Romney's Task on Wednesday Evening
Scott Rasmussen's polls differ from those of his rivals in one particular. He samples likely, not registered voters. Come October, however, many of the other pollsters shift their sampling and focus, as Rasmussen does, onto likely voters. They vary their method on the presumption that the likely-voter screen does not mean much until quite late in the game, when self-identified likely voters really are the ones most likely to vote.
Whether Rasmussen is right in his judgment or his rivals are in theirs is an open question. But it is striking that, now that October has arrived, the latest CNN poll has fallen into line with Rasmussen's findings. I am not myself confident that any of these polls are prescient. They tend to weight the likely partisan makeup of the electorate with an eye to the 2008 turnout. I believe that 2010 is a better predictor. The midterm election was a referendum on Barack Obama's accomplishments.
Be that as it may, however, in the worst-case scenario Mitt Romney is right now precisely where he would want to be -- within striking distance of a victory. We are told by the pollsters and by many pundits that the debates rarely matter much. This may be true in years where it is not obvious that a lot is at stake. But they can matter, and they did the last time an insurgent Republican defeated a Democratic incumbent. Ronald Reagan did not appear to be in contention at this time in 1980, but he won a landslide in the end.
There was nothing miraculous about what happened. The economy was a mess in 1980, and Jimmy Carter had made a hash of the Iran crisis. He seemed to be out of his depth. But he was the devil that we knew, and Ronald Reagan was a relative unknown. Sure, we had seen him in the movies; and, yes, he had been a highly visible Governor of California. But you must remember that Americans outsource politics. We choose women and men to represent us and leave them free to act. From time to time, when called upon to do so, we issue a judgment on them. The real question in 1980 was whether we should retain in office the man we knew or roll the dice and choose someone widely demonized as a right-wing nut.
You and I are political junkies. We follow politics closely. We have known for a long time that Barack Obama is a catastrophe unfolding. We know that the "stimulus" bill was a looting exercise, that Obamacare is a vast power grab, and that Dodd-Frank is apt to make the danger posed by the New York banks even greater than it was before. Many of our fellow citizens -- those who rallied to the Tea-Party banner -- are also alert.
But there are a great many Americans who have sleep-walked through the last four years. Many of them voted for Barack Obama in 2008 and were proud that the country had finally elected a black man to the Presidency. They retain a certain affection for him because of that pride, and they do not want to think ill of him -- for to do so they would have to think ill of their own judgment. And yet they sense that all is not well. The Libyan debacle upset them, and they can see that our Mideast policy is in disarray. Moreover, they know about the national debt, and that worries them; they are very much aware of the level of unemployment and underemployment; and they do not like Obamacare. Their knee-jerk response to a pollster's call may be that they lean towards voting for the President, but they are in fact open to the possibility of voting for the other guy -- about whom, in fact, they do not know very much.
That was where a great many Americans stood in early October 1980 -- more comfortable with the devil they knew and with the judgment that they had made in 1976 than with the alternative, but not all that happy with the direction the country was going. Ronald Reagan was not, in fact, a great debater. He was less comfortable on his feet than he was in delivering prepared remarks. But he managed, when finally the American people gave him their attention, to persuade them to roll the dice. That is what Romney has to do on Wednesday night.
My advice would be simple. When asked a question, Mitt Romney should answer the question as directly as possible. That is what Dick Cheney was able to do. It is what Paul Ryan can do. And Romney's people should prepare him to do so.
I have watched innumerable debates, and time and again I have been embarrassed for my country. The pattern is for the candidates to give a canned answer to a question other than the one asked. Were our candidate to display comfort and confidence, were he to reframe at least some of the questions asked in the manner exemplified by Newt Gingrich in the Republican primary debates, were he to state clearly what he intends to do, he would blow his rival out of the water.
In the process, Mitt Romney needs to go on the attack. Clark Judge is, I think, right to suggest that Romney should charge Obama and the Democrats with prolonging the recession, and he should indicate how he would get us out.
