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
Let's assume you are right, that the GOP has two wings: people who are interested only in the pragmatic ("just win, baby!") and people who are committed to an ideological viewpoint.
If the pragmatists' candidate wins, the ideologues will not convert to pragmatism -- they're ideologues, after all. So there may well be a purge: pragmatists trying to drive ideologues from the party.
If the ideologues' candidate wins, then it will be a happy confluence of ideology and pragmatism. The pragmatists will be happy to join with the ideologues on the principle that "success has many fathers." No purge will be necessary.
But I suspect that it's not a pragmatist-vs-ideologue divide. I suspect that people who speak loudly about choosing Mitt Romney for his electability are masking a real distaste for the ideology of either the TEA Party or the SoCons (two distinct, albeit overlapping, groups).
Thus if Santorum wins in November, I doubt that Republicans who didn't support him will all rush to convert to his cause.
Dec '10
Re: The Trouble With Mitt
iWc: Isowanted to be sold on Romney.
But I cannot stomach people who, at their core, think they are smart enough to run other people's lives. · 32 minutes ago
I think this comment illustrates my situation.
Do you think Newt is better on this score? I'd love to know anyone who does.
How about Santorum? I personally don't think he is and indeed I think it's pretty clear he's comfortable with feeling he does know better.
At some point, the race has to be about more than Romney's shortcomings. We aren't waiting for the messiah here.
I just think people have made up their minds that Romney is insufficient that they are unwilling to consider he might be the best of the bunch at this stage.
Dec '10
Re: The Trouble With Mitt
Unfortunately, he is the best of the bunch.
Dec '10
Re: The Trouble With Mitt
AmishDude
iWc: Isowanted to be sold on Romney.
But I cannot stomach people who, at their core, think they are smart enough to run other people's lives. · 32 minutes ago
I think this comment illustrates my situation.
Do you think Newt is better on this score? I'd love to know anyone who does.
How about Santorum? I personally don't think he is and indeed I think it's pretty clear he's comfortable with feeling he does know better.
At some point, the race has to be about more than Romney's shortcomings. We aren't waiting for the messiah here.
I just think people have made up their minds that Romney is insufficient that they are unwilling to consider he might be the best of the bunch at this stage. · 1 minute ago
Well, I look at the bunch and I believe Santorum is better than Romney, so our opinions about "best of the bunch" apparently differ.
But that's all right: there's a way to resolve who we'll pick as the best of the bunch. We'll hold a series of primaries and caucuses and call the winner the best.
Dec '10
Re: The Trouble With Mitt
Stuart Creque
But I suspect that it's not a pragmatist-vs-ideologue divide. I suspect that people who speak loudly about choosing Mitt Romney for his electability are masking a real distaste for the ideology of either the TEA Party or the SoCons (two distinct, albeit overlapping, groups).
Thus if Santorum wins in November, I doubt that Republicans who didn't support him will all rush to convert to his cause. · 0 minutes ago
I can only speak for myself. I preferred Perry because I thought he was significantly more conservative and electable.
Now here's what electable means to me: Suppose you are a person who doesn't care about politics. You don't care about ideology, you don't care about liberal vs. conservative. You only know the face and voice you see on TV and what pundits tell you about each guy.
Whom do you vote for?
I contend that nerdy handsome rich guy beats awkward bible-thumper, pompous adulterer and weirdo gnome any day of the week.
Feb '12
Re: The Trouble With Mitt
No one has told anyone else to "get in line." How silly to make that bogus charge. People have argued that for all Mitts flaws, his opponents flaws are much worse, obviously so. For the base to jump, seemingly blindly, from one terrible candidate to another, worse candidates than Romney, has been a foolish exercise that reflects poorly on the sobriety and judgement of those who refuse to look at these non-Romneys with the same scrutiny and high standards they have for Mitt.
This almost exclusive focus on Romneys negatives has so biased the base they can no longer be objective about the good he offers. This sustained bashing has been accompanied by an odd state of denial people demonstrate toward each successive non-Romney they prop up. And despite arguments to the contrary, the intense vetting from the right doesn't make Mitt a better candidate because he won't be attacked from the right in the general. Therefore the time spent bemoaning his flaws in a futile effort to make silk purses of these other sows ears, wastes time that could be spent reminding America how awful Obama is and why he doesn't deserve another term.
