This article pretty much sums up the attitude of Boston’s Left toward Mitt Romney as he reaches out for a nationwide stage. To summarize: Mitt has done nothing good for Massachusetts but he’s good at promoting himself. At some point, this attitude will have to confront the harsh reality of the Massachusetts economy, which has done very well. Mitt is widely recognized as a capable manager and will run on his record of competence, which will likely trump the claims of the left. But it’s interesting to see the Left’s talking points.
UPDATE: Check out this amazingly positive article in today’s NRO by Rich Lowry on Romney. Lowry is a very respected political analyst, and he touts Romney as either number two or three behind McCain. Wow!
This kind of attitude (my enemy can do no good) is unfortunately all too typical of extreme partisans on both sides. While I think we need keep ideology as a guide, I also think we ought be pragmatic enough to recognize success and good work where ever we find it.
I thought the article was actually pretty weak. Mostly name-calling with nothing to back it up except vague grumbling.
Seth R and Clark, I agree with both of you 100 percent!!!! I would also point out that I would have linked to a better representation of the Left’s view of Romney if I had one. If somebody has such an article, I would invite him or her to link it. Thanks.
That article was beyond pretty weak. I didn’t see one bit of substance to it. So what if some people whom he endorsed lost in an election??? It’s Massachusetts, not unexpected…
Out of curiosity, how popular is Romney in MA? Are at least some critics giving him credit for the economic improvements?
Hey, DKL and Kristine, are you guys richer than you were before Mitt?
🙂
Dukakis ran on competence too. That and the economic success that was the “Massachusetts miracle”
Bill, agreed. Mass candidates haven’t had much success lately. I hope Romney breaks the losing streak.
Romney hasn’t done a whole heck of a lot as governor, because there’s not a whole heck of a lot to be done. He’s a governor in a state whose constitution creates a weak executive and in which the Democrats have a veto-proof majority in both houses of the legislature. What can he do? During his first year in office, he did succeed in having funding to wealthy Massachusetts towns cut so that Massachusetts would not have to raise taxes. But aside from preventing the state tax increase, he’s not done much. He hasn’t had a lot to do with the continued strength of the Massachusetts economy for the simple reason that he doesn’t have enough power to effect any significant initiatives.
Here’s the good news: In spite of all the press that it gets, Romney’s mormonism will become a non-issue. It’s like Bill Clinton’s impeachment. When Bill Clinton first pronounced, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman,” the overwhelming majority of Americans believed that if Clinton was lying, then he should be thrown out of office. By the time impeachment rolled around, nobody cared and if Clinton had been able to seek re-election for a 3rd term, he’d have won. Romney’s mormonism will not play any worse than Clinton’s sex scandals if Romney plays it correctly. In fact, it will probably help Romney, since the only reason he’s getting a lot of attention in the mainstream press right now is due to the novelty factor of his being a mormon.
Here’s the bad news: Romney will not get the nomination. One term as an ineffectual Governor of a smallish mid-sized state is not much in the way of qualifications. And as a politician, Romney is still pretty wet behind the ears. He doesn’t have the political instincts yet to balance his gut against the inevitably formulaic, poll driven agenda of his advisors. Moreover, northerners don’t win national elections, and Republican primary voters know that. Add to that the fact that he’s stiff and abrasive, and things don’t look good for Romney.
Guys, I’m politically conservative, I’m as Republican as it gets, and I’d like to see Romney get the nomination just as much as any other Mormon would. The only thing that makes Romney look OK are some polls taken far too soon to be meaningful, and the disproportionate amount of press he’s getting because of his mormonism. Last time an inexperienced, ineffective governor from New England was “front runner” this early, he did poorly enough in the primaries to become a laughing stock (viz., Howard Dean).
Vennochi’s columns are inept, because she operates in a data free environment. There is never new or interesting opinion in her columns. Her specialty is unoriginality, laced with illogicality, and disjointed diatribes. One should not hope nor expect substance in her columns; rather, she is the quintessential pot stirrer. She is better suited for fiction than for political punditry.
