Redstate

By Martin A. Knight Posted in 2008 | Archived | GOP Primaries | Mitt Romney | Strategy — Comments (21) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Good day Governor Romney,

This is a long one so I'm gonna get straight to it.

Let's take a look at the reality this fine day three days after New Hampshire - your second loss. The good thing (if you can call it that) is that Iowa was frankly (much) worse. You lost, and rather decisively too, to a guy who spent a lot less than you, started a lot later than you, and with far less of an on-ground organization than yours. And note that we're talking about a candidate who specifically went out of his way to launch missiles at two of the three major factions that make up the base of our party.

And he still beat you.

Speaking (or writing) as one of your supporters here at RedState, I'll admit it's tempting to look on the bright side; after all, you came in second in two races (to two different people) and came first in one (albeit one that no-one was really paying much attention to), you're currently the candidate who has garnered the most raw votes and the most delegates to take with you to the Convention.

However, from all the evidence available - and for what it's worth, I don't think you built your very impressive business career on shying away from unpleasant facts - I'm pretty certain you're much smarter than that.

Read on ...

So I guess it's time to take a good look at your campaign, your strategy and even your staff, and do a little retooling, because clearly, whatever it is you're doing right now, it's not working all that well. You got creamed in Iowa, and your primary rival in New Hampshire had the race well in hand for the one week stretch leading up to it. To put it bluntly; your much vaunted Early State Momentum Strategy seems to be in the middle of a rather spectacular crash and burn.

Of course, being the smart guy you are, you're probably already on it. I'd bet right now your staffers are busy getting new spreadsheets made, your analysts are poring through polling internals, organizers are eyeing voter turnout numbers, consultants are examining voting patterns, and your strategists are busy redoing the nomination math - you reputedly have assembled the best organized, most experienced and hardest working staff on both sides of the partisan divide.

Generally, I would agree that there definitely is something positive to be said for trying to import some of your business acumen and strategic thinking into the rigamorale of running for office (the Oval Office, no less). But ultimately one should not forget that this is not a product development and marketing project and you're dealing with people, not numbers. Whatever else one might say about the guy who beat you in Iowa, he knows this like the back of his hand.

Now, usually, I would think that having so much professional expert advice and the funding to put that advice into action would be something of an asset, even in politics. Unfortunately, I'm beginning to think that, for you particularly, it has transmogrified something of a problem - your campaign is turning out to be a classic example of too much of a good thing not actually being a good thing.

So here's some advice from a non-professional, non-expert with no experience running a political campaign for a change;

---

Ease Up On The Negative Ads
Seriously? Cut that #@&! out. Even your so-called "Contrast Ads" need to be toned down and stop naming names when its really unnecessary. And it's not because I'm one of those people who thinks that there is no place for negative campaigning in politics. Negative campaigns work a lot (even most) of the time, most especially among the very same people who faithfully decry them every year in their answers to pollsters. Unfortunately, you happen to be one of those candidates for whom negative campaign ads, especially against other Republicans, simply will not work.

Face the facts ... you only relatively recently became a full-spectrum conservative, and quite frankly, politically, the timing of your metamorphosis sucks. Big time. People, especially Republicans, who have been burned all too many times by people governing to the Left of their campaigns, have very good reason to look at your claim of now being completely on the side of life and the Second Amendment and finding themselves extremely skeptical, about you and everything else. Now, being that you are in that situation, for you to start broadcasting negative ads highlighting when and where your opponents have departed from Republican orthodoxy when you are guilty (or perceived, right or wrongly, guilty) of the same sins, is simply not smart.

Your negative ads are not working because you don't have the chops to throw stones at anyone for not being a full-spectrum Republican, and, for all intents and purposes, anyone includes the pro-choice former Mayor of New York City. The immediate response from a significant number of the GOP faithful upon seeing such an ad is "... where the heck does he (of all people) get off ...?" Others are enraged by the possible sabotaging of whoever our candidate is going to be when all is said and done.

It may be unfair, but that's life. A negative campaign may work for any other candidate, they just don't (and won't) work for you.

Run To Your Strengths
Mr. Romney, You've got an amazing resume. Your record in the private sector is one of the most superlative in the world of business in the past twenty years. The job you did at the Salt Lake City Olympics, was, by all accounts, a remarkable piece of work. There are many companies today who owe their existence, and employees who owe their jobs to you and your team at Bain Capital.

As an elected official, after one takes into account the fact that you faced a state Legislature with Democrats holding upwards of 85% of the seats, you can solidly lay claim to having governed as a fiscal conservative (with the 800 vetoes - starting from your first year in office when Bill Owens and George Allen looked to be heirs presumptive to Bush - to prove it) and indeed consistently coming down on the side of life during your four years in office, whether or not one believes you are sincere about your conversion to the side of life.