But I believe that he should get more personal as well. He should try to get under Obama's notoriously thin skin by attacking him directly -- by suggesting that he enjoys the perquisites of the Presidency a lot more than the job; by pointing to the fact that he left it to Congress to draft the "stimulus" bill, Obamacare, and Dodd-Frank and that, as a consequence, these bills were incoherent, incomprehensible, and more than a thousand pages in length; and by noting that in the last six months the President managed to play golf and hobnob with celebrities with notable frequency, but that he somehow could not find time to meet with his jobs council even once; that he regularly skipped his intelligence briefing; and that he could not manage to meet with foreign dignitaries, such as Benjamin Netanyahu, who had pressing concerns. I can imagine him saying that Barack Obama would be a lot happier if he were relieved of these unwelcome responsibilities and left free to play golf and frolic with the likes of Beyonce and Jay-Z as often as he wants.
This should be done gently -- in such a fashion as to elicit laughter. Barack Obama genuinely hates Mitt Romney, and he may well lose it if his own taste for the high life is mocked.
If Governor Romney handles this in the right manner, there will, in the course of the next few weeks, be a shift in public sentiment in his direction. What he has to articulate is what most Americans sense but no one has thus far clearly said -- that Barack Obama is not a man of executive temper and that he is out of his depth. But there is one more thing that he has to do.
This last task may be difficult for Romney. He is by training and instinct a manager -- uncomfortable with principles and focused on technical competence. Put simply, he is a businessman inclined to be apolitical. That was his stance when he ran for the Senate and for the Governorship in Massachusetts. He was, he intimated, above the partisan fray. He was not even a Republican when Reagan led the country. He was, he said, more a reformer than a Republican, and that is how he handled himself in office -- as an apolitical turn-around artist hired to right the ship.
Governor Romney seems in recent months to have learned in the school of hard knocks the importance of political principles. His remark on the 47%, mistaken though it may have been with regard to the particulars, suggests a dawning realization on his part that the administrative entitlements state, so beloved by those trained in management, can be a corrupting force -- that dependency can destroy a liberal democracy. It is vital that he say so tomorrow night.
We all sense this; Mitt Romney needs to voice it. Then, he needs to make it the central theme of his campaign. Do you want to end up on food stamps permanently? Do you want to become a ward of the state? Or do you want to assert your autonomy and make your own way by finding a job? That is the question.
- Comment (14)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments:
Jan '11
Re: Romney's Task on Wednesday Evening
When you contemplate a landslide, is it based more on Romney's performance as a candidate or Obama's failure as a president?
Re: Romney's Task on Wednesday Evening
The latter, first and foremost, but the former as well. Romney has run a competent campaign, not a brilliant campaign. But, in the circumstances, if he handles himself well in October, that will do the trick. He has been hoarding money; now he will spend it. The real question is whether he will follow through on the logic implicit in his choice of Paul Ryan as his running mate. He needs to bring whom to the American people what is at stake.
May '12
Re: Romney's Task on Wednesday Evening
Thank you, Paul.
Now to what really matters: how are you?
Any particularly apt students?
Re: Romney's Task on Wednesday Evening
Great insight. I so agree with your comment, "My advice would be simple. When asked a question, Mitt Romney should answer the question as directly as possible."
I believe the American people are just longing for authenticity and statesmanship, and that independents will continue to tune out until they find it.
Edited on October 2, 2012 at 4:56pmRe: Romney's Task on Wednesday Evening
Edward Smith: Thank you, Paul.
Now to what really matters: how are you?
Any particularly apt students? · 4 minutes ago
I am doing well. No pain. The incisions seem to be healing slowly, and I have a number of excellent students. Nothing to complain about. The Fall colors here right now are awesome.
Re: Romney's Task on Wednesday Evening
Anne Pierce, Guest Contributor: Great insight. I so agree with your comment, "My advice would be simple. When asked a question, Mitt Romney should answer the question as directly as possible."
