What’s Eating Mitt Romney?
George Neumayr asks why’s Mitt so mad, as he showed in that interview with Bret Baier this week. It’s a good piece, worth a read. Neumayr works through the current polls and concludes that Romney must be frustrated that he, an upstanding man whose worst moral failings seem to end with the one cig he smoked as an unruly teen, can’t break away from a field that’s currently led by a trio of himself, Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain with their accused or affirmed cheating. The choirboy who studied hard and played by the rules resents the success of the slackers and rebels who didn’t. He’s the brother in the parable of the prodigal son.
I think that may be part of the reason Mitt’s mad this week, but not all of the reason.
Roll back to 2008. I was at Hot Air and later the Laura Ingraham show back then. Romney was running as the conservative businessman who had enough crossover appeal to win in Massachusetts. He touted his success with the Olympics, his business experience, and his win (but not really his record) in Massachusetts. As the primary wore on he became the credible conservative alternative to John McCain, or at least that became his narrative. His campaign did a great deal of direct outreach to blogs and conservative talk radio in those days, making him accessible, granting interviews, really being involved. He took a hard line on immigration, he took a hard line on the war, on just about everything. I ended up endorsing him, which definitely earned him one vote in a meaningless Maryland primary, and he also won the endorsements or recommendations of Laura Ingraham, Rush Limbaugh, etc. Many of the big guns of the conservative movement backed him over McCain and Huckabee.
And he lost to the moderate, aisle-crossing and uninspiring John McCain.
Mitt Romney is a smart man. He strikes me as a pragmatic corporate tinkerer and fixer, the kind of person who can examine a given situation, diagnose what’s wrong with it, and come up with a fix. He has probably spent the years between that 2008 campaign and the current one thinking and re-thinking about every move he made in that failed effort. Like an NFL coach poring over game film of the Super Bowl he lost, Romney has replayed much of the 2008 campaign in his mind, not in a weird regretful way, but so that he can figure out what went wrong and win next time. He seems to have concluded that since being the conservative candidate didn’t work then, he would try being the moderate now. Hey, that’s who won last time around, right?
So he hasn’t done the outreach to the conservative opinion sphere that he did last time around. That’s not speculation, it’s just a fact. His campaign this time is very different than the one he ran last time, no less professional but far less accessible. They send a blizzard of professional, impersonal emails that never really lend any sense of the man himself. He hasn’t presented himself, from the campaign’s earliest days, as the same kind of candidate he presented himself as last time. His current persona — moderate, avoid taking strong stands and avoid mistakes, play yourself off against the other candidates and allow them to play off of you as the dominant figure — is the “fix” to the “problem” that he diagnosed from the 2008 campaign.
But Romney didn’t lose in 2008 because he ran too far to the right. He lost because he wasn’t next in line (McCain was, after losing to Bush in 2000) and because he didn’t score that Crist endorsement in Florida. He can’t fix the former, except by being next in line now (which he is, and he’s factored that into his current campaign), and he probably couldn’t have done much about the latter. And there’s no Crist figure to offer such a decisive endorsement anywhere this time around. He got Christie, he got Pawlenty, he probably has more endorsements than anyone else. But he’s sinking and feeling like it’s 2008 all over again.
So I think he misdiagnosed why he lost last time, came up with the wrong fix, and is now stuck with it — and he’s started to realize that, as a succession of candidates has come and gone and now Newt Gingrich is really starting to threaten him. A man more secure in his core beliefs would probably not feel as threatened by the succession and Gingrich’s current rise as Romney does. He would reaffirm who he is and what he stands for and would find a way to regain momentum with a good ground game in the early states. But Romney can’t pull away because he can’t really get out of the paradigm he has trapped himself in, that of the aloof and inevitable nominee, the man who is next in line and the “only one who can beat Obama.” He isn’t that, he now knows it, and knows that his 2008 fix is now his 2012 problem. This chips at the core of what Romney thinks of himself, the competent corporate fix-it man.
That kind of realization would make for a pretty rough week for anyone.
Bryan,
One of the best yet I’ve seen on Romney.
One reason you don’t mention is that voters are good at identifying phonies. They don’t like them. McCain was many things, but he wasn’t a phony. You knew who he was. He was a war hero/pow with a very strong sense of patriotism and love of the military. A hawk on defense and natl security but a guy who didn’t care all that much about domestic issues. A bit of a maverick who wasn’t in line with 100% of conservatism but overall was pretty solid. A guy who was solidly pro-life.
Same with W. You knew who he was. Same with Dole. With Reagan. The GOP doens’t nominate phonies. Ironically, I also think most folks have a good idea of who Newt is. A sleazy scumbag with little ethics or morals, but nonetheless a really smart guy with a strong record of conservative achievements who knows what he’s talking about, and will be able to make the case not only against Obama, but for Conservtism as well if not better than anyone else.
No one knows who Romney really is. I wonder if even he knows himself. In his heart he’s not a conservative and we all know it. And that’s why he won’t win.
I know who he is.
He’s a politician who wants to be president, and he’s a personally and politically conservative guy who has learned to be flexible because he lives in the northeast but still wants to be in government.
How isn’t he conservative? He’s Mormon, married to one woman his entire life, a family man, a good father, a religious man, and he has always been a Republican. Strip away the migration from being a NE Rockefeller-like republican to a modern day conservative, and he is in tune to the desires of the country. He’s too much of a believer in government as the answer to be a perfect fit, but the world isn’t perfect either. Show me a commenter or a writer at PJ Media who hasn’t gone through a similar migration, and who doesn’t have some views that diverge from today’s orthodoxy, which is different than yesterday’s and won’t be the same as tomorrow’s. There are probably a few, but not many.
There is no reason to belive Romney will emerge from a chrysalis the day after his inaugeration and demand more redistribution. Such talk is sheer lunacy.
Why do we form these circular firing squads when it’s clear that the options are down to two people? A week ago, they were both good candidates. Today vultures are feeding on their carcasses.
Little lenin is rubbing his hands in glee.
