Karl Rove on 2008 - Could Romney Follow His Advice?
By Dan McLaughlin Posted in 2008 | 2008 Presidential Campaign | Mitt Romney — Comments (16) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Matthew Continetti covers Karl Rove's list of four things the GOP nominee needs to do upon wrapping up the nomination. Three of them make perfect sense: introduce himself, talk about kitchen-table issues, and pound the Democrats for premature defeatism in Iraq. It's definitely worth a read.
But I'm skeptical of the third item on his list:
Third, Rove said, "our candidate had better get out and campaign aggressively in places where Republicans don't normally campaign." The GOP must enter communities where it hasn't been in a long time, if at all. That includes African Americans, hispanics, Asian Americans, and downscale voters or Reagan Democrats. The GOP needs to be expand, not contract. It needs to be welcoming, not hostile.
As general advice for the party, I think that's tremendous advice. But in terms of the 2008 presidential contest, I don't see pouring a disproportionate amount of finite resources into any of those groups as being anything but an investment in the future. Which suggests to me that Rove's eye is really on the long game now and not on the things he'd be doing if he was quarterbacking a 2008 campaign.
I know tying this back to the primaries and my concerns about the downside of nominating Mitt Romney will irritate some of you, but the reason I put this in the diaries is because I was looking at that list and got to thinking, and it seems to me that if you do believe Rove that this is a big deal, Romney is - compared at least to McCain, Rudy and Huck; Fred, I'm less sure about - uniquely unsuited to reaching out to any of these groups except maybe Asian-Americans, who as a group might warm to Romney's entrepeneurial bent. McCain can make lemonade from his immigration record and Southwest experience to try to connect with Latinos, Huck is well-versed in appealing to lower-income voters and would be well at home in black churches, and Rudy of course - while he will never get anywhere with African-American voters - has a lot of experience running a city with a huge minority population. But Romney, a virtual caricature of a rich white CEO? I mean, seriously, can anybody really see Romney getting anywhere near George W. Bush's share of the Latino vote, or even having a credible plan for outreach to Latinos? I'm not seeing it.
that Mitt ran a more impressive campaign in MI, and despite the auto-industry pandering he at least sounded more like the real Mitt instead of a guy chasing a market niche he has no real belief in. I actually wonder if Romney would be a stronger candidate if the whole country's economy was as bad as MI.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
and the rest of the Country could be in a tough spot economically come election time which would bode well for a Romney candidacy... geez I'm kinda talking like a Democrat now... "we need doom and gloom to win", lol
as far as the auto-industry pandering isn't doing that better than dismantling the auto-industry like this last energy bill is trying to do?
View my blog at http://preacherskid.blogdrive.com/
What is it that makes Mitt Romney uniquely unqualified to speak to minority groups? I certainly am Black and I find Romney a much better candidate than any of our current crop of candidates. Certainly his father was a big proponent of the Civil Rights movement-I don't see what your getting at-Please clarify and I'd love to continue this conversation.
If you ever find that you only have an hour to live,spend it with a liberal and it will seem like a year."-Rush Limbaugh
One is Romney's image, and I know it's unfair but there it is: he was born rich and became a CEO, and he looks like a guy who was born rich and became a CEO. That's not going to make him a natural with downscale blue-collar voters. Romney looks like the guy a Hollywood casting director would cast as an uptight rich white guy who has to learn to be, shall we say, funkier.
Two is Romney's hard-edged rhetoric on illegal immigration, which is probably tougher for him precisely because it smells of pandering.
Three is the simple fact that his only electoral experince is in a state with very little minority population. Rudy, McCain and Huck have all had to learn to campaign in jurisdictions with big minority populations. Mitt would be learning from scratch.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
Look his money is his, from the 3 very successful companies that he founded, and that is what America is based on. I think that's inspirational, and I believe he could use that to his advantage by showing how his economic policies are going to give the ability to all people regardless of where they start out have the ability to make it to the top, by creating more jobs in industries with high growth possibilities.
Romney is taking the same line on illegal immigration that every other member of the party is taking, and I don't think theres anything that especially sets him apart from anyone else. Huck has gone off the edge on illegal immigration lately, so I would say he would be moreso of the person that has a problem with it.
And finally, it's certainly not his fault Mass has a low minority population, but it certainly is not indicative of an inability to connect with a minority audience. Not to mention the fact that rural Blacks, Southern Blacks, urban Blacks and city Blacks are all speaking the same language. Rudy has to learn how to talk to rural minorities in the South and West and Huckabee has to learn how to talk to Blacks North of the Mason-Dixon line. The point is Dan, all due respect, but it seems you go out of your way to pick on Romney because of how you feel his election prospects are with him in November and you're trying to "save" us from Mitt.
If you ever find that you only have an hour to live,spend it with a liberal and it will seem like a year."-Rush Limbaugh
Oh, and he is inauthentic. What else.... did I mention he's a rich CEO?
"Go ahead, make your jokes, Mr. Jokey... Joke-maker. But let me hit you with some knowledge. Quit now". -White Goodman
But as with everything Romney, it's not just the one thing, it's the combination of things.
Hey, if somebody has a theory or evidence of how Mitt appeals to Latino voters, I'd love to hear it. We'll probably see that tested in FL. It just strikes me as being an area where he's going to start out behind the 8-ball.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
That instead of pointing out all the good qualities that go into being successful in America, (which is what we all want, regardless of race), that instead we point fingers at him and count it against him. As for appealing to to latino's, do any of his son's speak Spanish?