Edited on February 17, 2012 at 11:49pmMay '11
Re: The Trouble With Mitt
I have no candidate in this. I haven't figured out who I'm voting for (I'm a New Jersey-an, dead last on the primary trail).
But Ben couldn't have picked a better video to illustrate his point. That is the most discouraging clip of someone campaigning that I have seen in a while.
If Romney can't make the case among friends, how can he do it among the country at large, with lots of enemy terrain and a hostile press?
Dec '10
Re: The Trouble With Mitt
Stuart Creque
Well, I look at the bunch and I believe Santorum is better than Romney, so our opinions about "best of the bunch" apparently differ.
But that's all right: there's a way to resolve who we'll pick as the best of the bunch. We'll hold a series of primaries and caucuses and call the winner the best. · 2 minutes ago
I trust that you are well-informed on this. I disagree with you but I respect that you know what you're talking about. What worries me is that the average primary voter is not fully informed.
Santorum hasn't received the spotlight treatment (and it isn't just the negative FL ads that hurt Newt, most of the country didn't see them) and so that is why people are scrambling to find his past statements.
He's been under-the-radar for some time. I am worried that he's just escaped the usual scrutiny.
Jun '10
Re: The Trouble With Mitt
AmishDude
Stuart Creque
But I suspect that it's not a pragmatist-vs-ideologue divide. I suspect that people who speak loudly about choosing Mitt Romney for his electability are masking a real distaste for the ideology of either the TEA Party or the SoCons (two distinct, albeit overlapping, groups).
Thus if Santorum wins in November, I doubt that Republicans who didn't support him will all rush to convert to his cause.
[...] Now here's what electable means to me: Suppose you are a person who doesn't care about politics. You don't care about ideology, you don't care about liberal vs. conservative. You only know the face and voice you see on TV and what pundits tell you about each guy.
Whom do you vote for?
I contend that nerdy handsome rich guy beats awkward bible-thumper, pompous adulterer and weirdo gnome any day of the week.
Supposedly, Catholics only "thump" their Bibles during Spring Cleaning, to get the dust off. :) Honestly, Santorum is not the one that keeps bringing up his Catholicism. It's his opponents that keep bringing it up, over and over. In fact, Obama made damn sure that it would come up.
Dec '10
Re: The Trouble With Mitt
etoiledunord
Supposedly, Catholics only "thump" their Bibles during Spring Cleaning, to get the dust off. :) Honestly, Santorum is not the one that keeps bringing up his Catholicism. It's his opponents that keep bringing it up, over and over. In fact, Obama made damn sure that it would come up. · 0 minutes ago
Agreed, I was using "bible-thumping" as a euphemism, but Santorum is easily distracted on these issues and is happy -- nay eager -- to fall into the trap.
And whether Catholics are properly bible-thumpers as such, that will be the perception that the non-ideological voters will have.
Apr '11
Re: The Trouble With Mitt
Frequently I feel as if I'm perceived as a gadfly, flitting from candidate to candidate rather than settling on one. Why is taking an interest and changing opinion on candidates before I even have a chance to vote on them a bad thing?
I supported Bachmann, and would have continued to support her had she remained in the race. I looked at Cain. He expressed some of the opinions I liked, but proved unable to deal with attacks from directions he wasn't expecting. Gingrich said some things I like; Gringrich would then say things that'd drive me nuts. Never bothered with Paul or Huntsman.
I'm not sure if I like Romney, and heck, I've tried to like him when he's looked like the most likely nominee. I'm still not honestly convinced he understands just how much conservatives like me believe is at stake. Does Santorum? I'm not certain of that, but he seems closer to my beliefs than otherwise.
This is endgame for liberals. It's not enough to beat Obama, we have to start turning back the clock. Do our candidates understand that? I just don't know.
Re: The Trouble With Mitt
Frozen Chosen: I should clarify that I really wouldn't have a problem with all the anti-Romney articles if occasionally - just occasionally - the editors or contributors would do an anti-Santorum or anti-Gingrich or anti-any of the ABR candidates article.
