Well, Bret, Your List is Just, Uh, Not Accurate
Romney lit a long, slow fuse, I think, during his interview earlier this week with Bret Baier of Fox News. That interview bothered a lot of people. Romney appeared crisp and articulate, at least superficially. But there was something about his performance that just didn't sit right. Now, a couple of days later, the view appears to be crystallizing that the outstanding feature of the interview wasn't Romney's usual smoothness. It was his petulance.
Exhibit A: Scott Johnson of Powerline, as fair-minded a conservative as ever you'll find. "Just when the logic of a Romney candidacy was about to impress itself on me," Scott writes today,
Romney consented to an interview with Bret Baier....It is an unimpressive performance. Baier conducts himself in a perfectly professional manner. When challenged with predictable questions by Baier, Romney is by turns discombobulated and even petulant (great line: “We’re going to have to be better informed about my views on issues”) before he recovers his footing toward the end of the interview.
By contrast with the persona he has projected in the GOP debates, Romney is, in the interview, flappable. And Mitt, we’re not gonna read your damn book.
In itself, none of this represents an argument for Newt Gingrich--elsewhere in the post, as in other posts on Powerline, Scott himself makes clear his profound reservations about the former speaker. But the strange weakness of Mitt Romney continues.
Mollie posted on the interview here on Ricochet on Tuesday, the day of the interview itself--a post that received more than 70 comments. But in case you haven't seen the interview, which lasts just over a quarter of an hour, here it is again:
- Comment (25)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
May '10
Re: Well, Bret, Your List is Just, Uh, Not Accurate
I really, really, really want to like Romney. I really do. It's just... I also don't like being snookered. Every time I watch Romney speak, I get the sense there's something he's not quite telling me. He seems to want me to join his bandwagon. He's extended his hand to me as I run alongside. I'm looking up into his eyes with eagerness, but then all of the sudden the bandwagon hits a pothole and Romney's positions which seemed so in place come tumbling out knocking me down. "Get up and jump on my bandwagon!" he yells. "I'd love to, but I just don't trust you!" I call back.
Jun '10
Re: Well, Bret, Your List is Just, Uh, Not Accurate
After his missionary stint in France, and earning his advanced degrees, has Mitt ever been in a position, anywhere, where somebody at the office didn't have to "kiss his ring" everyday? Over time, you can get very comfortable having the final word on things, or at least the penultimate word on things. Apparently, Bret didn't know his place. Bret was addressing the king.
Aug '10
Re: Well, Bret, Your List is Just, Uh, Not Accurate
Peter, I will watch when I get home, but the thing that struck me about the commentary on Powerline and on Hot Air was how much they said about Romney sounded like the commentaries about the testiness of President Obama when faced with a fair interview.
Dec '10
Re: Well, Bret, Your List is Just, Uh, Not Accurate
Mitt compounded the damage by taking Bret Baier aside after the interview and whining to him about how unfair it was. Seems like he's pretty darn flappable.
Remember when he snapped at the questioner in Iowa that "corporations are people too"? Although that's technically correct, it was one of the more politically stupid outbursts of this campaign season: there is a way to say that without coming across as caring more for corporate people than the flesh-and-blood kind.
Jan '11
Re: Well, Bret, Your List is Just, Uh, Not Accurate
I completely agree with FeliciaB. Her comments are nearly identical to what I hear from many of my conservative friends about Romney. There is something about him I just can't get comfortable with.
May '10
Re: Well, Bret, Your List is Just, Uh, Not Accurate
Peter Robinson: "Just when the logic of a Romney candidacy was about to impress itself on me..."
I went through this same experience on a regular basis in '08 when trying to talk myself into Romney. I've saved myself the trouble of it this time around.
Jan '11
Re: Well, Bret, Your List is Just, Uh, Not Accurate
I think Romney did a fine job of answering those cornering questions. Consider that he's being pressed by the Gingrich surge - a surge which for many is hard to understand, and, therefore, difficult to counter - and he's been hit with the same questions, many in a specific form, over and over again. Which of us hasn't said something like, "OK, Stupid, what is there about NO you don't understand?" I thought he did well except for the "What do you do with the 11 million illegals while they get on line for legal entry?" He never answered that question, and to his credit, he did appear to be a bit uncomfortable at having to obfuscate.