Bryan seems to imply that Romney has spent the last four years analyzing the 2008 campaign. Sure, he did that part of the time, but he also spent a lot of time thinking about how to change the direction of the country. His proposals were reality based. The next president can’t repeal Obamacare unless he gets the Senate votes, but he can defang it by offering waivers. If he gets some new Senate republicans, he’ll go further. Similarly, he can’t turn over Roe vs Wade on day 1, but he can veto bills that call for public funding of abortion and those that permit teens to make an enormous decision without talking to her parents. He also knows you can’t just dismantle massive federal agencies in the middle of a recession without creating even more unemployed and more uncertainty, but you can down-size them and force them to get back to their basic mission.
Mitt’s analysis of turning much of government back to the states is also correct. How many of state and local spending decisions have been based on the carrots offered by federal funding? How many local needs could have been adequately served by smaller, less costly alternatives if there had been no matching funds for the luxury version of the solution? Think of the use it or lose it premise. Many Americans have lost it: it being their ability to come up with creative solutions to local problems and personal problems because they haven’t had to use those skills. Communities have been organized to demand that someone else fix problems and people have forgotten how to organize themselves to accomplish specific tasks. The constitution is the foundation on which America stands, but it takes some Ben Franklin initiative to build the walls and put on a roof. I think Romney wants to encourage the inner Ben Franklin in all of us, but he knows that this is a gradual process. We have to regain faith in our own abilities and experience the satisfaction that comes from solving our own problems.
Romney’s problem now is that average Americans are out for blood right now, and he knows that the real answer to our problems is sweat, a sweat that is applauded and valued. Americans are not lazy, but their efforts are demeaned. The people who organize church dinners for the poor or donate deer meat to the foodbank are called clingers. In fact, they are the creative. And their children take this creativity to new levels. We are a bottom up nation, perhaps not always elegant, but strong and grounded and good. I would be happy with any president who understood these things. I think Romney does, but he needs to work on message delivery.
“Romney’s problem now is that average Americans are out for blood right now”
yep
because that is what Rush is telling them. His theory (which he presents as fact) is that any of the candidates can win, so why not go for the most rabid conservative.
Of course, if Obama wins, Rush will still be in good shape, won’t he? His income will probably increase, but even if it fell sharply, he would still be better off than any of his listeners. It’s so easy to be an absolutist when you don’t have any skin in the game.
The talker are quickly moving from being heros to being the guys who are (probably unintentially) pushing the country over the abyss.
Blamin it on Rush..hahaha good try.
You sound as clueless as Cain does at this point.
Americans are not quite that stupid.
In ’08, I felt McCain was slimey…he let the left walk all over him in the campaign and never fought back. I want a candidate that will fight back…conservatives need their own James Carville.
I do not like anyone that is a candidate for the nomination with the Republican party at this point.
Rush???…you jest..Americans are not that stupid..they do have minds of their own..unless they’re liberals/democrats
ORomneycare, cap and trade, illegal aliens, shall I go on? On every issue of significance, you can come up with three positions, all his. Dip the current occupant of the WH in Clorox, slap a wig on him, and there Romney stands.
Gingrich isn’t any better, really. However, he’s willing to concede he might have made a mistake or two.
“Gingrich isn’t any better, really. However, he’s willing to concede he might have made a mistake or two.”
THIS!
SDN has obviously been a hard-core 100% pure conservative since he or she popped out of the womb.
But I have to wonder, since conservatism has changed quite a bit through the years, does SDN’s 100% apply to today, or five years ago, or some other time.
Because 5 years ago, NOBODY was complaining about the GSN’s (frankly, probably less than 1% of commenters on the blogs were even aware of them), including the talkers. And 15 years ago, the Heritage Foundation was pushing an individual mandate for health care. And 25 years ago, Reagan got amnesty passed. And 30 years ago, conservatism was adamantly opposed to relations with China. I could go on.
So which version of conservatism is it that SDN is absolutely certain that he is so right about, and Romney so wrong about?
A week ago, they were both good candidates? To most Republicans, Romney is the one guy they do NOT want to nominate. That’s why he has a ceiling of around 25% in the polls. 75% of Republicans want anyone other than Romney.
Besides, being conservative is more than being a good family man and a Republican. That’s Mitt’s problem. Conservatism is a core belief system that doesn’t change with your audience. Romney has no core. You might call that pragmatism, but I call it telling people what he thinks they want to hear. He wants to be president because…well, just because. He thinks he should be. It’s personal ambition, nothing more – and it always has been.
There is no logical way to tell whether the old liberal Romney running for governor of MA or the new “conservative” Mitt Romney running for President is the real Romney…unless you take a leap of faith, because that’s all it would be – faith. The American people took a leap of faith with Obummer in 2008. How did that turn out? Even his own supporters are disappointed in him.
Also, it’s not “clear that we’re down to 2 people.” Many people in the caucus and primary states still haven’t started paying close attention yet (believe it or not). We’re probably in for another wild poll swing or two. But whatever happens, Mitt won’t be gaining traction.
DRay writes: “To most Republicans, Romney is the one guy they do NOT want to nominate. That’s why he has a ceiling of around 25% in the polls. 75% of Republicans want anyone other than Romney.”
Well, exactly, there it is. 75% Repub voters don’t want Mitt, but the 25% keep telling us Mitt is more electable. How is he more electable when about three out of four REPUBS don’t even want him? And why is he so low in our favor? We see in him many of the same types the party has offered up to us previously, i.e., people who want to add the Presidency to their resumes and will make any compromise to be elected and re-elected. The result is the decades and decades long slide to the Left.
Mitt and Newt are electable, but it will be a hard slog and razor close for either of them. They are the only two with the experience and the chops to withstand the onslaught.
All of the other declared candidates would lose in landslides.
Rush is wrong, dangerously wrong. He and Levin were also dangerously wrong about Sharon Angle and about Christine O’donnell and they are just as wrong about this election.
It will be hard enough for the two experienced national conservative politicians to win in the teeth of the multi-billion dollar smear machine. The rest of them would be torn to shreds and wouldn’t get 40% of the vote.
That’s what the republican electorate knows and why the field is already culled to the strongest two. It’s either Mitt or Newt. Get used to it.
Fortunately, we have two good candidates to choose from. Many election, there are none.
Pro,
I have to answer your assertion that this guy is a conservative, he is not. He is a believer in anthropogenic global warming, he believes that the federal government has an interest in subsidizing ethanol production and, despite his strenuos current assertions, he at one time believed that Romney Cares mandate should be applied to national health insurance. By the way, Newt believes in AGW, ethanol subsidies, and also believed in the mandate.