However, Vennochi herself is interesting. Vennochi is a disaffected democrat who is anti-Reid, anti-Dean, anti-Pelosi, anti-Kerry, anti-Kennedy. She is a socialist to the core, but knows that as long as the far left controls the Democrat party it is doomed to lose elections. She does advocate standing up for Democrat values and mediocre moderation if for no other reason than to win power via elections; that’s how to advance the progressive agenda.
Yet to give credit where credit is due, she is right in her main thesis which is Democrats have no message. In that I couldn’t agree more.
I don’t know DKL …
I always thought it was the Dean-on-crack impression Howard pulled at that rally that put him into the downward spiral he never came out of.
Romney was on Imus this morning–he had some great lines:
“I asked Ann if she ever in her wildest dreams thought I’d be on Imus in the Morning.
“She said, ‘Mitt, you were never in my wildest dreams.'”
Seth R., you’ve got the causal sequence wrong. The Dean-on-crack thing occurred after his embarrassing defeat in Iowa.
BTW, any analyst who puts McCain in the lead isn’t worth reading, “respected” or otherwise (Lowry included). Republican primary voters generally view him with apathy or indifference, especially in the South. He supported the tobacco settlement (more taxation via the courts), the campaign finance reform that bears his name, and his attack on the religious right in the last primary. He’ll need more than 4 years distance to get away from these things. Watch McCain get a lot of buzz in the press because he’s got a good organization, a lot of money, and good allies on both sides of the isle.
But the voters just won’t stomach McCain.
I think McCain’s biggest problem is age.
McCain has tons of problems. I truly worry about him winning the nomination. I have to confess that back in 2000 I strongly felt like there were no good choices. Actually few of the folks who’ve run for President the past few times have excited me with a few exceptions. Kind of disappointing how the people who’d probably make good Presidents don’t want to run.
Actually, if it had not been for the primaries then McCain would have won the presidency in 2000. At least according to the National Election Survey, voters would have preferred McCain over any other candidate.
If Romney were to emerge as the alternative to McCain in the primaries then Pat Robertson might just swallow the frog and support the Mormon.
On the other hand, if Bush’s collapse of popularity cannot be rectified then the Republican right wing might turn to McCain as savior.
According to a recent article in the Boston Herald, Romney is seen as the dark horse in a field of current candidates. Again, the article cited name recognition as being his only challenge.
But it is perhaps the underlying movement that one has to examine to determine if Romney is the soon-to-be nemesis of the Democrats. One needs look no further than Dunkin’ Donuts. It is rumored that the recent $2.45 billion acquisition of Dunkin’ Donuts by Bain Capital and the Carlyle Group is a quiet marriage made between the Bush and Romney Families. Until recently, Bain Capital was run by Romney and it is widely speculated that the Bush family has a substantial role in the Carlyle Group.
You can almost see the puzzle pieces falling together. Picture a conversation between former President Bush and his wife Barbara:
“You know cookie,” says George senior, “I really like this boy ‘Mitch’ Romney. He reminds me a lot of Jack Kennedy, except he actually lives his religion.”
“It’s Mitt Romney dear, and yes, I agree that he does look like he has the right stuff,” replies Barbara. “You know if Jeb is to ever get into the White House it will have to be an end-run. I wonder . . . if we get behind this Romney, perhaps he would consider taking Jeb as a VP.”
“That’s a swell idea, Barb. What we need to do is invest in this young man’s future. If I’m not mistaken, he used to run an investment capital company. I’ll call my friend over at Carlyle and let’s see if we can’t connect somehow on a joint venture. But it has to be something very discrete”
“I’m way ahead of you,” Barbara chuckles. “I called Jeb this morning and asked him what we could buy together with a Mormon governor and he was thinking of something wholesome, like Dunkin’ Donuts. I think we could fly below the radar on that one.”
“Barb, you never cease to amaze me,” quips George senior. “This Romney and our Jeb will be a great match. And, of course, Jeb will be the obvious successor.”
“Obviously.”
As far as speculation goes, that is about as good as it gets!
