THE STUMP APRIL 3, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size

Mitt Romney may be on the verge of wrapping up the Republican nomination against the bowler and the bawler, but it is a sign of what a weak position he now finds himself in that his own advisers are comparing him unfavorably to that powerhouse candidate of 2008, John McCain. Politico today released the latest installment of its campaign e-book (think Dickens for Playbook junkies) and it included these gems:
Aides continue to debate whether they should seize even tighter control of the former Massachusetts governor or yield to the push by some advisers to “let Romney be Romney” — but they have yet to crack the code. “They haven’t been able to grapple with the central issue and central challenge they face as a campaign,” one Romney adviser lamented. “In the absence of a candidate who has any poetry — who has any ability to connect on an emotional level — how do you create a bond?”... "If you’re a super-charismatic candidate like George W. Bush or John McCain, they both ran without a real bold agenda,” the adviser continued. “They had other, more emotional-level, values-level ways to connect with voters. This guy just doesn’t have it. He has all the warmth of a Wall Street CEO.”
Another adviser, a GOP operative consulted by Team Romney, had an even more radical idea than a bold agenda.
“I think they’ve got to unleash him and take the bad with the good,” he said. “I think he’s trapped in his campaign. You hear people joke that Mitt Romney is the one candidate that you would never say, ‘Okay, we’re going to let the governor be the governor.’ They would never say, ‘Let Romney be Romney.’ Like it or not, they need to do that because the more they put on a facade, the more people pick up on it.”
This adviser, who had coached Sen. John McCain in 2008, wanted to double down on the campaign’s earlier inclination to let Romney embrace his fortune for the sake of authenticity, though in a less off-putting and awkward fashion — more self-made man, less Richie Rich.
“John could do ten minutes of a town hall and get a crowd with him. He’d tell the same jokes every stop, but people thought, ‘That’s John McCain.’ And so people knew where John’s core was. They may not have agreed with him on everything, but they knew he had a core. They knew he was a real person. Mitt Romney is still a big question mark. What’s his core? Does this guy have a core, or is this just a guy running because he wants to be president? And I think that has dogged him from day one.”
Ouch. What makes this all the more devastating is that it is echoing exactly the line that David Axelrod and David Plouffe started using against Romney a few months ago—that he “lacks a core.” At the time, the Romney camp declared that this constituted a vicious personal attack. Now, apparently at least one Romney adviser agrees with the Davids.
But what I find most striking about this internal sniping is that these nameless advisers apparently share the same conviction as many Romney detractors: that there is some “real” Mitt Romney deep inside that is yearning to break into public view, if only allowed to do so. For Romney skeptics like Frank Rich, the thing lurking within is Romney’s religious identity, which drives him more than anything else but which he feels the need to tamp down in the face of anti-Mormon bigotry. For some of Romney’s advisers, meanwhile, there's apparently some other sort of hidden, more natural Mitt, who, as Politico suggests, apparently resembles your slightly odd and overeager next-door neighbor:
Tagg Romney, the candidate’s oldest son, articulated a side of his father that the campaign has struggled to portray.
“In his spare time, he wants to solve problems,” Tagg Romney said in an interview. “He wants to figure out, when he comes over to your house, he wants to figure out, ‘Well, your boiler’s not working. How are we going to fix the boiler?’ and ‘Have you noticed that some of your trees are dying out there? Why are your trees dying? What’s causing that? Can we figure that out, and can we go down to the hardware store and see if they’ve got something to fix that?’ And all of a sudden you see him driving a tractor in your backyard, and he’s pulling stuff up. He’s like, ‘Oh, these rocks were doing that.’ I mean, that’s just who he is.”
Tagg knows his dad as well as anyone, so I’m inclined to think there’s something to this, that Mitt the Fixer has gotten lost somewhat in the mix—though it’s worth noting that it's not just campaign artifice that’s doing that, but also Romney’s shrill Etch-a-Sketch conservative shtick. I also agree that there are moments when Romney can be more appealing than others. In the televised debates, for instance, he loses some of the saccharine condescension that make his stump speeches so excruciating—perhaps because he is then among equals, or at least near-equals (his opponents and the moderators), he lets himself be the attentive, sharp-minded, competitive man he is, sparring freely with the others, rather than lapsing into the awful, America the Beautiful patronizing that he apparently feels is required when confronted with regular people.
But Mitt Romney has been campaigning in public view for enough years now, with enough different advisers and strategies, that it really seems high time that we stopped waiting for some new, more natural Willard to be revealed. I come back yet again to what I concluded in my review of the new Romney biography by Michael Kranish and Scott Helman:
What if it is hard to divine the deepest recesses of Romney because those recesses simply do not go all that deep?
This is, after all, a man who decided that he was going to devote at least the first half of his adult life to making an enormous pile of money. Even after the Kennedy race [in 1994], which he later said had only heightened his interest in politics, Romney went right back to Bain Capital, for what would prove to be his most lucrative years of all. It is perhaps uncouth to say so, but does not Romney’s fixation on a line of work that amounted to high-stakes data-crunching and paper-shuffling suggest a rather constricted view of the world and a shallow sense of greater purpose?
