Romney's Choices

Ramesh, on the Romney second-guessing:

John Ellis is a smart political observer who argues, as many others do, that Romney should have run as a candidate of “new ideas” rather than a “700 Club” Republican. Well, first off, these things aren’t mutually exclusive (or Republicans would be not just in bad but hopeless shape). But second, there was no way that a pro-choice Mitt Romney could have beaten Rudy Giuliani in the primaries. And once he flipped on that issue, all of the attacks on him as plastic, etc., were baked in the cake.

I agree with everything here except the last sentence. Of course Romney needed to flip-flop on the life issues to have a chance at the nomination, and no doubt he would have taken considerable heat over this switch no matter what. But – to piggyback on Ramesh’s first point – there’s no reason he couldn’t have run as a born-again social conservative and a Gary Hart-style new-ideas man, and if he’d found something interesting and unorthodox to say about health care or taxes or the environment, I think it would have gone a long way to softening his image as a plastic man who'll say anything to get elected. It wasn’t abortion alone that created that image – it was his constant attempt to sell himself as more-hawkish-than-thou on Iran, more-restrictionist-than-thou on immigration, and so forth, to the point where it seemed that the only issues he cared about were ones he’d flip-flopped on. I suspect that if Romney had talked about tax reform for the middle class or a new conservative approach to the environment – or some other issue where his native wonkiness could shine through – half as much as he talked about how his opponents weren’t sufficiently conservative on issues where he himself had only just found right-wing religion, he might have generated more enthusiasm for his candidacy. (And at the very least, he would have given a hostile press corps something else to talk about besides his inauthenticity.)

But who knows – maybe there’s still time for him to find a better justification for his candidacy than this:

Comments

Maybe I'm a dope, but I can't for the life of me figure why EVERYONE rushed to say Romney was dead after losing to Mike Huckabee in Iowa. Even if he loses to McCain in NH, he's STILL all the Republicans have got for the national stage. Which is amusing, since he's a robotic, flip-flopping tool with hair gel.

Posted by Bill | January 5, 2008 10:27 AM

Yes, that was a John Kerry reference. I'm here all week.

Posted by Bill | January 5, 2008 10:37 AM

To me it was simpler than that. Romney at the debates looked big and acted small. The more he tried to score debating points, the more he looked like he was trying to score debating points. The resulting image was somewhere between unattractive and pathetic.

Huckabee, in contrast, seemed like he was at least trying to stay above the fray, which is another way of saying that he made an effort to appear presidential (except for a few awkward moments, like his sending Hillary to Mars comment).

I'm for neither of these, but I think the debates and the images they fostered of each candidate had a lot more to do with the current trends than is otherwise admitted.

Posted by JA | January 5, 2008 11:23 AM

One more thing:

When Huckabee fielded a sharp question he got philosophical, which allowed him to transcend the question with soaring rhetoric (kind of like Reagan).

When Romney fielded a sharp question, he used the "yeah, but look at that Giuliani!" tactic. To not be able to transcend a question with a coherent -- and sincere-seeming -- philosophical rhapsody is quite the handicap. Just ask Hillary.

Posted by JA | January 5, 2008 11:32 AM

Mitt may well be a rational guy who just can't figure out how to appeal to what's left of the Republican base - a bunch of creationists who hate Mescuns and think gays are toxic and that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11. The more I think about it, the more I wonder why the Repiglicans are even having debates this year - they should be having distance spitting contests or a snakehandling competition instead.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | January 5, 2008 12:00 PM

Romney got elected in MA mainly because people here really couldn't stomach the idea of voting for his Democratic opponent, a shrill, Hillary-style candidate who was viewed as entrenched-- her campaign manager was the brother of the senate president-elect, for instance.

She claimed Romney won because he out-spent her, and judging by his actions these days, he believed that too. But that's wrong-- he actually won because he positioned himself to the right of her (she supported abortion for young teens without parental consent; believe it or not, voters here are not knee-jerk pro-abortion), and because people were sick of the cronyism they saw on Beacon Hill and eager for an outsider. It's probably no coincidence that Romney's successor, the first black governor, was also an outsider.

It is definitely true that Romney helped the state, mainly in behind-the-scenes ways, by certain appointment decisions (except in the case of judges, apparently) and by what he prevented various state officials from doing, but these accomplishments don't make headlines. It is also true that the Governor is very weak in this state, and no one holding that office in the past 20 years, including the present Governor, has been able to get much accomplished because the legislature is the locus of power here.

Those combined truths meant that Romney did not have much of a sound bite-friendly record of accomplishment to run on either for re-election as Governor or for a presidential bid. Despite that, he'd been running for president since day one of his gubernatorial term. Everybody, including the Boston Herald, lampooned him for it. I'd say his biggest strategic miscalculation was to run for office from Massachusetts rather than say, Utah or even maybe Michigan or New Hampshire since they have a home there as well.