Neither of these candidates can demonstrate any basis under Article One, Section Eight, of the Constitution for these applications of federal control. Both of these guys are dyed in the wool progressives who believe in a role for federal authority well in excess of what is intended under the Constitution. Neither is appreciably different from Nixon, Wilson, Bush, or FDR. Both want to expand federal power and their speech and records demonstrate that fact. It is the unchecked expansion of federal power over the last 110 years with it’s accompanying increase in spending that has caused our country to enter a period of accelerating decline.
Romney’s record suggests that he might be able to slow decline from 180 mph to 140 mph, but his lengthy record doesn’t demonstrate that he has any understanding of what is needed to reverse the problem.
By the way, Newt believes in AGW, ethanol subsidies, and also believed in the mandate
When asked in an interview night before last if he believed that AGW is a fact, Gingrich’s reply was “I don’t know”.
Romney, on the other hand, has declared himself a True Believer in AGW.
Kind of a litmus test, in my view, since any AGW True Believer hasn’t really looked at the whole thing too closely, the revelations of Climategate, the money and agendas driving so called “science”.
You’re right.
We have to throw the constitution away as well. Nothing that men who owned slaves wrote is acceptable today. They weren’t conservatives like we are.
A bit of a maverick who wasn’t in line with 100% of conservatism but overall was pretty solid.
This is satire, right?
I’ll try to repeat what Mark Levin says better in the future.
That should make you happy.
This brain that allows me to thing instead of parrot is offending you.
Or maybe the problem is that Mit is a cocky – arrogant member of a church that teaches that all protestant and catholic churches are an abomination before God. The cocky – arrogant part anyone can see; the rest is well hidden unless you have done your due diligence.
I’m with you. Anybody whose religion diverges from yours should be cast out.
Which one do you believe in today?
You know, Bryan…I think what you have written may be pretty astute. I would add one element.
Romney saw the Obama campaign in 2008 and how it steamrolled Clinton. Obama ran as a hologram…and people projected onto his screen anything they wanted to see in him. He’s a centrist, he’s a liberal idealist, he’s a Muslim, he’s a Christian, he’s a friend of Rashid Khalidi, he’s a friend of Axelrod and Rahm…he was all things to all people.
Romney seems to want to be the mirror hologram. Except, he’s not getting people to project onto his screen…in fact, they seem to be projecting “other” onto his screen. Because he is not “one” thing…they aren’t projecting THEIR ideal candidate…they are taking the empty screen and projecting their NON-ideal candidate.
The Obama “mirror” is cracked, shattered…and Romney running as the Non-Obama hologram is backfiring.
People want to know what they are getting this time.
The election of a Cracker Jack box…where you don’t know what the surprise might be…is not a winning strategy this time around.
I wouldn’t say Obama steamrolled Clinton. He won a very protracted primary helped out a lot by luck and timing. Obama also had two things going for him that Romney doesn’t. Well he had way more, but he had these two.
One, he had a lock on the black vote that is a huge % of the dem primary electorate, especially in the South in states like SC, NC, GA, LA, GA, VA, MD all of which he won big. He ha dthat whole 1st black President and making history thing which a lot of folks got caught up in. If UT and NV had tons of delegates, Mitt would be in good shape. They don’t.
Two, he was on record as being against the Iraq War from the start. Don’t underestimate that. Take all his gifts, all his talent, all the media hype he got, all his great speeches, all of it. If Barack Obama had been on record as supporting the Iraq War in 2003 he’d never have been the nominee. That was his biggest asset and Hillary’s greatest fault. Conversely, if Hillary had voted against it and Obama had been for it Hillary would have won easily. If bot had been against it she’d have won as well.
Romneycare is this cycle’s Iraq War. He can run from it, but he can’t hide, just like Hillary couldn’t.
Of course, regardless of what you think of his politics, Obama is one of the most charismatic and exciting political figures and orators in recent history and probably in US history, able to connect with people of all ages and races and especially the young. Mitt Romney, to put it mildly, is not.
If nobody told me that President Obama was charasimatic and an orator (of any stripe), I wouldn’t know it. Fortunately we had every news agency at every turn reminding us that that was the case, so I guess he really is a great orator. Thank goodness I had the help reaching that conclusion. And we get to hear it repeated even though we we’ve had an opportunity to see that great oration, so we haven’t forgetten. Keep saying it, and someday it may really be true.
In light of reading Bryan’s piece, I came to the exact same conclusion: Mitt is trying to emulate the guy that beat the GOP. That’s a stilted and short-sighted strategy worthy of an insurance salesman, but not of a leader. It’s good enough for a scrimmage but not for a war.
The fact of the matter is that the GOP lost the battle years ago on the altar of political expediency and GWB merely accelerated its demise. Now, Newt is not unlike any person who wants to fit in, but won’t be boxed in by the problems such a fit will pose. That makes him a far more flexible thinker; a future-caster and a big picture person. He may perform politics-as-usual, but his mind refuses to accept the standard approach to it. Americans love nothing more than innovation. Romney has nothing on that point.
However, all of that innovative expression will bite Newt in the ass in the end of this primary and Romney will get the nod and he will be milquetoast and moderation while the patient lays dying on the gurney.
– to please?
Briant piece, Bryan. It’s kind of like the generals fighting the last war when they would be better off to prepare the troops to be flexible so they can better fight as yet unknown enemies.
I’m for Newt, but the scorn heaped on Romney saddens me. I think he’s a good man, and a good conservative who has simply lived in liberal geographies and has learned to adapt and succeed under those circumstances. He doesn’t deserve the abuse he gets, particularly becuase his skills are ones that in many situations would be the exact skills needed to help the country succeed.
And I sure hope he doesn’t get too discouraged because mecurial Newt could hit the fan at a moment’s notice, and Romney could end up with the prize after all. In fact, I still think that is the most likely outcome, even though the momentum is behind Newt.
Reagen was a good conservative in a liberal state. He did not ‘adapt’ by giving California iron rice bowl health care. Romney is an entitlement pimp, like the Bushes and Democrats.