John McCain and George W. Bush didn’t need some Svengali to release their authentic selves from within; it’s a sign of how much we’ve inflated the role of the campaign strategist (Rove, Salter, Schmidt) that we imagine that such a trick could yet be performed on Romney. It really may be time to accept that in Romney’s case, the cliche applies: what you see is what you get. Who knows, maybe the next breathless Politico e-book installment will bring Romney making that very point in a backroom confrontation over chocolate milks. Lay off guys. I yam what I yam.
follow me on Twitter @AlecMacGillis
13 comments
If some of the *jokes* Romney’s made while harnessed are tone deaf, I can’t wait to hear him play unplugged.
- OkiSaru
April 3, 2012 at 7:07pm
"In his spare time, he wants to solve problems" Well, we have the kids in the car and the dog, but no space for the dog....
- Nusholtz
April 3, 2012 at 7:49pm
A lot of this could have been said about Papa Bush, that he had no core outside of noblesse oblige and entitlement. But Bush had a number of advantages that Romney does not. Reagan was popular and Bush was his VP, Bush was not a Mormon high priest, Bush was a war veteran and his opponent was awful. I don't understand how Romney won in Mass. so he has to have some skills at retail politics. Maybe we will see it this fall, but frankly I am dreading his campaign, it might be excruciating to watch.
- blackton
April 3, 2012 at 8:43pm
If Romney were just a very good number cruncher thinking that business experience somehow translates into the right skills for a political executive, I still wouldn't like him, but I wouldn't find him so scary. But he's much more than that - he's a power hungry number cruncher - he doesn't just need to find the best answer, he needs to find the answer that best serves him personally (by enriching him, or elevating him to power). That's apparent in his approach to this campaign - he pretty obviously enters every campaign event thoroughly conscious of the misrepresentation he wants to convey to the audience at hand, to optimize his chances of getting their check/vote. Romney is optimizing for one purpose - not the good of the country according to some (however bizarre) ideology, but for his own aggrandizement.
- IowaBeauty
April 3, 2012 at 8:45pm
Well let's hope he doesn't pick Sarah Palin for a running mate.
- Sophia
April 3, 2012 at 9:13pm
Or: let's hope he does.
- ironyroad
April 4, 2012 at 12:29am
Taking the Frank Rich and Tagg Romney assessments together, I now think we have the definitive word on who the Mittster really is. He's Homer Simpson's neighbor, Ed Flanders.
- bustedboom
April 4, 2012 at 2:21am
George W. Bush was a super-charismatic candidate? To who, fake cowboys and religious nuts? When he wasn't talking about religion or sports, he was as empty inside as Romney is. He has about as much substance as Paris Hilton. But vacuous souls do have their admirers in this ever-more-virtual world, don't they? You got it right twice, bustedboom. G.W. Bush busted Clinton's boom, and Romney is very much like Ed Flanders, except Romney substitutes silly business bromides for those of religion.
- magboy47.
April 4, 2012 at 3:10am
blackton. This suggests a great campaign slogan: "Bush without all the warm and fuzzies." At his core, Romney's a lizard; a smart lizard, sure, but devoid of what we warm-bloods call "empathy". Other mammals with which he doesn't share dna or bodily fluids are simply prey or occasionally useful co-predators.
- miceelf
April 4, 2012 at 6:11am
Perhaps the old phrase, "There's no there, there" applies. On the other hand, perhaps he was born to be Vice-President. (I am sure Biden would be gald to "sacrifice himself." No. Obama should keep Biden and make Romney Vice-President #2, in charge of fixing stuff. How corporate that would be. How comfortable for Mitt.
- skahn
April 4, 2012 at 8:35am
LOL skahn; genius!
- Sophia
April 4, 2012 at 1:32pm
I think the analogy to George Bush the First is the most accurate. I actually think that with the exception of the appointment of Clarence Thomas, Bush I is an underrated president. But I also think that Bush I wanted to be president but wasn't good at what it took to become president. So it is with Mitt Romney. By every standard in his business, public and personal life, he is a success. But when it comes to selling his candidacy he is like a fish out of water. It makes me uncomfortable to watch him do what he obviously isn't good at and doesn't like to do and that is campaigning. Unfortunately for him (and for Pere George) part of being a president is being a politician and they are both not just very good at that. On the other hand, if he gets elected (and I think that unlikely) Romney will do a competent job (although I will often disagree with him and the crazies that will come with him).
- poldpf
April 4, 2012 at 2:33pm
Tagg Romney's comments (by the way: Tagg??) have been the most illuminating for me. It reminds me of a certain breed of fathers: those that are very good at fixing things, that really enjoy being active and hands-on, but who have no ability to emotionally connect. No understanding that people sometimes just want to be listened to and sympathized with. Clinton, of course, had this genius, and Obama (it shows up when he talks about his family). I think Romney is going to continue to have huge struggles with women because he represents this kind of insensitive "problem-solving" male figure.
- polcereal
April 5, 2012 at 12:07pm