Red Flags from Romney
You can be forgiven if you didn't watch last night's Republican presidential debate in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, if only because it was the 290th such forum in this election cycle and one can only listen to Ron Paul give a 10-minute disquisition on the virtues of legalizing hallucinogenic mushrooms so many times before beginning to lament the existence of participatory democracy.
Mollie has already correctly identified the high point of the evening: Newt Gingrich's smackdown of Juan Williams when the Fox pundit accused him of being insensitive on racial issues. Newt delivered a bravura response, as he did several times throughout the night, returning to his stride for the first time since he led in the polls late last year. Rick Perry, though paid little attention, also had a very good night, looking like someone who could've been a serious contender for the GOP nomination had he sounded this way in October. Santorum's performance was serviceable. Ron Paul responded to most questions thrown his way in the form of a five-minute Mad Lib.
The big (and disquieting) takeaway from the debate, however, was this: Mitt Romney is still the prohibitive front-runner -- and he looks set to be a very weak one. Romney didn't get hit with anything last night that's going to stick to him. The only new revelation came courtesy of Santorum, who drew him out on the unlikely topic of restoring voting rights for felons after they've served out their sentences. It was an interesting conversation for policy wonks, but not one that's likely to change the trajectory of this race. Barring a major hit (which didn't happen last night), you still have to like Romney's odds going forward.
The problem this poses -- which was on display last night as never before -- is that Romney, like the current president, becomes less palatable the more you see of him. During the course of the two-hour debate, Romney repeatedly came off as peevish, condescending, and generally irritated to have to make his case publicly. When asked why he hasn't yet made his tax returns public, he gave a meandering answer that was itself probably more suspicious than anything in those documents. When baited by Santorum into the voting rights discussion, he seemed legitimately surprised that he had to defend his record in Massachusetts. This was not the performance of someone you'd feel confident sending into a contentious general election campaign.
As I said in last night's debate chat, the thing that worries me most about Romney is his consistent ability to make me dislike him even when I agree with the argument he's making. In talking to other conservatives, I've learned that's not an isolated phenomenon. That's little more than an annoyance for me (and probably most Ricochet readers); there's no question that I'm going to vote for the Republican nominee come November. But for the marginal voters who pick presidents on a gut-check, I'm concerned that Romney won't be able to close the deal. Should he have the nomination essentially locked up by the end of this month, that will leave him with more than nine months of saturation coverage as the general election nominee. That's far too long for someone who seems inconvenienced by the process. If the Romney team doesn't use some of that time to sand down the candidate's rough edges, we could be in for a very unpleasant November.
- Comment (59)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments:
Aug '11
Re: Red Flags from Romney
May I have evidence of this lack of discipline?
Apr '11
Re: Red Flags from Romney
Larry Koler
James Of England
...
It's true that it's important to fight. ...
Just not now, though, I guess.
A race against a black president is exactly when the liberals will use this cudgel the most and in the most nasty way. Look at you, for example: you think this "gives all racial issues a partisan taint" -- not the way I look at it. It's the partisan issues that give all issues a racial taint or slant if they want to shoehorn it in and if the Republicans don't fight them on this at every opportunity.
The fight isn't what's important. Winning the fight, outside conservative circles, is important. Saying there is a racial taint to the taunt "Kenyan" isn't saying Newt is racist. It is saying that it is easy to color it that way, particularly given Newt's admission that he will use attacks that go against his values. Likewise when he says that the African American community should pursue paychecks rather than food stamps, even though he goes on to say this applies to others, too. Other than conservative sites, his best is reported as racist. Even conservatives criticized "Kenyan".
