THE PLANK JUNE 26, 2009
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Marc Ambinder has a post up on how Mitt Romney is perfectly positioning himself for 2012:
Romney is picking and choosing
his battles. He shares an Obama-esque disdain for the superficial daily
scrum that cable channels whip up. It's a credit to his communications
team that he can appear on television once every two or three weeks and
seem to be part of the dialog. When Romney has something to say, he'll
find a venue to say it. On auto
restructuring, on the Republican stimulus plan, on a free market approach
to health care, on the Employee Free Choice Act, and on missile defense,
Romney matches his opinions to key constituencies, and he always draws
respectful news coverage.
The funny thing is, I feel like I read the exact same sort of arguments about Romney in the run-up to the 2008 race--about how he was making all the right hires, staking out all the right issues, and raising all the money he'd need to win the GOP nomination . Perhaps because of his discipline (not to mention his willingness to do a little shape-shifting), Romney is one of the pols beloved--or at least admired--by political consultants and political reporters. But, for whatever reason, Romney doesn't seem to be able to translate that into votes. Or at least he wasn't able to in 2008.
In a way, Romney reminds me a lot of Michael Olowokandi. (I know that likening Romney to a 7-foot Nigerian man might seem strange at first, but stay with me.) The "Kandi Man" was a great basketball player on paper--great enough to be the number one overall pick in the NBA draft--but he was never able to actually put it together on the court once he got to the NBA. I feel like Romney's having the same problems as he tries to take his political act to the highest level. On paper, he looks great, but there's just something about him that doesn't seem to add up in the minds of voters. I'm not sure if even a perfect pre-campaign or campaign strategy can compensate for that.
--Jason Zengerle
19 comments
Jason,
If the GOP can reorganize themselves and their mission--which, given all of the fallen stars and lunatics revealing their true selves--I think Mitt Romney might just be the last man standing.
- dylanposer
June 26, 2009 at 12:39pm
The main reason Mitt didn't win the nomination last time is he's mormon, and a major component of the GOP cannot handle that. He may get the nomination as last man standing but that's one issue that isn't going to go away, at least now with the GOP as it currently is.
- acria multa
June 26, 2009 at 1:21pm
Olowokandi? I've got Romney as the the Steve Wojciechowski of the GOP. After all that smack talk, he helped bring home the bronze at the World Championships.
Just look at the stupid, shit eating grin and tell me I'm wrong:
vmedia.rivals.com/.../WOJCIECHOWSKI-STEVE150.JPG
- mpatrickhendri
June 26, 2009 at 1:25pm
That's funny, Jason, many of us feel the same about Barack "The Kandi Man" Obama.
- butchie b
June 26, 2009 at 1:31pm
And yet, butchie, Obama doesn't have a history of failure in winning elections and governing, and so has fewer people speculating about why it is he fails. Odd, that.
- janus
June 26, 2009 at 1:46pm
mpatrickhendri, sorry, i can't buy the wojo analogy. say what you will about romney, but he's got way too much dignity to engage in wanton floor-slapping.
- tnr1.com
June 26, 2009 at 2:24pm
Janus, he won elections as a Democrat in the most Democratic city and state in the country. Big whoop. And he's governed for 5 months, so I'd say the jury is still out.
I hold no particular brief for Romney, but he won as a Rep. in a Dem state, and did pretty well at governing. So what's your point, again?
- butchie b
June 26, 2009 at 2:33pm
butchie, you conveniently fail to note on your list of easy city and state elections that Obama has won the facts that he won first the nomination of a major political party for president and then the presidency itself. And he won with both the largest majority of any non-incumbent since Dwight Eisenhower and with votes accounting for the second-highest proportion of the voting-eligible citizenry in the country's history.
Since what we're discussing here is the ability to win elections, one has to ask what Obama has to do for you to regard him as a non-failure: Defeat Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in a snap election in Iran? Retroactively beat Reagan in 1984 as Mondale's VP? Win three straight terms as president of the United Federation of Planets?
- rhubarbs
June 26, 2009 at 2:57pm
Also, back to Romney, it's worth noting that if the GOP awarded delegates proportionally within each state delegation, like Democrats do, rather than winner-take-all, Romney would have been in first place when he effectively dropped out of the race. So perhaps the issue isn't Romney's inability to put it all together and win the nomination, but rather the fact that the structure of GOP nomination process doesn't necessarily reward the kinds of campaign and organizational abilities that allow a person to win the general election. Swap the two parties' nomination processes, and we'd have had a Romney-Clinton election in 2008, and in that race I think Romney could have won.
- rhubarbs
June 26, 2009 at 3:02pm
The problem with Mitt Romney is that he's a transparently phony unprincipled douchebag that no one actually wants to vote for. This doesn't seem like something easily resolved by 2012.
And Mr. "Double Guantanamo" wishes he had the dignity of floor slapping.
- FWright
June 26, 2009 at 3:35pm
Mitt Romney: Lost to John McCain
Barack Obama: Beat the snot out of John McCain.
That's the point, I think.
