The Trouble With Mitt Romney (Part 1 of 5)
By Dan McLaughlin Posted in 2008 — Comments (86) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The first of a five-part series on why Republicans who are serious about winning the White House in 2008 are wasting our time on Mitt Romney.
I'm a conservative in large part because of the vast social/cultural gulf that separates Right and Left, first and foremost on the issue of abortion - and yet, the candidate I'm supporting for the 2008 GOP nomination, Rudy Giuliani, is an avowed pro-choicer who has often been on the wrong side of that gulf.
I also believe that the GOP, for a number of reasons I'll discuss below, needs to nominate a candidate who has a demonstrated record of management excellence - and yet, my second choice in 2008 is Fred Thompson, a man who has pretty much never managed anything.
You would think that I might be a natural constituency for Mitt Romney, the stronger of the two GOP candidates (the other being Mike Huckabee, more on whom here) who has substantial executive experience and is running as a social conservative. After all, I've watched Romney for years (I was in school in Massachusetts and semi-active in GOP campaigns during his 1994 Senate run), and he's even an alumnus of my law school. So why is Romney no more than my fifth choice for the nomination (behind Rudy, Fred, McCain, and Hunter)? Why do I dread the prospect that he might capture the nomination? Let me explain.
I should start off by saying that there are quite a number of things I like about Romney. He's obviously smart, articulate and very hard-working. He was a fabulously successful businessman, intimately involved in the development of many new and growing businesses during his career in venture capital and private equity. He ran the Salt Lake City Olympics well, rescuing it from a corruption scandal as well as the challenge of handling the extra security that came from hosting the Games just five months after September 11. He was a good Governor in Massachusetts. He's obviously a good family man, a man of faith and unquestioned personal integrity. He seems like the kind of guy anyone would be glad to have as a next-door neighbor or a son-in-law. I supported him for the Senate in 1994 (and was appalled at the religious bigotry hurled at him in that campaign by Ted Kennedy), cheered for his campaign for Governor in 2002, and I'd walk over hot coals to elect him in place of my own state's current Governor, Eliot Spitzer.
I. If We Nominate Him, We're Gonna Lose
Leaving aside for a second how you rank them, there are basically four things that have to be looked at in examining a presidential candidate:
1. Can he (or she, but we're talking Romney here) win the general election?
2. Does he stand for good positions and priorities on the issues?
3. How likely is he to actually turn those positions into effective policy, often in the face of a hostile opposition and media and under various pressures from within and without the Party and the Beltway to back down, flip-flop or compromise?
4. How well do we think he can handle unexpected crises and new issues (especially in foreign affairs) beyond what he's campaigning on?
Regardless of the relative priority you put on the other three, the simple fact is that the best possible potential president in the world is no use if he can't get elected. And I am quite certain that Mitt Romney, if nominated, won't get elected. There are a number of reasons for this, not all of them fair, but no less real for being unfair.
A. He's Not Not-Bush
The first reason is one of the iron rules of politics: after 8 years of the same president - any president, popular or otherwise - voters want change. Partly it's a sense of getting someone who has a different style and approach and just feels different, and partly it's the entirely rational assumption that since the job is too big for any one person to do comprehensively, at least exchanging a president with one set of flaws and priorities and values for a different one will ensure that the same things don't get overlooked or done wrong for another four years.
By nature, this puts the incumbent's party at a disadvantage, since switching parties is the easiest way to ensure wholesale change - as happened after two-term presidencies in 2000, 1960, 1952, and 1920, and after quasi-two-term presidencies in 1976, 1968, and 1952. And that disadvantage increases when the incumbent is deeply unpopular and is prosecuting a frustrating and unpopular war, as was the case in 1968 and 1952. Make no mistake: that is true today of George W. Bush and the war in Iraq.
The challenge for Republicans, then, is to prove to the electorate that the next nominee is not-Bush, and specifically is not-Bush in the ways that people find most troublesome about Bush. (That's easier said than done when different people are upset about different things, but you can start by focusing on the reasons why people who might potentially vote Republican, and even people who are still happier than not with him, are dissatisfied with Bush).
With George Allen's campaign having ended before it began, Romney is probably the least not-Bush of any of the candidates. He's the son of a politician, a businessman running with a fairly short resume in public office, a religious man, a Harvard MBA. Like Bush, he's led something of a charmed existence - he didn't come up by the bootstraps, and he didn't fight in a war. Like Bush, he's known for his tightly controlled message discipline. There's even a sense that Romney has been the favored candidate of the Bush family, Jeb in particular (and there's a reason why Jeb, arguably the GOP's best possible candidate, can't run in 2008). See here, here, and here. Worst of all, Romney will be seen as Bush-like without the corresponding virtue (his stubborn constancy) that Bush's supporters have long most admired, and without Bush's cultural credibility with Southern Christian conservatives.
To Romney supporters, the comparison seems unfair in two major ways even above and beyond the extent to which it ignores Bush's own political and policy accomplishments and punishes Romney even for the virtues he shares with Bush. First, unlike Bush, a mediocre oilman who didn't find consistent success until he led an investor group to buy the Texas Rangers, Romney was a great success in the private business world. (While this is an impressive credential, it turns out to be less of a historically useful one than you might think - successful businessmen, notably Hoover, have been poor presidents; about the only man to really succeed in the presidency and in business was George Washington, and Washington's success in the whiskey business came only after he left office). Unfortunately for Romney, it may be very difficult for his campaign to convince people that he is selling a kind of experience that's fundamentally different from Bush's.
Second, Romney is much more verbally facile than Bush, much less apt to seem cornered and defensive behind a podium or to leave listeners wondering about his gray matter. But Romney has his own issues as a communicator, as I will discuss below and later in this series.
