The (Thin) Case for Romney
In a post entitled "For President in 2012, Mitt Romney," John Hinderaker, one of my friends over at Powerline, has just endorsed Romney. John is a superb lawyer--a litigator, which is to say the kind of lawyer who actually shows up in court and argues in front of judges and juries--a fine political analyst, and, as I say, a friend. Yet what strikes me in reading his case for Romney is how easy--how astonishingly easy--it is to rebut. To wit:
"It is time," John writes, "for Republicans to get serious....Let's itemize Romney's virtues."
First, he is a tremendously smart, competent and hard-working person....
So was Jimmy Carter. For that matter, so were James Buchanan and Millard Fillmore.
Second, Romney has led an exemplary life.
Again, so had Jimmy Carter--as again (as best I can recall) James Buchanan and Millard Fillmore.
Third, Romney has exactly the expertise we need for the next four years.
Consider Romney's experience in both the public and private sectors.
In the public sector, Romney served just four years as governor of Massachusetts. He enacted sound budgets, but, as the fourth Republican governor in a row in Massachusetts, he inherited a budget that was in generally sound condition in the first place. His only other accomplishment, if you want to call it that, was RomneyCare, hardly a qualification for the White House.
That leaves Romney's career in the private sector, his years as one of the early experts in leveraged buyouts or private equity. There is no doubt that he proved immensely successful--he has a fortune of a couple of hundred million dollars to prove it. But presidents don't start companies. They don't woo investors. Their ability to hire and fire management is close to zero--in a government that employs millions, they themselves hire only a couple of hundred, and then they're pretty much stuck with them--when it comes right down to it, even forcing out a direct presidential report such as a Cabinet secretary is a politically costly event--and of course hiring and firing federal bureaucrats or members of Congress is impossible. What presidents do--what presidents must do--is to persuade, to move, to enliven, to compel. In recent years, the two presidents who proved the most successful in promoting economic growth were Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. Neither possessed any experience as a business executive whatsoever.
Fourth, Romney can and will, I think, beat Barack Obama.
Here let me simply quote reporter Jonathan Last in the current issue of The Weekly Standard:
"Romney has the least-impressive electoral history of any Republican frontrunner in a very long time....Over the years, Mitt Romney has faced voters in 22 contests. He won 5 of those races and lost 17 of them....Romney’s electoral record becomes even more underwhelming when you examine the particulars.
"He first attracted national notice in 1994 when he mounted what was considered a strong challenge to incumbent senator Ted Kennedy. But when it came time to vote, Romney lost by 17 points in what turned out to be the best year for Republicans in more than half a century. In 2002, Romney won the gubernatorial race in Massachusetts. This victory—the triumph of a Republican in deep-blue Massachusetts—is now the cornerstone of his 2012 “electability” rationale.Yet...Romney [failed]...to break the 50-percent mark in his 2002 victory....After three years in office, Romney’s approval rating was so low that he was forced to abandon hope of reelection....
"[I]t is worth understanding that if elections are markets and candidates products, then Mitt Romney’s problems this time around aren’t some great mystery. It’s just that no matter where he’s run, whether in primaries or statewide elections, he’s never sold particularly well."
My friend John Hinderaker may be right. Romney may be the best the GOP can do. And if Romney wins the nomination, I'll certainly support him. But even now--even after Romney has been running for president for more than five years--the case for Romney remains astonishingly thin.
The contest in Iowa remains fluid, even volatile. Despite two weeks of pounding, polls show, Gingrich maintains substantial leads in South Carolina and Florida. And as Bill Kristol argued recently, even as late as February a new candidate could jump into the race, then win enough delegates to capture the nomination.
This race ain't over.
- Comment (39)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Apr '11
Re: The (Thin) Case for Romney
Romney did not take a sound budget and tinker meaninglessly. Romney cut spending in real terms over his time in office, turning billions of dollars of annual deficit into a good size surplus.
There seems to be some confusion over this point and its significance. People sometimes respond by saying that Gingrich did the same, but he didn't. Spending went up in real terms, every year he was Speaker. Perry has an excuse (Texas grew like Topsy), and Bachmann and Paul are loners without responsibility for what happens during their dissents from Congress. Newt would have cut spending if he'd been competent at following through on promises.
Still, Mitt is the only guy running who has actually cut government spending, and he cut it with the severity that would fix much of America's fiscal problems. He was also the only guy in 2008, and would have been if he'd been running in any other post-war primary (I think).
While people suggest that it's nice, but not all that big a deal, they really suggest that they don't appreciate how serious the spending problem is. Speaking out against spending is not enough.
Edited on Dec 27, 2011 at 8:54pmRe: The (Thin) Case for Romney
I'd agree, James of E, that Romney's budget work isn't well understood--and I didn't mean to suggest that he "tinkered meaninglessly." As best I can tell, his work on the budget was okay, but only okay. (I grant that that's a matter of judgement.)
