SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Lucky Run

POLITICS MARCH 14, 2012

Lucky Run

Since launching his second campaign for the White House, Mitt Romney has resolutely insisted he favored a health care requirement only for Massachusetts residents, not as a matter of national policy. But, in the days leading up to Super Tuesday, a reporter for the website Buzzfeed found damning evidence to the contrary—video footage of Romney touting the health care plan he enacted in the state as a “model” for the country, as well as a USA Today op-ed Romney authored making the same point.

That the GOP field had somehow overlooked these smoking guns for months was only the latest turn in the campaign’s most confounding subplot. Back when the contest began last year, many pundits seized on health care as the one Romney liability that spelled certain doom for him. After all, the Romney plan contained the genetic code for Barack Obama’s health care bill, an achievement Republicans now equate with civilizational decline. Yet Romney’s rivals never managed to turn this defect into a disqualifying indictment. It was an astonishing whiff, and Romney wouldn’t be on the verge of the nomination without it.

 

ABOVE ALL, the story of how Romney eluded a deadly assault on his health care record is one of outrageously good luck. At the outset of the race, several candidates were poised to lacerate him over the issue, and none more so than former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty. Pawlenty’s advisers believed that health care would become their man’s trump card in a one-on-one matchup against the putative front-runner, assuming Pawlenty survived into the race’s late rounds. While both candidates had passed health care reform bills in their respective states, only Romney had imposed a so-called individual mandate. “We had the record on it,” says one former Pawlenty aide. “I can’t see how, had we stuck around … and we’d been up on stage just the two of us, that wouldn’t have been a central part of the argument.”

But, of course, Pawlenty didn’t stick around. And it was his health care critique-gone-awry that largely proved to be his undoing. During an appearance on Fox News the day before a GOP debate last June, Pawlenty criticized Romney for laying the groundwork for Obama’s health care law, quipping that the president had taken “Romneycare” and turned it into “Obamneycare.” But, when it came time to double-down on the charge with debate moderator John King prompting him and Romney looking on, Pawlenty backed down.

Pawlenty’s inner circle had been split over whether to press Romney on health care so soon, and the candidate’s ambivalence reflected that tension. “I don’t think Republicans, who were desperately anxious to beat Obama, wanted early in the fight to see blood drawn against the front-runner,” says Vin Weber, another Pawlenty adviser. “They wanted these guys to introduce themselves … Pawlenty got up there and understood it.” The problem was that, having telegraphed the attack the day before, Pawlenty suddenly looked weak and indecisive. He would never quite recover and dropped out of the race in August.

Just as Pawlenty was exiting the race, the field was gaining another candidate intent on lashing Romney for his health care sins: Texas Governor Rick Perry. Perry’s advisers noticed that the paperback version of Romney’s campaign manifesto, No Apology, omitted a clause from the original edition enthusing that the success of his Massachusetts health care reform plan could be replicated for “everyone in the country.” The Perry campaign believed the discrepancy would undercut Romney’s insistence that he never intended to take the plan national.

Like Pawlenty, however, the Perry high command suffered from a certain ambivalence about overplaying the accusation, at least in the early going. The campaign assumed its first strategic imperative was to emerge as the conservative alternative to Romney. Then, once the field had narrowed, it could expose Romney’s flaws. “You basically have seven non-Romney candidates running against Romney. Everyone wants to repeal Obamacare and blames Romneycare for being its father,” says Perry’s former chief strategist, David Carney. “It’s hard to differentiate yourself when everyone agrees … As soon as it gets to one or two non-Romney candidates, you have time to make that case.”

It was only in December, after his poll numbers had sagged for several months, that Perry mounted a frontal attack on Romney’s curious book-editing habits during a debate. (Perry had mentioned the book in an earlier debate, but it was in response to a Romney accusation about Perry’s own book, and he didn’t home in on the individual mandate.) It was at this point that something truly freakish happened. Romney took such umbrage at the charge of being a crypto mandate-supporter that he bet Perry “ten thousand bucks” it was false. The response proved to be a perverse form of genius—so strange and tin-eared that it instantly displaced any discussion of the original accusation. “It totally overshadowed it,” says Carney. “We sent out a picture [to reporters], a pdf. It had the two books with the two pages and the line completely deleted … It was totally clear. Not a single person wrote about it.”