The bottom line? For Americans who are open to conservative principles but tired of George W. Bush, Romney will be a tough sell, much tougher than Giuliani (a New Yorker, a verbal battler, a guy who accomplished a lot as a public-sector leader in the public eye, and who is - unfortunately - not identified with religious conservatives) or McCain (whose war-hero status gives him unique credibility and who has long been known as a "maverick"), and perhaps even tougher than the laconic Southerner, Fred Thompson, with his commanding demeanor, long movie and TV exposure and more comparatively humble origins. That might not be as much of an issue if Romney had credibility in his efforts to differentiate himself from Bush on the Right on issues like spending and immigration. Lacking that, his only substantive way out is to turn against Bush on the Iraq War. And conservatives - like me - who believe that that war effort can't be separated from the wider war thus have twice the reason to be nervous about Romney.
B. Americans Hate Phonies
This is admittedly subjective, but Jonah Goldberg aptly summarized the way Romney often comes off in public by describing his demeanor as, "What Do I Have to Do To Put You In This BMW Today?". I'll discuss the specifics in more detail later, but the broader issue is that Romney seems unconvincing as the conservative he is running as; his calculations seem too close to the surface.
When the race kicked off, with Rudy and McCain as the frontrunners and the second tier filled with unknowns and/or candidates with their own issues with the base (e.g., Huckabee on taxes, Brownback to some extent on immigration), there was an opportunity for a candidate to build a market niche as the sane, electable conservative. Romney, to the credit of his business instincts, jumped on that opportunity like a starving man on a sandwich. The problem is that that posture is just not consistent with Romney's history of campaigning and governing as a moderate, pragmatic, non-ideological Northeastern Republican, and specifically with numerous stands he has taken in the very recent past. Now, a good businessman, or even a candidate running principally as a competent technocrat, can get away with running on what the public wants today rather than on principles. But Romney is running a fundamentally ideological campaign, and he is doing so all too transparently as a businessman pursuing an underserved market rather than as a true believer.
Romney's air of slickness and phoniness manifests itself in a number of specific ways I will get into later in this series, but the overall effect is an even more pronounced than usual (for a politician) tendency to leave people feeling like he will say anything to get elected. Democrats have, justly, suffered for that perception in the last two presidential elections, and they are almost certainly nominating a candidate who is legendarily calculating (Bill Clinton, by contrast, was a master at faking sincerity; but Romney, like so many others in politics, lacks Clinton's talents in this regard and would do well not to try to imitate him). Republicans, having successfully and appropriately attacked Gore and Kerry and most likely Hillary as well on this basis, cannot afford to run a candidate who comes off as a phony.
In Part II: Romney's relative lack of experience and the implications for Romney as a war leader.
Rudy is only candidate that will inspire a 27% base revolt. This means that Rudy is the most unelectable candidate out of the whole lot. It is a near certainty that Rudy would lose the general election.
Note the use of the plural.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
By talking about everything he is and everything he's done and you end by saying that he comes off as a phony. It's a strange conclusion to reach, but I'll give you the rope...
That I happen to think of Mitt Romney as the most unlike George Bush of any of the people at the top tier, especially Fred Thompson. But again, you make a strange case that somehow Romney is similar to Bush, and that's why the public shouldn't elect him.
Just from the get-go, I don't think anyone in the known Universe would draw the same conclusion you just did. Walk up to people in the street and ask them who they think is most like Bush among the current field of Republicans.
You're trying awfully hard to make it seem that way, but what evidence do you have except for a couple of assertions and lines you've drawn yourself?
I know of absolutely nobody who thinks Romney is like George W. Bush, especially after they open their respective mouths. One can speak, the other cannot.
Save yourself the 5,000 words in the next installments and tell everyone that the real reason you don't believe Mitt Romney can be President is because the South thinks Mormonism is a cult and will never elect him?
At least that would be honest.
But my problem with Mitt's electability is all about the fact that he's a crummy candidate.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
That I've seen so far has suggested just the opposite, except for the "Mormon" part. That worm is still twisting away in the hearts of people everywhere.
Of course, if Romney decided to get up and publicly pronounce that his religion has nothing to do with his politics, you'd call him a godless flip-flopper. Game, set and match.
From the very beginning anyone (myself included) knew that Romney's Mormonism was going to be the Big Elephant in the Room. I'm sad to say that you think you need 5 installments to getting around to talking about it.
Why don't you just say it from the beginning?
"This Country Will Never Elect A Mormon President."
Instead we'll elect Rudy Giuliani, that proud Roman Catholic.
But my problem with Mitt's electability is all about the fact that he's a crummy candidate.
That I've seen so far has suggested just the opposite, except for the "Mormon" part.
Maybe you've missed the stuff he's been saying about guns ("lifelong hunter"; supports the AWB; won't say what that means) or health care (he still embraces RomneyCare on a regular basis... I don't see how it's anything to be proud of) or abortion ("never been pro-choice"). I think that is strongly suggestive of a crummy candidate.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Like I said, wait for Part V. But my real issue with Romney is Romney.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
Just the smallest fraction of this piece was dedicated in any way to pointing out the fact that Romney's religion will, like it or now, bite him in the backside down here in the South. The largest issue I think that this piece addresses (its entire second half, in fact) is the fact that he comes off to many as what he is: someone who is trying to be (in the sense of conforming his positions and statements) what he is not, but what he thinks whomever he is addressing wants him to be. While that might not be a problem for a John Kerry or for a Hillary Clinton (who will swerve right, then left, then right again depending on the audience and the round of elections), this is a huge problem for the thinking side of the spectrum, which recognizes each tack, flop, and swerve for what it is.
So now if anyone is critical of Mitt it is because they hate Mormons and come from the south. Just who is being hateful here?
