Elections

Romney and the “Price of Inexperience”

Parker V 0 Comments

Governor Romney has written a new op-ed called  The Price of Inexperience (emphasis added)

By Mitt Romney
June 17, 2011

Last year, when President Obama was pushing for ratification of his New START nuclear-arms treaty with Russia, I was reminded of a simple maxim: When you give something, you’re supposed to get something. But New START, as I wrote in the Washington Post, handed the Russians deep reductions in our nuclear capabilities in return for essentially nothing.

The Obama administration claimed at the time that the treaty was an excellent deal. This claim has been proven false. A new official accounting performed by the State Department acknowledges that the number of launchers and warheads in Russia’s nuclear arsenal was already below New START’s limitations when the treaty took effect, while the U.S. arsenal was well above them. In short: We’re the ones who now have to give, while Russia gets.

In agreeing to START, President Obama squandered an opportunity to extract a number of concessions from the Russians that would have advanced U.S. interests. He could have pressed for meaningful reductions not only in Russia’s strategic nuclear arsenal, but also in its tactical nuclear force, which outnumbers ours by an overwhelming margin. He could have tried to elicit Russian help in dealing with North Korea and Iran’s nuclear ambitions. But instead he frittered away American bargaining chips and got nothing in return.

Unfortunately, that’s become a bit of a pattern. Before signing New START, he abruptly abandoned our Europe-based missile-defense program as part of his “reset” policy with Russia, leaving Poland and the Czech Republic in the lurch. In return? Nothing. He’s been pressing Israel for concessions to the Palestinians on settlements and borders even before negotiations between them begin. In return? Nothing.

There’s a price to be paid for inexperience in the White house. We are paying it.

-Mitt Romney

 

A Romney-Bachmann Ticket?

Parker V 1 Comment

Interesting tidbits from James Taranto:

As for Bachmann, her biggest advantage over Sarah Palin may be that she is now running for president. That means that if Romney were to name her a year hence, she would be a far more familiar and media-savvy politician than Palin was in 2008. She would be much less vulnerable to both smears from the partisan media and unforced errors like Palin’s disastrous interview with Katie Couric, whoever that is. For those who care about such things, the presence of a woman on the ticket might serve as an excuse to vote against re-electing the first black president.

To be sure, Bachmann is running for the presidential nomination, and while no one considers her the favorite, she’s surely a shorter shot than she was a few days ago. But a rival who is able to attract significant support in the primaries is likely to bring more to the ticket than one who isn’t. What did Joe Biden get Barack Obama other than comic relief?

An interesting aside: A Romney-Bachmann ticket, or a Romney-Pawlenty one for that matter, would combine candidates from the only state Richard Nixon lost in 1972 and the only state Reagan lost in 1984. What’s more, of the seven GOP candidates on stage Monday, all but Rick Santorum come from the home state of at least one Democratic presidential nominee since 1960. The four states in question–Georgia, Massachusetts, Minnesota and Texas–have produced a majority of Democratic nominees (8 of 13) during that time.

Romney and the Tea Party

Parker V 0 Comments

It would no doubt be a poetic victory if the modern Tea Party elected an advocate of their cause from the area of the original Tea Party, but one problem remains: The Tea Party is not a fan of Mitt Romney. The Conservative organization FreedomWorks says that the Tea Party may stay home if Romney is nominated.

Why is Romney letting this sit out there instead of endearing himself to the Tea Party?

Here’s my take on what Romney is doing. He saw John McCain get hammered on immigration but still become the nominee because Huckabee stayed in the race and split the conservative vote. After a while, everyone warmed up to McCain (at least enough to vote for him). Romney probably figures that
since he’s currently the only Republican in a dead heat against Obama in the polls, he’s doing something right.

As the conventional wisdom goes, candidates must go to the right to get the nomination and then to the center to win the general election. But since so many other candidates are splitting that far-right vote, Romney probably sees it as more advantageous to go after the disaffected “Reagan Democrat” types who voted for Obama and want their money back but are scared to death of the tea party. That means, tea partiers attacking Romney equals cred with the moderate 2008 Obama voters.

And remember, lots of conservatives swore up and down that they’d never vote for McCain. But they ended up voting for him.

Mitt also said something recently about how most people won’t start following politics until after labor day. So maybe he’s just focusing on fund raising. The bottom line is that Romney’s supporters are sticking by him. I think he has 30% of likely voters to himself (As Dick Morris points out, most polls do not factor in independent voters, only republican voters, and many of the polls aren’t of “likely voters” but just republicans). Ron Paul takes another 10% off the map, which leaves only 60% to be split by the others. If Palin runs, she snatches up 20-30% of that, making it hopeless for anyone else (I know, she’s probably not running, but you never know). If Palin does not run, Bauchmann and Cain split that would-be Palin vote, and the remaining 30% gets split by everyone else.

I know Romney doesn’t want to be defensive if he doesn’t have to be, which is where I think whyromney.com can plan a key role that his campaign won’t be playing this go-around. So, lots of work still to do.

Could this be his downfall? J.E. Dyer calls the strategy a faux pas:

The American electorate has never, in my lifetime, been this much in the mood for a serious discussion of political ideas and principles. More and more of the people are cottoning to the fact that politics-as-usual is what has gotten us to where we are today. A big element of that is the rote crowning of “obvious” candidates by the GOP (something the Democrats do less of). I don’t see this dynamic as the “knives being out” for establishment candidates. But in the run-up to 2012, even establishment candidates will have to prove themselves.

