THE STUMP MARCH 5, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Both Jonathan Chait and Jonathan Cohn today noted the utter incompetence of Mitt Romney’s GOP rivals when it comes to basic opposition research, as shown by their failure to dig up two 2009 statements in which Romney supported a national individual health insurance mandate. These statements are completely at odds with Romney’s claim throughout this campaign that he has never backed a national individual mandate, but rather simply thought it appropriate for the people of his own state. Yet Mssrs. Santorum, Gingrich et al apparently could not bother to dig up the statements, which were contained in two very obscure corners: a USA Today column and Meet the Press appearance.
But I’ve been puzzling over another oversight by Romney’s opponents as we head into Super Tuesday: their total failure to make anything of Romney’s blatant flip-flop on the matter of the referendum over Ohio’s new law to restrict collective bargaining by public employee unions. Remember this one? In late October, Romney came to Cincinnati for a fundraiser and while in town visited a Republican phone bank where volunteers were making calls in support of the new law, the number-one priority of Gov. John Kasich. Yet when asked about the law at the phone bank, Romney ducked. “I’m not saying anything one way or the other about the two ballot issues,” he said. “But I am supportive of the Republican party’s efforts here.” Pressed by reporters, Romney refused to budge. “I am not speaking about the particular ballot issues,” he said, according to CNN. “Those are up to the people of Ohio. But I certainly support the efforts of the governor to reign in the scale of government. I am not terribly familiar with the two ballot initiatives. But I am certainly supportive of the Republican Party’s efforts here.”
Ohio Republicans were dismayed. How could Romney claim no knowledge of a major anti-union law that had dominated national headlines—even as he was visiting a phone bank making calls in favor of that very law? (It turned out he had also sent a Facebook message in support of the law a few months earlier.) “I suppose he’s trying to be cautious,” Mark Munroe, the GOP chairman in Mahoning County, told me at the time. Realizing the damage he’d done, Romney flipped the following day, telling reporters at a stop in Virginia “I fully support” the new law and “I’m sorry if I created any confusion there.” But the bad feeling lingered. Two weeks later, the law went down to resounding defeat, just the result that Romney was clearly anticipating as he tried to edge away from it even as he was showing up for a photo op at the phone bank.
This episode, you would think, might be something that Rick Santorum, Romney’s main rival in Ohio, might want to remind Republican primary voters about, especially as Romney is now trying to tar Santorum as insufficiently anti-union. But I can find no trace of Santorum doing so, on the trail or in his ads. (If I missed something, let me know.) Maybe Santorum figures that the law was so unpopular that trying to bring up Romney’s ambivalence about it might not be effective even among GOP voters, but that’s dubious to me—it seems that one could still craft an attack around Romney’s transparent expedience on the issue. I realize that Santorum has far fewer resources at his disposal, but really, this is kind of basic. Mitt Romney has to be asking himself, a la Jon Lovitz’s Mike Dukakis, how it is that he’s in a tight race with this guy. And he also has to be wondering what it’s going to be like when he’s up against a campaign operation that doesn’t miss these hanging curveballs.
6 comments
I can't find the video of Jon Lovitz's Mike Dukakis, but here is the transcript of an SNL classic: http://snltranscripts.jt.org/88/88adebate.phtml George Bush: Let me sum up. On track, stay the course. Thousand points of light. Diane Sawyer: Governor Dukakis. Rebuttal? Michael Dukakis: I can't believe I'm losing to this guy!
- aboufade
March 5, 2012 at 6:26pm
How pathetic? Very pathetic. Lots of people simply don't like or trust Romney. If Santorum hadn't blown the last debate and had been even slightly less inept at taking Romney to task over his flip-flops and moderate positions, he'd be giving Mitt a much better run for his money. He also could have done more to play up the working class economic justice issues against Richie Rich Romney. As it is, he's in danger of flaming out if he loses Ohio or Tennessee. Now, having said this, it's possible that in Santorum's mind he's making sure to stick to his social conservative guns no matter what, on the theory that they'll either carry him to the nomination this time or set him up for 2016 if Romney loses in 2012. In that latter scenario, Rick will say, see, I told you so, we need a real conservative rather than a phony moderate. That argument, coupled with the party's proclivity to back the runner-up from the last time around and it's ongoing shift ever rightward, could get him the 2016 nomination.
- Thunderroad
March 5, 2012 at 8:20pm
It's also possible that Santorum really believes his schtick, which means I hope Romney gets the nomination, even though there's no there there, and he drags folks around on his car: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/03/05/new-yorker-cover-santorum-rides-on-romneys-car-roof/
- Sophia
March 5, 2012 at 10:39pm
As an organic gardener, I throw decaying, rotting material into compost piles. Eventually the compost nourishes beautiful & nutritious healthy new plants. At best, the current rotting pile of the GOP will eventually nourish healthy new platforms and candidates. Caution! though. At times dreadful toxic viruses, bacteria, molds, and parasites live in the waste and fail to decompose in the compost cycle. At times, I throw dubious stuff far into the woods. At times , I take it to the toxic waste dump on our island. At times, it may need to be launched into space. Mr. Gingrich -- meet Mr. Moon. Oh, you forgot to bring your helmet and oxygen tank? How sad. Meet Mr. Vacuum.
- skahn
March 6, 2012 at 8:21am
Someone who has a better understanding of the nuances of Yiddish can help: Is the spunky dynamic brutally honest Mittens the very definition of Mensch? Also, is it true that he took part in postmortem baptisms of Holocaust victims? Could this impact his Mensch rating? If the publisher of this rag endorses Mittens, can we all be assured of a place in the Mormon heaven? Just askin'.
- bufatutu
March 6, 2012 at 8:59am
Good questions, bufatutu! Do you really want a place in a heaven that allows in people like us? I once called evangelical Christianity, and its promise of Heaven, a "virtuous swindle." (I would apply the same phrase to Mormornism, and pretty much any religious belief.) "Virtuous" in the sense that religious belief may on balance do more good than harm, though on balance it's a very close call. A "swindle" in there is no known case of a person coming back and filing a complaint with a Consumer Protection Agency demanding repayment of tithes and repair of damage to knees from praying, saying, "I died and found there is no there there," or eternity is so boring after the third eternity."
- skahn
March 6, 2012 at 3:40pm