The author already credited Mitt's strong faith in the article, as well as pointed out that he (the author) supported Mitt's campaign for senate and deplored the attacks Kennedy made on Mitt's religion. In fact, I don't read mormonism being brought up in the article in a negative light, but you want to ascribe it to the author.
I've never seen you stoop to this kind of attack Kowalski.
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" - Defoe
Write a vicious attack piece that began extolling a candidate's virtues only to turn within fewer than 500 words into a mendacious smear, saying that "B. America Hates Phonies" and "Romney's air of slickness and phoniness..."
Well, actually I have seen it before. This is a professional hit job, complete with the authentic-sounding analysis of political elections past astonishingly counterfactual but said-with-a-straight-face sternness (and therefore validity):
For Americans who are open to conservative principles but tired of George W. Bush, Romney will be a tough sell, much tougher than Giuliani (a New Yorker, a verbal battler, a guy who accomplished a lot as a public-sector leader in the public eye, and who is - unfortunately - not identified with religious conservatives) or McCain (whose war-hero status gives him unique credibility and who has long been known as a "maverick"), and perhaps even tougher than the laconic Southerner, Fred Thompson, with his commanding demeanor, long movie and TV exposure and more comparatively humble origins.
I'm finding it difficult to imagine that I'm reading these words on RedState. The author would have us believe that Romney is a more difficult sell to potential conservatives than -- hold on to your seats -- John McCain.
In any case I have seen this kind of professional hit job before and the author has stated his intention to continue it all the way into 5 installments, evidently with the support of quite a few members of the editorial board of this blog. I hope that it becomes clear on whose behalf the hit was ordered before too long.
Each of our candidates has a major fault. Like it or not your guy isn't perfect. His major fault (again, like it or not) is that many people seem to think that he has changed positions too many times on too many issues.
Every candidate has to deal with their own demons. Fred IS boring. Rudy IS a social liberal. McCain IS a thorn in the side the GOP on key votes. And yes, Romney IS a flip flopper.
You failed to speak to my point in your blind rage against the post. There was no attack on Romney's faith. You brought it up as a straw man and you know it. Shame on you for taking that road.
I've never read you you like this. You're taking this personaly instead of reading with some semblance of critical reasoning. If you can be honest in attacking my comment by pointing out how the author is biased against Mormons then bring it. Otherwise get some sleep.
Sheesh.
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" - Defoe
At least thus far, Fred Thompson's possession of a "commanding demeanor" as a Presidential candidate has been hotly contested both here and in many, many other places less known for agreeing with Republicans and Conservatives. In fact, a credible argument could be made that Dan McLaughlin simply invented that characterization of Fred Thompson's performance as a candidate thus far out of thin air.
Now -- unlike what's happening right now to Mitt Romney in this "analysis" -- nobody has caused that lack of zeal for Fred Thompson except Fred Thompson, who virtually every time he's shown up to speak has been reported (sometimes by people here at this blog) to have put people to sleep.
At the very least I think Fred Thompson the candidate has a long way to go before anyone can describe him as having a "commanding demeanor." And I say that as a person who has been willing -- and still is willing -- to give Fred Thompson the benefit of the doubt that his first few appearances were just trial runs, getting his sea legs kinds of things.
Or perhaps you are upset that he is now the leading challenger to Rudy, while your boy is fighting with McCain in the single digits for third place? Apparently he (FT) isn't putting people to sleep in the polls.
Sure he doesn't have the hair style of a ROmeny or an Edwards. His appeal is that of a soft spoken big man with a lazy southern drawl. It's a part of Americana, and that's the charm. The coiffed and always smiling politician is a trun off to some people. It's not Romney's fault, but it isn't FT's fault either.
I'll stick with the consistent conservative vote over someone who has changed his mind so many times. Our country alread had a triagulator through the 90's, and we don't need another one.
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" - Defoe
Are you a log cabin republican?
How bout this is the last time you gay-bait another commenter?
Thanks in advance.
------------
With all the love my mama gave me
I'm gonna drop the devil to his knees
And that's relevant to you because only a moron would believe that you weren't using being gay as an insult directed at Dan, there.
Please stop insulting our intelligence and just indicate that you understand and are willing to comply.
------------
With all the love my mama gave me
I'm gonna drop the devil to his knees
I don't know if you felt baited (Leon's term), but if you did, I'm sorry. It does not matter whether you are gay.
I do see a lot of similarity in your and the log cabin republican's (both Rudy supporters) attacks on Romney.
In fact, my concerns with Romney have been mounting for many months, as regular commenters will recall. Lotta people have had the same concerns. I have not watched their ad but I assume the Log Cabin folks are just latching onto what are already the common criticisms of the man.
I mean, if gay Republicans called John Kerry a flip-flopper, would that mean that henceforth calling him a flip-flopper made you a gay Republican?
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
it is interesting to see Rudy supporters parroting each other in their attacks on Romney. Just don't be suprised if social conservatives don't buy it.
If you start hearing a lot of people who say "the sky is blue," you should probably not assume that it's because some grand conspiracy has been hatched by opponents of the sky to spread the malicious lie that the sky is blue. I'm not going to give away the real reason that people are saying the sky is blue because I don't want to spoil your fun, I'm just saying, look for alternate explanations.
Of course, as Dan notes, there are loads of people who have made the exact same points, and since we're not morons, we know that you picked out the Log Cabin Republicans for a reason. Now, frankly, I'm okay with your "I'm sorry you misunderstood" non-apology (rather than, "I'm sorry I gay-baited you," which would have been honest), so long as it doesn't happen again. But don't make the mistake of thinking that those breezing through this thread won't notice.
