Brett Baier does the grilling, and Romney does the spilling. The man whom Jonah Goldberg described as the “candidate that East German scientists would come up with in a lab” short circuits a bit on tough questions. He does finish strong.
Watching Romney’s testiness when Baier asks tough but fair questions, I couldn’t help but notice the similarity between Romney’s reaction and Barney Frank’s reaction during an interview with Savannah Guthrie earlier yesterday.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Both Romney and Frank seem insulted to be asked about things they have actually said and done while in office. That similarity — which seems to come down to arrogance in the face of fair questions — is as far as the similarity between them goes, but it’s there.
On policy, Baier calls Romney out for hacking at Gingrich on immigration when Romney’s policy is nearly identical. Romney tries a laughably unconvincing dodge — “I can’t tell you what Speaker Gingrich would say” after attacking him for what he said.
Romney’s chief argument is his “electability.” That’s mainly because he cannot run on his record as effectively as he did in 2008, and at that time the GOP voters decided to send up one of the least inspiring Republicans in America against Captain Hopenchange. Hopenchange now has an awful record to defend, so he won’t be able to get away with the same snow job he got away with last time around, but we should be very careful with this whole “electability” argument regardless. Electability is ephemeral, based more on emotions and perceptions than hard facts. It changes with the breeze. Romney could lose his “electability” with a few more prickly policy-based interviews like this one, that expose his policy holes and lame yet hostile defenses of same. Gingrich could lose his “electability” too, one way or another. If either had strong and consistent records to fall back on, their “electability” would be less of a perception and more of a real thing. But they don’t.
h/t Ace
Obama gets testy like this, too, when challenged specifically. They are above all that. Gingrich does it, too. Remember his “Mickey Mouse gotcha questions” response to Wallace?
“When you catch a man with his hand in the cookie jar, he hates you.”
These guys do not like to be exposed. They are also not humble enough to admit fallibility. Monstrous egos. It’s the whole problem. It’s why the government is broken. Not enough “servant’s hearts”, like Palin likes to talk about.
You are right, but there is probably a bit more to it.
They can’t afford to admit they were wrong too frequently, because that quickly turns from brave honesty to proof of weakness. You just aren’t going to find one who does it unless they absolutely have to. Gingrich decided to take that route about his marital troubles, and about the Pelosi sitdown. That probably exhausts his supply of acceptable humility. The next time Newt tries it, he is going to be described as tearing up, and it will be downhill from there. Romney obviously has decided not to spend his humility quota on Romneycare, even though most people think he should. His calculation is that it isn’t worth the risk. He thinks he can talk his way through it. So he has a couple of humble pies still in his kit.
As another example, look at how we bash little lenin for confessing that there weren’t any shovel ready jobs. He regrets that slip-up, for sure, even though he is priviledged to live in the msm cone of silence.
Good observations!
RomneyisObala lite – arrogant,feels beneath answering questions he does not like; avoids to address his weaknesses; laughs nervously when flip flops pointed out; feels entitled and convinced *he* is the only one to beat Obama; most of all his sense of entitlement of becoming president.
Not good qualities in these times. We need a principled, honest candidate, who at least is willing to address pressing issues candidly, and stop all these tired and worn-out platitudes.
I do not see that in any of the current candidates running – a sad spectable!
curious,
i’ve always thought romney does much better when he can stick to generalities as he speaks to a large audience whereas perry does much better in a cozier/intimate format
Neither one is going to lose his electability edge. It’s one of them, a miracle, or the desert.
Cain, could win if his accusers would all vote for him; Perry, 2% in Florida; Paul, the bf of the dopers; Bachman, not this year; Santorum, drawing to an inside straight; Huntsman, nice daughters.
Look, what we have to do is to stop bashing Romney and Gingrich. They are two of the best candidates in decades and have come to places in their lives where they are both consistently espousing solidly conservative ideas. Either one as they stand today would have blown dubya away in 2000. They both have good combinations of inside and outside government experience and major league successes in their lives, successes that make Obama’s life history look like the joke it is. Either one of them will be so much better than little lenin that it would take weeks to list the whys. They are both good in debates and they both want the job, unlike McCain who it turns out just wanted the nomination. Yes, they both have the big government gene, but they will both have to work with a Tea Party congress that won’t be in the mood for footsies with big gov boondoggles.
Bashing them as amoral flip-flopping rinos is the equivalent of sitting down the night before your brother’s wedding and spending three hours rehashing all the flaws of his bride.
And wishing for another bride is a waste of time.
McCain gets a raw deal. He was doing fine. He had a great convention, a great VP choice, a great start to the campaign. He was actually in the lead for the 2 weeks or so after the convention(Pretty amazing when you consider W had a 25% approval rating, the Iraq War had a 65% disapproval, he was being outspent by hundreds of millions of dollars, and the media had spent the past 9 months hyping Obama as the greatest thing ever). Things were going well….
Then Lehman collapsed, the market crashed, and the entire economy melted down. Once that happened McCain was finished. No Republican would have won in that scenario. Not Reagan, not W, not Demint, not anyone you can name. It was bad luck, but it happened.
It’d be like in football if Aaron Rodgers, Clay Matthews, Charles Woodson, Greg Jennings, and the entire offensive line all got injured. Would anyone still think GB would win the SB? Would anyone blame the coach if they didn’t?
It would have been nice to see what would have happened if the economy just stayed normal through the election and didn’t have a major collapse. I think McCain would have won a narrow victory, but it would have been very close either way.
I think you are right about most of that, but I also think McCain made two huge and unforgiveable mistakes. He refused to raise the issues of Obama’s background and associations; such a huge failure that I consider it one of the most fateful decisions in American history. He should have deferred his personal honor to the good of the country. Many of us knew what would happen. Why didn’t he? Or did he, and didn’t care. And I also think that McCain lost his will to win when the marxists tanked the economy. I think he gave up, and I can’t forgive him for it. A lost and clueless McCain would have been infinitely better than a determined and purposeful Obama.
just seems odd Romney points and positions today are the most conservative of current candidates and he gets attacked continually. Mitt needs to defend his conservative positions.
Romney is a Marxist..end of story.
Not sure you know the definition of a Marxist