I don't think he'd be a good candidate in a presidential debate - I think Obama will crush him, and I'm not confident that he could win a national election. But if the consensus is that Romney's our candidate, I'll support him. I will never loose sight of the goal of this election: Defeat Obama, for the good of the country.
Edited on Dec 2, 2011 at 1:48pmMay '10
Re: Well, Bret, Your List is Just, Uh, Not Accurate
Stuart Creque: ....
Remember when he snapped at the questioner in Iowa that "corporations are people too"? Although that's technically correct ....
It's funny how we all see things differently. To me, that incident was Romney's finest hour to date, revealing (for once!) that he had a knee-jerk conviction -- and a correct one at that. It was similar to an exchange with McCain in 2008 where Mitt scolded him for some populist silliness about "big pharma".
Defensiveness over free enterprise, good; defensiveness over self, as in this interview, not so much.
Aug '10
Re: Well, Bret, Your List is Just, Uh, Not Accurate
Clearly an unforced error by Mitt. I think he's trying to thread the needle strategically so when he tacks to the center in the general election (which ALL candidates do) he won't open himself up to more flip-flop charges.
This is not an easy thing to pull off and the pressure probably got to him a bit. Hopefully he'll recover his footing and wait for the inevitable Gingrich self-implosion.
Yeah, yeah, I know, I know - Romney has no principles, he only wants to win, blah, blah, blah. Save it. I want to win too.
Nov '11
Re: Well, Bret, Your List is Just, Uh, Not Accurate
Same here. There's a feeling in my gut that I can't pin down enough to voice properly, but neither can I shake it. I've had it since I first saw him in 2008 (back when NRO was praising him to the heavens before he'd even announced).
Dare I say it? It reminds me a bit of the feeling Al Gore inspires, though not nearly as creepy. Let me be clear: I don't find the thought of "President Romney" remotely as disturbing as "President Gore". I expect Romney would do a passable job, maybe even a good one. There's just some sort of unsettling, inauthentic vibe that both men give off.
May '10
Re: Well, Bret, Your List is Just, Uh, Not Accurate
Mitt? He's got a REALLY nice suit, and a GREAT haircut, but .....
Aug '11
Re: Well, Bret, Your List is Just, Uh, Not Accurate
Chris Corrigan:
There is something about him I just can't get comfortable with.
Just lie back and think of the Constitution . . .
Or don't, because that would break the mood.
Dec '10
Re: Well, Bret, Your List is Just, Uh, Not Accurate
Scott Reusser
Stuart Creque: ....
Remember when he snapped at the questioner in Iowa that "corporations are people too"? Although that's technically correct ....
It's funny how we all see things differently. To me, that incident was Romney's finest hour to date, revealing (for once!) that he had a knee-jerk conviction -- and a correct one at that. It was similar to an exchange with McCain in 2008 where Mitt scolded him for some populist silliness about "big pharma".
Defensiveness over free enterprise, good; defensiveness over self, as in this interview, not so much.
As I said above, the problem is not that Romney defended corporate personhood. It was the clumsy way in which he did it.
The right way to say that corporations are people too is to say "corporations are comprised of a lot of people with a common interest, and when a corporation speaks or acts, it's really those people speaking and acting. When you talk about stripping away rights from corporations, you're advocating stripping those rights from real people."
"Corporations are people too" has the virtue of brevity, but also the fault of distortability: it's a great sound bite for opponents.
Oct '10
Re: Well, Bret, Your List is Just, Uh, Not Accurate
Although I am not a U.S. citizen, I watched this entire painful interview to see what everybody was talking about. Here's the thing that struck me: I've interviewed lots of people for various posts in my career, and one of the red flags I've learned to watch for is the pained smile while you're asking the difficult question. You know, the smile that says “Boy, you're really putting me in a corner, and just wait until you see how I wiggle out of it”.
Just like Mitt Romney did with almost every question in this interview.
People talk about “Lincoln/Douglas” debates, but what I'd rather see is an open-ended cross-examination of these pretenders to the presidency, not with all of them on the stage at once, but rather one by one, interrogated with unlimited follow-ups by a panel of advocates on our side.