------------
With all the love my mama gave me
I'm gonna drop the devil to his knees
I picked the Log Cabin Republicans for a reason. And that reason is:
1) they are Rudy supporters,
2) Dan is a Rudy supporter, and
3) his attack sounds a lot like their attack.
Is there a conspiracy between Dan and the Log Cabin Repubs? I don't think so, and I didn't suggest that there was.
While I take your point that "if the sky is blue, it is blue no matter who says it", I do think that Dan's attack will (rightly or wrongly) be less effective on social conservatives due to the fact that he is parroting the Log Cabin Republicans. Sometimes the messenger matters. Social conservatives are justified in asking what about Mitt Romney threatens Log Cabin Republicans so much that they would run major media ads against him? And why do they like Rudy Guiliani so much?
"Parroting"? You either did not read the part where I said I had not even watched their ad yet, or you are calling me a liar.
I'm turning off your account. Go complain to the Directors if you want it back on, but Leon gave you multiple warnings about this. And just remember for future reference the rule that always applies when you fight with one of the Contributors:
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
Someone else takes my fun from me.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
That Conservatives were robbed by GWB during his Presidency, I can sympathize with you. This President won his election by telling Conservatives that he was a Conservative who would not engage in nation building and would seek to heal the wounds in Washington and elsewhere and instead he governed as a Liberal, didn't use a single Veto until he was already a lame duck, brought the United States into two wars in far-flung areas of the world which everyone is going to have to compensate for now and into the future, and bought the whole thing by cutting taxes on the People who Mattered and helping them get richer.
He hasn't been a Conservative, a Republican, a Liberal or anything else. He's been a sad example of what happens when Conservatives believe they can trust the Bush family. He hasn't even been able to speak for himself.
If you want to start drawing parallels between this President and Mitt Romney, I think you're crazy. But keep trying.
We knew he was not a small-government, close-the-borders guy.
I just think Bush has screwed up in his second term in part by problems with communications and in part by problems with managerial competence, and I don't think Romney will be able to fix those.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
who would not engage in nation building...brought the United States into two wars in far-flung areas of the world which everyone is going to have to compensate for now and into the future
Until a little thing called 9/11 happened and changed his mind on that score. I can't say I blame him.
would seek to heal the wounds in Washington and elsewhere and instead he governed as a Liberal
Seriously... how did you think the new tone was going to work? The new tone means you have Kennedy write your education bill, so you two can be the best of friends. These concepts are connected. I have no interest in the new tone, because 1) it is not achievable and 2) you pay a very steep price for trying to be friendly with the Democrats.
didn't use a single Veto until he was already a lame duck
Apparently he's not such a lame duck since he can still veto stuff and his vetoes are not being overridden. I would've liked to see him use it earlier, but he seems to have found his veto pen now, and I won't criticize him for that.
bought the whole thing by cutting taxes on the People who Mattered and helping them get richer.
So is "People who Mattered" code for "the rich?" I still haven't eaten enough Coco Puffs to get my John Edwards "two Americas" secret decoder ring out of the box, so you'll have to translate.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Is going to have to be used to decipher the criticisms of this series first. Has GWB been a disappointment to the party? Has he governed as a Conservative? Has he successfully advanced anything in terms of national policy like Social Security reform? Did he use his veto at the height of his "political capital" phase, when everyone was calling for it? The answers are Yes, No, No, and No. He hasn't been much of a Conservative President. He's tried unsuccessfully to govern as a Moderate, as far as I can tell. He's gotten no credit from Liberals and he's also alienated the people who thought they were electing a Conservative.
Is McLaughlin taking that long series of disappointments and saying that Mitt Romney will be just like that? That he'll disappoint Conservatives just as much as GWB has? Or is he saying something else?
I guess I just don't understand the Conservative mind. I guess I'll just have to read the rest of this series and try to figure out what McLauglin is saying, because right now none of it makes sense, and the only explanation I can find for that is the old bugaboo about Romney's religion.
I don't think W is much of a conservative, but I never did. He was better than McCain in 2000, but I never expected W to be a lot better than his father. If anything he has exceeded my expectations. He was quite a bit better than his father, IMO.
I just don't agree with your criticisms of him, especially where you jump into the "tax cuts for People who Mattered" and him not delivering on the new tone stuff.
As to whether Romney will be more of the same... I don't know. It is a strong possibility. It's hard to know where Romney truly stands on anything, if he has any actual stances. If he's just telling us what we want to hear (as I suspect he is), I'd expect him to move to the left during the general when his audience changes. Of course, by that time, it's too late to do anything about it and we are stuck with him.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Then we should write it into the Constitution: No Mormons! No matter how successful they've been, no matter how well they've done in private and public life, no matter how nice a family they have, and no matter what they say, they just need not apply.
While we're at it, we should just start making a list of the other religions and religious denominations that are forbidden for the next President. Atheists and agnostics, take note: if you've ever gone through a phase in your life where you questioned your own belief in God, don't bother thinking about running for President. Hey, you Episcopalians: I wouldn't if I were you. And I don't even want to talk about what would happen if a Jew ran for President.
I'm sorry, but all of the nice language and seemingly thorough analysis in this post seems to be leading up to the big, unspoken secret: it's the religion, stupid.
I do, however, that once a candidate starts to speak openly about his faith and claims that Jesus Christ is his personal Lord and Savior, it is appropriate to dig in a bit deeper.
I do think that not voting for a person because he or she is LDS can be both a bigoted action as well as one of conscience. Since I would vote for the right person if they were LDS, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim or
...Bush has not been a conservative (nor has he been a fighter -- something most disappointing, and something I see much more in Giuliani than in Romney), but I would also agree with Dan that he has been as advertised. Anybody who saw Bush as campaigning on staunch conservatism projected onto him what they wanted to see -- it's not what he campaigned on.
