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
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.
“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.”
Awesome paragraph.
Are they listening? I don’t think so, and that compounds the problem. The Romney ship has set sail and they haven’t communicated with shore for months, sailing off on their merry way.
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. ·10 minutes ago
I don’t see why you’d say “he’s ahead, but only because of his money, organization, and so forth”. His ability to raise money, inspire volunteers, and run a large organization effectively is part of why he’s winning, yes, (wiki has him at 123 delegates pledged to Santorum’s 44 and Newt’s 45).
But these are valuable skills. He showed in 2008 that he was capable of doing what Santorum has done (he has won or tied all Santorum’s delegate winning states). Santorum lacks his organization because he has not spent 6 years of post office support building nearly so well.
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. ·17 minutes ago
When he articulates first principles, in particular federalism and the immorality of a perpetual deficit, you say that it makes him sound like Bloomberg. I’m completely willing to concede that he has not sold Professor Rahe on the importance of conservative first principles. He seems to be doing OK with the country at large, though, despite the powerful aversion to deficit reduction that has almost always mired America.
Jackson is the sole exception; other deficit destroyers (the biggest being Cleveland, Harding, and Bush) and spending cutters are rarely looked on as heroes. Ricochet’s Coolidge dedication is a rare exception, but even that overlooks Coolidge’s greater predecessor in the field, the man who took him to power.
I don’t see why you’d say “he’s ahead, but only because of his money, organization, and so forth”. His ability to raise money, inspire volunteers, and run a large organization effectively is part of why he’s winning, yes, (wiki has him at 123 delegates pledged to Santorum’s 44 and Newt’s 45).
But these are valuable skills. He showed in 2008 that he was capable of doing what Santorum has done (he has won or tied all Santorum’s delegate winning states). Santorum lacks his organization because he has not spent 6 years of post office support building nearly so well.
Fine. But these issues, or what Romney’s 59 point plan is, are not the point. All this wonkery during this election cycle is irrelevant. Can the candidate accomplish something? Does the candidate care deeply about these pressing matters? Will the candidate fight, and fight effectively for comprehensive reforms?
That’s the problem, and people like myself haven’t been convinced. I started out fairly neutral about Mitt. I’ve moved away from him and lost confidence in him in the last 4 months.
Even today, conservatives cheer Newt on when Newt talks about the great men being the Roosevelts and Reagan. A heroic defense of rhetorical “first principles” that substantially reduces federalism and turns on the spending spigots is essentially what Mark Levin’s new book is about, although Mark would never, ever, put it that way.
Sadly, Mark seems unaware that sending entitlements to the states and reducing spending, the twin chief demands of his book, are also key elements of the Romney campaign.
The actual first principles, including the ones that brought Robert Bork and John Bolton onto the campaign (where Newt’s bribery failed, Mitt’s articulation of those principles succeeded), are set forth just fine in Romney speeches and platforms.
His problems have been that Newt is an effective regional candidate for the deep south, and ran an exceptionally effective negative campaign, and that Santorum has been an excellent candidate in the caucuses, just as Mitt was in 2008. Looking forward, Santorum’s identity politics (and open calls to class resentment), and massive subsidy to manufacturing, are well placed to play well in Michigan, where he also stands to get the labor and Kos votes. And, of course, Romneycare.
Here’s an interesting question: say one of these guys wins. Does it lead to an intra-party purge at at least the higher levels? ·3 hours ago
I’m gonna say no.
First, neither guy would dream of a purge (or allow subordinates to) prior to mid-terms in 2014. There’s too much to do, and no justification.
Second, while mid-terms for first term Presidents tend to go poorly, I think we’re likely to do pretty well. The GOP picked up state legislatures in 2010, just in time for redistricting. Couple that with the net switch from blue to red states of six reps, and the picture looks pretty good to me.
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. ·51 minutes ago
I’m glad if it worked for you. To me, it seemed he was throwing out every word that came to mind and seeing if any of them might stick. It reminded me of “The Increasingly Poor Decisions of Todd Margaret” (airs on IFC right after “Portlandia”), in which the title character is so insecure that he compulsively spins ever-lengthening yarns to try to fit in with whoever he’s talking to.
Fine. But these issues, or what Romney’s 59 point plan is, are not the point. All this wonkery during this election cycle is irrelevant. Can the candidate accomplish something? Does the candidate care deeply about these pressing matters? Will the candidate fight, and fight effectively for comprehensive reforms?
That’s the problem, and people like myself haven’t been convinced. I started out fairly neutral about Mitt. I’ve moved away from him and lost confidence in him in the last 4 months. ·3 minutes ago
Primary electorally; until Florida, he didn’t really fight, but in those two weeks he reduced Newt from a more commanding poll leader than Santorum is now to a candidate who campaigns mostly in his home state.
General electorally; he can fund-raise and organize far better than his opponents, as even critics recognize. Santorum lost so big in 2006 because he chose to focus heavily on his least popular platform and persuaded no one (Iraq war support, on which he was right) and is still picking sub-optimal fights. Romney is less governed by pride.
Politically: Gubernatorially, he cut spending (unlike Santorum/ Newt), and successfully promoted charter schools against 85% opposition.
Here’s an interesting question: say one of these guys wins. Does it lead to an intra-party purge at at least the higher levels? ·
I’m gonna say no.
First, neither guy would dream of a purge (or allow subordinates to) prior to mid-terms in 2014.
