Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
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 gains
Now 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.
Published in General
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.
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.
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.
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.
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….
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.
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?
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.
But Peter, we’re the Creme De La Creme.
Rush said so.
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.
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. ·2 minutes ago
Has he? Or have people simply decided they won’t by a BMW before they even walked on the lot?
And even if he throws in all of the extras and is selling it to you at half-price, you still say, “Well, I just don’t think these leather seats will be all that comfortable. I really do prefer the cloth ones.”
Just to torture the analogy further.
At this point, I’m simply not interested in arguments that say, “I’m not supporting Mitt [or, for that matter, anybody else] because of the following flaw.”
It’s long past time for that. It’s simply insufficient to articulate Romney’s (now, well-known) flaws.
Honestly, the dogs aren’t eating the dog food.
The problem with the “Mitt’s clearly terrible since he’s losing so badly” narrative is that he’s winning. People have been declaring each ABR inevitable since Perry’s rise. Each time, it’s been clear to most observers (as recorded by Intrade’s chronicling of the received wisdom of the day) that Mitt was clearly in the lead.
Santorum’s a way better candidate than the others, and would make a better President (although he’s the only ABR that Ben has seriously criticized, back when Ben saw him as a threat to Newt’s dominance, a serious problem for Ben’s authority as a prognosticator). Santorum has his day in the sun and could easily be ahead as late as May, or even win.
It’s a little early to be using that as an assumption, though.
Wow, this post really nails it, and the comments provide ample support. Even Romney supporters unwittingly exemplify the very attitudes discussed. It never ceases to amaze me how you can tell people exactly what they are doing wrong and it’s like they can’t even hear you. They are unable to process the information.
There is a certain kind of bigotry within the Republican party that has become evident over the last two election cycles (maybe more) that plays right into the very problem many of us have. There is a contempt for voters, and this highlights the main reason why we have equal contempt for the operatives and pundits. Increasingly our elected leaders are out of touch, they get voted in and they do as they please and spin us. Then they tell us the other guys are worse and their operatives tell us were are being unrealistic. Most galling is the expectation that individuals should subsume their personal preferences in candidates because the smart people have figured out the entire game as to who has the best chance of victory. Besides being insulting and undemocratic, these folks have a remarkably pathetic track record for picking candidates.
It strikes me that, instead of whining, Frozen Chosen should write a piece explaining the weaknesses of Rick Santorum. I do not, alas, doubt that such a piece could be written. If I had to write a profile, as I have of the other candidates still in the race, I would certainly look at his loss in 2006, and I would have a fair amount to say about his appalling self-presentation in the debates prior to Florida. There is probably more, indicative of defects, that I do not know. But right now I have exams to grade.
All of these guys are defective. I would, however, second Ben’s observation that a guy with Romney’s advantages ought to have been able to close the deal by now. If the voters are flitting from one not-Romney to another, it says one hell of a lot about Romney.
Why have none of Romney’s partisans on Ricochet gone to the man to say, “You are not running for CEO. The problem we face is not first and foremost mismanagement. This election is about the direction that the country will take. And he who cannot persuade will lose, lose, lose.”
Harsh words, Dr. Rahay. Just because you were on Rush now you can call people pathetic?:-P (joke)
Ben’s entire argument is flawed, in my opinion, because he is assuming that the Republican nominee will lose in November. It’s February. Can’t he hold on to the post-mortums until after the election?
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?
I’m not a Romney supporter–yet–but actually I liked the clip. He’s not good at riffing–he’s awkward–but the part about the trees and the little lakes rings true to a Michigan resident. He’s basically telling Michiganders that he’s still one of us to some degree, and I think it works.
Honestly, the dogs aren’t eating the dog food.
The problem with the “Mitt’s clearly terrible since he’s losing so badly” narrative is that he’s winning. People have been declaring each ABR inevitable since Perry’s rise. Each time, it’s been clear to most observers (as recorded by Intrade’s chronicling of the received wisdom of the day) that Mitt was clearly in the lead.
Santorum’s a way better candidate than the others, and would make a better President (although he’s the only ABR that Ben has seriously criticized, back when Ben saw him as a threat to Newt’s dominance, a serious problem for Ben’s authority as a prognosticator). Santorum has his day in the sun and could easily be ahead as late as May, or even win.
It’s a little early to be using that as an assumption, though. ·11 minutes ago
Winning by default is not the sort of winning that will translate into winning in November. The last man standing is likely to fall on his face. Dole did. McCain did. If Romney does not catch fire, he will lose the nomination or . . .
I’m not a Romney supporter–yet–but actually I liked the clip. He’s not good at riffing–he’s awkward–but the part about the trees and the little lakes rings true to a Michigan resident. He’s basically telling Michiganders that he’s still one of us to some degree, and I think it works. ·0 minutes ago
I think a lot of people mistake Romney’s awkwardness, his stiffness, as inauthenticity.
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. ·10 minutes ago
Ben has done nothing of the sort. There are two criticisms here. One is a milder form of the familiar Rahe critique that if Romney were any good, he’d have won every race (previous examples of this criticism before or after the contest include Iowa, New Hampshire by ridiculous margins, South Carolina, Florida, and Michigan… I don’t recall it after the caucuses). Mitt’s fallen as far as third only once (Minnesota), while third is the median position for the other three candidates, each of which has had repeated single digit finishes.