With regard to "nation building," and a response a bit below here, yes, he said he wasn't for that; yes, 9/11 happened; and yes, I think that Iraq shows the foolhardiness of thinking that the projection of American power can lead to guaranteed positive outcomes in the building of nations or the exportation of democracy, and should give us pause when ever considering doing so again.
I had you pegged as a ROmneybot until I read your complaint about us being in two far flung areas of the world and our children paying for it.
So you were against the Afghan tour? Side with the dems on Iraq? Wow. If the supporters of Ron Paul and Romney are that close I guess my apprehensions about Romney made complete sense.
That's ok. As has been pointed out, we knew what we were getting with Bush (we knew compassionate conservative was code for pro-illegal immigration and heavy spending). Still, we got great tax cuts, a war against the terrorist who waged war on us through out the 90's and early 00's, and two solid supreme court justices. Not bad.
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" - Defoe
I think the real reason the "Conservative Base" of this party is willing to poop on Mitt Romney and everyone else in this field is because they're willing to accept a Democrat as President in the next election -- to *punish* everyone else in this society.
They don't care. They'll wall themselves up like little spores while everyone suffers, on the basis of some nutbag idea that eventually everyone will come around and start thinking Just Like Them.
Well, it isn't going to happen. Instead, people should be thinking about throwing THEM under the bus. Good riddance.
Seriously. When the American people ... decide to vote for Nancy Pelosi, then sometimes I feel like they all deserve the kind of ruin they honestly voted for.
It passes, though it did take a few months at arm's length from politics to get over it, heh.
Deep breaths. Soothing music. Valium. *Something.*
------------
With all the love my mama gave me
I'm gonna drop the devil to his knees
And without the baloney that characterizes this post:
1. Can he (or she, but we're talking Romney here) win the general election?
That depends on whether or not people think he's a cult member. I guess some people will think so until he decides to renounce his religion, in which case they might as well elect Bernie Sanders.
2. Does he stand for good positions and priorities on the issues?
On every one of them so far, he has. There are only a few areas of contention that I have with Mitt Romney's stated positions, but none of them are that severe.
3. How likely is he to actually turn those positions into effective policy, often in the face of a hostile opposition and media and under various pressures from within and without the Party and the Beltway to back down, flip-flop or compromise?
I think he'll be an excellent and effective executive. He was a successful governor in a state where the political establishment was dead-set against him philosophically, and yet he still managed to govern even that godforsaken place pretty well. Your own examples in this post show precisely how effective he's been.
4. How well do we think he can handle unexpected crises and new issues (especially in foreign affairs) beyond what he's campaigning on?
I don't know what that means. Another 9/11? A nuclear attack? Fidel Castro dying? The world economy going down the toilet because of a massive sell-off of U.S. Debt and huge capital flight from U.S. markets? A war with Iran? I think he'd be just as well situated to handle that as Mike Huckabee, or Duncan Hunter, or Sam Brownback. Be specific. Unless you're talking about the Second Coming, I'd like to hear what it is you think Mitt Romney wouldn't be able to handle as the President.
1. That depends on whether or not people think he's a cult member. The fact that people have major issues with him in areas not related to LDS just don't matter?
2. Issues... On every one of them so far, he has. Sure he has. And he's also held the opposite position on all of them as well. Pick one. This one boils down to whether you think hes a self serving guy who take whatever position he needs to to get elected and whether you're willing to trust him.
3a. I think he'll be an excellent and effective executive. He was a successful governor... On this we differ dramatically. Without burning tons of bandwidth, all Mitt did in MA was a (probably) short term fix of the state financials without impacting any of the programs that caused the problem. And he gave them a state mandated health care system that they can tweak to their heart's content. He left no footprint in MA politics, to the extent that he couldn't have gotten elected to a second term under any circumstances and he did nothing to improve the Republican Party in the State. As far as I'm concerned, the "let State Troopers arrest illegals" thing was the poster for his administration. It got him lots of press during the immigration fight and was never implemented because his replacement killed the program.
3b. hostile media... I don't see where he handled the media particularly well in MA. OTOH, since I don't see where he did much that the Dems didn't like, he didn't have much to fight over.
4. unexpected crises... He'd probably do OK. But we'll never know until we're in the midst.
In terms of what I think Mitt would not handle well as POTUS:
** The Congressional Democrats.
** The US Senate. All of it.
** The Washington media.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Just maybe they think none of these people are any better. Maybe they don't buy the argument that my liberal is better than your liberal. Maybe they are just tired of being lied to every four years, and being betrayed.
Maybe you ought to give up on your candidate since you see its causing problems with the conservative base. Oh, you won't give up your candidate.... Just throw everyone else under the bus. Didn't you just blow up your own argument?
From my manifold defenses of Rudy that I am not willing to accept defeat in 08.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).
Great job Dan!
I also think that if Romney can win the nomination against some very tough competition, there's an excellent chance he can run a competitive race in the general election.
That said, Romney has not been able to close the deal in Iowa and especially New Hampshire, despite mucho bucks spent there. A lot of the time he comes off as too clever. The comment about his sons working for his campaign,about the surge "apparently" working, about checking with the lawyers yesterday. It does leave people uneasy, and I think Giuliani, Thompson, and McCain all come off as much more genuine personalities.
I think Dan has honed in on many of Romney's weaknesses. But again, winning the nomination would be a pretty strong answer.
Historically, 50% of all candidates who win a major party nomination lose the general election. I predict that this trend will continue in 2008.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
1. Dan, I understand what you are saying about Romney and Dubya being similar, but that takes a bit of over-analysis to get to that point, I think. If you ask voters that, other than their party affiliation, does Mitt Romney remind you of George W. Bush - I would be a bit surprised if a large majority did not respond, "no." Giuliani would get more "no's" I'm sure. But of the remaining candidates, I'm not sure if anyone is more dissimilar to Dubya than Romney.