In truth, Carney’s pdf wasn’t quite a slam dunk. The language Romney edited out of his book was incriminating, but vague on whether Romney merely wanted to replicate the results of his Massachusetts plan or both the results and the means. To really make the case that Romney was an Obama-esque mandate zealot, a rival campaign would need something like the material Buzzfeed finally publicized. In the USA Today op-ed, Romney wrote that “the lessons we learned in Massachusetts could help Washington” fix the health care system and described the individual mandate as one of those lessons. In a “Meet the Press” appearance that Buzzfeed flagged, Romney clearly proposed scaling up the Massachusetts approach. “We have a model that worked,” he said. “We can do it for the nation.”

As it happens, there was one campaign that had stumbled onto much of this material—that of former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman. And, like Pawlenty, Huntsman had the credibility to make the case, having passed a health care reform bill in his state that steered clear of the mandate. But Huntsman never had the money to sustain an attack. “We saw the videos. We didn’t have the resources to do it,” says John Weaver, Huntsman’s chief strategist. Believing the economy was the most important issue, Weaver opted not to spend the little money he had on health care specifically.

Still, as with Pawlenty, Huntsman would have certainly drilled down on the health care issue had he advanced to a late-round showdown with Romney. But, of course, he didn’t, dropping out not long after New Hampshire. In fact, the only three Romney rivals with sophisticated, traditional campaign operations—Pawlenty, Perry, and Huntsman—were all out of the race by mid-January. None of the challengers left standing had much in the way of an opposition-research staff to mine Romney’s health care record or a communications war room to transmit that record to the media and to voters.

 

IN FAIRNESS, it wasn’t entirely luck that allowed Romney to survive his health care missteps. The Romney campaign, as opposed to the candidate himself, is a highly competent operation skilled at capitalizing on whatever breaks have come its way. For that matter, Team Romney has helped create its own luck in some cases. It turns out Pawlenty had briefly toyed with an individual mandate while working on health care reform in Minnesota. Romney’s camp appears to have leaked evidence of this flirtation to reporters, who promptly wrote it up and put Pawlenty on the defensive.

What’s more, after Pawlenty shied away from his Obamneycare charge in the June 2011 debate, reporters were suddenly filling stories with allegations of wimpiness. It was hard to believe Team Romney had nothing to do with them. “They’re very good at killing the alligator closest to the canoe,” says the first Pawlenty aide. “We were perceived that way.”

But there are limits to how much a tightly run campaign can compensate for a weak candidate. And, at least on health care, those limits will be blindingly obvious during the general election. Obamacare, after all, polls poorly not just among Republicans, but among independent voters as well. It should be a potent weapon for this year’s GOP nominee. But Romney will be hard-pressed to deploy it. “I imagine that during the first debate between Obama and Romney, Obama will say, ‘I’d like to congratulate my opponent for being a lone pioneer in the GOP field [on health care], even though he doesn’t want my praise,’” says Rob Wasinger, another former Huntsman aide. “It’s absolute death for the GOP. We wouldn’t be able to take the biggest issue and use it to win votes this November.”

Noam Scheiber is a senior editor at The New Republic and a Schwartz Fellow at the New America Foundation. This article originally appeared in the April 5, 2012 issue of the magazine.  

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 10 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

10 comments

Attacking Obamacare/Romneycare in 2012 is good politics simply because Obamacare (with a few small exceptions) hasn't become effective yet; but it's good politics if but only if the Republicans win in 2012 and repeal (or significantly dilute) Obamacare. The risk for Perry, Huntsman, and Pawlenty isn't 2012 but 2016: How do they explain in 2016 their strong opposition in 2012 for health care reform (i.e., Obamacare) that by 2016 has become very popular because by then it has become effective and its benefits are apparent to even the most vocal critic in 2012. Perry, Huntsman, and Pawlenty and their advisors have been politically stupid in 2011-12 for letting Romney off the hook for Romneycare if but only if Obama loses the election in 2012. I don't know about Perry and Pawlenty, but I argued in 2011 that Huntsman was aiming for 2016, and that his flirtation in 2011-12 was merely to increase name recognition for his run in 2016.

