he appreciates women, defended Bain Capital and criticized President Obama more in sorrow than in anger. On to the White House!
Well, maybe. Mr. Romney's speech did hit all of those essential points, but the one thing it didn't do constitutes a major political gamble. Neither he nor the entire GOP convention made a case for his economic policy agenda. He and Paul Ryan promised to help the middle class, but they never explained other than in passing how they would do it....
This isn't because Mr. Romney lacks an agenda. His platform is brimming with ideas, most of them good and many excellent. He simply didn't talk about them. No doubt this was a strategic political calculation—perhaps a judgment, based on polling, that Mr. Romney's main challenge is to reassure undecided voters that he's not heartless, scary or extreme.
The thinking would be that Mr. Obama's approval rating remains below 50% and voters are prepared to fire him, so all Mr. Romney needs to do is to show Americans that he's competent and presidential....
Ergo, the "safe" political strategy.
Perhaps this is how it will all turn out, but someone should point out that this policy-free zone is risky in its own way. By failing to explain his own agenda, Mr. Romney has left an opening for Democrats and Mr. Obama to define it instead. We wouldn't be surprised to see them pivot away from personal attacks on Mr. Romney and Bain next week and devote all of their time to assailing his policies.
I'm among those who believe Mitt did what he needed to do, but all the same I grant that the Wall Street Journal makes a point here. Mitt certainly proved that he's--well, that he's human. Yet appearing presidential also requires the demonstration of a certain seriousness, particularly the ability to explain how specific policies are related to underlying principles or ideals--and just how those policies will improve the lives of ordinary Americans.
Throughout the campaign, Mitt has chosen to become steadily more substantive. Over the next 60 days--and particularly in the debates--the candidate needs to become more substantive still.
Or so I think. You?
- Comment (30)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Jun '10
Re: Mitt's Speech: Riskier Than it Seemed
The only way this lack won't be addressed is if the debate shills...er...moderators are able to steer the conversation away from substantive economic issues, or at least frame them in a way such as "Mr. Romney, the President has saved the auto industry, created 3 bazillion jobs and kept the economy from completely plunging off Mr. Bush's cliff. So how can you possibly..." But that only has about a 78% chance of happening. So no worries.
Oct '10
Re: Mitt's Speech: Riskier Than it Seemed
Romney veered into the policy area with his energy independence by 2020 comment. Yes, he was vague enough that a slow witted moderate could believe that he meant windmills, but the remainder of the electorate would interpret that as hundreds of thousands of jobs in the hydrocarbon industry and lower gas prices.
But, Peter, you are correct to post the WSJ pessimism regarding the lack of clearly defined policy goals.
Oct '10
Re: Mitt's Speech: Riskier Than it Seemed
They can misconstrue the policies and then bring on the debates. As soon President Obama is inaccurate in describing Gov. Romney's policy positions, "There you go again, misconstruing my policies in the absence of presenting your own."
And would it be beneficial to note, either Romney or Ryan, that Wisconsin's 1st District went for Obama and Ryan in 2008? Did the voters all of a sudden have a schizophrenic, grandma cliff-pushing fit as they made their way through the ballot?
Jul '11
Re: Mitt's Speech: Riskier Than it Seemed
This was part of a strategy to draw Obama out. Obama's campaign has been dirty to the extreme and it has not worked so far but their other options are limited considering their man is an economic empty chair. The Romney plan has plenty of details and will expose them to the public in due time or to counter any Obama claims to the contrary.
A few weeks ago some big donor friend met with Mitt and told me this is Romney's to lose and Romney is playing it that way. With a hostile media and a Chicago den of vipers clinging to a divisive strategy with an ever dwindling fraction of yes we can, Romney can stay above the fray until they try a roundhouse before he ducks and counter punches.
Romney wins this election by giving the American people substance at the right time for them to hear it rather than when the 24/7 media pundits would like it.
After all is said and done here, those same impatient writers who once begged for all the angels will reflect on how Romney beat a lying, cruel campaign with steady resolve.
Nov '11
Re: Mitt's Speech: Riskier Than it Seemed
It depends.
Does he want to get elected?
Or does he want to get elected with a mandate?
If only the former, triangulate.
If also the latter, substantiate.
But he needn't get all wonky.
Instead he needs to express fundamental principles . . . conservative principles, such as:
"Responsibility, properly understood." Government should do only that which cannot be done otherwise, and then should do only so much of it as cannot be done otherwise. The federal government should perform only the functions that are within the responsibility of the federal government; state and local governments should take responsibility for the matters that are their responsibility; individuals should take responsibility for themselves, their families, their communities.