The endpoint is that; as opposed to some of your rhetoric from debates and speeches in past campaigns, your governorship (of Darkest Blue Massachusetts no less), falls well within the definition of Conservative, and notwithstanding the number of vetoes overturned and legislation (whole, or in part) that made its way into the law books despite your opposition, it is far from a weak point.

Here's my opinion; on biography alone, no one is better suited for running as the policy/substance candidate and making it work than you. Your background is practically tailor-made for a candidacy based on competence and the promotion of a practical and effective conservatism as a governing philosophy, without any need for you to expend any energy or resources on attacking any of your fellow contenders for the nomination.

It's not that you shouldn't be prepared and ready to hit back when hit ... but - call it Monday morning quarterbacking - you should have settled on running a campaign for the nomination that focussed on marrying together your reputation for competence and brilliance with Conservative policies and solutions for the 21st Century.

Now there's a guy who's also running for the nomination at the moment on our side; a former Senator from the state of Tennessee. To be honest, if the two of you were to be on the ticket, I'd prefer it if his name were to come first. That said, Fred Thompson is running *your* campaign ... and when I say he's running *your* campaign I mean he's running (albeit with a style that is unfortunately Dole-esque) the type of campaign you're much better suited for.

My belief is that you should invest in a thematic series of positive issue-focussed ads, detailing the type of policies you'll be sending to Congress, and how when passed they would help the average American in achieving the American dream, decrease the size and yet improve the efficiency of government, strengthen American national security, and empower state and local governments to address the concerns of their constituents. Cut ads highlighting the type of judges you'll nominate and why. Cut policy focussed ads on school choice, immigration, tax reform, national security, the war on Terror, and yes, even abortion policies beyond just the repeal of Roe VS Wade, like parental notification and tightening health standards at abortion clinics.

Run to your strengths as the guy all sorts of companies and organizations in trouble have come to to get things working again.

Address Your Weaknesses
You're a decent man, Mitt. It's almost annoying, to be honest - so much so that it actually rubs a lot of people the wrong way. The fact that the opposition research team of the Massachusetts Democratic Party (otherwise known as the Boston Globe) has invested so many thousands of man hours trying to pin something (anything!) on you only to hit the weak pay dirt that a company you hired to do your landscaping employs illegal aliens (Shock! Horreur! Scandal! Outrage! Controversy!), is pretty good indication that you've really got no skeletons in your closet.

Apparently, you're supposed to go through the list of employees of every single business you interact with (from the local grocery store to the kid mowing your lawn) and demand that each and every single one of them documentary proof of citizenship or legal residency, and if you don't do so; "flip-flop!"

But that said, you do have a major problem with credibility, and being the smart guy you are, I'm assuming you're at least somewhat aware of it. One word sums it up; the aformentioned "flip-flop." Like I've said before, the timing of your metamorphosis from a generally socially moderate if fiscal and law & order conservative to a full three-wing conservative sucks. Big time.

However, it seems as if your consultants' advice is for you to just brazen it out and draw more attention to your current (correct) positions. Let me tell you now, that's not gonna work. And let me be clear here, nothing poses more of threat to your campaign, especially among Republicans, than this perception that you're a Kerry-esque flip-flopper that would abandon any and all of your Conservative convictions the instant the wind blows in the other direction. To be honest, I am not a 100% certain that's not true, myself ... and I am on your side.

Simply put, you need to confront this issue head-on, much like the way you stood up to face the so-called "issue" of your religion, and in a similar manner that is not open to alternative interpretation, even though there is a significant number of people (a large bloc of them, Republicans) whom you will never convince. Which is ironic, since it's obvious you have successfully convinced the 90% liberal MSM that you are sincere; i.e. the coverage of your candidacy is almost uniformly negative (maybe as a result of this?) ... which does not make sense if they actually believed that you will indeed flip back to their side on the issues if you get in office.

However, a speech like the one you gave about religion, this time with the subject being "flip-flop" is not (at all) likely to work - I personally can't envision one that will. An ad like one that features your 1994 campaign flyer and highlights the 22/23 out 24 positions (i.e. tax cuts, immigration enforcement, school choice, etc.) you took that were Conservative that you still support and ending with a line like "23 out of 24 then, 24 out of 24 now. Sorry it took so long." has a better chance. Much more likely to work is for you to invest a lot more of your time and resources on retail politics, which has the added advantage of being an avenue through which you can address another weakness; the perception that you're "plastic", "manufactured" which does have some validity - message discipline and control is a good thing, but too much of it is not.

Another perception, albeit mostly held by people inclined to hostility toward you already, is that you're an "elitist" who supposedly because of your accomplishments in public office, business and family life, looks down on others less successful. Again, this is a view which is mostly held by people (including quite a few Republicans) who would immediately declare credible a story written by Jason Blair in the National Enquirer positing that your 38 year marriage is a sham and that you've been carrying on a ten year affair with a woman in the Tonga Islands.