The failure to establish a solid record, the chameleon-like shifting he's done to get himself elected (even more shifting than was truly necessary, given that this state is actually not as left-leaning on some issues as people think)-- all add up to a lack of substance. It's actually heart-warming that the American people aren't willing to tolerate it. With any luck, our next president will be John McCain. He's pretty reasonable on core issues, he wasn't running for president from day one, and he's put in the time it takes to establish himself and his record.

Posted by MD | January 5, 2008 12:31 PM

Just for clarification, Romney ran as a liberal against Ted Kennedy in the 90s, referring to himself as pro-choice, but then ran as a moderate against O'Brien for governor, criticizing her for supporting a law that would allow abortion for young teens without parental consent, and won. He then fully embraced the pro-life stance when he began campaigning for president. This three-point turn on abortion and his failure to acknowledge that fees = taxes, are the main reasons for his reputation as a shape-shifter.

Posted by MD | January 5, 2008 12:46 PM

But – to piggyback on Ramesh’s first point – there’s no reason he couldn’t have run as a born-again social conservative and a Gary Hart-style new-ideas man...

Right. In other words, Jack Kemp.

Posted by Jasper | January 5, 2008 12:47 PM

MD hopes: "With any luck, our next president will be John McCain. He's pretty reasonable on core issues, he wasn't running for president from day one, and he's put in the time it takes to establish himself and his record."

He's long past his prime and his comment the other day about a 100 year occupation of Iraq indicates he's quite possibly losing his marbles. And he's been running obsessively for president for 8 years. If he's the best the GOP can do (and these days he probably is) you guys are toast. And after Dumbya, you deserve a severe beating.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | January 5, 2008 1:14 PM

First, can we stop calling it "the life issue"? It's one thing to say "pro-life" and "pro-choice", but the ISSUE is "the abortion issue". Why isn't the death penalty, or the war in Iraq, or stem cell research, or Terry Schiavo, or the failure to build sufficient homeless shelters in cold winters "the life issue"?

There isn't one "life issue". There are different issues that different political actors claim are a matter of life and death. One of those is "the abortion issue".

Second of all, of course Romney should have run as a pro-choicer, for the simple reason that it is what he actually believes.

Posted by Dilan Esper | January 5, 2008 1:16 PM

Ask people from MA what they think of Romney. Even the Republicans don't seem to like him much. He left the Republican party in MA even weaker than when he found it, which is really saying something!

Comparisons to John Kerry are deeply unfair to Kerry. Kerry has a consistent if somewhat dull liberal but not far left record over a long career. Romney has been all over the map in a political career less than half as long.

The unfortunate part is that Romney probably has the abilty to be a reasonably good executive if he put some effort into doing things for reasons other than political expediancy. At this point, though, I'm not sure that he really cares but much other than power and that sort of attitude is not condusive to having a good administration (see Bush II) . . .

Posted by ikl | January 5, 2008 1:25 PM

ikl's right-- Bay State Republicans don't generally embrace Romney. This is probably because Romney campaigned for gov. as a reformer and filled political offices with new blood. To be fair, Romney raised and poured a ton of money into efforts to build up a grassroots GOP here and to get this crop of candidates elected to the legislature. The effort failed miserably, but it's not completely fair to blame Romney. Conservatives have been successful here when they've run as Democrats. Our last House Speaker, a Democrat, was pro-life, against gay marriage, and fiscally conservative, for instance. (He was also indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice related to racial gerrymandering.) And generally, in the absence of compelling incentives to do otherwise, voters support incumbents, so the GOP grassroots effort was in some ways doomed from the start. Former GOP elected officials in the state have since jumped on board with other presidential candidates, but I don't think that really hurts Romney now.

What hurts Romney in NH is that NH's many independents are going Democratic. The media says this is in protest of Bush's foreign policy, but it's worth noting that NH-- home of many recent Mass transplants-- is not anywhere near as conservative nowadays as it was even a decade ago. Which makes me now wish we could remove its "first in the nation" status during primary season! Those independents who aren't veering left would probably rather place McCain in charge of the war effort than Romney. And of course, McCain carried the state when he ran against Dubya. Romney's been hammering McCain on immigration, but the major papers, which have endorsed McCain, are successfully spinning those ads as dishonest attacks.

Posted by MD | January 5, 2008 2:24 PM

Which are "the life issues"?

Anti-abortion, of course.

Pro-death penalty?

Pro-Schiavo-like government intervention?

Pro-torture?

If Romney has to flip-flop on all of these to get the nomination, you can see what's wrong with the GOP these days: all the candidates are hypocrites or crazies.

Posted by Mike | January 5, 2008 2:25 PM

Good discussion. MD, would you not consider Huckabee? His position on taxes, and record of tax cuts in Arkansas, shows he's a fiscal conservative (nobody ever accused Steve Forbes of being liberal).

Some good policy papers on Huckabee's blog today.

Posted by Alex Chediak | January 5, 2008 4:48 PM