But here's the tough part: Mitt's gotta say all that stuff in a way that ain't too scary to the three-quarters of the citizenry who expect, whether they admit it or not, the federal government to subsidize their children's college and their parents' retirement, to remove all serious risk, and keep everybody comfortable.
Or maybe he should just send Ann around to all the daytime shows to tell everybody what a great lover he is.
Edited on September 1, 2012 at 7:47pmJun '10
Re: Mitt's Speech: Riskier Than it Seemed
I'd rather call the strategy "calculated" rather than "safe." Obama is out of ideas, has nothing positive to run on, and he's well behind in campaign contributions. Mitt's team knows that all Obama can do at this point is smear his opponent. The fight has become tactical now. There isn't a need for a grand strategy. Unlike G.W. Bush, Romney intends to answer every straw man accusation with a counter-punch. That's probably as much as he needs to do especially given his cash advantage. Romney might only be a competent middleweight, but Obama is flyweight by comparison. All Romney has to do is stand his ground while Obama flails away with impotent punches. Barring the unforeseen this bout is about over.
Jul '11
Re: Mitt's Speech: Riskier Than it Seemed
I meant angles but angels works too. Sometimes I wonder if pundits have ever read Sun Tzu or Miyamoto Musashi.
"The opportunity to secure ourselves against defeat lies in our own hands, but the opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself. "
Sun Tzu
“You win battles by knowing the enemy's timing, and using a timing which the enemy does not expect.”
Miyamoto Musashi
Dear Mr Romney, you may use economic empty chair. Or not, but please make ads with empty chairs.
Jan '11
Re: Mitt's Speech: Riskier Than it Seemed
Like it or not, Romney's speech and the entire convention showed that his strategy is aimed at convincing and winning only the undecided; there will be no attempt to persuade those already in Obama's camp.
It is the approach of the political professional.
It rules out the kind of attacks that conservatives on this site longed for all during the endless primary season. It certainly rules out personal attacks on Mr. Obama.
It is, as a commenter above noted, a counter-puncher's strategy. I just hope that after Romney ducks the roundhouse rights and low blows coming his way in the next 60 days that he remembers to do more than jab in response.
And I hope he has a plan ready for the day his tax returns are leaked to the press by an employee within the IRS, a government agency.
Mar '11
Re: Mitt's Speech: Riskier Than it Seemed
Mr Romney's agenda seems pretty clear to me - pretty much implement Mr Ryan's plans.
Isn't anyone paying attention?
Oct '10
Re: Mitt's Speech: Riskier Than it Seemed
Romney famously started his campaign with a very detailed set of policies. Pundits made fun of his 59 bullet points. If these folks really need all his positions rehearsed in each speech or they will forget... then I'm not really surprised.
Apr '11
Re: Mitt's Speech: Riskier Than it Seemed
I agree. Details given now will be attacked, misconstrued and lied about. That would force Mitt to play defense rather than offense. It was brilliant the way the Romney campaign turned medicare into a liability for the Dems. I am hoping for more of that type of thing in the coming weeks. Plenty of time for policy details as the debates approach. I'm just concerned about the debate formats. The moderators are from PBS, ABC, NBC, and CNN. Why no representative from FOX?
Aug '12
Re: Mitt's Speech: Riskier Than it Seemed
I'd say that Mitt has done a pretty good job so far of getting to where he is. Everybody wants to backseat drive. I think he's earned our trust regarding how to manage the rest of the campaign.
Re: Mitt's Speech: Riskier Than it Seemed
Peter, you might want to ruminate on Charles Kesler's take. The problem is not a lack of substance. If anything, Romney gives us too much detail. The problem is a failure on his part (not Ryan's), at least in the pertinent speech, to make this a battle of ideas. What is at stake is the American way of life -- not the relative competence of two men who want to be the country's CEO. For all of his faults, Obama knows this. Much of the time, Romney seems not to get it. His default position is that of a manager. We do, indeed, need better management. But we also need a sharp change of course.
I do not think that there is much chance that Romney will lose. But if he fails to make the ideological case, he will not win a mandate, and he will not have coattails. The best thing that he has done thus far is to pick Paul Ryan. He needs to follow up on the logic underpinning that choice.
May '10
Re: Mitt's Speech: Riskier Than it Seemed
To add to what Eeyore and Doc said, I think we need to keep in mind that Romney is a businessman.
He's got a "business plan." A business plan involved timing for certain strategies. I think it's worked pretty well so far. He's not the kind of guy to go with "gut feelings" or "hunches." I think he's got a plan. If we are right, the debates are an important time for the further implementation of this plan. We shall see...
I certainly wouldn't expect Mitt to change this because the WSJ loses control of it's journalistic bladder.
