Shame, Honesty and GOP Voters
Bill Kristol here makes a point that it's better for Rick Santorum to apologize for No Child Left Behind than for Mitt Romney to defend RomneyCare so vehemently.
As we all contemplate what a choice that leaves us with, it reminds me of something I've been ruminating on regarding last night's debate performance. The conventional wisdom is that Santorum did worse because he explained, in part, and apologized, in part, for things he did while in the Senate. Romney, we're to believe, did better because, as Jim Geraghty put it this morning:
Yes, [Romney]’s pretty shameless about going after opponents’ inconsistencies and unpopular positions that he himself held earlier in his career – but the audaciousness of it tends to leave the opposition flustered and infuriated.
Last night, he jabbed at Santorum, “When I was fighting to save the Olympics, you were fighting to save the Bridge to Nowhere.” Really, after lines like that, people doubt Romney’s willingness to go after Obama? If nominated, Romney will probably lacerate Obama on the individual mandate, not cutting spending, insufficient support for drilling, demonizing the wealthy, and so on. Obama may coolly point out Romney’s past support for those positions . . . and I suspect Romney will just ignore it and point out that those positions are the wrong ones, and the American public opposes them. Would voters prefer the consistent man who stands for ideas they oppose? Or will they prefer a flip-flopper who currently holds the positions they support?
Republican voters have repeatedly said they want someone who can beat Obama. So Romney's "shamelessness" here might work to his advantage. But what does it say about us if we prefer such shamelessness over fessing up to mistakes? Or do we?
- Comment (42)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments:
Nov '11
Re: Shame, Honesty and GOP Voters
Well -- part of the problem was the way in which Santorum apologized for his mistake. He spent too much time rationalizing -- we don't need the entire train of thought. He could have dispatched it in one or two sentences and moved on.
But I was thinking about that point too: if Romney can use earmarks so effectively against Santorum and Gingrich, I have no doubt he will manage to attack Obamacare.
He'll bring up Fast and Furious. He'll bring up the contraception mandate. He'll bring up Keystone. He'll use everything he can think of. He'll use some things that are ineffective and pointless, and we'll all be annoyed with him. But he'll make the case against Obama, and he just might pull it off.
Dec '10
Re: Shame, Honesty and GOP Voters
The problem is that Romney often attacks on lines that open him up to attacks in return that hurt him even worse.
Santorum did that in a South Carolina debate when he parried Romney's attack on Santorum supporting voting rights for felons who'd served their time. Santorum forced Romney to admit that Massachusetts law was the same.
Santorum also did that in a debate when he reduced Romney to using a clumsy canned retort: "It's not worth getting angry about." Clearly he had that line in reserve and wanted to use it to make Santorum look angry and cranky - but at the moment he actually used it, the topic WAS worth getting angry about.
If Romney is the nominee and attacks Obama for ObamaCare, I fear Obama will have a full set of arguments ready to turn the attack back on its source. I haven't yet seen Romney press his attacks with the deftness one needs to keep them from being used as weapons against him.
May '10
Re: Shame, Honesty and GOP Voters
Remember, Romney is no lawyer. Obama is. And the judge will be an Obama media toady. Now how do you feel about the debate(s)?
Dec '10
Re: Shame, Honesty and GOP Voters
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
Republican voters have repeatedly said they want someone who can beat Obama. So Romney's "shamelessness" here might work to his advantage. But what does it say about us if we prefer such shamelessness over fessing up to mistakes? Or do we?
I think it's been repeated often enough that Mitt Romney would do himself enormous good if he clearly stated that he regarded RomneyCare as a mistake, along the lines of Santorum's apology for No Child Left Behind: a effort to deal with a real problem, an approach that seemed at the time to incorporate conservative ideas and principles, but that in practice has not achieved its stated goals and has ended up causing cost and disruption.
There is a fine balance in apologizing: does it represent weak flip-flopping or a strong admission of a past error that demonstrates the ability to learn? Remember that earlier in this campaign, there was a lot of focus on Romney's flip-flopping on various issues, in which he changed his positions without offering an apology or even explanation. I think Santorum did himself less harm last night than many pundits are claiming.
Nov '11
Re: Shame, Honesty and GOP Voters
Stuart Creque: The problem is that Romney often attacks on lines that open him up to attacks in return that hurt him even worse.
Santorum did that in a South Carolina debate when he parried Romney's attack on Santorum supporting voting rights for felons who'd served their time. Santorum forced Romney to admit that Massachusetts law was the same.
I didn't think this one would have hurt Romney if the audience had not been unfriendly to him. His answer was fine -- he just took too long to get to the point, and it looked as though he was avoiding it. It was a bizarre issue for Santorum to press and probably did nothing for him in SC.
Santorum did finally nail him on Romneycare though.
The only thing I'm prepared to predict about the fall debates is that our candidate will have the advantage of much more recent debate experience.
Dec '10
Re: Shame, Honesty and GOP Voters
Well, to be fair, there's no evidence that Obama has ever been a competent lawyer.
And doesn't Romney also have a law degree from Harvard?
Dec '10
Re: Shame, Honesty and GOP Voters
Leigh
Stuart Creque: The problem is that Romney often attacks on lines that open him up to attacks in return that hurt him even worse.
Santorum did that in a South Carolina debate when he parried Romney's attack on Santorum supporting voting rights for felons who'd served their time. Santorum forced Romney to admit that Massachusetts law was the same.