Stop mythologizing Reagan as the uber-conservative governor of CA and check history. He was far more moderate than the myth-makers and hagiographers of today would care to admit. Reagan made university tuition free at both state systems, among other things. This was not what we today understand as “conservatism”; quite the contrary, in fact.
And who of all people had a sky-traversing journey of positions but Reagan? Democrat, union-chief, etc…. to the vanguard of conservatism?!!! But a guy like Romney, who was endorsed by National Review, Weekly Standard and all the pillars of the conservative movement 4 years ago, is not conservative enough anymore?
I am convinced that the establishment doesn’t want the GOP to win this one; having Obama around 4 more years is good for the “movement conservative” book publishing army, and the conservative punditocracy generally. That’s why they’ll again foist a crusty old white-haired white guy on the nomination to run against the youthful black guy. Except this time they’ll convince us that it was our idea.
You Republican partisans and wannabe “conservative” politico’s sure are easily led. Newt is a caricature, just like McCain was. Hip black guy v. old, stodgy, ornery white guy. “Get off my lawn” and all that. The optics alone are enough for another Obama term, and if you think I’m incorrect, consider the OWS doofuses and their intellectual analogs among 50% or so of the electorate, and how any of their inattentive asses would look at such a contest.
Over before it’s begun. And yeah, the foregoing explains the great hope for Cain, who was otherwise distinguished only as a ham-tongued naif, for the most part. So much for that idea.
If it ain’t to be Romney, and there doesn’t seem to be enough enthusiasm there for that, the party needs to get some more people to jump into the contest; if not him, it’s not going to be the others on stage right now, either. What a clown car they are this year – worse even than the Dems in ’08, and that was really something!
“He was far more moderate than the myth-makers and hagiographers of today would care to admit. ”
Like just about everybody else who ever held executive authority, which, btw, requires the office holder to represent a broad range of people. Or in other words, everybody except people like Michelle Bachman, who hasn’t had to make any decisions requiring compromise because she only has to vote on stuff (usually in the minority which means she has never had to answer for the consequences) and has been able to get reelected without ever yielding a position. I like her a lot, but her experience is so far from that of a governing official that it is all but certain that she would cause a firestorm if she was ever elected to an executive position.
Which is why ultra-conservative congressional reps never get elected to national office.
But what amazes me is that people hate Romney (and Newt) so much, even though both are more conservative than almost all the people who hate them were a few short years ago. People have very short memories and are about a million times more forgiving of themselves than anybody else. Plus, many people chose to ignore the reality of what a governing official has to deal with. Somehow they imagine that their own up-to-the-second personal preferences should somehow be implemented 100% of the time; retroactively, to boot. Anything less, and the official is a RIIIIINNNNO. Of course, such people wouldn’t have a chance in a million of being elected themselves in Massachusetts or even a California circa the late 60′s, or of becoming the Speaker of the House.
“Reagan made university tuition free at both state systems, among other things.”
LOL. Yes instead of tuition we paid fees that rose just like tuition. Something about a “Rose by any other name is still a rose”
Mr. Preston, I believe you have nailed it!
Romney already was having some difficulty with Commonwealth Care during the 2008 primary, and it totally mystifies me why he’s chosen that position to draw his line in the sand. The post-implementation results of the program in Massachusetts along with the revelations of the mandates and questionable constitutional requirements of the plan Congress drew up gave Romney multiple chances to hit the “reboot” button in 2009-10 and walk back his position, but he steadfastly refused at a tie where he could have done so without it look as nakedly like another flip-flop as it would if he does it now, with his primary lead slipping away.
Baier’s questioning on RomneyCare and Mitt’s testiness as the interview went on showed someone who’s sick of discussing the issue and cam’t understand why the Fox News/talk radio media, if not the right side of the Republican primary electorate, can’t get past the issue. He’s stuck with that position now, and it’s his steadfast clinging to it that makes conservatives wonder if a President Romney would take anything more than the most perfunctory measures to get rid of ObamaCare, and why they’re moving towards Gingrich, who at least is willing to admi a few of his past moves have been mistakes.
That is exactly my thoughts on the subject. Romney’s refusal to admit that Romneycare was a mistake (which is costing MA money) is my problem with Romney. I don’t care if he has changed his strategy from last time. I care about the repeal of Obamacare, and I don’t think that Romney really wants to repeal it.
The reason that I think Romney doesn’t want to repeal it and just make a few changes instead is simple. I don’t trust politicians. That means that I want to look at their actions and not listen to their words.
Romney passed Romneycare. — Romney likes Romneycare to this day. — Obamacare is based on Romneycare. — Romney probably likes the majority of Obamacare. This all leads to me not voting for Romney. I would prefer to have a gridlocked government with Obama against Republicans controlling both houses of Congress than to have Romney as president with Republicans controlling both houses of Congress. Unless the Supreme Court overturns the entire Obamacare, then and only then would I be willing to vote for Romney against Obama.
I too cannot understand why Romney didn’t say something like this: “Yes, as a Governor of a liberal state I thought it was a worthy experiment to pass our health care bill. It seemed like the best thing to do at the time. But now I recognize that it was deeply flawed. And thanks to that experience I can unequivocally oppose Obamacare and will work to repeal it as soon as I am elected. In trying Romneycare I helped prove that such a plan would not work nationally. That is precisely what the Founders wanted — the states as laboratories for innovation. We showed the flaws locally and now we know why it is wrong nationally.”
Such a statement would contain 90% of what he currently says, would defend his federalism argument, but would use that federalism argument in an entirely different way from what he currently says. Instead of defending the correctness of the plan, he could use the incorrectness of it to better advantage.
But the man has chosen not to acknowledge his mistake, and that in itself is a bad sign. Perhaps a reason why he was so hot under the collar with Bret Beir on Fox was that he simply cannot acknowledge that he has ever made a mistake.
Yeh – totally agree.
Btw, I think people will count the Bret Baier interview as the end of Romney’s chances as a candidate.
I would like to see a turning point with both Newt and Mitt. Mitt has some real big changes of heart and an explanation could go a long way. Same is true for Newt but on fewer issues. However the Newt/Nancy scares me to death.
Personally I was educated a Marxist in Jr High. In 9th grade I fully believed a garbage man had the same value as a Dr. Since we would all die of disease if we had no trash pickup. To make matters worse my mother was raised in Europe and is basically communist.
