Romney Has To Give More Than Himself
One of the things that I've worried about here is that Mitt Romney supporters high and low don't quite understand the antipathy (at best) that the candidate provokes in those who don't already support him. Well, supporter John Podhoretz has an excellent political analysis about Romney on this problem.
He points out how Romney will want to just go negative on Santorum like he went negative on Gingrich. Podhoretz concedes that this could work, to a point. But it would be disastrous in the long run:
But if Romney devotes most of his energies to keeping Gingrich down and leveling Santorum at the same time, he will simultaneously suck whatever life is left out of the Republican primary season in an effort simply to drag himself across the finish line.
While negativity is politically useful, it is also demoralizing unless it is accompanied — and to some extent overshadowed — by elevated and inspiring ideas about the American future.
He says there are precedents for candidacies that could be summed up as "I’m the best you’ve got, you might as well go with me” but that they're not good precedents: Michael Dukakis in 1988 and Bob Dole in 1996.
Romney has adopted almost every position conservatives want their candidate to espouse: He’s pro-life, he wants to repeal ObamaCare, he wants to cut taxes and cut the federal budget, and he wants an unapologetic foreign policy dedicated to the proposition that this too will be the American century.
But that’s not what he is fervent about. He saves his urgency for the talk about being a businessman who can apply his experience to setting right what was wrong in America. It’s almost a 2012 version of Barack Obama’s 2008 slogan, “We are the change we have been waiting for” — only in Romney’s hands, it’s “I am the change you have been waiting for.”
He simply has to give his party more — more than himself.
Podhoretz says the Romney camp is under the delusion that they can just wear voters down until they concede it's their patriotic duty to back Romney. But, as he notes, that's not how people vote.
This is not how ornery individualists vote. They have to be wooed and won, not made implicit demands of.
What do they want? They want what voters always want: To hear that their cause is just, their battles are noble, their leaders are tribunes and that righteousness as they see it will prevail.
Whether or not Romney likes or is comfortable with that role, Podhoretz says he must take it if he wants to win a primary, much less the general. At least someone is giving him good advice! Let's hope Romney and his advisers are listening.
- Comment (75)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments:
May '11
Re: Romney Has To Give More Than Himself
If Romney saw a child drowning in a river, and he walked across the water to grab the child and save her, the first post up at Ricochet would say: "Romney can't swim!" Geez.
Sep '10
Re: Romney Has To Give More Than Himself
I know pundits love to talk about how Romney needs to change this or reinvent that, but does anyone really believe that a dude who has been running for President for 5 years can do this? The guy has all the political maneuverability of a supertanker. Give it up. He is who he is and lots of us can't stand him. He might stagger across the finish line and be the nominee, but he's never going to have anything but lukewarm support from most conservatives and flat out antipathy from some.
Sep '10
Re: Romney Has To Give More Than Himself
Guilty as charged. It's Romney Derangement Syndrome.
(Actually, I'd wonder if the whole thing was staged.)
Edited on February 9, 2012 at 3:43pmMar '11
Re: Romney Has To Give More Than Himself
Forget all the microscopic analysis of Romney's campaign strategy; he has a larger, insurmountable problem. Romney has no conservative record, just conservative rhetoric. Managing the rhetoric won't help because the record is fixed in history.
Jun '10
Re: Romney Has To Give More Than Himself
"Going negative works." How many times have we heard this from pundits? Going negative works on whom? Under what conditions and with how many people? I think Podhoretz might be correct when he identifies the potential for blow back. Negative adds are like a desperate lunge in fencing. It might land. Or it might result in a skillful riposte with fatal consequences. Can we stick to the issues? I hate this tactic.
Sep '10
Re: Romney Has To Give More Than Himself
Once again demonstrating how Romneybots can't see the problem.
But KT Cat is right. There's no way he can change and his supporters, not all, but most, can't even see what conservatives are talking about.
They are blind to these things. They file them under "purity" under "ignorance" under "un-pragmatic", so convinced they are of their own perspective.
It reminds me of the same thing liberals do. You like capitalism, you are "greedy" you want to cut entitlements, you are "racist" etc.
Re: Romney Has To Give More Than Himself
My favorite part about this comment is that I predicted the exact opposite, that someone would complain and ask why I'm always trying to help Romney ...
But it does prove my point that some Romney supporters don't realize that there's a problem with their candidate's strategy!
May '11
Re: Romney Has To Give More Than Himself
Sorry, J-Pod, gotta disagree with ya there. We are not about to be discouraged by negativity. We are not stupid, and have not forgotten the entire year of 2011, in which the GOP started waging war on the Tea Party.
We will beat you first, and then throw that skinny Marxist out of the White House. So bring on the negativity. See what it gets you.
Edited on February 9, 2012 at 4:00pmSep '10
Re: Romney Has To Give More Than Himself
Agreed, and it's already backfiring. Romney has managed to anger the base of his own party.
Gingrich got it with both barrells for attacking Bain, and it was somewhat justified. Romney has gotten a pass (relatively) in conservative media for his dirty attacks, but NOT with the voters.
Romney is doing everything that conservatives don't want him to do
Speaking in platitudes
Acting as if he's inevitable (dissing voters)
Assuming he only needs to destroy his opponents and remain the last man.
Failing to articulate a vision and adequately defending conservative principles.
I used to be okay with him. Not now. There are many more like me.
May '10
Re: Romney Has To Give More Than Himself
I think the HHS mandate, coupled with the Komen/Planned Parenthood thing is bigger than we are realizing. More and more people are waking up to the reality that we are in an epic battle over first principles. And Romney doesn't get that.
The more he talks about "helping the middle class" and Obama being "a nice guy", the more he reinforces our impression of his not-seeing, and the more concerned we become about giving such a one the presidency at such a moment.