2. Phoniness. Here, I believe, is Romney's biggest obstacle - coupled, quite unfortunately, with his religion. Which, by the way, I agree with Lynne Cheney. I find it shocking that 40 years after his father ran for the presidency, Mitt Romney gets more static over his religion than his father George did. That's kind of disturbing, but it may be a sign of the times that we're in considering that our biggest enemy right now happens to be closely identified with one of the world's three major religions.
Mitt does sometimes kind of come off as "Slick Willard," but on the other hand, a lot of people (myself included) have a hard time not liking the guy after hearing him talk for a while. He can be kind of spell-binding. And you also must remember that this is an election of choices that come down to Hillary vs. the Republican.
I think that Mitt Romney is much more genuine than he gets credit for, and the argument that he is more fake than Hillary Clinton is certainly going to be a tough sell to make to the American people.
I hear a lot of talk about Romney's religion being a problem. Who is saying it's a problem other than the main street press (which is liberal) and people trying to explain why Romney is not the runaway candidate (making excuses).
Who on the republican and/or conservative side is saying they can't vote for Romney because of his religion? And if its not coming from here, why exactly is it being said by the left?
But polling has shown that there is a significant critical mass of the electorate that have claimed that they would not vote for a Mormon for president. I believe I remember a Rasmussen poll on this 6 to 8 months ago or so.
It may well be that many of these are left wing folks who would not vote for any religious candidate. I think Romney's Mormanism is a much bigger factor with the left than it is the right.
I don't buy that Romney's Mormonism is actually a big issue with the left than the right because if that were true, how did he survive the Massachusetts governorship?
One would presume, with strictly cause-and-effect, linear thinking, that if Romney's Mormonism had been a burning issue for the liberals in this country, all of those objections would have surfaced while he was the Governor of Massachusetts.
Instead, something very curious happened. Romney's Mormonism wasn't much of an issue to his governorship of the (arguably) most Liberal state in the Union -- until he left office and decided to run for President. It was principally after Romney left the Governorship that all of the doubts about Romney's religion began to be raised on the Left, most notably by The New Republic early this year.
One would have thought that in a state as relentlessly liberal (and Left-friendly, not to mention athist and agnostic, secular humanist, wiccan and just about everything else-friendly) -- the stomping grounds of Ted Kennedy and virtual fiefdom of Harvard University, that if Romney's Mormonism was even something they thought about over coffee and herbs in the morning, it would have surfaced before then in much more visible form than it did.
It was conspicuous by its absence until The New Republic decided almost single-handedly that Mitt Romney was going to have to answer for his Mormonism, a task which they also judged to be impossible. But the fact remains that the State of Massachusetts tolerated him as a Mormon throughout his tenure and apparently it wasn't a red-letter, 500 point type issue, until he emerged as a strong fundraiser and an adept campaigner in a Presidential race.
Until, other words, he became something they had to worry about.
I hardly think it was the main thing, but Ted did pull away from Romney in 1994 around the time he attacked him for his faith. Obviously, Romney was able to win over the doubters by 2002.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
I'm passionate about the guy even though he seems to rub a lot of people the wrong way. I don't want him to get a raw deal. I think he's got a good head on his shoulders and a great family and he could do a lot for the country. I don't think he's phony, although I will say that he's too used to having to bend his words around because of the place he spent so much time as Governor. I have the feeling that happened because if he didn't, he'd get scalped.
There's a lot of people on edge around here these days.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
Phoniness. Here, I believe, is Romney's biggest obstacle - coupled, quite unfortunately, with his religion.
Huh? His phoniness problem is that he tells us whatever he thinks we want to hear, which is entirely different from what he thought the state of Mass wanted to hear in 2002 which is entirely different from what he thought the state of Mass wanted to hear in 1994. Not sure how that becomes a Mormon issue.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
The guy in the debate video with Kennedy in 1994 was not the same guy who ran for governor. He had already started to moderate some of the more liberal positions he staked out in the 1994 run. For example, he changed from being an enthusiastically pro-choice candidate to someone who simply promised to protect the status quo in Mass. In his Senate run he was pretty much indistinguishable from a Democrat. In his Gubernatorial run he ran as a liberal Republican. Now he's running as a conservative Republican.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
I understand your point, I just think you phase it a bit harsh. Going from enthusiastic pro-choice to defensive pro-choice is a slide in rhetoric not "entirely different" positions like you infer. But, I understand why you feel he is phoney. I just don't see a consistent slide in position over 13 years as phoney baloney material like some people argue. If he went back and forth, then sure.
This is exactly the kind of well-reasoned analysis we've come to expect from you. Thank you for it.
....when Mitt Romney wins the nomination? Are you going to run home in a big huff with your sack of marbles?
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
Although I think Romney's strategy will win in the end, I've rarely gotten the feel that RedStaters would ditch Romney over "phoney" concerns in the general. The criticism is definately not as harsh as some feel about Giuliani being nominated.
Would some stay home because he was the nominee? I don't get that impression that many here would even with all the critism. There would be a lot of unhappy Fredheads and Rudy fans, but I think we'd all pull together once the focus turns to the Dems.
Again, personally, I believe Romney will be the only GOP candidate that will be able to combat Hillary's resources in the general. Why is that? 1. He has more resources than she will. 2. No matter what you think about Romney's ads, they have been provenly effective at changing minds in their target markets. 3. Rudy and Fred combined will have less than half what Hillary has. Thus, she'll get out two messages for every one of Fred or Rudy's. 4. Rudy was losing to Hillary in the New York Senate race before he had to pull out, so it's not a guarantee that he can beat her.
My two cents.
