The Trouble With Mitt
John Hinderaker encapsulates an assumption which has started to take hold among many of Mitt Romney’s backers: that the fault for what appears to be an increasingly likely 2012 election loss lies with conservatives for making this a real primary. Speaking of the see-saw of not-Romney candidates, he writes:
The same pattern has been repeated more than once during the current, discouraging presidential nominating process. If the GOP loses this year’s presidential contest, the party will have no one to blame but its own activists.
I'm hearing this meme repeated by many increasingly dejected Romney supporters around Washington, D.C. See, if people had just gotten in line when we told them to, the theory goes, things would be looking up. But this is revisionist history, and this is a meme that deserves to die.
It is ludicrous to claim that the fault lies among conservatives for Romney's precipitous drop among independents, which he’s endured over the past month (in some polls, it's been a negative swing of 20 points), the primary reason he now lags Obama in most measures. Consider: since Romney ground Newt Gingrich into pulp in Florida with his 65-1 ad ratio three weeks ago, there has been not one debate, not one major piece of scandal or breaking news, not even one major round of negative ads against Romney. There has only been a series of gaffes on Romney's part (most notably his line about not caring about the very poor) and a series of numbers which show mild economic improvement.
In reality, it’s those who demanded conservatives get in line ages in advance who made a fundamental mistake in how they approached this election. By demanding an ideological shift from a more populist, more fiscally conservative base they no longer direct or control, Romney’s most prominent backers failed to learn any of the right lessons from what led to the 2009-2010 cycles. They failed to realize that the base expected more from a candidate, from a leader, than the politics and policy of the past. This problem worsened when their candidate put forward a meandering, maintenance-based agenda which inspires no one, not even his backers. As Jim Pethokoukis put it recently:
Mitt Romney wants to be the next president of a country in need of serious and sweeping economic reform. And here are the first two points in his 59-point economic plan:
1. Maintain current tax rates on personal income
2. Maintain current tax rates on interest, dividends, and capital gainsNow imagine private-equity boss Romney back at Bain Capital sitting down to read his team’s 59-point turnaround plan for some troubled widget maker. And imagine if the first two action items started with the phrase “Maintain current ….” Romney probably wouldn’t bother reading any further before tossing the report in the trash, calling a meeting, and cracking heads. Heck, if Private Equity Romney were called in to turn around Romney Campaign Inc., axing CEO Romney might be the first move on his to-do list—especially after looking at last night’s numbers from Colorado, Minnesota, and Missouri.
Even worse than this unimpressive agenda is a failing of the candidate: that Romney has proven incapable of selling himself to the American people. In 2008, Romney failed in a horserace against McCain, Huckabee, Giuliani and Thompson. (Read Dan McLaughlin for reasons why.) Having the only real machine in the 2012 cycle and as an experienced candidate, he absolutely should have been able to stand on his own right as soon as this race came down to the far more flawed and less politically capable efforts of Santorum, Gingrich, and Paul. By all rights, he should be running circles around them all.
Romney has every advantage in money, endorsements, organization, name ID, looks, technology, volunteers, mail, data, and infrastructure. What's more, Romney's staff is fastidious and detail oriented. A recent news story focused on the effort his advance team puts into getting the lighting right for their candidate to make for the best newspaper photos the next day. Rick Santorum, for Pete's sake, doesn't even have an advance staff.
The reason Romney hasn’t ended this thing in a walk is that he hasn’t successfully sold himself to the base or the country. He has simply not delivered as a salesman of his ideas or himself. For someone who's been compared time and again to a used BMW salesman, he is stuck in the same pandering rut that prevented him from closing the deal last time around.
Instead of counting on an agenda or an ability to personally inspire, the argument from his supporters has over and over again hinged on Romney’s purported electability. This is one of the weakest arguments to make in a primary, as Romney’s funders have acknowledged recently (because when you win, it’s expected; but when you lose, instead of a speedbump, it strikes at the core of the case you’re making). As the cracks developed in Romney's armor, his prominent backers went from denial of their existence to an argument that they don't matter to increasingly loud demands that Obama's badness as a president will bring everyone together, so there's nothing to worry about.
