Romney

VIDEO: Mitt Romney on Huckabee

Parker V 0 Comments

Huckabee’s exclusive interview with the GOP presidential frontrunner might also make you want to take this review course: A Brief History of Why Huckabee and Romney Don’t Like Each Other – although I think it’s more accurate to say that Huckabee holds more of the fued. While Romney has defended Huckabee and spoke kindly of him since the 2007 primary campaign, Huckabee continued to do the opposite of Romney:

Long after the campaign ended with niether of the two winning the nomination, Huckabee dredged up old wounds in a November 2008 book. He wrote that he felt “total disrespect” when Romney didn’t call him after he won the Iowa caucuses and characterized Mitt as being “anything but conservative until he changed the light bulbs in his chandelier in time to run for president.” He then panned Romney’s economic shtick by writing why don’t you let voters “eat stocks.”

Would Mitt Romney Be a Pro-Life President?

Mitt Romney on Obamacare vs. Romneycare

What Separates Romney from the Rest of the Pack?

Past Elections Show a Weak Republican Field

Parker V 0 Comments

Michael Barone notes the weak field of all the Republican candidates:

Generally speaking, our two parties have wanted to nominate candidates who have shown special strength among the voters who know them best. None of the nine candidates who participated in the Fox News/Google debate in Orlando has really done that. Rick Perry and Mitt Romney have won elections by margins comparable to those of John Cornyn and Paul Cellucci, competent officeholders but not on anyone’s list of presidential candidates. Ron Paul ran well ahead of his party base in 2010 against weak opposition; Michele Bachmann has not done so in three races against vigorous opponents. Newt Gingrich’s record of running ahead of party is spotty; Herman Cain’s is nonexistent.

Rick Santorum outperformed the Republican base in 1992 and 1994, but woefully underperformed it in 2006. Jon Huntsman and Gary Johnson won solid majorities for reelection against weak opposition.

None of them has performed, at least recently, as Chris Christie did when he was defeated an incumbent governor by a 48%-45% margin in New Jersey in 2009, a year after it had voted 57%-42% for Barack Obama, or Mitch Daniels, who was reelected over a former member of Congress by a 58%-40% margin in Indiana on the same day the state voted 50%-49% for Barack Obama, or Paul Ryan, who has been reelected with between 63% and 68% of the vote between 2000 and 2010 in a district which voted Democratic for president by 49%-47% in 2000, 54%-46% in 2004 and 51%-47% in 2008. These are Republicans who have shown the capacity to overperform the party’s generic base.

 

Perry’s Fact Checkers mess up a 2nd time in prepared attack on Romney

Parker V 3 Comments

Rick Perry came prepared with an attack on Mitt Romney that in Romneys book No Apologies, he claimed that he wanted the Massachusetts healthcare model to be adopted by the rest of the country, yet in the paperback edition this was deleted. While one specific line may have indeed been edited from the paperback, a scan of the original book proves that the context was unchanged and that Romney did not in fact advocate the whole country having MA-care foisted upon them. The book, provided by pro-Romney site WhyRomney.com instead says the opposite of what Perry claimed.

Reposted from WhyRomney, with permission:

Critics cite differences between the paperback and hardcover editions of Romney’s book, “No Apology,” accusing Mitt Romney of subtly changing positions on Obama’s policies to harden his stance for political reasons. However, critics falsely lead people to this conclusion by taking excerpts out of context. For instance, critics claim that Romney called Obama’s stimulus plan “a failure” in the paperback but not in the hardcover. The truth however is that Romney wrote the hardcover during the initial phase of the stimulus and thus could not yet claim that it had “failed,” or elaborate on the effectiveness of details which had not yet been implemented. But Romney specifically said on page 145 of the hardcover that Obama’s stimulus had “already been far less than successful,” and Romney predicted “it will impose a heavy burden on the economy in the intermediate and long term.”

Critics also fail to mention that on page 31 of the hardcover, Romney says “the record and achievement of modern free-market capitalism” is “now at risk because of the economic policies of President Obama.” Romney goes on to say, “His effort to expand the size, reach and role of government is without precedent in our history. His plans would leave us with a crushing deficit and debt, far beyond anything we have ever experienced.” Also on page 31, Romney writes that “at a time when Europe is moving away from socialism and its many failures, President Obama is moving toward that direction.”