Suggested they wouldn't support Romney in the general election?
I don't know where Dan is going with this, but I'd sure as heck vote for him. I think the concern here is that not enough other people will vote for Romney.
“I think we are the team to beat in the NL East -- finally.” - Jimmy "MVP" Rollins, 1/23/07
With precisely the same enthusiasm, and for the same reasons, as I voted for Dole in 96 and Bush in 92.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
I just didn't want to put words in your mouth.
“I think we are the team to beat in the NL East -- finally.” - Jimmy "MVP" Rollins, 1/23/07
was that if Romney can beat Rudy, McCain, and Thompson for the nomination, he is a good politician. This isn't the GOP field in 1996 or the Dems in 2004. Anyone who can top the GOP field in 2008 prima facie is a strong candidate.
...put together completely wrong.
First, you're right that the Not-Bush factor is going to be huge, especially for swing voters.
But then you tuck away the two biggest Bush-image problems--competence and articulation--at the end of a laundry list of similarities that are irrelevant, superficial, yet not visceral.
Romney is the definitive Not-Bush candidate. He exudes competence.
Giuliani is another very good Not-Bush candidate.
Thompson is the Bush candidate this time around. He's the Southern guy who talks a little funny, is easy-going to the point of treating serious matters as a joke, doesn't really know much about policy, but depends heavily on advisers. Not to mention the gaffes (can you say "Soviet Union"?).
Romney is the definitive Not-Bush candidate. He exudes competence.
It's blunt, but it's true. It's the main reason I was interested in Romney from the very beginning when I was looking around at the likely candidates and asking "who else is there?"
At the very least I'm a one-man refutation of McLaughlin's assertion about Romney not being Not Bush Enough. Because believe me, when I started thinking about what the Republicans needed to recapture the White House in 2008, that thought was foremost in my mind, and Mitt Romney was the guy I thought was the least comparable to the current President. It beggars my imagination that McLauglin is trying to force the two of them into a comparison with things like their business backgrounds as the substrate.
Now, in terms of Romney not being a combat veteran, he may have a point vis-a-vis John McCain. But Hillary Clinton isn't a combat veteran either, and in my opinion she's *much more of a likely candidate* than John McCain is right now. But let's look at what Bush's problems all centered around in that connection: his National Guard service and his flight hours. Unless Mitt Romney is keeping some huge, dark secret about his past under wraps, I don't see his lack of military service as being a distinct disadvantage right now.
Giuliani is absolutely a good Not-Bush candidate. On social issues he's even more Not-Bush than Romney is. In that sense, McLaughlin is correct.
Let's be real here. Romney and Edwards are basically the same guy. Edwards ran in North Carolina as a moderate so he can win. Now he is a progressive. Romney ran as a liberal republican so he could win in Mass now he wants to be president he joined the NRA, became Pro life, anti stem cell and anti gay rights. Say what you want about the Mayor but at least he doesn't pander or change his positions.
Of course not, we always know where Rudy stands -- that's why I heard him talk so much about federalism and appointing strict constructionists to the bench when he was mayor. That's why he's talking so much about sanctuary city and gay rights and his opposition to guns while he's running in the Republican primary.
I thought this site was to discuss and PROMOTE conservative issues and candidates. While I agree that it is well written and interesting it is still a negative piece on a leading Repub candidate. The first of five no less.
Why not five parts (positive) on Rudy and Fred and twenty on the truth about Hillary?
...can you write a blog entry dedicated to this please? There is WAY too much time devoted to torpedoing our OWN F*#$@% GUYS around here!!!
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
Unless we assume that Dan's impressions are those of most people - something I doubt very much. Basically, Dan, it seems to me that you are saying you just don't really like Romney - you think he can't connect with voters or differentiate himself from Bush. I don't see it that way at all.
E.g., "Romney's air of slickness and phoniness manifests itself in a number of specific ways I will get into later in this series, but the overall effect is an even more pronounced than usual (for a politician) tendency to leave people feeling like he will say anything to get elected....Republicans, having successfully and appropriately attacked Gore and Kerry and most likely Hillary as well on this basis, cannot afford to run a candidate who comes off as a phony."
Yet wherever Mitt campaigns, he moves up to the top, or near top, of the polls. Look, to me John McCain has always come across as a phony, and I'm hardly alone - See Matt Welch's new book, "McCain: The Myth of a Maverick." But obviously lots of people don't share that view, and I suspect McCain would make a very strong nominee, though not exactly my choice.
One could pretty much write the same column as above on any of the other GOP frontrunners - oh, the particular "problem" areas about why they can't win might be cast a little differently, but the script could be the same. In fact, others are writing those columns now, especially about how Rudy can't win, but also about how Thompson can't win etc. etc. The truth is, any of these guys can win.
What you've written up above contains no evidence, just your impression. That's not mine, so why should I think you are correct?
IS TOO! IS NOT! IS TOO!
We'll need to do better than that, don't you think? Meanwhile, I don't think your helping, 11th commandment and all that...
Brad Smith
Professor of Law
Capital University Law School
Capital University website
Center for Competitive Politics website
But this is the intro. The meat will come later. And frankly, part of that is Mitt's own repeated and flagrant violations of the 11th.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
Your first reason for not supporting Mitt, reason 1A, is not supported by recent history. You state that after 8 years of a particular president/party, people want to vote for change.
But people were willing to vote Bush 41 into office after Reagan.
You can argue all you want that Reagan was great and this allowed an exception to a rule/trend, but it is not a strong start to your analysis.
I think there are a number of other flaws in Part 1 of your analysis, but others have addressed some of them.
I think you are very wrong about Mitt. Another point: Jonah Goldberg's one line comment about Romney is ridiculous. This sort of casual slander is not proof of anything. While you are impressed by this sort of snarky cleverness, wouldn't a reasonable translation of what Jonah is saying be: "I judge people based on what they look like when I mute the tv." Great, really insightful Jonah.
