PLANK SEPTEMBER 17, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
With its usual impatience, Politico has already published a post-mortem on Romney’s 2012 defeat. I’m as eager as anyone else to get to the end of this tale, but aren’t we getting ahead of ourselves? There are seven weeks until Election Day, and in the 21st century news environment that’s an eternity. Still, I think I got why Politico was finding it so hard to wait when I read that the Romney campaign had decided to shift its focus from “the economy, stupid” to that old empty-calories standby, “status quo vs. change.” For Romney to conclude that he can’t win this election on the truly crummy state of the economy does sound like an astonishing admission of ... defeat. According to Politico, “ads and speeches will focus on a wider array of issues, including foreign policy, the threat from China, debt and the tone in Washington.” It quotes campaign factotum Stuart Stevens saying: “Can we do better on every front?” Stevens is referring not to the Romney campaign itself, but to the Obama incumbency. Good luck with that.
Paradoxically, Stevens tells Politico that making this shift to a more bullshit-laden strategy will free Romney to talk more about policy prescriptions, including those relating to the economy. But Romney’s new ad, “The Romney Plan For A Stronger Middle Class,” doesn’t do that. Instead, Romney pledges to “crack down on [trade] cheaters like China,” says we’ve “gotta balance the budget,” and promises to “champion small business.” Is this Mitt Romney in 2012, or Dick Gephardt in 1988? Romney continues to avoid volunteering any discussion of his tax cuts (which make a mockery of his budget-balancing). As I’ve said before, Republican silence on tax-cutting is terra incognita, and may signal the welcome end of an era in the annals of political pandering. I can’t resist adding a note of personal rue: If Romney really is done talking about the economy, then why did I just publish a TRB column explaining precisely how President Romney would wreck it? (Maybe de-emphasizing the economy is Stevens’ attempt to discourage people like me from explaining how truly disastrous Romney’s economic policies are. So my new column is an act of strategic defiance. Yeah, that’s the ticket!) Note, as you watch the Romney ad, that the candidate looks like he hasn’t slept in a week.
Politico’s “Who Killed The Romney Campaign?” takeout lays the blame mostly at Stevens’ feet. He’s doing too much by playing the role of chief speechwriter, chief ad maker, and chief strategist. He’s disliked inside the campaign. He’s not conservative enough. He’s too loosey-goosey. He’s too cautious. He had a stupid idea to put Romney on the old Chicago-to-Los Angeles Route 66, which would only have served to make Romney look more like a creature of the 1950s. He had a stupid idea to make Tim Pawlenty Romney’s running mate. (Actually, that idea doesn’t sound at all stupid to me.) The only favorable quotes about Stevens come from Russ Schriefer, who in addition to being Stevens’ partner happens to be an incredibly nice guy.
My former Slate colleague David Weigel points out that I predicted in late August that speechwriter Matthew Scully would be trashing Romney staffers before long, because he has a history of doing that sort of thing, and that Stevens seemed an especially likely target. And wouldn’t you know it, one of the Stevens anecdotes is about him tossing out Peter Wehner’s convention speech for Romney, giving the assignment to Scully and John McConnell, and then tossing most of that speech out, too, in favor of his own draft, which stupidly omitted any mention of Afghanistan or the troops. But I will say in Scully’s defense that a.) I’m not aware of him previously trashing his comrades before Election Day; and b.) the Politico piece appears to have multiple sources.
My own view is that chief blame for the lame performance of Mitt Romney in the 2012 campaign would have to lie with the Mittster himself. He is, bless him, a uniquely godawful candidate, and I’m starting to develop some affection for him. He’s like a maladroit TV sitcom dad, practically guaranteed to say the wrong thing at the wrong moment. He means well enough, but his cluelessness and his ill-disguised opportunism get him in trouble every time. Indeed, two and a half years ago I figured his disastrous handling of the health care issue would be enough to keep him from ever getting the GOP nomination. (I didn’t think hard enough about who the competition might be.) Still, Romney’s got a few weeks, two joblessness reports, and three October debates to pull himself together, so I wouldn’t count him out just yet.
13 comments
From the author of "The Apology Tour" and "disgraceful Obama Administration" comes the very definition of chootzpa: A campaign run on "the tone in Washington". I've installed seat-belts on my office chair, so as not to fall when I read another of these Romnogems.
- icarus-r
September 17, 2012 at 1:56pm
Yeah. I'll be happy when Obama actually wins this election. Then the fun begins - mandatory slash and burn thanks to GOP. And the world is its usual nutty and dangerous self. Wonderful. Maybe Romney doesn't really want to deal with this stuff?