Apr '11
Re: Red Flags from Romney
DrewInWisconsin
May I have evidence of this lack of discipline? · Jan 18 at 7:50am
Some examples include: the craziness that lost his first campaign staff; his initial decision to attack Bain before apologizing for going against his values in December (isn't that essentially the definition of undisciplined?); his tantrum at the end of Iowa; his "melting" with Clinton; his government spending project du jour ($5k laptops for kids/ homeless people, desktops for poor people, flex fuel mandates, or his current plans to expand clean energy funding and institute an Obamacare equivalent that uses tax credits rather than fines); his need to be interesting ("males are biologically driven to go out and hunt giraffes", "right wing social engineering", "cannibals", ”Obviously big urban newspapers [specifically, the WSJ] want to kill [ethanol] because it’s working, and you wonder, ‘What are their values?’”); his infidelity, including the quotable "patriotic" justifications thereof; testimonies to his working style from most of his colleagues and lucky opponents.
Dec '10
Re: Red Flags from Romney
James Of England
It's true that it's important to fight. I'm pretty sure that neither a super-white wealthy Mormon, nor a doughy white wealthy lobbyist southerner is the ideal candidate to do it. A race against a black president, which gives all racial issues a partisan taint, is not the race in which to do it. Mixing the fight with things that are very hard to defend as racially neutral ("Kenyan""anti-colonialist", for example), is not the way to do it. It probably should not be done by a candidate who has admitted that he will compromise his values when his opponent gets under his skin, either.
So it's important to fight this fight -- but we should never ACTUALLY fight this fight unless and until our opponents cede us the fighting ground?
Must we avoid the political incorrectness of having a candidate of an unapproved color speaking the truth about policies that destroy the hopes of the poor (among whom minorities are disproportionately represented)?
One might have hoped that a guy like Romney would have the guts to step up to this fight. Or at least that Newt would be applauded for doing so.
Apr '11
Re: Red Flags from Romney
Stuart Creque
So it's important to fight this fight -- but we should never ACTUALLY fight this fight unless and until our opponents cede us the fighting ground?
Must we avoid the political incorrectness of having a candidate of an unapproved color speaking the truth about policies that destroy the hopes of the poor (among whom minorities are disproportionately represented)?
One might have hoped that a guy like Romney would have the guts to step up to this fight. Or at least that Newt would be applauded for doing so. ·
They don't need to be minorities themselves, and the ground certainly doesn't need to be ceded. Romney can (and does) fight this stuff, but less boldly; he's too wealthy, too removed to be edgy on race. Christie is a much better candidate for it, for instance. So are Santorum, Boener, and Kasich.
In terms of timing, there are a lot of races where it might make sense this cycle, but the Presidential race isn't one. Hopefully, it will be easier in about 15 months from now. Certainly before November, we shouldn't be raising the topic; doing so discredits our arguments.
Jun '10
Re: Red Flags from Romney
James Of England
...
The fight isn't what's important. Winning the fight, outside conservative circles, is important. Saying there is a racial taint to the taunt "Kenyan" isn't saying Newt is racist. It is saying that it is easy to color it that way, particularly given Newt's admission that he will use attacks that go against his values. Likewise when he says that the African American community should pursue paychecks rather than food stamps, even though he goes on to say this applies to others, too. Other than conservative sites, his best is reported as racist. Even conservatives criticized "Kenyan".
I think you meant: Even "conservatives" criticized "Kenyan."
Dec '10
Re: Red Flags from Romney
James Of England
In terms of timing, there are a lot of races where it might make sense this cycle, but the Presidential race isn't one. Hopefully, it will be easier in about 15 months from now. Certainly before November, we shouldn't be raising the topic; doing so discredits our arguments.
"Discredits our arguments"? What could that possibly mean?
I thought one of the central arguments in favor of conservatism against liberalism is that conservatism yields actual benefits to the people liberals claim to want to help -- and that conversely liberalism harms (by fostering dependency and devaluing work and self-sufficiency and ambition) the people it claims to want to protect from conservatives.
What arguments do you think are undermined by telling truth about the destructive effects of liberalism on minority communities?
Moreover, if Mitt Romney isn't "the right guy" to tell that truth, what use is he?
Edited on January 19, 2012 at 12:58amJun '10
Re: Red Flags from Romney
Stuart Creque
...
"Discredits our arguments"? What could that possibly mean?
I thought one of the central arguments in favor of conservatism against liberalism is that conservatism yields actual benefits to the people liberals claim to want to help -- and that conversely liberalism harms (by fostering dependency and devaluing work and self-sufficiency and ambition) the people it claims to want to protect from conservatives.