There is no better response than Frozen’s to the attack that Mitt is not perfect. Of course he’s not, any more than any other candidate in history has been (Christ never ran, so we still have deficits today).
Winning by default is not the sort of winning that will translate into winning in November. The last man standing is likely to fall on his face. Dole did. McCain did. If Romney does not catch fire, he will lose the nomination or . . . ·2 minutes ago
That just a weird way of looking at it. The nominee is always the last man standing.
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? ·3 minutes ago
I am confident that Romney has been invited to contribute (in the same way Santorum was). But for some reason he has not done so.
I am not against Romney. I am still leaning towards him. Someone who loves him tell the man, “In politics, timidity is death.”
Paul: I kind of assumed that all the candidates had been invited as well.
Also, I listened to the Main Ricochet podcast yesterday, so I know your position on Romney.
I recommend the podcast to anyone who hasn’t listened yet!
Winning by default is not the sort of winning that will translate into winning in November. The last man standing is likely to fall on his face. Dole did. McCain did. If Romney does not catch fire, he will lose the nomination or . . . ·2 minutes ago
That just a weird way of looking at it. The nominee is always the last man standing. ·0 minutes ago
Technically, yes. But, as I am sure you understand perfectly well, what I had in mind was the fact that he is still standing only because there was no one else in the race. I trust that you have read my post The Last Man Standing. I posted it in late May.
I repeat. The only reason to back Romney is the weakness of the others. Whether Santorum is as weak as I have been inclined to think remains to be resolved.
The problem with the “Mitt’s clearly terrible since he’s losing so badly” narrative is that he’s winning. People have been declaring each ABR inevitable since Perry’s rise. Each time, it’s been clear to most observers (as recorded by Intrade’s chronicling of the received wisdom of the day) that Mitt was clearly in the lead.
Santorum has his day in the sun and could easily be ahead as late as May, or even win.
It’s a little early to be using that as an assumption, though. ·18 minutes ago
All this strikes me as fair enough. It’s one thing to argue that, given his advantages in money, organization, and so forth, Romney ought to be doing a lot better than he is. It’s another to forget that, according to Intrade and the delegate count alike, Romney retains the lead.
Santorum’s good. He might win. Or Romney may yet find a way of generating genuine enthusiasm. After interviewing him earlier this week, for that matter, I wouldn’t rule out Newt.
Let the race continue.
The candidate himself has the wrong persona for the zeitgeist. Conservatives and tea party types recoil at Romneys wide-eyed optimism. Sure we want a candidate who is positive, but he seems naive and oblivious to the harsh realities. He has no fire and seems completely content and happy. This is not what is needed, in fact it is scary. The video clip illustrates this perfectly.
Moreover the candidate talks too much about himself, selling himself his background and such. The electorate is in no mood to risk our future in these difficult and dangerous times based solely on some Harvard graduate’s record with a corporation, what the guy did in Massachuchetts or being an impeccable family man.
The big guns of the GOP elite got behind Romney early and immediately began projecting their modus operandi from elections past and overemphasised electability (per the post). Listen to us, we know what we’re doing (condescention) The other guys are worse (we’ve had it with that one – even if true) Slow and steady wins the race (overcautious)
The alarm bells started to go off. Isn’t this how we lost the last election?
Ben has done nothing of the sort. There are two criticisms here. One is a milder form of the familiar Rahe critique that if Romney were any good, he’d have won every race (previous examples of this criticism before or after the contest include Iowa, New Hampshire by ridiculous margins, South Carolina, Florida, and Michigan… I don’t recall it after the caucuses). Mitt’s fallen as far as third only once (Minnesota), while third is the median position for the other three candidates, each of which has had repeated single digit finishes.
There is no better response than Frozen’s to the attack that Mitt is not perfect. Of course he’s not, any more than any other candidate in history has been (Christ never ran, so we still have deficits today). ·6 minutes ago
Your response, James, is no better than Frozen Chosen’s. There is a reason that Romney cannot close the deal. This election will turn on first principles, and he cannot seem to articulate them.
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.
Which failure?
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.
Oh.
The competitive and lengthy primary is the failure.
I suppose the “failure” isn’t the reason for the “failure” at that.
My calendar says it’s February 17th.
I’m sure Dole, GWB, GHWB, & McCain all had the nomination sewn up at this point, right?
Or maybe, just maybe, none of them had.
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.
The second critique is that he’s not proposing massive tax reform (the claim that he’s not proposing to change capital gains tax, btw, is false, although it’s a small, focused, break to avoid penalizing the savings America benefits from most rather than a huge break).
This is true. Presidents only get a limited number of major reforms that they can push through, and Mitt is focused overwhelmingly on spending cuts, both discretionary and entitlement. Taxes come after defense spending, labor reform, and deregulation, while Obamacare repeal is obviously the first reform, the number one priority. You simply can’t pass a major tax reform without making it your focus, and there are more important crises to face.
In particular, the deficit is in crisis, which would not be helped by cutting taxes at a point when we are taking in around 15% of gdp in revenue. No candidate, so far as I am aware, is proposing to reduce spending to 15% of gdp. I understand that the Laffer curve exists, but it is a curve; before the Bush tax cuts, the Newt tax levels brought in 20.6% of gdp. We can cut taxes post-crisis.