- rayward

March 14, 2012 at 7:50am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh, yea, the other big campaign issue, the Obama administration's embrace of the rapacious bankers, got a boost today in an op/ed in the NYT by Greg Smith, an executive at Goldman who is walking out the door today and nailing it shut as he departs. When a Goldman executive goes public in such a public way about the conduct of bankers, what's left to defend; and what do those in the Obama administration (Geithner) who crafted an economic recovery based on conferring enormous public benefits on those same bankers have to say in defense. Geithnercare may be a bigger albatross than Obamacare during the campaign.

- rayward

March 14, 2012 at 8:10am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

OK, so TNR gives ammo to the opponents of Romney, the main danger for Obama's re-election. What will you do when the time comes and Romney trumpets to the public who prefers even more liberal health care than Obama care? Romney may divulge and remind those people that he, not Obama is the originator of health care thus gaining even more votes from anti- Semite Obama? This ex- Democrat has now more reason to vote for Romney, the least offensive Republican running. The only one who will not make me sick to my stomach that much voting for him.

- Poupic

March 14, 2012 at 9:35am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Poupic - feel like dropping any supporting evidence amongst your regular claims that Obama is an anti-semite? Like, I don't know, not securing the largest funding ever for Israeli security or a rocket defence system that has successfully shot down dozens of rockets aimed at Sderot? Did I miss him green lighting the Iranians in wiping Israel off the map, or has he been very effectively applying the screws to them? And boy did the administration show its true colours when it stuck it to the Israelis when the Goldstone report came out and the Palestinians wanted a UN vote for statehood. But let me guess, the problem is that he hung around with Wright and he's taken no steps to distance himself from either the statements or that individual. Much better is Romney who praises Hezbollah's social programs (even as a model for the US!), didn't know and wasn't fazed that Henry Ford was a wee bit of an anti-semite and compares the war on terror to "Hitler's Holocaust Ovens".

- Nari224

March 14, 2012 at 10:17am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Nicely done, Nari. Probably water off a duck's back for Poupic, but nicely done anyway.

It's no surprise to me that none of Romney's opponents haven't really tried to hit a homer on health care reform; Republicans always wind up playing little more than fast pitch softball during the primaries because they don't want to criple the eventual nominee in the general election. It's all part of that "good politics" thing the Republicans do.

Is it just me, or is there a hint of The Press helping Mittens along here? I mean, sure, maybe Pawlenty's article was a little weak. But The Press were more than happy to ask questions about Obama for the most vague and anonymous of accusations in 2008; I recall him having to chastise them for as much, as it gave credibility to all the vague, anonymous rumors and hearsay. At the very least, Pawlenty should have aroused some curiousity there.

- GSpinks

March 14, 2012 at 11:58am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'd see it a slightly different way. The problem with Obamacare is the Obama part. It's essentially a Republican approach to health care reform which is now the essence of Soviet-style socialism because a black Democratic president enacted it. They know that and are somewhat afraid of it, because a major attack on Romneycare will HAVE to be defended by Romney explaining that his plan was something Republicans supported once up a recent time, and if he explains that on the record he has zero purchase on Obama in the fall.

- ironyroad

March 14, 2012 at 12:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Somewhere, a secret Obama brain trust is scheming: “OK, how do we get Romney to come out in favor of motherhood and apple pie? Or at least get a video up on YouTube showing Romney eating apple pie and kissing his Mom?” As the sceme unfolds, Gingrich and Santorum explain that it's all really about how O***a is trying to convert Americans to eat the forbidden fruit from the Garden of Eden and do the nasty with dear old Mom. At that point, Romney flips, proving his virtue by spitting apple pips at his mother.

- skahn

March 14, 2012 at 1:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't see how someone can vote for a candidate for president who boasts that his solutions to our problems only work on a state level.

- Nusholtz

March 14, 2012 at 1:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

irony, you're absolutely right about OBAMA[care] (or, maybe it should it be spelled "$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.OBAMA.OBAMA.OBAMA.OBAMA.OBAMA.OBAMA.OBAMA.$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ [care]?"

- Tgossard

March 14, 2012 at 2:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Universal health care, social security and quality education for all are vital to America if we are to have a country worth living in. Where are the Republicans on these issues?

- paskunac

March 15, 2012 at 7:47am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close