Likewise, critcs claim that in the hardcover Romney promoted Obama’s stimulus on pages 144-145 as something that would “accelerate the timing of the start of the recovery.” But in fact, Romney’s statement was alluding to the limited tax cut portion of the stimulus, having put it in that context in the previous line which critics leave out, by statinSupremg that congressional Democrats fail to understand “the crucial role played by tax cuts.” It is in this context that Romney said the stimulus would not help “as much as it could have had it included genuine tax- and job-generating incentives.”

In a similar criticism, critics accuse Romney of being soft on Obamacare in the hardcover because in the paperback he stated that it should be “repealed,” but in the hardcover did not call for a “repeal.” The truth however is that Obamacare had not passed when Romney wrote the hardcover edition and its passing seemed less likely at the time because of the election of MA Senator Scott Brown. With no law to repeal, a call for repeal would have made no sense. Furthermore, Romney had no pressing need to discuss Obama’s health care ideas in extended detail.

UPDATE: Glenn Kessler in the Washington Post writes on this

In fact, while Romney has a reputation as a flip-flopper (which this ad tries to exploit), he has been consistent in saying he did not want to import his plan to the rest of the country. When the Massachusetts law was passed in 2006, he appeared on MSNBC and was asked whether it would work for the rest of the country.

“Well, it will work for Massachusetts, and that’s of course the thing that I had to focus on,” Romney replied. “There are certain aspects of it that I think would work across the country, perhaps better in some states than others. Of course the great thing about federalism is you let a state try it and see how it works before you spread it out.”

Romney made a similar point in an interview with Dan Balz of The Washington Post in 2007, as he recalled during last week’s debate. “Instead of having the federal government give us one-size-fits-all, everybody-must-follow-the-same-plan, let states develop their own,” he told Balz.

We closely compared the chapter on health care in the two editions so you don’t have to. Essentially, it is clear that the hardcover edition was written when Obama’s health-care plan was still a work in progress. For instance, Romney spends some time denouncing the idea of a public option as “government-supplied insurance.” The paperback was published after the health-care law was passed, so the paragraphs on the public option — which had been abandoned by Obama — are dropped.

The main point: Romney has long said he did not view his plan as a model for the nation, and he has not wavered on that stance.

Protecting Romney as the Frontrunner

Parker V 0 Comments

Via TownHall.com comes the request: Stop Beating Up On Mitt

Presidential primaries have a purpose. They test the candidates’ ability to face the opposition in the general election. Whatever is thrown at you by your own team usually pales in comparison to the abuse you receive from your opponents. Unfortunately, what some Republicans are throwing at Mitt Romney, last Monday’s Republican debate notwithstanding, is way off base.

Romney is receiving criticism principally on his efforts to reform the health insurance system in Massachusetts while he was Governor. By now, Romney has refined his response without pointing fingers at his successor, liberal Democrat Deval Patrick, who enacted changes that made the program far more costly and less effective. All of this reproof is pointless because Romney has no intention of replicating it on a federal level, nor would he have to appease a legislature overwhelmingly comprised of left-wing Democrats.

Mr. Romney has clearly stated that he will order his Secretary of Health and Human Services to issue exemptions from ObamaCare to all fifty states; meaning that the only individuals subject to this horribly misguided legislation and its crushing regulations will be the residents of Washington D.C. Frankly, that’s quite fitting. He’s also confirmed that he fully intends to work toward repeal of ObamaCare. What more can you ask of the man?

Romney is also accused with being short on charisma. Are we electing a President or head television huckster? We’ve already elected a hollow orator, but he’s a little short on the more vital Presidential qualities — starting with leadership. Romney has been proven to be an effective leader in both private industry and the public arena. For example,he averted a major national embarrassment by stepping in to professionally manage the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics. He not only administered operations of the Olympics, but tactfully and sensitively worked with both the international community and the IOC. America needs an experienced leader who can get things done — not just smile and hope.

Some critics dismiss him because of his unsuccessful candidacy in 2008. It brings to memory Ronald Reagan, who spent the years 1976 to 1979 gathering support for his 1980 Presidential run. Like Reagan, Romney has spent the past three years building relationships, supporting other Republican candidates, and raising money – all in preparation for his formal announcement. This is the tried and true path to the White House. When we select inexperienced newcomers, we often end up with failures such as Carter and …

Republicans yearn for another Reagan. Alas, there will never be another Reagan any more than there will be another John Wayne, Babe Ruth or Marilyn Monroe. But Romney provides something that no other Republican candidate can deliver. He can dismantle Obama without offending voters. He reeks of nice. When Reagan destroyed Carter, he reeked of nice. There was no nasty side to Reagan and there’s no nasty side to Romney. Swing voters like that — a lot[…]

 

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.