SARASOTA, FL — Mitt Romney has a new act, but this time, it may not be an act.
At Keiser University here on Wednesday, Romney stood before a banner that read “Economic Turnaround” with the sleeves of his white dress shirt immaculately rolled up, and spoke about how his successful career in the private sector made him ideally suited to be the steward of an uncertain economy.
“I didn’t spend my life in politics, that’s not how I got going,” Romney explained. “I spent 25 years in the private sector, in business.”
While Romney has made his business background a part of his presidential run from the beginning, his image as a corporate turnaround artist was obscured as he aggressively courted social conservatives and attempted to prove he was tough on national security.
As the former venture capitalist talking about the scourge of global jihad from his front lawn, or as the recently converted pro-lifer touting his support for the Human Life Amendment, Romney came across as artificial.
In the early nominating contests, voters who wanted an authentic social conservative went with Mike Huckabee, and those who were looking for a strong commander-in-chief during a time of war got behind John McCain.
NOW, SEIZING ON growing economic unease, Romney has begun to employ populist rhetoric, and frame every issue as an economic challenge.
“The things I’m hearing from people as I go from town to town and city to city are actually pretty similar as I go across Florida,” he said. “People are concerned about the economy, what’s happening to jobs…A lot of families are feeling an economic squeeze.”
For much of the campaign, Romney ran away from his health-care reform effort in Massachusetts, but now he is fully embracing it as an example of his ability to solve problems.
“When I became governor, I went to work to see if I couldn’t find a way to get everybody health insurance,” he said. “We had about 460,000 people in my state who were uninsured, and you know, after I signed the bill a year and a half ago, now that it’s been in place, we signed up 300,000 people that didn’t have insurance. And we’ll get the rest. We’ll get everybody insured.”
At an appearance later in the day at the H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, Romney defended mandates, which force individuals to purchase health insurance or face fines, by citing the “free rider” problem of those who show up at hospitals without health care.
He also vowed that he would “help middle class families make ends meet by making sure they all know they’ve got health care that’s affordable.”
During much of the campaign, when Romney talked about the importance of strong families, he included a line about the need to preserve traditional marriage with a constitutional amendment. In his current stump speech, he instead tied the issue back to his proposals on health care and education.
“If you’re going to have strong families, you need families to know that they can get health care, that they’re not going to have to worry about whether their kids can get the care that they need,” Romney said at Keiser. “I also believe if you want to have strong families, you want to have great schools.”
When Romney talked about strengthening the military, he also framed it as an economic issue, saying that the American economy needs to be robust to maintain a powerful military.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?