- FWright
June 26, 2009 at 3:36pm
I love it when Rhubs gets so wound up that he submits consecutive posts. Rhubs, I swear, I love you. (Once upon a time, Rhubs and I both shook George Allen’s hand. We’re like brothers, in that way.)
Re Romney: People who do polls really should examine what could be called the “cringe factor.” Me and my peeps, watching the primaries last year, would rate each candidate’s “cringe” level, upon seeing them in any particular situation. You think back on all the candidates (I’d rather not), but I’ll tell you that amongst me and my peeps, no one, not even John Edwards!, consistently scored higher “cringe” points than the Man from Michigan. Forget “perfect positioning”, forget all of it: if me and my peeps are right, this Romney doofus isn’t getting elected to nothing nationally never.
- cvillekid
June 26, 2009 at 3:45pm
Rhubs, I didn't call him a failure. He's not, at least not yet.
The margin of victory was about the same as George I over Dukakis, and yet I don't recall that the media had bruises on their foreheads after 5 months of GHWB's presidency, as they do now. All that bowing and scraping is bound to get old soon. Then we'll see.
As for Romney, I agree with whomever said that there is something about him that doesn't connect with people. But I can't say exactly what. Gee, maybe he is a douchebag.
- butchie b
June 26, 2009 at 4:15pm
FYI, so far as governing is concerned, a quick peek at Wikipedia reveals the following fun facts about Mr. Double Guantanamo (thanks, FWright):
Liberal heresies:
-fought statewide universal healthcare
-fought gay marriage
-cut state education funding, leading to state college tuition increases of 63%
-denied every pardon and commutation request he received
Conservative heresies:
-raised taxes repeatedly, including the gasoline tax
-eliminated tax loopholes for businesses
-banned assault weapons in Massachusetts
-argued in favor of stem-cell research
Fun facts:
-ended his term with an approval rating of 33%
-his Lt. Gov lost her election to be his successor by 21%
-during the inauguration of his successor, fled the state like a diseased cur, becoming the first governor in decades to refuse to shake hands with the incoming governor as part of the ceremony.
Governed pretty well, eh, butchie?
- janus
June 26, 2009 at 4:20pm
Wasn't Mitt universally reviled (on a cringe level) by his presidential campaign opponents?
- porkido
June 26, 2009 at 4:51pm
butchie, again, you miss the point. The point is not whether Obama has been a good president, or whether he receives unfairly positive media coverage. The point of the Kandi/Romney/Obama analogies here is the ability to win elections. And in that regard, Obama is Kobe; Romney is Kandi. It's really not even debatable that Obama is comparable to Kandi in this regard, as you suggest; it's simply a false analogy, since in the type of achievement being likened to playing in the NBA, Obama just led his team to the championship.
I get why Romney didn't win the GOP nomination -- the GOP's nomination rules are foolish, plus there's the whole inauthenticity thing that's always going to plague Mitt -- but I don't understand why Huckabee fared so poorly. He's an actual preacher, he was a pretty successful governor with a reasonably solid record of small-government conservatism, and he's possibly the most charismatic public speaker the GOP has produced in twenty years.
- rhubarbs
June 26, 2009 at 5:09pm
I am cvillekid, Romney lost because not only does he hit the heights of 'cringe induction', he is also more lifeless on the stump than Al Gore (Gore lost because was a bore, and because his tone tended toward hectoring.) I know that this doesn't sit well with a great many folks who tend to want to believe that one's positions on the issues drives voter's decisions, but how someone presents themselves to the public matters. Romney is a bore. A stiff. A pedant. He has that 'trying too hard' scent about him.
Only when someone becomes comfortable with a candidates as candidate do they begin to really focus on the particulars. In real estate parlance, Romney has no curb appeal. There is no there there.
He reminds me most of Evan Bayh, or in some small way, George W - these are creations of a political family, not actual politicians. He doesn't really know why he wants to be in politics, he just is because that is the only life he has ever known. W just kinda wandered into the Presidency, I don't think he really wanted to be there, and certainly had no passion for the gig. Just the next thing to do. Romney may be a bit more ambitious, but it comes off as manufactured. He would be great in the board room when you needed to get something done, but he certainly would never be the public face of the company.
- kgrant1054
June 26, 2009 at 5:11pm
Romney's problem is the same as every other non-rightwing cultural warrior, which is that GOP primary voters want to vote for a candidate who promises to outlaw abortion, ban gay rights, force prayer into public schools, wants to invade any country on earth that they dont like, and does not believe in evolution. And, oh yes, cut taxes for the rich. Even crusty old John McCain was too big a wus for these crazies, so what chance does Romney have?
- frilz1
June 27, 2009 at 5:59am
I think frilz1 has it: after a certain point in the Republican primaries, Mitt was practically denying under oath that he'd ever been governor of Massachusetts or introduced a state health care coverage program. If you have to pretend that that was your twin brother and people keep mixing you up, it doesn't bode well for a future presidential campaign.
Tying the dog to the roof of the car wasn't that useful, either.
- ironyroad
June 28, 2009 at 2:53am