Santorum has a whole host of issues but will you hear about any of them on this site? Doubtful. · 52 minutes ago
You may have a hard time believing this, Frozen, but it's true--I promise: We've been making an effort for more than two weeks now to find pro-Romney contributors. (Tevi Troy, already a Ricochet contributor, would have been a likely candidate. But Tevi has begun consulting with the Romney campaign, and he doesn't want to be accused of sticking up for Romney here on Ricochet merely because he now receives compensation from the Romney organization.) But while you're searching, feel free to write on behalf Romney--or pointing out the shortcomings of the other candidates.
You're right. Romney commands the support of something like a quarter or a third of the GOP--maybe more, depending on which poll you look at--so he should have some support right here.
Edited on February 18, 2012 at 12:05amFeb '11
Re: The Trouble With Mitt
Just what do you think you're saying, if not "get in line"?
That's what really grates about Romney supporters. You guys can't stop telling us how stupid or nefarious we are to not support him.
This tactic is not winning Romney any votes.
Sep '10
Re: The Trouble With Mitt
I believe Romney might well be the best of the bunch. That's what I'm afraid of.
If a used car salesman gives me a choice of four cars, three of which are rusted junkers and the fourth is a shiny Yugo, I'll stick with the junker I've got. And I think that outside the conservative base, the voters will make the same decision.
Re: The Trouble With Mitt
Robert Promm: The following sums it up best:
Romney is the guy who lost to the guy who lost to the guy the last time. · 2 hours ago
Which is exactly what one Ronald Wilson Reagan was in 1980....
Aug '11
Re: The Trouble With Mitt
Peter Robinson
You may have a hard time believing this, Frozen, but it's true--I promise: We've been making an effort for more than two weeks now to find pro-Romney contributors.
Affirmative Action comes to Ricochet! If the majority of the people here don't like Romney, is there some great need to balance that out? I remain unconvinced such is necessary.
Dec '10
Re: The Trouble With Mitt
DrewInWisconsin
Affirmative Action comes to Ricochet! If the majority of the people here don't like Romney, is there some great need to balance that out? I remain unconvinced such is necessary. · 12 minutes ago
Ricochet is a discussion forum and having someone who explicitly advocates a candidate for president is quite reasonable and desirable. A majority vote doesn't kick out a point of view.
Your post actually proves my point again. It's not Romney vs. Jesus, it's a four-way race. It's easy to oppose the frontrunner, in fact, it's intellectual cowardice. Probably 2/3rds of the people will be with you in a 4-way race no matter what. It's easy to say, "I don't like him". Fine. Who do you like?
Re: The Trouble With Mitt
Frozen Chosen: Ben, If you accomplish 1/10th of what that used BMW salesman has done in his life you will have lived a very accomplished life.
It's so very easy for the pundits to sit on the sidelines and criticize the candidates because pundits are never ever held responsible for what they say. You can be totally wrong today but tomorrow nobody cares when you come out with your next prediction or bit of advice. Being a pundit means never having to say you were wrong.
I am very sad to see Ricochet devolve into nothing more than an anti-Romney site. Just a hint of balance from the editorial staff and contributors would've helped tremendously. · 2 hours ago
This is pretty pathetic. Ben has laid out a systematic critique, and this is all that you can say in response. Yes, indeed, Romney was a fine used-car salesman . . . or whatever. As a political persuader, thus far anyway, he has failed. You should direct your criticism to the man himself.
Oct '10
Re: The Trouble With Mitt
But Peter, we're the Creme De La Creme.
Rush said so.
Dec '10
Re: The Trouble With Mitt
Xennady
Just what do you thinkyou'resaying, if not "get in line"?
That's what really grates about Romney supporters. You guys can't stop telling us how stupid or nefarious we are tonotsupport him.
This tactic is not winning Romney any votes.
· 37 minutes ago
I disagree.
It's one thing to say "I like candidate X because of Y." It's another thing to say "I don't like candidate Z. So there!"
It isn't at all "get in line," it's "please advocate your position rather than hiding behind the flaws of somebody else."
For the record, I was a Perry guy.