What arguments do you think are undermined by telling truth about the destructive effects of liberalism on minority communities?
Moreover, if Mitt Romney isn't "the right guy" to tell that truth, what use is he?
I think James is just plain scared of this topic. Think about how chilling it is to mince into polite company and someone just thinks you might be a racist or called one or thought of being one or associated with people who might be racists. It's just not worth the bother. Spot the left 50 congressional seats and 15 senate seats and let's just see how we can get along with everyone -- even race baiting fascists in the media and the Democratic Party.
Apr '11
Re: Red Flags from Romney
Stuart Creque
"Discredits our arguments"? What could that possibly mean?
I thought one of the central arguments in favor of conservatism against liberalism is that conservatism yields actual benefits to the people liberals claim to want to help -- and that conversely liberalism harms (by fostering dependency and devaluing work and self-sufficiency and ambition) the people it claims to want to protect from conservatives.
What arguments do you think are undermined by telling truth about the destructive effects of liberalism on minority communities?
Moreover, if Mitt Romney isn't "the right guy" to tell that truth, what use is he? ·
If it appears as if Republicans are raising race for partisan advantage against a black president, it becomes easier to dismiss those arguments in the future, and easier to paint the GOP as racist. I was super-proud of the way the GOP handled the issue in 2010, and hope that we can do similarly in 2012. Behaving maturely now prepares the ground for future struggles; if Newt drops out soon, it will continue to be hard to call the TEA Party racist.
Romney is the right guy for more important issues than race (spending). If race dominates, vote Santorum.
Apr '11
Re: Red Flags from Romney
Larry Koler
I think James is just plain scared of this topic. Think about how chilling it is to mince into polite company and someone just thinks you might be a racist or called one or thought of being one or associated with people who might be racists. It's just not worth the bother. Spot the left 50 congressional seats and 15 senate seats and let's just see how we can get along with everyone -- even race baiting fascists in the media and the Democratic Party. ·
I'm scared of the damage that undisciplined discussion of the topic can do, yes, but not because I might be called a racist. I organized a TEA party rally in London, donate to neo-con causes, campaigned hard for Romney '08, worked in Iraq and Cayman, vacation in Israel and South Africa, all of which have caused some people to view me as, and call me, racist.
In terms of acceptable opinions, I was a Romney backer here back when that meant facing vitriol, and regularly proclaim unpopular things (Churchill created the UK welfare state etc.)
Bringing up race now only funds the "race baiting fascists" and gives them prestige.
Dec '10
Re: Red Flags from Romney
James Of England
If it appears as if Republicans are raising race for partisan advantage against a black president, it becomes easier to dismiss those arguments in the future, and easier to paint the GOP as racist. I was super-proud of the way the GOP handled the issue in 2010, and hope that we can do similarly in 2012. Behaving maturely now prepares the ground for future struggles; if Newt drops out soon, it will continue to be hard to call the TEA Party racist.
Romney is the right guy for more important issues than race (spending). If race dominates, vote Santorum.
I'm sorry, but you're going to have to be more explicit than this.
How is telling the truth about the devastation liberal/Progressive policies has wreaked on minority communities "raising race for partisan advantage"?
Won't 75 percent of Obama's re-election campaign be about imputed GOP racism?
How is Santorum qualified to talk about issues involving race in any way that Romney or Newt are not? Why is race a lethal third-rail for Romney and Newt but not Santorum?
If Romney can't address these issues, he's a fatally flawed candidate.
Apr '11
Re: Red Flags from Romney
Stuart Creque
How is telling the truth about the devastation liberal/Progressive policies has wreaked on minority communities "raising race for partisan advantage"?
Won't 75 percent of Obama's re-election campaign be about imputed GOP racism?
How is Santorum qualified to talk about issues involving race in any way that Romney or Newt are not? Why is race a lethal third-rail for Romney and Newt but not Santorum?