Thankfully my first turning point happened at 16 when I started to work full time. Embraced being a libertarian shortly after that. But peoples views evolve over time. Most of our changes of heart need no explanation. But when you go from pro-choice to pro-life an explanation might go a long way. In Mitts case, you just feel he wants to win too much. He has no core and would say anything to accomplish what his daddy could not.
I really don’t like my choices this election. I am ready for Ron Paul in the seat of power. But we will need an economic 9/11 before we give up on Big Government.
Mitt keeps on taking positions that he ‘thinks he should take’ rather than expressing the positions he genuinly believes in.
In 1994 he showed the whole world who he was when he was leading in the polls aginst the incumbant Ted Kennedy. Then, in September Newt Gingrich introduced “The Contract With America.”
Mitt immediatly let the whole world know where he didn’t stand. “That’s the House I’m running for the Senate,” he answered the reporters, (who incidentally had been making fun of the whole ‘contract on America’ idea.)
The farther Mitt distanced himself from the contract, the lower he sank in the polls.
Mitt’s a Manager. I get it. And I am thouroughly convinced he can manage a Liberal Mess better than any Democrat ever could.
But the country doesn’t need a Manager to hold it in place until the Next Democrat can come along and push it farther left, we need a LEADER who WILL push the country in a Rightward Direction. That leader is NOT Mitt.
Full Disclosure: I support Michele Bachmann (my apologies to anyone who has read more than two of my comments. You must be getting sick of me starting each comment with somethng you already know)
The problem with Mitt Romney is now and has always been that he’s trying too hard to appeal to everyone.
Healthcare? Romney fixed healthcare in Massachusetts. Oh, you don’t like Obamacare? Hey, Mitt is on your side. Ignore Massachusetts.
Abortion? Mitt is pro-choice. Oh, O.K., life begins at conception.
Flat Tax? Mitt hates it. Mitt likes it.
At the very best, a person who takes both sides of an issue can win support from both sides. Obama did very well at this in 2008. Moderate liberals saw him as one of them while radical leftists saw something different.
At the very worst, taking both sides of an issue loses you support. People realize that if you’ve changed your position over and over that there’s no telling what you would do if you actually held office.
Mitt has always reminded me of Thomas Dewey. I don’t know enough about Mr. Dewey to know how many times he flip/flopped, but I do know how well he did in Presidential politics. Maybe reminding people of the plastic groom on top of a wedding cake doesn’t help you when you’re running for President.
Mitt’s problem is Romney-Care. If he’s defending Romneycare, he’s not going to be repealing Obamacare. Just like he’s not going to reduce government as much as he’s going to make it more efficient.
The country doesn’t need a manager. It needs a Big Ideas Hypocrite. Really?
So is Romney a plastic unemotional man or easily upset? I’d be a little peeved myself if I had spent the last 5 years and a small fortune trying to prevent the Republican Party from making itself look ridiculous, again. They have a choice between a man who has led a very conservative life and proved himself a leader in academics, business and government. And he’s now trailing a lying, fat, fat-headed, ethanol subsidies and AGW supporting, Freddie Mac hypocrite, whose ego is so large that he’s announced that he has already won the nomination.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-01/freddie-mac-efficiency-could-put-man-on-mars-gingrich-once-said.html
Go to Mars Gingrich. And take your stupid Big Idea socialist housing scheme with you.
Newt sounds like a progressive at times, but his actions have always been conservative. Romney is an established consecrated entitlement pimp.
He went negative in 2008 and I think it backfired on him. The candidates he went negative against held it against him. They made sure he didn’t win. (I seem to remember the West Virginia primary had something like this going on.)
Newt is leading for a couple of reasons. 1) When he talks, he knows what he’s talking about. He can actually articulate and defend conservative principles. Therefore, we can picture him engaging Obama in a way where he can bypass rhetorical tricks of the opposition and present a conservative case to America.
2) He says nice things about his Republican opponents.
My gosh, I think we have consensus. You’re all nailing it in you’re own way. I just want to add my 2 cents worth.
I feel for Mitt. I think he’s a decent, accomplished man who would be a good steward of the economy and help restore our national integrity. But he’s got to win a nomination and a national election first, and unfortunately he just doesn’t resonate with contemporary culture. Intellectually I know that the election isn’t ‘American Idol’, but charisma counts in the political world we live in. I saw right thru Obama from day one, but there were people who were fainting…heck, even some men were tingling.
Compare Mitt to three other ‘moderate’ Republicans: Guliani, Christie, and Gingrich. All of these guys have committed some political atrocities…Guliani and gun control, Guliani and abortion, Christie supported the Ground Zero Mosque, Newt did that global warming thing with Nazi Pelosi (to name just one atrocity). But I’m thinking I’d love to see Rudy, Chris, or Newt go one on one in a debate with Barack, Hillary, Algore, or the ghost of Ted Kennedy. Mitt, not so much.
I don’t just want the Democrats defeated, I want a ‘smack down’. I don’t think I’m alone in that sentiment; which is why operatives like Bachmann, Palin, Huckabee, and Newt get their day in the sun. I’m no fan of the Huckster, but I’d pay to see him debate a leading Dem. I cringe every time I think of the Doles, McCains and Bushes heading for the debate podium with the future of the country on the line.
Mitt fits in with this group of decent guys who don’t have an ounce of sparkle. If the fiesty Bachman had Mitt’s resume she’d be the first woman president. I guess that’s the word, ‘fiesty’. It comes naturally. You have it or you don’t. Mitt doesn’t.
(Full disclosure, when Guliani went after Ron Paul’s blame America rant, when Christie blasted a whining public unionist, or when Newt took down Palley…I got a tingle too).
At a time of troubles in which the American people have all-but abandoned their Constitution and Republic, I want a candidate who, as governor, senator, or representative, has triumphed over corruption in the government and has reduced the size of the government by closing offices, departments, and agencies. A candidate who merely promises to reduces taxes (like George Bush) or to abolish departments (like Ronald Reagan) or cease funding corruption (like Newt Gingrich) or establishes new government bureaucracies (like Mitt Romney), or is a caretaker of government whose expansion marks time during his term (like Rick Perry) is useless.