Here's the problem: that last argument can be used by every candidate in the GOP field - it's not specific to Romney at all. And I personally doubt that it's true.
Again and again, Romney's stump speech turns to how much he loves America the Beautiful, reciting the phrases and talking about the country. It may be sincere, even if it seems bland and rote. But here's the point: even if it's real, the conservative voting base wants and expects more from a candidate than policies of maintenance and mawkish patriotism.
Everything we've seen happen since the election of Barack Obama should've taught Romney and his supporters that lesson. But they decided to play it safe, counting on a terrible economy to bolster their chances. And now, the economy appears to be making slight but steady improvement, and his route to the nomination looks to be an extended trench war paired with an overwhelming air attack – two things designed to chew even further at his ability to pivot back to a general election strategy.
The competitive and lengthy primary is not the reason for Romney’s failure – it’s just revealed the things about him that make him fail. There are three ways Romney supporters could've avoided this circumstance. They could have run a different campaign. They could have run on a different agenda. Or they could have run a different candidate.
- Comment (110)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments:
Dec '10
Re: The Trouble With Mitt
I believe we're in the era of unlearned lessons. The GOP has failed to present a candidate capable of making the argument for right over left, right over wrong, and truth over false promises. The problem with Romney isn't that he's imperfect, it's that he's unpersuasive.
There's something akin here to the Catholic Church abetting the federal government takeover of healthcare and then after the HHS mandate, still insisting on some moral equivalence between the Left's downplaying of abortion politics and the Right's downplaying of the "rights" of immigrants (illegals).
Meanwhile, I've seen my first Romney yard sign in the neighborhood. "Believe in America." Not, Believe in Liberty. A nice squishy "mawkish" patriotism, as Ben says. Did you know the Democrats' theme for their convention is "The People's Convention?" It'd be nice if the GOP could riff on the parallels with the communist People's Republics, but hey, an argument for "America, where the People govern," is probably too populist or anachronistic, eh?
There's only one message which needs to be driven home: any accommodation with the Left is a step further down the road to serfdom.
Apr '11
Re: The Trouble With Mitt
Franco
He loves our Constitution? Where's the proof of that? Hesaysso? Does he understand the Constituion? I really don't know, actually he hasn't demonstrated that he knows much about it. He makes assertions. Big deal. He uses the word "conservative" about himself some 20 odd times in his CPAC speech.
If some guy started telling me he was a "straight male" over and over, I'd start to wonder about him, ya know what I mean?
Nothing but platitudes from you folks. "We have an optimistic candidate who loves America and loves the Constitution"
Do you think we were born yesterday and Romney is the first politician we have ever encountered? ·
I don't think the platitude is all the defense offered, but it seemed bizarre to use it as an attack.
In terms of constitutionality, the strength of his originalist philosophy has won him the support of every Republican National Lawyers Association officer I know, Justice Bork, the Beckett Fund For Religious Liberty, and others. He doesn't make expansive claims for the Constitution's remit, but he acts on what it does say.
He strongly advocates federalism, and promotes the rule of law.
Apr '11
Re: The Trouble With Mitt
Douglas Wingate:
Paul Rahe quite evidently considers federalism an important issue and is not at all dismissive of it, as one can see quite easily by examining his posts of the last few months. What Dr. Rahe dismissed was Mitt Romney's merely ad hoc invocation of federalism as a defense of his healthcare plan, which Romney had previously held up as a model for the nation. ....
Again, we have a search function, James. Shame on you for making such a sloppy distortion, as if no one would bother to check your veracity. ·
Prof. Rahe does not consider federalism to be a "substantive", or, elsewhere, "serious" difference between Obamacare and Romneycare.
More importantly, Rahe attacks the constitutionality of Romneycare, while admitting that he has no basis for this other than a sense that John Adams would have opposed mandates (despite Adams using a mandate in the Massachusetts constitution (Article III)), and occasionally uses "enumerated powers" to describe state government powers.