If Romney can't address these issues, he's a fatally flawed candidate. ·
If the minorities issue is reactive, it's not raising it to partisan advantage (note that Williams was asking about Newt's comments on race, rather than bringing it up out of nothing). Choosing to talk about it is raising the topic.
Obama's campaign will focus on racism only if he has material to use. For example, it's hard to imagine a hard hitting race attack against Romney at the moment.
Mitt and Newt are both rich, square, slick campaigners, and Mitt's a Mormon, Newt a Southerner. Rick is straightforward, grounded, and perceived as trustworthy.
Again, it's not that they can't win, it's that they shouldn't pick the fight.
Jun '10
Re: Red Flags from Romney
James Of England
...
Obama's campaign will focus on racism only if he has material to use.
...
Surely -- standalone -- one of the most preposterous statements I have ever seen on Ricochet.
Dec '10
Re: Red Flags from Romney
Larry Koler
James Of England
...
Obama's campaign will focus on racism only if he has material to use.
...
Surely -- standalone -- one of the most preposterous statements I have ever seen on Ricochet. · 35 minutes ago
I have to agree with you, Larry.
Obama and his minions have been willing to use an imputation of racism at every opportunity.
One of my favorite examples is when Obama gave an interview to a TV reporter from Texas and made reference to how Texas tends to vote Republican "for historical reasons." This was Obama's way to say, "Well, Texas was part of the slaveholding Confederacy, so of course it votes Republican." Actual, reality-based history tells us that Texas was solidly Democrat along with the rest of the Solid South and was the home of "yellow-dog Democrats" (so called because they'd vote for a yellow dog so long as it was the Democrat in the election).
Obama's campaign will focus on racism because it's the only material he has to use.
Jun '10
Re: Red Flags from Romney
Stuart, the Exhibit A on a long list is Obama's March 2008 speech "On Race" when what he was really responding to was his pastor's anti-Americanism. No one -- and I mean no one -- called it what it was: playing the race card.
Dec '10
Re: Red Flags from Romney
It was a terrible exercise of racial politics, wasn't it? Throwing in the reference to his "white grandmother" -- that was disrespectful to a woman in no position to speak in her own defense, it was a slightly desperate attempt to be "less Black" and thus less threatening to white voters, and it (as you say) obfuscated his longstanding association with an anti-American pastor by making the question race and not anti-Americanism.
And how many times since, up to the present, have we been subjected to the specious claim that "if you oppose this President, you must be doing so because of his race"? Even the all-out assault on Herman Cain tied in to this: the Obama people had to ensure there was no GOP counter-narrative to their charges of racism.
Apr '11
Re: Red Flags from Romney
For what it's worth, I agree with you that the race speech was appalling. I thought that the claim that white anger was bad per se, while black anger was bad because it was ineffective was particularly telling.
Thanks to the longsuffering maturity of the TEA Party, though, and the various embarrasing scandals (the beer summit, Holder, etc.) I don't think the same plays will occur. As the Daily Show memorably said, the race card has been maxed out. If Obama leaves office without a serious fight over race, we'll be in a better position to overcome the racial grievance industry than we have been since its founding. If 2012 sees too much of the GOP going on offense on the subject, we'll reinvigorate the issue and entrench the bureaucracy.
Dec '10
Re: Red Flags from Romney
James Of England
If Obama leaves office without a serious fight over race, we'll be in a better position to overcome the racial grievance industry than we have been since its founding. If 2012 sees too much of the GOP going on offense on the subject, we'll reinvigorate the issue and entrench the bureaucracy.
Obama is constantly attempting to pick a serious fight over race.
And I want Republicans to push back and fight hard for the proposition that conservative solutions will help minority communities escape poverty and achieve affluence.
Jun '10
Re: Red Flags from Romney
The only way to defeat Obama -- and it's a real long shot -- is to tackle this issue early like Newt is doing. I hope he enlists Cain's help in some clever way.
James, Obama is an affirmative action president with no qualifications except his race. He won't -- he can't -- give up this hammer that God gave him at birth.
And yes, Stuart, you are so right to point out that the way forward for Republicans is to address blacks and other minorities in this country as adults, to fight for them and to oppose the racial grievance industries.