Second, while mid-terms for first term Presidents tend to go poorly, I think we’re likely to do pretty well. The GOP picked up state legislatures in 2010, just in time for redistricting. Couple that with the net switch from blue to red states of six reps, and the picture looks pretty good to me. ·
Agreed. This is one of many areas where Santorum replacing Newt is a huge benefit. Newt’s speakership inspired massive infighting and Newt would be a fierce advocate for, eg., Dede Schozafaza, or whoever he liked that day, while deriding the party for all kinds of things.
Santorum’s worst day was supporting Specter. He’s a team player.
Mitt’s campaign includes Coleman, Bork, and Bolton, without serious skirmishing.
Both have generally been sound and conservative in the endorsements they support. They’ll keep the guns trained Blue-wards.
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. ·51 minutes ago
I’m glad if it worked for you. To me, it seemed he was throwing out every word that came to mind and seeing if any of them might stick. It reminded me of “The Increasingly Poor Decisions of Todd Margaret” (airs on IFC right after “Portlandia”), in which the title character is so insecure that he compulsively spins ever-lengthening yarns to try to fit in with whoever he’s talking to. ·7 minutes ago
Edited 5 minutes ago
Few positive “character” pitches work well for their entrenched critics. ;-)
I contend that nerdy handsome rich guy beats awkward bible-thumper, pompous adulterer and weirdo gnome any day of the week.
I’d take that bet.
As my registered-Democrat wife says, “Mitt Romney is too rich to relate to what people like us are going through.” (All we’re going through is ordinary higher-end middle class issues of paying for college for three daughters as our home value dwindles.)
I don’t agree with my wife that Mitt’s wealth is a detriment. But she feels that way, and I bet a lot of other folks feel the same way: they see him more as Montgomery Burns than as Daddy Warbucks.
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.
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.
I’m glad if it worked for you. To me, it seemed he was throwing out every word that came to mind and seeing if any of them might stick. It reminded me of “The Increasingly Poor Decisions of Todd Margaret” (airs on IFC right after “Portlandia”), in which the title character is so insecure that he compulsively spins ever-lengthening yarns to try to fit in with whoever he’s talking to.
Few positive “character” pitches work well for their entrenched critics. ;-)
dogsbody, not entrenched for/against Romney, liked the clip. At #27, unentrenched bagodonuts shared my distaste. Interesting, yes?
So on the one hand he’s a bastard mudslinger who only wins by being negative and nasty, and on the other hand he’s too nice and easy going.
k…
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.)
As my registered-Democrat wife says, “Mitt Romney is too rich to relate to what people like us are going through.”
I don’t agree with my wife that Mitt’s wealth is a detriment. But she feels that way, and I bet a lot of other folks feel the same way: they see him more as Montgomery Burns than as Daddy Warbucks.
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.
So on the one hand he’s a bastard mudslinger who only wins by being negative and nasty, and on the other hand he’s too nice and easy going.
k… ·18 minutes ago
I’m sorry, I just don’t believe that candidate with a wide eyed and optimistic love for America and her Constitution could ever win. ;-)
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.
So on the one hand he’s a bastard mudslinger who only wins by being negative and nasty, and on the other hand he’s too nice and easy going.
k… ·
I didn’t say that. If you feel a need to misinterpret me and make your own pretend argument, feel free.
He’s not fighting for a cause, he’s fighting by badmouthing others through surrogates, and most of the attacks are utterly incomprehensible from an ideological standpoint. Another red flag – there is no one place from which he attacks – his people will say anything, whatever will damage his opponents without regard to Romney’s own message, such as it is.
And I’m also referring to his tone. He sounds like he’s apologising to his wife for not doing the dishes. He’s running for President, not husband in chief.
So on the one hand he’s a bastard mudslinger who only wins by being negative and nasty, and on the other hand he’s too nice and easy going.
k… ·18 minutes ago
I’m sorry, I just don’t believe that candidate with a wide eyed and optimistic love for America and her Constitution could ever win. ;-) ·1 hour ago
This is another blatant misinterpretation of what I said. It’s deliberate. You Romneyites really think people are stupid. You can just say things that sound good and that constitutes some kind of argument. It doesn’t. You guys are just making fools of yourselves.
When he [Romney] articulates first principles, in particular federalism and the immorality of a perpetual deficit, you [Paul Rahe] say that it makes him sound like Bloomberg.
Remember that Ricochet has a search function, “James of England.” 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. If instead of merely using federalism as a defensive gimmick to get himself out of trouble for having fostered governmental expansion in the State of Massachusetts, Romney were routinely making a return to federal orders a focus of his public persuasion, I think Ricochet commentators and readers would regard him as a good or even excellent candidate.
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.
Ben: Amen.
Your fifth paragraph really says it all.
Those of us who thought that McCain was “more electable” in 2008 will not make the same mistake again.
. . . 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.
I’m sorry, I just don’t believe that candidate with a wide eyed and optimistic love for America and her Constitution could ever win. ;-)
He loves our Constitution? Where’s the proof of that? He says so? 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’m sorry, I just don’t believe that candidate with a wide eyed and optimistic love for America and her Constitution could ever win. ;-) ·
This is another blatant misinterpretation of what I said. It’s deliberate. You Romneyites really think people are stupid. You can just say things that sound good and that constitutes some kind of argument. It doesn’t. You guys are just making fools of yourselves.
The winking smiley face was intended to make it clear that I wasn’t responding seriously. As a serious point, I don’t know what “harsh realities” you feel Mitt is naive about. Political (Primary/general/presidential)? Fiscal? Personal?
I honestly don’t know what you did mean, but I thought that the claim that conservatives dislike wide eyed optimism seemed pretty funny.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.