Romney applies federalism elsewhere, particularly in his Medicaid reforms. Model laws are how federalism is intended to work; Romney advocated universal adoption of a mandate, but opposed federal adoption, even in 1994 (Santorum also opposed Newt then), and in hardback.
Sep '10
Re: The Trouble With Mitt
James,
Excuse me, but I'm just tired of being misunderstood by Romney supporters. I saw the smiley face and took it as a little dig - a rhetorical rejoinder, making my assement of Romney's weakness in this regard into a characature. See, that's a real problem with Romney and I'm desperately hoping that if he does get the nomination he's not what I'm beginning to think he is.
I'm trying to convey why Romney doesn't resonate with a certain segment of Republican voters. Now is a time where the kind of presentation typified by the video is incongruent. I see a real threat from the left immanent danger economically as well and political landmines everywhere and a GOP POTUS will have to be formidable, and I'm not seeing it with Mitt.
But again I see it comes from how people see the threats. Romney people don't see the left as much of a threat, therefore they will not understand how conservatives, who do see the left as a threat through the massive growth of government power, reacting to wide-eyed optimism and happy contentment with a bit of distain.
May '10
Re: The Trouble With Mitt
Albert Arthur:
Question for Peter Robinson: Tevi Troy can't write about Romney because he's getting paid by the Romney campaign but Rick Santorum can write about Rick Santorum?
I think it's great that there are posts on the main feed under Rick Santorum's byline, by the way. I just think it's silly that Tevi Troy thinks he shouldn't be writing.
Also, I find it odd that people keep saying that Romney isn't winning over the base. He's got 42% of the over all vote count at this point. Ok, it's not 51%, but it's pretty close.
I've also heard the argument that Romney is ahead because turn out is low. Well, excuse me, but aren't the people who always turn out, even in down years, the, you know, base? · 4 hours ago
Just want to underscore this point Peter. Paid operatives for Santorum are writing posts for the Senator -- which is fine. So paid operatives for Romney are capable and welcome to do the same. Detailed articulation of a candidate's views that we can then weigh in on is good, valuable content that ought to be encouraged.
Apr '11
Re: The Trouble With Mitt
Franco: James,
I'm trying to convey why Romney doesn't resonate with a certain segment of Republican voters. Now is a time where the kind of presentation typified by the video is incongruent.
If you mean he wasn't passionate in the clip, I agree. I don't know the context, but it looks as if he was answering a question. I know that when I was asked about my love for America, perhaps the most formative passion of my life (for my sins), a couple of years back I had a fairly similar response (the questioner excluded law and politics); the thing that pulled my heartstrings at that moment was the excellent, healthy, and delicious frozen meals you just can't get here. Meditating on the inchoate nature of my patriotism for my adopting country awakened me to similarities in my feelings for my girlfriend, which I could also not reduce to specifics, which train of though led to our marriage.
If this was a Romney ad, it would be terribly weak. His love of home, like my love of Catherine, is passionate and deeper; I've heard him talk about it in Nevada. Sometimes love is inarticulate.
Apr '11
Re: The Trouble With Mitt
Franco: James,
But again I see it comes from how people see the threats. Romney people don't see the left as much of a threat, therefore they will not understand how conservatives, who do see the left as a threat through the massive growth of government power, reacting to wide-eyed optimism and happy contentment with a bit of distain. · 41 minutes ago
I gather our impressions of Romney people are pretty different. Without meaning to be too mawkish, I've sat with people while they cried, and cried myself, in despair at the harm that the left threatens to inflict on our country. I regularly include the non-passage of the Employee Free Choice Act in my prayers of gratitude, and pray that the world survives under the weight of acts that have passed. I'll link to some of my musings on a different thread tonight on the nature of the threat, which I view as existential.
And that's just amongst us non-Mormon "Romney People". Mormons, in my experience, tend to be amongst the most apocalyptically concerned people in America. They're also well aware of the abuse of the left, as regular recipients.