Start doing (or increase the frequency of) "Ask Me Anything Q & A" sessions with caucus and primary voters. The disadvantage, of course, is that you're most assuredly going to have to contend with questions on "flip-flops" and tiresome, frustating offshoots of the "flip-flop" meme like; "Governor Romney, why should I vote for you when I have absolutely no idea, none whatsoever, completely positively nothing in my head, what you really, really, really(!) stand for ...?" or "Governor Romney, given that you changed absolutely each and every single position you've ever had at least seven times ..." A great deal of these people would be those you will never be able to convince anyway, the others would be ignorant people who are simply regurgitating what they've heard other people say in order to appear "smart" and "informed."

Luckily, the advantage is also that you're most assuredly going to have to contend with questions on "flip-flops." In my opinion, the potential benefits far outweigh the risks, provided you throw away the script and talking points, forget that there are cameras around and let the Mitt Romney we all saw defend himself here come out. My advice is that at some point you have to look your "flip-flopperite" critics in the eyes and simply say that you've addressed this issue more than enough times, they can choose to believe you and vote for you or they can choose to not believe you and ultimately vote for someone else. Then you can decide to not address such questions any more.

As for the image of you not being "one of us," (whatever the heck that means) I doubt you would be much able to change that perception for those who have it. But it is possible that instead of the guy you'd want to have a drink at the bar with after work, you could transform that image to one of the guy you rely on to get the big decisions right, get things done and get it all to work. I would bet that would be almost as good as being "one of us" even in the "Age of Oprah and Dr. Phil" - last I checked, a commander (or Commander in Chief for that matter) need not be "one of us" to win the loyalty of the men and women under his/her command.

Let's See Some Innovation
Here's my real beef with you; you're the best funded candidate on our side, but I'm not seeing you transforming that into an advantage you can carry forward into the general election. You surely can afford to introduce something new and innovative on the communications front into the mix. My understanding is that you have already adopted and integrated some version of the hi-tech turn-out machine Ken Mehlman and Karl Rove created for the GOP. That's excellent ... but don't forget that we lost in 2006 despite it operating at full capacity.

The weak link was our communications for the whole of 2005 and 2006, and it lost our majorities in Congress, State Legislatures and Governors' mansions. The ground machinery is only half of it - we need air support (communications) to pull it off.

Newt Gingrich spent some time in the speech he gave at the Mackinac Island Republican Leadership Conference in September last year, detailing the campaign Nicholas Sarkozy ran for the French Presidency. Sarkozy had to find a way to reach the French people over a French Press Corps that makes the New York Times actually look like the non-partisan middle-of-the-road newspaper they so want us to believe they are. Sarkozy invested in establishing more than a dozen online SarkoTV channels showing him interacting with French voters, giving in-depth explanations of his views and policies, and directly responding to (and demolishing) attacks on him by the French Left and their newspapers.

I'm entirely certain that something like this is far from beyond your campaign's resources, up to and including finding a way to address multiple crowds across a state. For example, holding a statewide townhall meeting using modern technology where you are able to answer questions from five or six gatherings all over the state is not something I have seen yet, and for me, at least, it's not a new idea.

You very well could also make it a habit to make extended and more detailed versions of your television campaign ads (remember; keep them positive) on the web and giving visitors the option to pick which ads they want to see more of on cable and the networks and contributing specifically to the ads in question.

Like I said before, your candidacy is tailor-made for the type of campaign Fred Thompson is trying to run, except that he seems to be emulating Bob Dole in the execution department. You still have the chance to pick up the baton and get it to work without much of problem heading into Super Tuesday on February 5th and beyond to the General election.

---

I guess that's it. For now.

I still have some more ideas, such as declaring early who it is you will pick to be your Vice-President (I'd advise Jeff Sessions or Jim DeMint if they're willing and have strong (read; first class Conservatives like themselves) people in mind for their Governors to appoint) and other members of your cabinet that will give you a great deal more clout amongst skeptical Conservatives i.e. Former General Tommy Franks for Secretary of Defense, Miguel Estrada for Attorney General, etc. You could also (at the right time) promise to adopt, wholesale, Rudy Giuliani's Judicial Advisory Committee when he drops out. Newt as your choice to head up the Republican National Committee would also work. Another thing you should must do is to immediately start devoting resources to aggressive foray (no pandering) into minority communities.

All that said though, you probably could end up the nominee by taking a consistent second place in every single Primary and Caucus up until it's all over, but that would almost certainly doom your candidacy in the General. It therefore goes without saying that a few (more) first place finishes would be ... well, nice.

But like I've said before, I'm no expert, and this is free advice, which, by definition is only worth what you pay for it. However, really, what've you got to lose?

I am honored to remain,

Sincerely Yours,
Martin A. Knight