I believe the American people are just longingfor authenticity and statesmanship, and that independents will continue to tune out until they find it. · 23 minutes ago
Edited 23 minutes ago
No one wants to vote for a robot for President.
Sep '10
Re: Romney's Task on Wednesday Evening
Romney primary problem is not of his making. In 2007 the country faced a financial crisis and a Republican president backed by most in his and the other party decided not to allow the markets to work. The Fed has been printing money since in order to make this seem like a wise decision. If free market principles are correct this decision has more in common with placing ones finger in a dike than a solution. It is interesting to read pundits who pay lip service to free markets, but try to blame Obama for the tepid recovery. Now Obama's policies have been horrible, but the primary problem is and has been TARP. The flood waters have been rising and the dike has grown weaker. If Romney believes this he can't say it. Obama on the other hand believes we need more of the same and is free to argue so. Unless Romney is willing to run against the Bush/Obama economic policies he is left with disjointed arguments. One cannot embrace the biggest bailout in history and at the same time pretend to be pro free markets and be taken seriously.
May '10
Re: Romney's Task on Wednesday Evening
I'm guessing Obama will try to use that 47% remark to rattle Romney. Instead, Romney should turn the tables: "My contempt is not for the 47%, but for the policies that got us into a situation where so many of us are dependent on government, instead of living with the pride of independence and personal accomplishment. I'm betting that a large percentage of that 47% would much rather be standing on their own two legs, as they could be, if only the government would get its boot off the throat of this economy."
Edited on October 2, 2012 at 6:04pmJan '11
Re: Romney's Task on Wednesday Evening
Rachel, the president hit a home run.
Ooops, sorry, that was my Gergen reflex there.
May '12
Re: Romney's Task on Wednesday Evening
I don't know how you understood what I was feeling inside today -- but you certainly were right on the mark.
Jun '11
Re: Romney's Task on Wednesday Evening
Romney needs to explain in a minute that the housing bubble was the result of government intervention and not greed or George Bush (forcing banks to lend money to people who could not it pay it back) and point the blame squarely at Bill Clinton, and Barney Frank.
The price of gasoline should be an easy target to blame on Obama.
Point out the Senate has not passed a budget in three years.
Even Romneycare can be a lesson in federalism (as in roles for the states versus the national government).
Jan '12
Re: Romney's Task on Wednesday Evening
This is the prime problem facing all Republican politicians, especially incumbents.
We, the hoi polloi, on Ricochet are free to cull through the government's decisions of the past dozen years and reject, absolutely, anything that does not pass the Milton Friedman litmus test!
Entrenched, Republican leadership in Congress, former cabinet members and advisers of Republican presidents and the thousands of civil servants and bureaucrats who ever hope to work in a Republican administration again, are all bound by an unspoken rule that forbids any utterance of criticism of such socialist policies.
An obvious case in point is President Bush's push to enact and enlarge the Medicare Part D drug program.
Consequently, good men, like congressman Paul Ryan, who voted with their Republican leadership for President Bush's 'big government' initiatives, can be tripped up at every turn by President Obama and the press for their inconsistency and hypocrisy.
It doesn't usually work in parenting to lead with, "Do as I say, but not as I do."
This is why Ron Paul had such a loyal following; in spite of his modest 'presence' and debating skills, he rang true to his audience!
Edited on October 2, 2012 at 8:31pmAug '10
Re: Romney's Task on Wednesday Evening
Obama keeps saying that everyone - especially the rich - need to pay their "fair share". Romney should remind him of this bromide and then ask the following, "In light of the fact that 47% of Americans pay no income tax at all, what do you propose as their fair share?"
May '10
Re: Romney's Task on Wednesday Evening
I was reading Daniel Larison's blog today, and he linked to this post. He claims that Rahe's argument here "may have been true in late July or early August, but it ceased to be true five or six weeks ago." Larison then charges, "The only reason that someone wouldn't realize this is if he has been carefully ignoring non-Rasmussen polls and clinging to the illusion that only Rasmussen can be trusted."
Response from Rahe?