Oct '10
Re: The Trouble With Mitt
you're wrong. he was able to sell himself to floridians, only to screw it up the following day with 2 boneheaded comments within the span of 24 hours. This is all mitt's fault. I wonder if he even realize his bigger mistake (his minimum wage comment) that drove conservatives who were willing to give him a second chance bonkers.
May '11
Re: The Trouble With Mitt
If there is one thing that's sillier than letting the perfect become the enemy of the good, it is noticing that you don't have any "perfect" and therefore letting the deeply flawed become the enemy of the good.
I thought this was going to happen to the Democrats this year, not to us. I thought they would be the ones who would be disenchanted with their messiah, and stay home. Instead, our side is disenchanted that we don't have a messiah, and may stay home. As if beating Obama wasn't important enough, in and of itself.
May '10
Re: The Trouble With Mitt
Trace Urdan
Albert Arthur:
Tevi Troy can't write about Romney because he's getting paid by the Romney campaign but Rick Santorum can write about Rick Santorum?
I just think it's silly that Tevi Troy thinks he shouldn't be writing.
Just want to underscore this point Peter. ... Detailed articulation of a candidate's views that we can then weigh in on is good, valuable content that ought to be encouraged.
Hang on a second. I read Peter's earlier comment to mean that he is encouraging Romney supporters to offer their take but those folks are declining of their own accord.
This site is like many of us: we're begging Romney to do something, anything to give us a reason to accept him as the nominee. However, like now, he rarely delivers. Maybe he thinks he's too cool for school. Maybe he's stuck in the candidate protection program. Even worse, maybe he just doesn't have anything to say. But I see no reason to fuss at Peter because Romney won't defend himself. (If I misread you, I apologize.)
Edited on February 18, 2012 at 2:47pmRe: The Trouble With Mitt
James Of England
Stuart Creque
Santrorum is also nerdy and good-looking, a great family man, dealing with the struggle of a handicapped child, wealthy but not to the point of setting up a huge trust fund for his kids. I think more people will find him relatable than they will Mitt Romney.
We shall see. ·
This is certainly the agreed debate right now, with Mitt and Snyder attacking unions and Santorum attacking elites who look down on the electorate like snobs. As you suggest, it's not clear how this will work out; probably better for Santorum in Michigan than Arizona.
Prof. Rahe says that Mitt losing his birth state implies defeat. Worth noting that Santorum is guaranteed to lose his birth state, where he is off the ballot. Gingrich and Paul will likewise lose Pennsylvania. Bachmann lost Iowa. · 13 hours ago
It is all a question of expectations. Having Rick Snyder on his side will do Romney no good here. Snyder is the classic businessman-politician. He sees an unbalanced budget and raises taxes.
Re: The Trouble With Mitt
John Marzan
. . . he was able to sell himself to floridians, only to screw it up the following day with 2 boneheaded comments within the span of 24 hours. This is all mitt's fault. I wonder if he even realize his bigger mistake (his minimum wage comment) that drove conservatives who were willing to give him a second chance bonkers. · 3 hours ago
Yes, it caused me to roll my eyes. On the mortgage foreclosure question, Romney is fabulous. The only explanation that I can come up with for his folly on the minimum wage question is that he is poorly educated and does not know it.
And do not reply huffily by telling me that Romney attended Harvard Law School and the Harvard Business School. If you do, you are making my point. Those are now and were from their foundation training schools for Progressivism.
Not so long ago, Romney claimed that he became a conservative as a consequence of his experience as a businessman and not from reading Hayek. This helps explain the limits of his conservatism. He thinks that our problems stem from mismanagement when they stem from perverse political principles.
Oct '11
Re: The Trouble With Mitt
Michigan is being turned around by Michiganders. A new Republican governor backed by a Republican legislature have started to unwind all the damage the Canadian Socialist previous Democrat Governor and legislature inflicted on the state. California is doomed no matter who is president. Michigan now has a chance to turn around thanks to the voters and it won't matter who is president. Texas has prospered despite the current president. States have the power to determine their own destiny. It is up to the voters.