I didn't think this one would have hurt Romney if the audience had not been unfriendly to him. His answer was fine -- he just took too long to get to the point, and it looked as though he was avoiding it. It was a bizarre issue for Santorum to press and probably did nothing for him in SC.
Remember though that Romney brought up the subject as an attack on Santorum (and Romney's SuperPAC is still mentioning the felons' voting rights issue in their TV ads, running nationally on Fox News). Romney and his advisers thought this was one of Santorum's weak points, Romney attacked there, and the counterattack drove him back onto defense.
It may happen that the attack on the Specter/Toomey "weak spot" will backfire by highlighting the moderate 2004-edition Romney.
Oct '10
Re: Shame, Honesty and GOP Voters
Kimsfirst Karl Rove just said on @gretawire if MI race is tied, as poll avg says, Dem-for-a-day votes could decide it.
Jan '11
Re: Shame, Honesty and GOP Voters
Stuart Creque
Well, to be fair, there's no evidence that Obama has ever been a competent lawyer.
And doesn't Romney also have a law degree from Harvard? · 6 minutes ago
Yup. Harvard cum laude 1975
Aug '10
Re: Shame, Honesty and GOP Voters
I think apologizing for stances or actions you took just 6 months ago (Gingrich) or 4 years ago (Santorum) is something politicians do when they say what they need to say to get the nomination.
Dec '10
Re: Shame, Honesty and GOP Voters
Yes, but in which direction would the Democrats vote?
May '10
Re: Shame, Honesty and GOP Voters
I stand corrected. Or is that a sign of weakness? A flip-flop?
Feb '12
Re: Shame, Honesty and GOP Voters
Stuart Creque
Yes, but in which direction would the Democrats vote? · 0 minutes ago
Isn't the conventional wisdom that they would vote for Santorum?
Mar '11
Re: Shame, Honesty and GOP Voters
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
But what does it say about us if we prefer such shamelessness over fessing up to mistakes? Or do we?
I prefer Mr Santorum's honest fessing up (I am glad I voted for him, even though he may not win in AZ). He gave a pretty good explanation for it on GBTV today - a 1 hour interview that said much more about him than I have seen elsewhere, including here on Ricochet (hopefully he will one day turn up at Hillsdale, Prof Rahe).
Does Rob prefer shamelessness?
Edited on February 24, 2012 at 5:38amJun '10
Re: Shame, Honesty and GOP Voters
Just for some reference: The "Bridge to Nowhere" was an attempt to turn "Nowhere" into "Somewhere." That's what the bridge was for. Just like, on a larger scale, the Transcontinental Railroad was a "railroad to nowhere" before people started using it, and then, "nowhere" became "somewhere."
Dec '10
Re: Shame, Honesty and GOP Voters
Landfall
Stuart Creque
Yes, but in which direction would the Democrats vote? · 0 minutes ago
Isn't the conventional wisdom that they would vote for Santorum? · 1 minute ago
It's a Game Theory issue.
Maybe a Democrat votes for Romney because he's afraid Obama will lose and he likes Romney best.
Maybe a Democrat votes for Paul because he likes Paul's anti-war and legalization stances.
Maybe a Democrat votes for Santorum because he's a Reagan Democrat and a "bitter clinger" - an ethnic Catholic union member, say.
Maybe a Democrat votes for Gingrich because he wants to mess with the Republicans (I'm sure someone else can think of a reason a Democrat would like a President Gingrich, but one doesn't occur to me).
Maybe a Democrat looks at the head-to-head matchup polls with Obama and votes for the candidate he thinks will do worst for the GOP.
Maybe a Democrat votes for the trailing candidate to keep the primary competitive longer.
Dec '10
Re: Shame, Honesty and GOP Voters
Yeah, but I think the comparative cost of the bridge vs. bulking up ferry service indicated the latter was a better deal. (Who decided that building an airport on the other side of a sound was a good idea, anyhow?)
By the way, why would Romney want to dredge up the "Bridge to Nowhere," which was used by Democrats to hammer Sarah Palin in the 2008 campaign? Bad enough to use a Democrat weapon, but worse to use one when its very use will alienate Sarah Palin's fans in the GOP. It strikes me as a poor tactical move for someone who needs to win a broad cross-section of GOP votes to win the GOP nomination.
Jan '11
Re: Shame, Honesty and GOP Voters
Well I certainly hope Sarah Palin fans don't get alienated over that! ;-)
May '10
Re: Shame, Honesty and GOP Voters
After Wednesday's debate, I've concluded that by bashing Santorum's voting record on extensions of the debt limit, President Romney will find few "team players" in either party in Congress if he decides that the slightest budget deficit is needed in his first year, or his second, and so on. Romney's playing with fire.
Dec '10
Re: Shame, Honesty and GOP Voters
It's possible that Romney's team picked that as the first and most obvious example at hand, without thinking of the implications it had in 2008.
Or it's possible they thought there was some value in getting in a dig at Palin because she's been saying nice things about Gingrich and Santorum, and they wanted to try to get people who listen to her to remember some reason not to listen to her this time.
But whether by accident or by design, they brought it up and it can't help but bring up memories and associations with 2008 and the attacks on Palin (the only context in which it became a national issue).
I think a better strategy would be to try to pull in as many factions of the party as possible to support one's candidacy rather than ignore or even irritate particular groups. I think Ron Paul epitomizes the latter approach, which is why he's always limited to around 10 to 20 percent support.