"Go ahead, make your jokes, Mr. Jokey... Joke-maker. But let me hit you with some knowledge. Quit now". -White Goodman
Without digressing into religion too much. Most of us understand that many Mormons are proud of Mitt Romney and what he stands for. Many of us can overlook his warts (and we know he has a few) because we believe him to be honest, unlike some folks. That's just the nature of religion and politics.
Dan you ask, "if somebody has a theory or evidence of how Mitt appeals to Latino voters, I'd love to hear it" well, I'd have to pull the religion card on you. Mormonism is popular among Latinos. We all know that Catholicism is the primary sect, but Mormonism is growing and has been growing among Hispanics and Latinos for many years. How much? Almost 30% of the Mormon church are Latinos. That's not something to sneeze at when there are over 13 million members today.
Why is Mitt doing so well in Nevada? Many cite his faith. I tend to agree. Why would Mitt do well among Latinos? I would cite his faith. This is just my point of view, and not fact, just my opinion. Here's a bit of reading if you want to know why there are so many Hispanic and Latinos in the Mormon faith:
http://www.religionnewsblog.com/9292/mormon-faith-is-drawing-more-area-l...
with all due respect to both you and your religion, I don't see that as being a key to attracting Latino voters or even keeping the votes of the ones who supported George W. Bush in 2004.
I don't think most Latino voters make their decision based on religion. If that was the case, then Kerry would have done much better among them in 2004, and Giuliani would definitely have the best prospects in our current field by virtue of being Catholic.
Besides, we don't want any people - Latinos, or anyone else - voting for someone simply because of what church they go to, no matter which one of our candidates we're talking about. It should be the power of our candidates' ideas, and how Conservatism will lead America to much greater prosperity and security than liberalism.
I've yet to meet one Mormon that says, "the only reason I'm voting for Mitt is because he is Mormon." Don't believe me? Then go ahead and ask each one of them that you think are saying that if they would vote for Harry Reid.
Those espousing Mitt's faith will tend to give Mitt the benefit of the doubt and due to his service in his church and to others, they can listen to his conservative message and vote for him because they believe he can carry out that message. My point is that 1/3 of the members of the LDS church are Latinos and part of that group resides here in the states. Thus, there is a large group in the U.S. that may start off with giving Mitt the benefit of the doubt. Also, let's not forget which group in the U.S. votes as a strong conservative block.
These are valid reasons why Mitt has a good chance with some Latinos and that is in answer to Dan's question. You may disagree or nominalize this group of Latinos, but I bring up this argument not as a guess whose gonna vote for Mitt only because of religion, but more as a guess who may vote for Mitt because it starts out with giving him the benefit of the doubt.
A lot has been made of the negatives of his faith in this race so here are some of the positives. Does it apply or help? Should it?
Of the 13,000,000 members of the LDS faith the majority are non-English speaking and most of those live from our southern border to the tip of South America.
The other two fastest growing areas are Asia and Africa. The LDS church is no longer a North American white church.
Does this have thing to do with Mitt Romney? I don't know but a big percentage speak spanish.
Lots of churches can make the same claim but if people point to Mitts church it can be pointed out reason it is diverse.
Weak? Hey, you asked for a theory Dan.
...am I allowed to post an open-thread?
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
in addition I think he'll have trouble in rural areas that are crucial to holding together Bush's 2004 electoral victory.
It's not that these people won't vote for him at all, it's only that a lot of them may stay home because he is someone who is so completely different than them in every way. Bush may have been born in Connecticut, went to Yale and Harvard, and have deep family roots in the Northeast, but he also spent most of his adulthood in Texas. He got out amongst the people, knew how to talk to the folks as a regular guy.
It really seems like Northeastern Republicans come off as being out of touch with a lot of people in other parts of the country. It really seems hard for anyone other than an upper or upper-middle class white male to relate to a guy like Romney. It was the same thing with Gore, another son of a famous politician. Same with Kerry, too cosmopolitan for a lot of folks. The difference is, the Democrats automatically get most of the minority votes by virtue of their party's history of special interest pandering, even if they are a starchy white guy with millions in the bank (or their wife's bank account) or one with a politically famous dad.
We're already facing an uphill battle in a lot of parts of the country this year. I hope we don't nominate a candidate who becomes a caricature of Country Club Republicanism in the drive-by media narrative, while trying to carry the torch for the Conservative movement he was never much a part of. We'd be better off with someone who isn't such an obvious target for liberal class warfare demagoguery.
I have my reservations about him and when he was first on the scene he came off way too polished and still does to some degree. However, the message he used in Michigan I think can be a winning message for the GOP and he has the business credentials to back up what he's saying about the economy... the problem with him is, is he one of those "I'd like to sit down and have a beer with him" type guys that many undecided voters tend to go for... like it or not that quality was a big part of Bush's appeal in 2004 against an opponent that lacked an inviting personality and the same can be said for Clinton winning...
I think we need Mitt's strong managerial skills, but we also need someone that those middle and lower class voters can relate to, and not from a "populist/Mike Huckabee" viewpoint but from a straight shooting Fred Thompson viewpoint...
View my blog at http://preacherskid.blogdrive.com/