For readers who'd like an overview, here's a detailed analysis of the Romney budget record by the Club for Growth. As the analysis notes, "The Cato Institute, a free market think tank rates the country’s governors on a biennial basis. In both their 2004 and 2006 reports, they gave then-Governor Romney a “C” on tax and spending issues."
Apr '11
Re: The (Thin) Case for Romney
I wonder if you'd disagree with these other arguments for Romney:
1: Good hiring instincts matter, contrary to your claim that Presidents don't do it. There is a reason that Romney was a Miers opponent, and a reason it matters (along with a reason that so much of the conservative legal bench backs him, from Bork on down).
Peter Robinson
presidents don't start companies. They don't woo investors. Their ability to hire and fire management is close to zero
2. They do analyze budgets, and budget proposals. Presidents getting caught out by Congress on this has been a problem in the past.
3. They also negotiate treaties; much of the work is done by others, but key elements have frequently come from the premiers themselves (eg. NAFTA, SALT, Helsinki).
4.His private sector work involved managing and launching innovative unsubsidized companies, making him a natural deregulator.
5. His defense policy involves investing in defense rather than cutting it. For some commenters, this is a downside, but it is nonetheless a reason for some conservatives to support him (it's a big issue for me).
5. His labor policy is also hard hitting and conservative.
May '10
Re: The (Thin) Case for Romney
Peter I've listened to Ricochet since almost the beginning. Like it so much I havent missed a UK episode since then and generally I've found you to be even handed but with regard to Romney you really have a bur in your bonnet. I couldn't understand the fascination with Perry. Everyone in Texas where I am knew he wasn't ready for prime time but you were willing to look at anybody but Romney and then one episode it hit me. You worked for Reagan you love Reagan and Romney disavowed him in the 90s. It was a mistake. He should apologize to you and you as a good Catholic should forgive. This race is over unless someone else jumps in. Gingrich has showed he won't move the independents. Bachman surely won't and Santorum is too hard core on the social issues to get that wobbly 7% in the middle. Who doesn't love Paul until you imagine any conflict. It's Romney. Let's stop shooting inside the tent and focus on getting this self described lazy President out. Missing the Podcast this week. Hope you enjoy the break.
Apr '11
Re: The (Thin) Case for Romney
Peter Robinson: I'd agree, James of E, that Romney's budget work isn't well understood-.... [space]... -As best I can tell, his work on the budget was okay, but only okay. (I grant that that's a matter of judgement.)
For readers who'd like an overview, here's a detailed analysis of the Romney budget record by the Club for Growth. As the analysis notes, "The Cato Institute, a free market think tank rates the country’s governors on a biennial basis. In both their 2004 and 2006 reports, they gave then-Governor Romney a “C” on tax and spending issues." ·
Read the "spending" section; you'll find it agrees with what I said, although it adds detail (the overall cut was accomplished by a huge cut in the first year, a smaller cut the second, and increases smaller than the cuts in the last two). What it doesn't say is that this was due to literally hundreds of veto overrides, but as the overrides are a problem, this is fair.
Cato strongly prefer tax cuts to deficit cuts; we can and probably do disagree about whether this is conservative, but that's their issue.
Jul '11
Re: The (Thin) Case for Romney
Would Monsieur prefer a case for Romney. Non?, but Monsieur, the case is only wafer thin. Ahh d'accord, Bon Apetit!
May '10
Re: The (Thin) Case for Romney
Ok, so Romney doesn't excite you. He doesnt excite me; he impresses me by the diversity of his demonstrated talents and successes. Has it ever occurred to you that post-Obama, and with the x-ray vision of new media, and social media, "excitement" is not what we want, and perhaps largely an illusion?
Dec '10
Re: The (Thin) Case for Romney
How is it "time for Republicans to get serious" -- and more importantly, how is "getting serious" equated to foreclosing all of our options and closing ranks behind one candidate? It seems there is a great deal of time for the different candidates to make their respective cases. And the field will winnow itself down after Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina as the "low-scorers" find they haven't got the resources to continue -- and haven't the momentum that would give them access to those resources.
This cuts both ways. At present, I don't want Romney to be our nominee. If he faces continued competition, perhaps he'll make a case I can accept for his nomination (or at least, make a case for me to accept his nomination if he wins it over other candidates I prefer).
May '10
Re: The (Thin) Case for Romney
DocJay, funny you go into fake French--that Mitt speaks French and lived in France is one of the reasons he impresses me.
Dec '10
Re: The (Thin) Case for Romney
In times of desperation, it's important to have a leader who can inspire us to follow him. If Romney offers us keeping things on an even keel, that means we're going to drift along in a state of stagnation.
I want a leader who can persuade Congress and the public to accept the need for radical change, who can get them to see and share his vision. I do not want a G.H.W. Bush who understands that intellectually ("the vision thing"; "message: I care") but has no capability of following through on it and making an emotional connection with voters and legislators.
