Romney's Night

Or rather, a night that made me want to vote for him, however temporarily - which, as you can probably tell if you read this blog frequently, was a high bar for him to clear. Whether anyone in the voting public saw it that way I have no idea; he took a drubbing all night from the rest of the field, and I agree with Rich that he probably would have done better to show a little more emotion about it. But all the piling-on from his rivals felt content-free and obnoxious (I thought McCain, especially, seemed irascible and downright unpleasant in his interactions with Romney, and too confident that his role as media darling makes him untouchable), whereas even when I didn't agree with him Mitt sounded serious and persuasive and even wonky - like the thinking conservative's candidate that I once hoped he would be.

I see Noam Scheiber leans my way on this; I expect, though, that the CW will run toward Mark Halperin's take.

Comments

Not sure why, but the other contenders seem to frickin' HATE Mitt. McCain especially, and that guy know how to hold a grudge.

I've gotta ask Ross, I read your Sam's Club Republicans essay a while back, and while, liberal that I am, I didn't agree with most of the policy prescriptions, I thought it was a clever recognition that the GOP needs to start speaking to the needs of its working class constituents. Huckabee seems to be that natural vehicle for that sort of internal shift for the party, and he's the only guy on the GOP side who's even talking about economic insecurity and whatnot. And yet you never seem better than lukewarm toward the guy and seem to really want to like Mitt. What gives?

Posted by Justin K. | January 5, 2008 11:41 PM

Justin K asks: "Huckabee seems to be that natural vehicle for that sort of internal shift for the party, and he's the only guy on the GOP side who's even talking about economic insecurity and whatnot. And yet you never seem better than lukewarm toward the guy and seem to really want to like Mitt. What gives?"

It's the Harvard Mafia, Justin. Ross knows he can't get a job in a Huckabee administration. Under Romney he might be the Undersecretary of Jesus or something equally spiffy.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | January 6, 2008 12:01 AM

Ross--

I think Halperin's right and you're wrong on Mitt's performance tonight. The attacks on Romney, were not, as the candidate pathetically alleged, personal. Criticism of Romney's dramatic changes on many of the major issues are policy critiques, not mere character assassination. Moreover, they are empirically demonstrable, although one can debate whether his flip-flops are sincere or all too convenient. McCain may have shanked Romney a bit too hard, but on substance, he was correct.

Romney wouldn't be quite as awful a President as the small man seeking the balcony, but the most dangerous thing in politics is a candidate whose only principle seems to be victory.

Posted by Madorsky | January 6, 2008 12:02 AM

For what it's worth, I completely agree with Ross about the attacks on Romney, which were over the top.

On the other hand, I think Thompson did quite well, and I would call him the winner (in a normative sense - I can't predict what will play well with the GOP base). Maybe it's his voice, by far the best among candidates in both parties, but he sounded serious and engaged. When he described what the core conservative principles ought to be, I found myself nodding in agreement even though I'm a liberal. The only problem, of course, is that the conservative movement can be relied on never to act on those principles, so it's not as though I'd actually vote for the guy.

Posted by minderbender | January 6, 2008 12:47 AM

Yeah, there was a really weird vibe in that debate, with McCain, Huckabee, and Giuliani all picking on Mitt in a really bullying way. Romney didn't respond to it as well as he could have (as Lowry suggests at the Corner, humor or outrage would have been effective responses), but I think it reflected really poorly on those three. Thompson was a bit more subtle about it, but it was really obvious they all hate him.

Posted by right | January 6, 2008 1:12 AM

right: I'm not sure they all hate him, though they might. I think they smell blood in the water, at the very least. In the Democratic debate, Clinton started to go after Obama for going after Edwards (I know, this sounds like something out of the Onion). Edwards came back with a really pointed attack on Clinton. Edwards doesn't want Clinton gaining any traction, I suspect, and is willing to shore up Obama and not alienate people who like Obama but might vote for Edwards.

Similarly with the Republicans I think. Romney still has massive amounts of money and establishment support, so this was a let's-finish-him-off kind of thing, not necessarily driven by personal antipathy.

Posted by minderbender | January 6, 2008 1:26 AM

People hate Romney because he is the biggest fraud on the stage.

Dude is a joke.

And anyone who actually buys into his Eddie Haskell routine is a joke, too.

Posted by TheCarpetMuncher | January 6, 2008 1:55 AM

I saw it the same way -- for the first time Romney seemed the most likable and most genuine man on the stage.

Posted by PrestoPundit | January 6, 2008 2:19 AM

McCain I think viscerally hates him, and has all along, even before Romney started attacking him. The others may be a lot more opportunistic with their animus.

The other thing I believe is that if you get half those candidates out of the race -- say, Paul, Thompson, and Giuliani -- and leave it a three way debate, you'd probably have a debate much more like the Dem one tonight, where they have to speak about detailed policy proposals quite a bit. In that format I think Romney will come across quite a lot better, since he has such a firm grasp of policy details. Huckabee is great with the little one sentence policy quips, but there's no actual substance. McCain knows his stuff but tends to ramble like the old geezer he is. We know Romney's sticking around, but he needs the field to dwindle and these debates to still matter.

Posted by right | January 6, 2008 2:33 AM

Did he promise to only increase Gitmo by 1.5?

Posted by Reality Man | January 6, 2008 5:25 AM

Why do people hate Romney??