May '10
Re: Mitt's Speech: Riskier Than it Seemed
I agree with DocJay and Astonishing. If Romney's only campaign goal is to get elected, then this is a smart strategy. He doesn't need specifics to get elected.
That said, Ryan has already put forth the specifics. Everyone assumes, and rightly so, that Romney would not have chosen Ryan if he did not generally agree with Ryan's Roadmap.
Apr '11
Re: Mitt's Speech: Riskier Than it Seemed
In a country that has ping-ponged Congressional control over the last decade, I am not sure that a large segment of the population even knows what kind of policies it supports. But I think everyone knows that president made a bunch of promises that he didn't deliver on. And if he is saying what everyone is thinking, I think that's fine for a major address.
And I think the strategy of the speech is bold. I think it shows a lot of confidence in a campaign to acknowledge the high hopes that surrounded the election of the other guy. By way of counterexample, look at the shrieking of the Obama campaign to demonize Romney.
Besides, no speech can have everything.
At any rate, it's all genius if he wins and all folly if he loses.
Nov '10
Re: Mitt's Speech: Riskier Than it Seemed
I'm almost at the point where I think it doesn't matter what he said. There was a long piece yesterday in the Winnipeg Free Press, from a national press wire up here in Canada, that purported to be a balanced summary of the speech and the last day of the convention. But it dripped with irony, contempt and Democrat talking-points. I don't think they gave a complete sentence from any of the speeches in direct quote, and nothing was quoted without some counter-spin. For example, Clint didn't artfully end his speech by leading the audience his iconic line "Go ahead...", he "gave in" to pleas from giddy audience members who were begging him to do it.
After this they don't even bother writing editorial hit-pieces.
Mitt could have recited Aragorn's speech at the black gate "Stand, men of the West! ... " (actually I wish he would have), and they would have paid no attention, or if they did the writeup would be something like, "His speech included a desperate appeal to voters on the West Coast, where he polls behind Obama..."
All I can say: thank God for the internet.
Aug '12
Re: Mitt's Speech: Riskier Than it Seemed
I believe that most people who are really serious about this election have already made up their minds. They have been paying attention awhile. Either that or they are so determined to vote one party or another that they don't really see a reason to dig deep. But for the all important undecided group in the middle - an emotional appeal must be made. Advertisers know that when people buy something they want it is because they first became emotionally attached to it and then they found the 'rationalization' to buy it. I think it was important for Romney to reach out and grab people emotionally. He did this, while at the same time throwing in just enough of his promises of what he would accomplish, to get people on his side. I'm am amazed by the serious political pundits who think that most people think like them. Do they talk to people in the real world enough to see how few there are that really want to know all the deep stuff? Knowing Romney is good, kind, capable, and lives a life of integrity is a pretty solid reason for a lot of people to vote for him.
Apr '12
Re: Mitt's Speech: Riskier Than it Seemed
"R. Craigen I'm almost at the point where I think it doesn't matter what he said."
Couldn't agree more,R! As a business person myself, I LOVE Romney and Ryan, and the clear plan Ryan has outlined so clearly. But who is really listening to any details?
Romney gave a competent speech, leaving behind the thought that if the best you felt about Obama was when you voted for him, isn't there a problem! It is now obvious that Romney is a decent, family man, and I like his Mormon background as it gives him a strong ethical and moral code. He also has a remarkable record of success in his business life. To have started a business in private equity, Bain Capital, and grown it as he did, is almost unbelievable. All this came through, loud and clear, even to those who didn't want to hear.
All the screaming and shouting, frothing at the mouth and dancing up and down, from the Left shows that the Conference made many points they would rather not have had aired. I always like it when the other side does that. :-)
Thank God for the internet, indeed!
Dec '10
Re: Mitt's Speech: Riskier Than it Seemed
I will align myself with Freesmith's comment, along the lines of, "... his strategy is aimed at convincing and winning only the undecided; there will be no attempt to persuade those already in Obama's camp."
To Dr. Rahe's lamentation for a lack of a, "...battle of ideas....", I will offer an anecdote. My dear Mom, the same age as Mr. Eastwood, called me yesterday to discuss Mr. Romney's speech. She is not an undecided voter, but she came away inspired by an idea presented.
She is nearly 20 years past "retirement age" and wants for nothing, but has decided she is going to keep working, until 2020. Part of that is her general dissatisfaction with the entitlements mess and our debt. However, she was primarily motivated to keep working for 8 more years, because she wants to be standing there, dusting off her hands, when she can finally witness this nation again becoming energy independent. She has already been here for, essentially, our second Depression. Now she wants to see us through until the training wheels are taken off, by her 90th birthday.
To her, that's a pretty big idea.