Name a politician who hasn't on some subject, or been accused of. Case in point: Her Thighness, Hillary Rodham Clinton. Sadly, is the way of modern politics. People have the right to, and do change certain views over time, and not just for convenience (except for maybe The Clintons).
.....although coming from a self-admitted supporter of Rudy, who in my opinion could pass for a moderate to hawkish democratic, (maybe with the exception on taxes),I certainly hope your not trying to pass this off as an unbiased assessment Romney. Romney comes off as polished because he is. Also, if he had the physical appearance of Ron Paul(no offence), would that help change your assessment of his polished "phoniness"??
I've had the honor to go to one of Mitt's town hall meetings chat with him briefly afterwards and I truly believe he is sincere in his conservative convictions. As a baseline, from a personal standpoint, Mormonism is about as conservative as it gets. It is a shame and unfair that will be a continuing issue for the Christian hard right, although he has done a pretty good job in mitigating some of their fears.
As a leader/manager, I don't think you get to where Mitt is in life without being a strong leader. I don't believe he would move to the left or be pushed around by a Democratic Congress if elected. I truly believe he is really the only candidate with true conservative values, both personally and politically, and a true "non-bush" candidate which could bring some fresh air to the country and to what has become a stale, fractured and unfocused Republican party. Mitt's acutely aware of the nation's economic/health care woes and how to rectify them, along with a firm grip on the Islamo-fascist's threat and ultimate throat if elected.
Thompson is a snore and acts like he could care less about being president. A one term senator, part-time actor, and questionable special interest lobbyist. McCain has pissed off too many of the base over the years to win the nomination. And Rudy would be writing books if he hadn't had the unfortunate notoriety and national name recognition GIVEN to him by 9/11. If you talk with a lot of New Yorkers, he was no hero. Rudy was just a MAYOR of a city, for God sakes (albiet a large one). And I'm sorry, a candidate's morals/personal life ARE fair game, particularly when running for president. A persons moral compass will tell you a lot about a person's level trustworthiness, decision making and overall character. Look at Bubba, his personal affairs, coupled with the slimy underbelly of his administration, of which, by the way, Hillary was a his main co-conspirator.
Save us the next 4 "installments" and summarize your Romney smearing in a simple paragraph.
While important to me- is not my first concern so this is less likely to move me.
Secondly, I don't see how you can think Romney is like Bush- the things you list are indeed complaints made about Bush- but they are all made by liberal Democrats who aren't going to vote for any Republican.
The differences between Bush and Romney however, fall into those areas that Republicans and Independents are worried about:
Articulate
Command of Details
Finally, as for Romney being a phony- he does give of that phony sheen- however, this is mainly because we are a cynical people nowadays, and his 50's wholesomeness is not something we are used to accepting as real. However- people want it to be real- and Romney and Huckabee are the only candidates in my opinion who might be able to convince people that it is real.
Huckabee is more convincing than Romney- but I have issues w/ his fiscal record.
So while I do see that this could be a weakness for Romney if people decide to be cynical- but it can also be a great strength if people decide to believe.
While Romney is no Reagan, Reagan certainly did not appeal to the cynics of America- so I would say I'm not convinced this is the killer issue you seem to think it is.
.....but there is something about Romney that screams "phony." At least to me. I really wanted to like the guy when the race started, but he comes across to me as a guy who will say whatever needs to be said to get elected.
To say his track record of consistency is poor would be generous, and couple that with the fact that he comes across as a salesman, and there is something about him the rubs me the wrong way.
I honestly am not thrilled with any of the Republican nominees, they are all flawed in one way or another, but I honestly believe there are only two candidates who could beat Hilliary:
1) Rudy
2) Fred
I don't know about you all, but I would rather a luke-warm GOP candidate win the election that suffer through 4-8 years of Hillary.
FREEDOM IS NOT FREE BUT THE U.S. MARINE CORPS WILL PAY MOST OF THE SHARE.
I agree he does come off like that. If it was just one or two issues he flip flopped on it would be ok because people change there minds but this guy has changed his view on every single issue. Something is wrong there. Who really knows if he is a moderate or conservative.
Dan -
Good thoughtful article . . . on it's own leading towards an incorrect conclusion. Please let me add a couple of additional factors that build on your "facts" and will result in a different conclusion.
Bottom line - only thing that will really matter this election year is "The Fruits test".
The reasons that The Fruits Test is so important this year comes from the recognition by enought of the voting public that "I (they)want proven results". It only takes a change in 5% to 6% of voters to totally change an election.
Sure is going to be fun to watch !
Boatswain
"The Fruits Test" is simple and comes from the quote ". . . the tree shall be known by it's fruits . . "
Romney seems to have the most proveable fruits:
1. Proven (and demonstratable) ability to be elected, lead and effectively function in a state that is not exactly to his liking politically. (Explains some of what the media likes to point out as "flip-flops")
2. Proven (and demonstratable) ability to be cast into a difficult situation (the Salt Lake Olympics) and change a iminent disaster to a smashing success. (just an observation how much of the voting public is wanting for positive events to happen in this Country?)
Romney's proven success extends to his campain. No one really cares about the poles until it gets close to the voting - they are meaningless.
Look at the shape of the Romney campain as we approach each primary election. Iowa - the Romney campain has it going in the correct direction, same with Vermont and even South Carolina (where Romney) has a bigger religious hill to clime it is comming together.
From my observation, Romney knows to meet the voters as they go to the polls and not spend time and money before it counts. A possable positive side effect of Romney spending a considerable amount of his own money.
I tell you -> it's the Fruit that counts this year!
n/t