It’s something more than that, however. In the circumstances of 2011 and 2012, Republican leadership will consist not in waiting around, watching numbers and deciding when to pounce in the primaries, but in engaging the people and giving shape and substance to their concerns. There is not a consensus for a “coronation candidate” to tap into. The divisions, and more importantly, the uncertainties, of some voters about the philosophical future of the GOP – and the USA – are too great this time around. A candidate who wants to win all the marbles is going to have to build his own consensus – and in the process, write the philosophical narrative with which the GOP will approach November 2012.

Romney can’t do that by ignoring the early debates and waiting for New Hampshire. What concerns me about him is that he doesn’t seem to have the political sense to recognize that. There is a disengaged, even high-handed politics-by-rules sclerosis in his approach – and it just doesn’t resonate. He won’t be able to get away with toting all his “issue” baggage – RomneyCare, anthropogenic global warming, flip-flops and ambiguity on abortion and gay marriage – while also declining to submit himself to the hard work of face-to-face politicking and actual votes.

Clever campaign design isn’t what Republican voters are looking for now. 2012 won’t be about that. Fewer GOP voters than ever before are content to project the narratives in their own minds onto the candidates vying for their approval. They want to hear candidates acknowledge their very basic concerns about the future of American liberty and republican government. They want to know that candidates “roger” those concerns and have concrete philosophical ideas – not necessarily or always programmatic ideas or policy soundbites – about what needs to change, in order to foster the future Republicans want. Romney isn’t giving them that, and apparently has no plans to. At this point, I’m not sure he can.

Frum on President Personality Types

Parker V 0 Comments

Media obsesses over Palin, ignores Romney

Was Bill Clinton undisciplined and indecisive? He was succeeded by George W. Bush, the self-described decider-in-chief.

Was Bush impulsive and aggressive? He was replaced by No Drama Obama.

Is Obama vaporous and utopian? Maybe what Americans are hearkening for is the analytic ability and negotiating prowess of the former CEO of America’s most successful management consulting firm. And just possibly, Republican primary voters have the self-control not to let the controversy over Romney’s health care record cloud their respect for their front-runner’s genuine executive abilities.

Should the GOP win by Losing?

Parker V 0 Comments

The proposition sounds like a piece of trick-advise from the Democrats: Should Republicans focus on 2016 and accept that their best strategy is to lose against Obama in 2012? But when Noemie Emery makes the following case in the Washington Examiner, it’s hard to argue with its logic:

People like Obama more than his ideas, and his chances will only get better as people realize he will never be able to pass his agenda. If re-elected, he may pass six of eight years politically neutered. An Obama safely under House (and probably Senate) arrest might be just what the public would want.

Then, after two terms of a left-wing but neutered Obama, the voters might want the next big Republican president. And here we confront the real crux of the problem: A so-so Republican who knocks off a weakened Obama may also weaken the next great conservative star.

If a Republican wins, no one from the class of 2009-2010 can run until 2020, and if a Republican wins in 2016, it gives him an almost insurmountable burden: only three times in the 20th century has a party extended its run for three terms.

A President Pawlenty or Daniels may come at the cost of a President Rubio, who might have united the party, excited the young and vastly expanded the reach of the party. Would it be worth it? Your call.

Republicans wide open field

Parker V 4 Comments

“So it does look like Republicans have some legitimate reason to worry. In the previous five competitive primaries — excluding 2004 for the Republicans, when Mr. Bush won re-nomination uncontested — each party had at least two candidates whose net favorability ratings were in the positive double digits, meaning that their favorables bettered their unfavorables by at least 10 points. All five times, also, the nominee came from among one of the candidates in this group. Republicans have no such candidates at this point in time.”

Generic ballots underestimating Democrats?

Parker V 0 Comments

The NY Times shows that voters should beware of polls that show Republicans way above Democrats because when the matchup is given by name, the individual Democrats do much better…

Republicans did better on the first set of questions, which asked voters whether in general they would prefer to see a Democrat or a Republican elected in the district. On average, over the 31 districts, Republicans led on this question by 6 points: 39 to 33.

When the candidates were named, however, the Democrats’ gap was lessened. They trailed by an average margin of 2 points, 43 to 45. (Results from the individual districts that American Action Forum tested are shown below.) That might imply that the generic ballot overestimates Republicans’ standing by about 4 points, at least in swing districts.

Can Romney win against Palin?

Parker V 0 Comments

Daniel Larison says:

Do we really think that most Republican primary voters are more likely to nominate a woman for president than Democratic voters were two years ago? Do we really think that Republicans would prefer the less qualified candidate because she is a woman? Wouldn’t many Republicans want Romney to succeed to prove that the GOP is not dominated by religious conservatives who will not support a Mormon candidate? Wouldn’t that impulse to show religious tolerance overwhelm any impulse to promote Palin beyond her ability just to get credit for nominating the first woman nominee? If the 2012 nomination contest comes down to a head-to-head fight between Romney and Palin, there appears to be every reason to think that Romney prevails.

Scott Gallupo responds:

Does he beat her in New Hampshire? Let’s assume, given his New England ties, that he does. Throw in Michigan for identical reasons. Then comes South Carolina. And then Super Tuesday. Assuming Huckabee doesn’t run, Palin will crush Romney in Dixie, and she has obvious “Mama Grizzly” appeal in the Mountain states.

The Midwest and the Northeast will be competitive. There will be an anyone-but-Palin factor—but, in an open contest, this vote will split in any number of directions. Maybe that, plus the “It’s his turn” default thinking that seems to dominate Republican primaries, is enough to lift Romney in 2012.