Unless after election the power and scope of the IRS is curtailed; if waste (the Department of Education), fraud (the Department of Energy), and abuse (the Department of Homeland Security) are not abolished; if the regulatory agencies (FCC, EPA) do not declare that most of their regulations fall beyond the authorization granted them by Congress; if domestic subsidies (to farmers, artists, corporations, etc.) and foreign subsidies (to NGOs, governments, the UN, etc.) are not ceased, then regardless of the speeches of the victor, the ship of state will continue on its course to bankruptcy and tyranny.
Romney is not that candidate.
If I read you correctly, you’ve eliminated Romney, Perry, and Gingrich from consideration and wouldn’t vote for Reagan if he was alive and running. Just wondering which candidate could bring your admirable wish list to fruition (assuming of course, we had total control of congress).
I ask the question because in order for any substantial change to take place, we need to win the white house. Even if we maintain the house of Reps, and have 60 senators, the current incumbent, if given a second term, will rule by Czar, veto, and executive order, in a manner more egregious than he has already.
“Just wondering which candidate could bring your admirable wish list to fruition…”
You can’t tell?
Let’s put it this way, shall we? Whoever is elected prez in 2012 will face the most important, profound and dangerous decisions on the domestic scene since 1932, or actually, since 1932 and 1968 combined. They will approach the danger level of 1860.
Whoever is elected prez in 2012 will face international decisions beyond anything any of our presidents have faced, sort of a combined 1916, 1932, and 1940 election combined (with a good dose of 1952 and 1968).
Okay?
Now, vote for either Mr. Plastic “Oh, I wonder how to answer that question? Maybe I should try with George Bush’s Decision Points? Yeah, that might do it” or the old egoist who did more for the Conservative movement than even Reagan did.
It is up to you-all.
Go for it.
An Préachán
He just can’t get the Mitmentum going.
Mitt was so ‘smarrtt’ he decided to run as the anti-TEA Party candidate and refused to change after the shellacking by the TP in 2010. That right there tells you everything about this doofus Mitt. Stick a fork in this prick. I’d much rather have Newt as a candidate at least he would put up a fight!
My thought has been that Mitt made an enormous diplomatic error in not getting around in front of the Tea Party. The largest grass roots movement of American history and he wants to engage in politics as though it weren’t there? He is so mired in his ‘core’ that he didn’t see this? The fundamental nature of his ‘core’ won’t allow adjustments. This is fatal. Too slow on the uptake. Stick a fork in this prick.
Whatever Mitt. Hey, thats a good slogan for his campaign. The “Whatever” campaign. Whatever you dont like about the issues or the other candidates is OK because he’s none of those things.He’s for “Whatever” you think is the right answer. Just not the “Right” answer.
Krauthammer writes this in his column at Human Events:
We must focus on this, the candidates must focus on this.
This will move the independents, the conservatives and all Freedom loving Americans.
EXACTLY!
Romney seems to have concluded that since being the conservative candidate didn’t work then, he would try being the moderate now. Hey, that’s who won last time around, right?
If that’s Romney’s basis for this campaign’s image as opposed to last campaign’s image, it doesn’t work for me.
Romney suffers from the “I’ve accomplished this, I’ve accomplished that” syndrome which, to me, is Bachmann’s drawback. Constantly repeating how cool you are is not anything like thinking on your feet.
Newt does the “I’ve accomplished (fill in the blank)” thing, too, but his intelligence or confidence or whatever is broad enough that he goes on to make interesting points.
Newt’s sit down with Cain on social security etc., an hour long, real talking was great. I can barely stand the short quip style of the republican debates anymore. I get embarrassed that presidential candidates are subjected to the (often gotcha) questions of (often brain dead) moderators.
If Newt gets the nomination, he has challenged Barack to seven 3-hour Lincoln/Douglas style debates, two men talking, no moderators.
Chief among the reasons Romney isn’t doing well in the polls is that he’s engendered a lot of distrust:
– By governing “pragmatically” (as Romney would put it);
– By relentlessly pursuing ever-higher office;
– By trimming his sails to what he thinks is the prevailing political wind;
– By not admitting to his mistakes (as conservatives see them);
– By changing his position on several ultra-sensitive subjects (e.g., taxation and abortion).
If you want people to believe you’ve changed your mind about important matters, you have to give them hard evidence. Romney has not done so; therefore, conservatives are reluctant to believe his assertions of core conservatism. Granted that the same would apply to Gingrich. However, Gingrich hasn’t been campaigning for the presidency for the past four years, nor did he move from state to state in quest for a higher office to contend for, nor did he misuse a governor’s powers, as Romney did in Massachusetts.
Personally, Romney is probably as clean and decent a man as there is in America. Politically, he’s given conservatives no substantive reasons to entrust him with the powers of the presidency. I doubt he can change that with rhetoric, or by pointing to his experience as a businessman.
VB wrote: “Romney’s problem now is that average Americans are out for blood right now, and he knows that the real answer to our problems is sweat, a sweat that is applauded and valued.”
Nicely put and spot on. What we have in Romney is a man who has led his life with unquestioned personal integrity, who is smart, who has executive experience, who knows how to lead, and who understands that elections for President are not and cannot be won by appealing only to the Republican ‘base.’ Successfully addressing our problems as a nation (and “Romneycare” doesn’t qualify as a national problem) will only be possible if we can manage to put aside the mindless demonization and polarization that characterize our current political discourse, and resolve to hammer out, with sweat and some sacrifice, the necessary solutions. Romney can do this. As for his current opponent for the nomination? A guy who typifies almost perfectly everything that is now wrong with Washington; a guy who made polarization a governing style, who enriched himself selling access and who now ‘runs against Washington,’ and a guy whose ‘big’ ideas, whatever they might be this week, are really not so big.
“Successfully addressing our problems as a nation (and “Romneycare” doesn’t qualify as a national problem) will only be possible if we can manage to put aside the mindless demonization and polarization that characterize our current political discourse, and resolve to hammer out, with sweat and some sacrifice, the necessary solutions. Romney can do this.”
What is Romney’s solution to illegal immigration again? Last I could tell on the issue Romney’s solution is to mindlessly (as in attacking a plan while not offering your own) demonize Newt on the issue.