Jul '10
Re: The Trouble With Mitt
The problem with Mitt is that, despite his pretensions of sterling expertise, anyone that has ever read Hayek and Hazlett is way ahead of him on Presidential Economics 101, and his off the cuff remarks, like the one on minimum wage, show it. That is not a "flaw", that is a disqualification.
May '10
Re: The Trouble With Mitt
They aren't running the campaign, nor are they determining the agenda, nor do they have any ability to coax another candidate into the field.
They have only contended -- time and time again -- that Mitt Romney is the least bad option of this spectacularly flawed field. And the best evidence that they are correct is that our own Prof. Rahe, a man seemingly placed on this earth to make eloquent cases against Mitt Romney, is still leaning toward Mitt Romney. QED.
Yes, it's a drag. But this is the world as it is, not as we wish it to be. And in all the thousands of anti-Romney posts and comments here at Ricochet, I have yet to read even a single convincing argument against this position.
[Poop] happens. Romney happens. Accepting such unhappy facts in a whine-free, make-the-best-of-it manner is a perfectly conservative thing to do. In fact, it's the most consevative thing to do.
Re: The Trouble With Mitt
Scott Reusser
Theyaren't running the campaign, nor aretheydetermining the agenda, nor dotheyhave any ability to coax another candidate into the field.
They have only contended -- time and time again -- that Mitt Romney is the least bad option of this spectacularly flawed field. And the best evidence that they are correct is that our own Prof. Rahe, a man seemingly placed on this earth to make eloquent cases against Mitt Romney,is still leaning toward Mitt Romney. QED.
· 11 minutes ago
Fair enough. But I might be wrong. I really might. Santorum has an opportunity to prove me wrong. In another regard Romney has such an opportunity as well. In Florida, he showed, briefly, that he could learn from his prior mistakes. Then, he relapsed with regard to the minimum wage. I hope against hope that he improves.
Re: The Trouble With Mitt
James Of England
Douglas Wingate:
Paul Rahe quite evidently considers federalism an important issue and is not at all dismissive of it, as one can see quite easily by examining his posts of the last few months. What Dr. Rahe dismissed was Mitt Romney's merely ad hoc invocation of federalism as a defense of his healthcare plan, which Romney had previously held up as a model for the nation. ....
Again, we have a search function, James. Shame on you for making such a sloppy distortion, as if no one would bother to check your veracity. ·
Prof. Rahe does not consider federalism to be a "substantive", or, elsewhere, "serious" difference between Obamacare and Romneycare.
More importantly, Rahe attacks the constitutionality of Romneycare, while admitting that he has no basis for this other than a sense that John Adams would have opposed mandates (despite Adams using a mandate in the Massachusetts constitution (Article III)), and occasionally uses "enumerated powers" to describe state government powers. · 14 hours ago
There you go again, James. See my latest post.
Dec '10
Re: The Trouble With Mitt
Fastflyer
Michigan is being turned around by Michiganders. A new Republican governor backed by a Republican legislature have started to unwind all the damage the Canadian Socialist previous Democrat Governor and legislature inflicted on the state. California is doomed no matter who is president. Michigan now has a chance to turn around thanks to the voters and it won't matter who is president. Texas has prospered despite the current president. States have the power to determine their own destiny. It is up to the voters. · 2 hours ago
That is great to hear.
On a side note, it doesn't sound like a great argument for Mitt Romney or whoever the GOP candidate is. I suppose the way to sell it is that Michigan, Texas and other states are prospering despite President Obama, and electing the Republican will help the rest of the states prosper with the new President's support.
Sep '10
Re: The Trouble With Mitt
You can't be awkward, stiff or inauthentic running for President.
May '10
Re: The Trouble With Mitt
Ronaldus Maximus
You can't be awkward, stiff or inauthentic running for President. · 2 hours ago
Unless your competition is a sourpuss (Santorum, too frequently) or lacks discipline (Gingrich) or can't string two sentences together (Perry) or is ignorant (Cain) or is just a wee bit nutty (Bachmann) or is a pompous dork (Huntsman) or is a punt-on-first-down quitter (Pawlenty).
Which, again and as always, is the best case for Romney.