You're kidding, right? He's up there running for student council president. He will say ANYTHING to get elected! He's really smart in a "done his homework" way, just like every student council president you've ever seen. People hate people who look and act like they've been running for president their whole lives. Picking a POTUS is an emotional decision for people; it's more than just competence and C.V.

Posted by Bill | January 6, 2008 7:27 AM

To wit: last night, all of a sudden, MITT ROMNEY was the "Change" candidate! Please! That is so pathetic. Deciding that the Obama camp, with all its mojo, is your best focus group, and trying to co-opt their message. Telling people what they want to hear because they told you what they wanted to hear, as opposed to embodying what they want to hear. Fake fake fake.

Posted by Bill | January 6, 2008 7:33 AM

Yeah, I get what you mean. He really showed his competent, technocrat side, which is how he should be running all the time, instead of pandering to a constituency that isn't going to vote for an ex-governor of Massachusetts anyway. He's got a strong record of administrative competence. I know that doesn't exactly set the world on fire, politically, but after the embarrassment of the last 7 years-- the Katrinas and the prosecutors and all of the essentially forgotten federal institutions-- it's just what the Republican party needs. Which is in marked contrast to Mike Huckabee, who's all smiles and jokes and meta-campaigning, with no reason to believe he'll be competent at all.

Posted by Freddie | January 6, 2008 9:30 AM

I'm really disappointed in Romney. I'm a liberal Democrat, but he seemed like an interesting candidate who could run a compelling campaign. Not that I'd vote for him, obviously. But no one else up on that stage can convincingly run under the mantle of executive experience and sheer competence. If he had taken up the banner of that and run a pragmatic, conservative-but-not-ideological campaign, he'd fill an attractive niche while all the others stumble over themselves to unconvincingly fill the GWB2-but-not one, giving him a good chance to take the nomination instead of failing and looking like an unprincipled hack.

Posted by Zephyrus | January 6, 2008 10:26 AM

It's becoming increasingly clear that, however bright and able, Romney is coming across as a poll driven, insincere candidate who probably could not attract insependent and Blue Dog Dem votes in the way that McCain can. Also, the political reality is that a large number of evangelicals will simply not consider Romney due to his Mormon religion.

In my view Romney is by far the ablest of the Republican and Democratic candidates, though at this point he is a collection of badly and probably irrepararably damaged political goods.

Perhaps it's being fickle; I'm jumping ship from Romney to McCain.

Posted by Peter Leavitt | January 6, 2008 11:59 AM

Interesting, Peter. You've switched from supporting Romney to supporting someone who openly despises Romney, and isn't enough of a diplomat to disguise the fact in a televised, civil debate. Neither man looks terribly presidential to me.

Posted by Bill | January 6, 2008 12:45 PM

Bill, my main interest in this election is finding a candidate who can keep the fragile Republican coalition together along with appealing to the independents and conservative Democrats in order to defeat Obama who will be a very attractive candidate.

In the past it appeared that Romney fit this bill, though it is reasonably clear now that he lacks the political qualities necessary to win a general election. McCain in my view has those qualities, though it will be tough for him. Though McCain lacks Romney's brilliance and ability, he is a man of integrity and ability to be a decent conservative president.

That is why, by the waY, I'm delighted that bright young people, including Ross Douthat and David Frum, are searching for ways to move beyond the ideas of the Reagan coalition. These ideas might influence the 2008 election, though, even if the conservative coalition, goes into the political wilderness, they will be valuable for conservative thought.

Posted by Peter Leavitt | January 6, 2008 4:06 PM

Party-before-country Peter Leavitt writes: "These ideas might influence the 2008 election, though, even if the conservative coalition, goes into the political wilderness, they will be valuable for conservative thought."

It's never about principle, is it? If a Democrat suggested some of the massive spending and social engineering Frum and Douthat are recommending, Peter Leavitt would go nuts.

Am I the only one posting here who remembers when a balanced budget was a guiding conservative notion? Did Reagan really drive a stake through its heart?

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | January 6, 2008 8:30 PM

I didn't see the debate so I shouldn't comment at all here but I did see McCain on Russert and he sounded fine to me-- so far he's the only adult in the room, from what I can see. Even Fred Thompson, the only other "gray hair," comes across as an actor first and foremost, vs. McCain the elder statesman.

McCain, especially when he talks about foreign affairs, speaks as someone who has experience, who has an easy familiarity with foreign leaders, who understands that we need to make deals with devils sometimes to pursue American interests and doesn't feel compelled to mask that ugly reality behind some altruistic blather about Iraqis' yearning for freedom. He mentioned Musharaf and the 9 assassination attempts against him-- he understand what makes these people tick, what makes them act and speak the way they do.

And on immigration-- unlike Romney-- he uses language that is not only likely to pit him as a compassionate conservative (who cannot be pigeonholed as an angry white guy by the Obama folks in the general election), but he may even pick up the Hispanic vote. He's focusing on securing our borders, which is prudent both for our country and politically, to hold the base, but he's not allowing the Romney folks to force him to adopt heartless positions for the sake of political expediency.

I love Pat Buchanan, but his immigration solutions are not based in reality. It would be morally wrong to round up immigrants who've been working 12-hour days in a factory for $40/week and send them home overnight with no thought for what to do with their kids. This is what Romney allowed in Massachusetts, and he was roundly excoriated for it by, among others, Cardinal O'Malley. This is not the kind of leadership we need in this country on immigration. We need the adults to come to the table, to strike reasonable, humane deals that protect our national security without destroying our souls.

Posted by MD | January 7, 2008 11:07 PM