Dec '10
Re: The (Thin) Case for Romney
I think DocJay was referencing Mr. Creosote.
Apr '11
Re: The (Thin) Case for Romney
I agree that Peter looks at Romney's Reagan moment through Peter's eyes, ie. judging Reagan on Peter's terms. This overlooks Romney's deep relationship with his father, George Romney, who disastrously managed his 1994 run, and whose life was pretty comprehensively wrecked from '68-'72, in part due to Reagan and Reagan supporters.
Romney's response, in substance, was that of any candidate after an unpopular President in their race; judge me on my merits/ I am not him. The problem for people in Peter's position wasn't the content, which was obviously milder than eg., the acceptable to Peter Gore campaign of Perry's. It was Romney's personal (not policy) distaste for Reagan, which isn't lost until George dies the next year, 1995.
Jul '11
Re: The (Thin) Case for Romney
ParisParamus, it was my best imitation of a Monty Python sketch in which the diner, Mr Creosote explodes following a wafer thin mint. Sorry if that came off as a faux pas. I will vote for Romney if he gets the nod. He is intelligent, articulate and worldly. I also find he has a decent set of plans to stem the progressive tidal wave. I am greatly concerned he will play a gentleman's counterpunching game with someone aiming a billion dollar bazooka at him, his family, and rich white people in general.
Apr '11
Re: The (Thin) Case for Romney
This bit I don't agree with, though. America is great because, inter alia, it has vigorous primaries which ensure a unique degree of democracy. I think he's wrong to think that actual spending cuts are unexceptional (again, no one else in any recent primary has done this, let alone in the face of hostile veto-proof legislature), and unfairly stung over the '94 Reagan line, but there are wise people who agree with him on both issues (and even if they didn't, all his views are definitionally supported by a wise man).
If the spending is unexceptional, he shouldn't pretend otherwise. If 1994 is a character flaw, Peter should hammer at it; forgiveness is important, and if Mitt bumps into Peter after the election, I'm sure both would be gentlemanly, but it would be misguided to forgive/ forget all meaningful flaws before the election.
Mar '11
Re: The (Thin) Case for Romney
Peter Robinson
"It is time," John writes, "for Republicans to get serious....Let's itemize Romney's virtues."
So was Jimmy Carter.
Again, so had Jimmy Carter.
Cold, Peter. And all too accurate, unfortunately.
Mitt Romney has been running for President for four (five? six?) years now, and his support has skyrocketed from around 23% to around 23%.
What the Romney campaign needs is a turnaround specialist.
I don't know who I like. At this point, it's pretty much "none of the above."
May '10
Re: The (Thin) Case for Romney
DocJay, I knew you weren't being serious. Or complementary. By the way, I think Romney would be very persuasive before Congress. With a historically low demonization potential score. I just think too many people here are off the mark when it comes to what will work, both Pre- and post-November 2011.
Sep '10
Re: The (Thin) Case for Romney
I have many concerns about a Romney candidacy, but my main concern is this: I don't think he can beat Obama, and I don't think any of the other current candidates can either.
On my trip back home, away from the slightly rarefied world of Ricochet and its well-informed members, I met an old friend who is conservative but doesn't read the political columns, blogs etc. Without any prompting, she expressed her frustration that the Republicans "can't seem to find a worthwhile candidate." This is only a sample of one, but she's the sort of person who will vote Republican no matter what. If she's dismayed, I think a lot of other average conservative voters are too; and that spells big trouble for the GOP.
Oct '10
Re: The (Thin) Case for Romney
Peter Robinson
"It is time," John writes, "for Republicans to get serious...."
Mr. Spock has the best response to Mr. Hinderaker.
Re: The (Thin) Case for Romney
Since several folks have raised my Reagan connection. Yes, I consider Romney's 1994 disavowal of Reagan a very serious problem. I tried to explain myself in a post I wrote about this ages ago--so long ago, maybe, that it warrants re-posting.
For what it's worth:
Why Mitt Romney Has My Best Wishes, But Not My Support
Dec '10
Re: The (Thin) Case for Romney
dogsbody: I have many concerns about a Romney candidacy, but my main concern is this: I don't think he can beat Obama, and I don't think any of the other current candidates can either.
On my trip back home, away from the slightly rarefied world of Ricochet and its well-informed members, I met an old friend who is conservative but doesn't read the political columns, blogs etc. Without any prompting, she expressed her frustration that the Republicans "can't seem to find a worthwhile candidate." This is only a sample of one, but she's the sort of person who will vote Republican no matter what. If she's dismayed, I think a lot of other average conservative voters are too; and that spells big trouble for the GOP. · Dec 27 at 9:45pm
Don't be discouraged: I know a number of the sort of person who will vote Democrat no matter what -- and they say they will never again vote for Barack Obama. Whoever the GOP nominee is, the Anybody But Obama emotional imperative will turn out GOP voters for him/her. There is no emotional imperative to drive votes for Obama.