Today's New York Times has an editorial from a man who knows Mitt Romney well, but seems to have a fair take on why people feel the way the appear to. All that follows is an excerpt, longer than normal, but long enough to give a true sense of the editorial:
I often marvel at how the public perception of Mr. Romney differs so radically from the man I know. The blame for this lies in the campaign he has run.
Early in the presidential race, Mr. Romney perceived a tactical advantage in becoming the campaign’s social conservative. Religious conservatives and other Republicans with socially conservative views found the two early front-runners, John McCain and Rudy Giuliani, unacceptable. As someone who shares the beliefs of social conservatives, Mr. Romney saw an opportunity that he could exploit. He made social issues the heart of his candidacy.
This tack rang false with the public because it was false. The problem wasn’t so much the perception of widespread “flip-flopping” on issues like abortion. The public allows its politicians a measure of flexibility. But the public correctly sensed something disingenuous about Mr. Romney’s campaign.
Voters perceived the cynicism of a campaign that tried to exploit wedge issues rather than focus on the issues that in truth most interested the candidate. They sensed phoniness. As a consequence, many have grown to feel that Mitt Romney can’t be trusted. This lack of trust is now the dominant and perhaps insurmountable obstacle that the Romney campaign faces.
I know few voters will believe this, but Mitt Romney wants to be president out of a sense of duty. He feels our government needs someone with his managerial skills. He also feels that to fight the long war facing us, we need an intellectually curious president who’s willing to learn about an unfamiliar foe and who will fight resolutely to defeat that foe.
Mr. Romney cares passionately about social issues, but he knows his Republican competitors can appoint strict constructionist judges as well as he can. The real value of a Romney presidency would lie in the talents, honed in the business world, that he would bring to the White House.
Because Mr. Romney chose to make this argument a secondary matter compared to his stands on social issues, he mounted a campaign that was, at its most basic level, insincere.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
You know, that's quite a fascinating take on Romney and it really does set out why Romney's fumbled it so badly. Romney really had all the advantages, especially the primary campaign schedule-- starting in Iowa where he had an enormous base of support and lots of funds, then to New Hampshire which is in his Massachusetts backyard, then to Michigan, his home state where Daily Kos Democrats also voted for him en masse, and where his father was a popular governor.
Romney should have cleaned up in all 3 states. Instead, even with all that help in his native Michigan, he couldn't reach a double digit lead against McCain, and he was taken out in both Iowa and New Hampshire, the latter by McCain himself. Also, Romney is consistently the weakest of our candidates in national polls against Democrats. Romney's not even on the map in South Carolina which is probably where the Republican contest will be decided most of all, nor does he have much support at all in Florida.
While I'm not really fond of John McCain, I've come to support him because
#1 McCain is by far the most electable-- he's the only one who consistently trounces Hillary Clinton, and saving us from another 4 years of that melodramatic self-evisceration is worth supporting him alone,
#2 he's tough and he thinks about things, and makes up his own mind,
#3 he's faced the most awful circumstances imaginable-- being tortured for years in a POW camp in Vietnam-- and came out a lot stronger for it. McCain is probably the only one who could enter into the pressure-cooker of the Presidency and deal with the unbelievable strains that job takes.
Hillary Clinton, for reasons about which I'm not entirely up on, has thoroughly angered her own Democratic base-- something about some rather racist comments toward Obama (e.g. as a drug-dealer or somesuch which really is a racist kind of thing) and also some attempt to fight the caucus arrangement at this date even though they all agreed on it before. Fosters even more distate of the Clintons to see them pulling this against a fellow Democrat!
Anyway, the upshot is that incredibly large numbers of Democrats and Independents are looking to vote for a Republican, and John McCain is the one who garners the most backing.
IOW, John McCain really does seem to be the best unifier here, and a true national candidate. While there are many reasons that I still don't like him much, he's a winner, and he's smart enough to actually be a strong, tough but smart leader for the nation.
I've been trying to stay out of the political discussions as of late. Politics is like the dark side of the force--once you start down the path, forever will it dominate your destiny . . .
That said, Romney's still my man.
I'm not voting for, as an NRO writer put it, "campaigner-in-chief". I'm looking for the best president. I still think Romney is that person. Sure, Romney's had some ostensible missteps in his campaign (although his substantive messages may have been missteps, his ability to mobilize resources in his campaign have been remarkable, however). But I think it's clear he's a good guy. He believes what he says. He is competent to execute his vision.
But I admire that Romney has been consistently diligent in his campaign despite early disappointments. And I appreciate his consistent temperment. Correct me if I'm wrong, but he and Thompson have maintained consistently calm, statesmanlike tone during the campaign.
And I disagree with those who attribute Romney's win in Michigan to his long-standing roots and/or Daily Kos readers. Romney's margin of victory among those old enough to remember his father was actually smaller than among younger voters. Daily Kos readers were a drop in the bucket (they'd like to think they had more influence than they actually did)--Romney won because he won by a significant margin among conservatives and evangelicals. So those two arguments are smoke-screens.
Romney, while emphasizing issues he felt would resonate with the public, hasn't been disingenuous. He believes what he says. I trust his commitment to his platform.
And, yes, there is media-bias against Romney. I don't think its intentional, just lazy. The media template is Romney is a negative underperformer. Information consistent with that template is emphasized, information that is not is brushed aside. Compare and contrast media treatment of McCain's NH win with Romney's MI win. The template was set, for better or for worse, months ago, and media types have difficulty changing gears.
Romney's electable--especially if he runs against Clinton (although I'm glad she's found her voice:) ) McCain may not be as electable as people think--the problem with being a Senator is that an opponent has a detailed record to pound on. Moreover, McCain has some baggage going far beyond changes in position that the Dems will happy to exploit later on.
Post a Comment