As for Romneycare not being a national issue, that might be true if MA doesn’t need to be “bailed out” because of over spending on entitlements. But he can’t escape from it no matter how much you want us to ignore it. Romneycare is an action he has recently taken, and won’t disavow, that leads us to conclude he will favor continued use of Obamacare.
You follow this:
“How isn’t he conservative?”
with this:
“He’s too much of a believer in government as the answer to be a perfect fit”
Seriously?
Romney is the right candidate for the wrong time. The pundits all say the USA is going down the tubes, well OK then, the next candidate has to be reckless (in a Tea Party way) to come up with bold solutions.
Second, I think conservative public opinion can manipulate Gingrich. If we create an uproar like happened multiple times with Bush we can change policy in the White House under Gingrich. Maybe it would work with Romney but after his stupid ‘states rights’ defense of RomneyCare I’m not so sure he would bend.
For me, it’s which candidate can we pressure to do the right thing.
This is a question, not a argument: Does it bother anyone here that Newt was, while accepting money from Freddie, arguing in its newsletter that GSEs were the way of the future? It bothers me, especially since Bush and other Republicans were trying to draw attention to problems. It sounds to me like Newt was on Barney Frank’s side. His love of big ideas scares me.
I listened to Newt’s arguments for when he was out of the political sphere and his company was hired by Freddie Mac. Newt argued that the company’s work was on the up and up and was entirely outside of lobbying on behalf of Freddie.
I can’t know everything. The republican field is what it is. Gingrich’s performance and goals as Speaker, near as I can tell, are admirable.
The idea that some evangelical preacher is out there demanding Newt atone/apologize whatever for personal stuff, years ago, is IMO the epitome of stuck on stupid (the evangelical guy).
Good comments all – I still like Ryan but no matter who wins – I’m all in, 100%.
As for Fannie & Freddie and that whole débacle, I’m more concerned in real time that these idiotic, corrupt, Dodd/Frank sponsored entities, into the American taxpayer already for something close to $150 billion, are planning on paying their top executives egregious bonuses, in the millions.
“gotta pay well to get & keep good people” is the rationale
F&F just held some big conference at a plush hotel in Chicago, 100 souls from the organizations wined and dined to the tune of over $600,000, including travel.
Insane.
People don’t understand Romney, the candidate. PJ Media doesn’t understand why Romney doesn’t know how to fix himself, gain in the polls and battle Newt. Romney doesn’t understand Romney, the-unable-to-gain-ground-candidate.
I do.
At the same time, I’m a little peeved that one of my rants, for some reason, didn’t make it into print about a different subject. Maybe it still will. But it was a pull no punches piece that I thought to far right for the realists here at PJM who want a win over O’Dumbo so bad they can taste it.
Regardless, for numerous reasons I love the people who put this blog together, and one Rachel nose out of joint isn’t going to change that.
Anyhoots, let me explain Mitt’s problem. Then I’ll go have some scrambled eggs (the no cholesterol kind) and call somebody whose name many of you would know who’ll tell Rachel how smart she is to massage her ego.
Mitt’s problem is that he’s a businessman, not an advertising man. He couldn’t recognize a good spot (political commercial) if an election depended on it. Other people do that for him. Or try to.
Some background.
Some twenty years ago, three of us were sitting in a room in Chicago picking talent for a commercial. We had narrowed the list to seven. One was Robert Pine ( you may remember him as the Sergeant in CHiPs) who two weeks ago played a distraught father in “House”, the TV show.
Out of the seven possibles, we chose Mr. Pine. What put him over the top wasn’t his looks. Or voice. Or the fact he was recognizable and a celebrity. Or that he had some connection to the product we were selling. In the final analysis, Robert was selected to be in the commercial because a guy in the room told us, in his opinion, Pine was the most likeable.
Simple as that.
Back to the present tense election.
Mitt’s not dislikable. But he’s not likable in the room of candidates. Unfortunately for me, at this point, I don’t think it’s disguisable or fixable.
In the Nixon/Kennedy election, Nixon had the same problem. Kennedy was the most likable. Obama slaughtered McCain for the same reason. Today, I see Obama as a corrupt snake in the grass who’s out to destroy this nation. But his likability quotient is still amazingly high. It will never drop because it’s got nothing to do with policy. In a Marxist state, likability is less important. In a Republic like the United States, the likability factor often is the deciding one. Likeability factors are killing Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann. Smart as they are. Articulate as Bachman is, it’s killing her. If Cain wasn’t so likeable, he’d be a spec of dust in the polls. If it’s true about all these ladies, it’s because Cain is so irresistibly likeable. Of course, his money and success don’t hurt either.
If Mitt were to read this, I think he’d go into a cold sweat. Because it’s like hitting a raw nerve. One that he has to try to cope with somehow.
The interview with Bret Baier exposed the open sore. That’s why it made news. Ironically, no one realized why it was so telling. So crucial. Now everybody who reads this will know. Mitt’s peevishness got a big reaction from so many people because it made Mitt less likeable; the quality that’s the biggest threat to Mitt’s election success.
In the end, it dooms him. In this run for the roses, Mitt the businessman will end up closed for business. And that’s too bad. Because I like him.
Funny that you would give up so easily on ol’ Mitt. If what you convey here is true & assuming (for sake of argument) that it’s going to boil down to either Newt or Mitt, the likeability factor favors the latter over the former. Presidential elections are, to a large extent, glorified popularity contests. I just hope that the hatred for Obama among the American voters is strong enough to put him out of office next year.
wow, thanks for the new (at least for me) particular way of considering Mitt’s problem.
Somebody call Ripley, I agree with Rachel Peepers!
A long long time ago I worked on the phones for a polling company to put myself through college. Every so often we would do political polls (my favorite). One of the questions that was asked was “Which of the two candidates would you most want to have a beer with?” Ever since then I have believed that “The Beer Question” is one of the most important factors in picking a winner.
You can rant all you want to about how silly it is. I agree that this should not be the most important thing when choosing a candidate. However, I have noticed that the candidate that wins the beer question is likely to win.
Consider George W. Bush vs. Al Gore. Never mind politics, Bush won the beer question (even though he had stopped drinking long before running for President). Now think of Clinton. Bubba killed his opponents on the beer question (both Bush and Dole). The average voter knows very little about economics and they don’t care to learn any more, but when it comes to voting time they seem to gravitate to the candidate who is likeable.