This, of course, will never happen—the person not next in line might prevail.
Re: Well, Bret, Your List is Just, Uh, Not Accurate
This I did not know, and it makes things much, much worse. I watched the interview when Mollie first posted it, and I found myself watching the Mitt-machine calculate on each occasion what answer would serve his interests best. Bret Baier was terrific, and Mitt came off as evasive, disingenuous, dishonest, and, frankly, inept. If he is our nominee, I fear that Obama will make mince meat of him.
Dec '10
Re: Well, Bret, Your List is Just, Uh, Not Accurate
If you can have bags like that under your eyes and still smile you are either being phoney or you're on drugs.
Re: Well, Bret, Your List is Just, Uh, Not Accurate
Scott Reusser
Stuart Creque: ....
Remember when he snapped at the questioner in Iowa that "corporations are people too"? Although that's technically correct ....
It's funny how we all see things differently. To me, that incident was Romney's finest hour to date, revealing (for once!) that he had a knee-jerk conviction -- and a correct one at that. It was similar to an exchange with McCain in 2008 where Mitt scolded him for some populist silliness about "big pharma".
Defensiveness over free enterprise, good; defensiveness over self, as in this interview, not so much. · Dec 2 at 1:50pm
Had he said that corporations are made up of people, too, I would agree. But what he said was both false and inept.
Re: Well, Bret, Your List is Just, Uh, Not Accurate
Frozen Chosen: Clearly an unforced error by Mitt. I think he's trying to thread the needle strategically so when he tacks to the center in the general election (which ALL candidates do) he won't open himself up to more flip-flop charges.
This is not an easy thing to pull off and the pressure probably got to him a bit. Hopefully he'll recover his footing and wait for the inevitable Gingrich self-implosion.
Yeah, yeah, I know, I know - Romney has no principles, he only wants to win, blah, blah, blah. Save it. I want to win too. · Dec 2 at 1:55pm
When the unprincipled win, the rest of us nearly always lose.
Re: Well, Bret, Your List is Just, Uh, Not Accurate
Stuart Creque
Scott Reusser
Stuart Creque: ....
It's funny how we all see things differently. To me, that incident was Romney's finest hour to date, revealing (for once!) that he had a knee-jerk conviction -- and a correct one at that. It was similar to an exchange with McCain in 2008 where Mitt scolded him for some populist silliness about "big pharma".
Defensiveness over free enterprise, good; defensiveness over self, as in this interview, not so much.
As I said above, the problem is not that Romney defended corporate personhood. It was the clumsy way in which he did it.
The right way to say that corporations are people too is to say "corporations are comprised of a lot of people with a common interest, and when a corporation speaks or acts, it's really those people speaking and acting. When you talk about stripping away rights from corporations, you're advocating stripping those rights from real people."
"Corporations are people too" has the virtue of brevity, but also the fault of distortability: it's a great sound bite for opponents. · Dec 2 at 2:56pm
Oops. You beat me to it. My apologies.
May '10
Re: Well, Bret, Your List is Just, Uh, Not Accurate
Prof. Rahe and Stuart: Here's what Romney actually said (in response to a heckler's rude, yelling insistance that all can be made well by raising taxes not on this guy or that guy, but on "corporations":
"Corporations are people, my friend. [hecklers laugh] Of course they are. Everything corporations earn ultimately goes to people. [more laughs] Where do you think it goes? [more laughs, blah, blah, "their pockets", etc.] Pockets? Whose pockets? People's pockets. Human beings, my friend."
The response was made not to an issue of "rights of corporations", as Stuart says, but to the mistaken notion that "taxing corporations" is somehow not "taxing people". It was a fine response, especially given the hounding rudeness of the hecklers who were making it difficult for him to even speak.
Prof. Rahe: You say what he said was "false and inept". Do you stand by that? If you stand by "false", then you disagree with Milton Freidman ("There's no business to be taxed. Only people can pay taxes. Can I tax the floor? The building? [etc]") and if you stand by "inept", then your expectations are unrealistic in the extreme, especially considering the limitations of that scene.