Hellmut, I don’t think that’s good reasoning. What you should be saying is, “if it had not been for political parties then McCain would have won the presidency in 2000.” McCain couldn’t have gotten elected without the backing of a major political party, and he couldn’t get the backing of a major political party. One reason: McCain makes good sound bites, but he’s not really presidential material. He is out of touch with his base, has a bad temper, and is very short.
Political parties choose their own candidates (pretty much) how they see fit. You seem to fault the Republicans for not using the National Election Survey to choose its candidate. I don’t tend to think so. The National Election Survey is the political equivalent of matching Mohammed Ali to Joe Lewis. Just like you can’t have a meaningful boxing match-up without a fight, you can’t have a meaningful election without campaigns.
As far as religion: Jerry Fallwell has endorsed Mormon politicians (well, all but endorsed–he has a tax exempt status to maintain). I don’t see why Pat Robertson wouldn’t.
I don’t see where we disagree, DKL.
My argument is that McCain’s appeal to the general electorate is broader to the general public than to Republican primary voters. If the current doldrums of the Republican party persist then partisan primary voters that care about winning might bring themselves to support McCain.
McCain’s strength among the electorate was proven not only in exit polls on election day but also in open primaries. He remains consistently popular throughout the last decade. Campaigns probably do not have the capacity to change that. People have made up their mind about McCain.
(In spite of mountains of data, we have been unable to demonstrate that campaigns make any difference at all. Crazy, isn’t it? But that’s the state of the research.)
With respect to Robertson’s support, I am also agreeing with you. My post is identifying an unlikely scenario where the Christian Right might come to support a Mormon during the presidential primary.
It’s a long shot that requires the emergence of specific circumstances. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. First, Robertson must fear that McCain will win the primary (that’s a long shot). Second, Romney must be the only candidate that can defeat McCain (that’s unlikely). Were this constellation to emerge then Robertson would anoint Romney.
Robertson’s endorsement of Romney would be spectacular. Just look at how Robertson’s radio stations talk about us. In the end, however, Robertson needs to protect his political empire, which would be threatened if McCain follows through on his campaign finance proposals.
Campaigns don’t influence elections? How did Bush beat Dukakis? He came back from being 15 percentage points behind Dukakis at the end of the Democratic convention to winning by 8% just 3 months later. That was Lee Atwater all the way–campaigning at its finest (or worst, depending on how you look at it).
But people haven’t made up their mind on McCain. Nobody knows him, that’s all.
I meant to add, point well taken about Robertson and the political right.
DKL, I’m not sure on that regarding McCain. I think a lot of Republican activists have made up their minds on McCain. I still worry about his winning the nomination though. (I wasn’t pleased in 2000 that the choice was between McCain or Bush – although as bad as Bush has screwed up, I’m still not convinced he’s a worse choice than McCain for reasons I’ll not go into)
As Hellmut points out, McCain due primarily to how he’s used the press, is much more popular among regular voters than activists. I also agree with Hellmut, that if McCain can distance himself from Bush’s excesses and many failures that he may appear a strong choice. He’s already cemented a lot of back room support. It all really depends upon how the early days of the campaign go.
Maybe it’s just where I live or who I know, but no one I’ve talked to actually likes McCain. I don’t think he comes close to the level of “I trust him to lead the country”ness as, say, Joe Lieberman (who I think has some of the same “is he really one of us?” problems that McCain does, amongst activist types,) and I don’t think he’s got enough of the “he seems like a swell guy”ness to make up for it. I think he’ll keep more power if he stays where he is now, since it doesn’t seem he’d make it to a general campaign without being poisoned by the primaries, and there won’t be enough to make up for that. Better to be a powerful Senator who never ran for President than a failed Presidential candidate who’s back in the Senate again.
(personally, I haven’t liked him since McCain-Feingold, but it seems like most people don’t include stuff like that in their conception of a given candidate, till a campaign tells them to)
Clark, fair enough. When I said that people haven’t made up their mind on McCain, I meant more the general voter and not the primary voter/activist.
“although as bad as Bush has screwed up, I’m still not convinced he’s a worse choice than McCain for reasons I’ll not go into”
Clark, I wish you would go into them, because I can’t possibly imagine what they are (although I’m pretty sure I won’t agree with them)