- Sophia
September 17, 2012 at 1:57pm
"He’s like a maladroit TV sitcom dad, practically guaranteed to say the wrong thing at the wrong moment." haha, yes this is precisely it. Oh, Mitt! (laugh track)
- subterra
September 17, 2012 at 1:59pm
Absolutely, don't count your Mittens before they're hatched. This election is all about the Economy, AND Republican efforts to suppress the vote. If everyone concludes Mitt has lost, and so doesn't go to the polls, Mitt could win. Just as bad, if everyone concludes Mitt has lost, and doesn't go to the polls, the Republicans could win more seats in the House and Senate, meaning yet another 2 years minimum of idiotic gridlock. It's another 7 week slog before the election really happens. Keep your guard up.
- AllanL5
September 17, 2012 at 2:02pm
I keep reading this thing about the debates, how Romney may be able to pull it out in the debates. I don't see how he can. His whole campaign is essentially vagaries and lies. Is he really going to say that Obama apologizes for American right to Obama's face? Is he really going to talk about cutting taxes when Obama can talk about Romney's returns? He can't give specifics on his plans, but Obama will lay out Romney's plan for him (if he's smart). Plus, he's got an expectation issue now. People expect him to do well. How can he win a debate when he can't say anything?
- XLProfessor
September 17, 2012 at 2:08pm
Poor community organiser Obama. He's so clueless and naive. He's so awful that we should entrust the management of the country to the man who can't manage his own campaign.
- icarus-r
September 17, 2012 at 2:29pm
Yes. In the present Media environment, Romney can lie to Obama's face. The Moderator won't or can't catch it. "We don't care about fact checkers", his campaign manager said. And in a debate where there's no fact checking, one person's lies can overwhelm the other person's inconvenient truth. Mitt has demonstrated he's pretty good at waving the flag, praising America and our military and Mom's apple pie, while remaining vague on how he'll improve anything. Obama surely can nail his feet to the floor, but that assumes Obama is able to let go of his politeness enough to nail his feet to the floor. I surely hope so.
- AllanL5
September 17, 2012 at 2:31pm
First of all, it is NEVER too early for Romney recriminations, no matter how this election turns out. Second, sitcom dad is a pretty good idea--may I offer another comparison? Gig Young in Lovers and Other Strangers. Trust me.
- timteeter
September 17, 2012 at 2:57pm
Under no circumstances is this thing in the bag.
- ironyroad
September 17, 2012 at 3:17pm
Irony and Allan: I entirely agree. One thing, though: Romney is good on the attack, when he has a gasbag like Gingrich or an idiot like Perry to attack. Santorum was caught in a hypocritical lie when Romney eviscerated him. But, Romney does get flustered when he is attacked in an unexpected way. For example, I wonder if the tax issue is not being given play to give him a sense that he has ridden the storm out. I am certain there are other oppo research stuff that are being held in reserve for the debates. Precisely because Romney underestimates Obama and overestimates his own cleverness, I believe that in the debates, Romney is likely to make an ass of himself. That is, expect another "that man" moment.
- icarus-r
September 17, 2012 at 3:52pm
I respectfully disagree with burns and icarus. I thought Romney was an effective debater, especially when caged. I expect him to do well given the narrative of low expectations now being set. And the first debate is about the economy, friendly territory for Romney. People are still pretty unhappy with Obama's performance on jobs, and Romney will be able to please a lot of people by directly going after the President. But...he has to get his message and the details right. If he keeps talking in vague generalities, he won't be able to sell people on himself. That's why he absolutely has to shift focus now to practice getting more specific. Perhaps too late, but he still has a chance.
- polcereal
September 17, 2012 at 4:54pm
I think there is a way that Romney's positives in respect of a GOP primary audience can become national negatives -- the "creepy square" aspect, the CEO style, the patently inauthentic embrace of whatever he thinks the audience will holler in approval at, are all things that can look very different when Obama is standing next to him preparing a comeback. But it's not impossible that Romney could hit a tone of calm managerial efficiency and push Obama into a corner where he's defending the current economic situation on the basis of the hole we were in in Jan 2009. It's valid, but the "it could be a lot worse!" line is never a great way to go. I think Obama can deal with him on health care, foreign policy, and immigration, because Romney has just come out with so many feints, lies, and switches that I doubt if he knows what his own mind is any more. But Romney is a different opponent from McCain and Obama has to own these debates in a way that will be harder than 2008. I know some people disagree but I think Romney is very vulnerable on the basis of his own history here -- the argument that health care reform is ok if it's just the states is pretty shaky.
- ironyroad
September 17, 2012 at 7:15pm
A series of very good points, AllanL5. This thing is very far from over. Voter suppression, a decent debate performance (and let's not underestimate Romney's capabilities in this regard or overestimate Obama's), any number of potential overseas developments...any of these could yet turn this thing in Romney's favor.
- Thunderroad
September 17, 2012 at 7:41pm