Rachel writes it out a bit diffently, but I’m sure her point is close to mine here. The most likeable candidate has a huge edge.
Full (here we go again) Disclosure: I support Michele Bachmann. I don’t vote based on the beer question. Michele doesn’t drink and I only drink scotch.
Oh, my degree is in history. I’d love to have a beer with Newt Gingrich. I might not be willing to vote for him, but I’d love to talk history over some suds with him.
Great point. It definitely explains Cain’s rise, since Cain was great on likeability, but weak on everything else. Perry looked like Bush on having a beer, but also seemed far to much like Bush in every other way. Romney comes across as competant and intelligent, but boring. Bachman comes across as earnest but boring. Paul is interesting, but a little crazy.
Newt isn’t exactly likeable in the frat boy beer sense, but is definitely somebody I would love to BS with about politics, since he always seems to have something either interesting or provocative to say on almost any political subject.
Great analogy with the “beer question.” I am still stumped though as to why Rachel indicates that Mitt would be less likeable than Newt. Then again, it occurs to me that I would rather have a beer with Newt but not because he is more likable but because he would be far more interesting to talk to than Romney.
Perhaps likeability is not the entire issue here?
The question “What’s Eating Mitt Romney?” is easy to answer.
He fells entitled to be the nominee because its his turn.
However he hasn’t been able to crack 25% and in most polls he struggles to hit 20%.
You’d think that he would learn from the fact that 75 – 80% of the republican party wants “Anybody but Mittens”
Mitt has a problem in that he looks exactly like the ‘tiny plastic man’ that was the groom on top of my wedding cake. He looked like same good looking black haired man in a blue suit with a phony smile on his handsome face.
Sadly for Mittens, he seems too contrived to be worth voting for. In addition he has a reputation for constantly flip flopping, just blowing in the wind.
In addition, at a time millions of voters are underwater on home loans or in foreclosure, he is in the process of tearing down a $12,000.000 La Jolla California beach house. This mansion is too small for him and he wants one that is four times larger. Talk about ‘class envy’ issues. The Democrats are waiting for him to be the candidate and this house deal will be a campaign ad that would sink his campaign.
He just looks like a smooth talking flip flopper who is completely insincere.
Everyone thinks Romney is a moderate, masquerading as a conservative. I think the reverse might be just as likely. I think Romney had to mask a lot of his real conservatism to win in a leftist state like MA.
Also, I dont think Romney has moved as much as the repub party has. In 2008 Romney was to the right of his main compeditor, now he is to the left of his main compeditors. Todays repub party is much more fiscally conservative and small gov oriented than it was in the Bush days (thanks to the Tea Party). Any repub running today with Bush style “compassionate conservatism”, while proposing new entitlements, and publically stating that he was not that worried about deficits and spending, would never win a primary.
In the positions Romney has actually taken on this campaign, he is just as conservative as many others. He is definitely just as conservative as Newt. The only thing he hasn’t done enough of is actively court Tea Party and evangelical groups. While Romney has never been my 1st choice, I think he could be a good nominee, and with plenty of Tea Partiers in congress, will be conservative enough to do what needs doing.
Let me start out by saying that, even though I am a non-Mormon, my reason for opposing Mitt Romney has nothing to do with his being a Mormon. It does not even have to do with the fact that Mitt Romney is a short-tempered stuffed shirt. (Though I will say that a lifetime of avoiding alcohol and caffeine leads more to the sins of pride and wrath than to anything else. Had Romney been capable of a little conviviality, he might have learned something about the way those outside his community think and feel, but that’s a story for another day.)
First of all, these candidates are running for President, not pope. The president is not supposed to be a spiritual leader, but rather, the Chief Executive, which is a management position. We need somebody who can help us to unwind the whole horrible mess of corruption and insolvency that Obama has gotten us into. We also need someone who can reverse the decline into socialist tyranny so that we can become a free country and the land of opportunity once again. This on its own will bring the jobs back to US shores.
The father of Obamneycare, and the outsourcer of US jobs as head of Bain Capital, is NOT the executive we need in 2012.
The one thing not mentioned in this article or the responses is that the GOP candidate, whoever it is, will have to swim upstream, against the media flow of praise for Obama. The GOP candidate will have scorn and hate thrown at him by a media that will paint Obama, once again, as the Mesiah come to save the downtrodden from the evil ways of the rich who will all be referred to as “Do Nothing Republicans!” Romney will not be spared the Democrat onslaught of lies, distortions and slander, they just have not seen the need to go after him yet. Cain was attacked because the dems were afraid of him. None of the accusations against Cain have yet been proven, but the damage has been total and effective. Clinton did many things that were worse than what Cain has been accused of, but Clinton was a Democrat! The only thing proven against Cain at this point is that he is a Republican. I am quite sure the Democrats have got a list of things to use against Romney if he gets the nomination. They have been asking their faithful to dig up the dirt for them for several weeks now. I have been a Republican for the fifty one years I have been an elegible voter, but I voted for a Democrat once in that span of time, (Clinton). I will never vote Democrat again but if the liberal oriented Romney is nominated I will waste my vote on a write-in ballot for Neil Boortz.
mccain won the nomination as a single issue candidate–he was the only one right on the Surge in iraq and his ideas turned around what was a potential military and political defeat for the U.S. in iraq.
Bobbcat,
Your comment about Mitt seeming more likeable than Newt is a great one. That bothered me, too.
Then when I checked likeability polls on the internet, Mitt was beating Newt by a lot.
So I sit here confused. A place I know very well.
Best Regards,
Rachel
I’ll tell you what is so confusing to me: Obama’s likeability. I just don’t get it. I recall being somewhat impressed with him at the very beginning & recall thinking “Oh goody, someone who might topple Hillary’s presidential plans.” Didn’t take me a bit long though to see Obama for who he is. Very quickly my attitude towards him morphed into the intensely seething loathing I still have to this day.
Bobbcat,
Of course, I personally despise him, but here’s a couple of possible reasons why his likeability numbers remain high.
Two theories for ODumbo’s likeability. One, the skewing of the polls by leaving out conservative likely voters.
Gullible people who like the sound of his voice.
Unfortunately, now that I re-read what I wrote, I’m convinced I have no idea why his likeability is reported to be high. Rachel