More "positive messaging" won't cut it.
Oct '11
Re: Romney Has To Give More Than Himself
I am getting tired of the gripes about Romney. "Romney's not connecting with the voters." Really? Then why are voters, you know, voting for him? "A majority of GOP primary/caucus voters want someone other than Romney." Really? What percentage of voters want someone other than Gingrich? A majority. Someone other than Santorum? A majority. Paul? A majority. "Romney's only pitch is, 'I'm the best you've got'." Really? And that would be different from every other candidate in history how? When was the last time you heard a candidate say, "vote for me, I'm almost as good as the guy I'm running against!" Give me a break.
May '11
Re: Romney Has To Give More Than Himself
The GOP has zero credit with conservatives. In 2008, we went along with their chosen, media-approved, "don't startle the horses" moderate. We choked back our rising bile, and voted for the big dope. Heck, I supported ROMNEY after Giuliani and somebody else took off, so it's not as though I've just wandered in from the holler o' barefoot hayseeds.
In 2010, the Tea Party behaved, stayed GOP, and delivered a crushing defeat to Obama after the GOP proper had already given up. Say what you want about Angle and O'Donnell, but the Tea Party didn't put the Senate Republicans down to thirty-nine seats, which was the real problem.
I believe (hunch) that before the 112th Congress was even seated, the GOP had decided to sandbag the Tea Party, to demoralize and decimate us. The Tea Party is the only credible threat to the Washington "Party elite" control over both money and the rule of law.
I used to hear "well then I won't vote" only from the petulant PaulPods. The base has spoken clearly for years and years now, and has remained loyal to stupidity even under protest.
Those days are over.
May '11
Re: Romney Has To Give More Than Himself
I agree. Reagan destroyed the wall between East and West Berlin. Obama is blowing up the wall between church and state.
I am agnostic, but it is not the case that I have no dog in this fight any more than the case of the Danish cartoons. I stand with Catholics and the larger religious community in their insistence that their rights be protected as the Constitution requires. I support Bishop Olmsted's warning to instruct Catholics how to vote. This is what these Marxists killers get when they try to blast a hole in our (Americans') religious freedoms.
Apr '11
Re: Romney Has To Give More Than Himself
Haakon Dahl
Sorry, J-Pod, gotta disagree with ya there. We are not about to be discouraged by negativity. We are not stupid, and have not forgotten the entire year of 2011, in which the GOP started waging war on the Tea Party.
We will beat you first, and then throw that skinny Marxist out of the White House. So bring on the negativity. See what it gets you. · 14 minutes ago
Edited 13 minutes ago
That skinny marxist is cruising his way to a second term, and he's doing it because of people like you. But hey, keep pounding your chest, and howling at the moon. See what it gets you.
Edited on February 9, 2012 at 4:21pmMay '11
Re: Romney Has To Give More Than Himself
Let's stick to the issues? What issues? Is there an issue on which the Republican candidates have more than a millimeter of difference between them? If so, I must have missed it.
The only "issue" I can discern among the not-Mitt folks is that he is not "authentic." Meaning, they don't believe what he says. Ok, fine. But that is a personal attack -- no more, no less. So let's not complain about ANY candidate, Mitt included, not sticking to the "issues."
Here in California, I have lived through this kind of thing since the days of Pete Wilson. The Republican party here always tries to nominate someone who is ideologically "pure." As a result, we have lost election after election until the home of Ronald Reagan has become a bankrupt cesspool of socialist failure. A model for the nation? No thanks.
Sep '10
Re: Romney Has To Give More Than Himself
Haakon Dahl
I agree. Reagan destroyed the wall between East and West Berlin. Obama is blowing up the wall between church and state.
I am agnostic, but it is not the case that I have no dog in this fight any more than the case of the Danish cartoons. I stand with Catholics and the larger religious community in their insistence that their rights be protected as the Constitution requires. · 1 minute ago
Thanks. This means more than you can imagine.
May '11
Re: Romney Has To Give More Than Himself
You may need a rest:
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."
- Samuel Adams
Sep '10
Re: Romney Has To Give More Than Himself
Before the flame war gets too hot, a simple observation. It looks to me from these threads that whoever our first choice is, Santorum would be an acceptable second choice for almost all of us. I don't think many people would stay home or vote Libertarian if he was the nominee. Why don't we just support Rick S. and get on with life? I'm completely happy ditching Newt for Rick.
Apr '11
Re: Romney Has To Give More Than Himself
katievs: I think the HHS mandate, coupled with the Komen/Planned Parenthood thing is bigger than we are realizing. More and more people are waking up to the reality that we are in an epic battle over first principles. And Romney doesn't get that.
The more he talks about "helping the middle class" and Obama being "a nice guy", the more he reinforces our impression of his not-seeing, and the more concerned we become about giving such a one the presidency at such a moment.
More "positive messaging" won't cut it. · 16 minutes ago
How many times did Romney call Obama "a nice guy?" This is repeated endlessly here, to the point where you would think it's a major part of his stump speech. He's called Obama a failure constantly.
Barack Obama probably wont lose one percentage point on his approval rating because of the HHS mandate. There is no evidence that "more and more people" are waking up. Most people don't care. With the rapidly improving economy, Obama is well on his way to four more years.
Sep '10
Re: Romney Has To Give More Than Himself
wmartin
That skinny marxist is cruising his way to a second term, and he's doing it because of people like you. But hey, keep pounding your chest, and howling at the moon. See what it gets you. · 4 minutes ago
Edited 2 minutes ago
The boogeyman argument resurfaces! We've heard this one before. The GOP has become But the Other Guy is Worse Party.
It might have some credibility if the sap you and your friends want like Dole, Bush I, John McCain and now Romney can win. But they can't.
Time to take the party in a new direction or leave it to rot.