It’s a maxim in political communications that something that
isn’t repeated at least half a dozen times in a speech won’t be
remembered by the audience.
So it was no surprise to hear the words “job” or “jobs”
uttered by former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney a dozen times
during his 16 minute
speech from Boston on Super Tuesday
evening.
Former Senator Rick Santorum, on the other hand, only used
those words twice during his Tuesday
remarks, and neither use related to
jobs in the way that people care intensely about them today, namely
their Democrat-induced scarcity.
The comparison of the two men’s use of “job” and “jobs”
shows why half of all primary voters — including many who don’t
support Mitt Romney —
believe that Romney is the Republican
most likely to beat President Obama in November.
Romney is extremely disciplined and, for a guy who is
sometimes tagged as unable to relate to the average American, has
been offering a more relatable message than Santorum, particularly
for those outside the most conservative part of the Republican
base.
Here is Romney, from Tuesday night’s speech, emphasis
mine:
Some people have lost their jobs. Others
are working two jobs just to make ends meet. Some
used to be middle income, and now they’re struggling again, right
back where they started. As you know, the prices for gasoline and
food and clothing and health care keep going up, but their
paychecks stay the same, if they’re lucky…. To the millions of
Americans who look around and can only see jobs
they can’t get and bills that they — that they can’t pay, I have a
message: You have not failed. You have a president that’s failed
you, and that’s going to change…. You know, when he was
campaigning, President Obama said he’d create
jobs, but for 36 straight months, unemployment has
been above 8 percent…
Four mentions of “jobs” in 90 seconds.
Here’s Rick Santorum’s use of “job” on Tuesday: “The
government’s job and the Constitution of this
country was intended to do one thing: protect those rights…” He’s
right of course, and Americans should all hope for a president who
believes this principle deeply. But what good is a deeply-held
principle in a politician who can’t create a message that resonates
with a majority of American voters?
And if that mention of “job” misses the major issue that
voters care about in 2012, Senator Santorum’s other reference hits
a level of self-absorption that even the patrician Mitt “I’m not
worried about the very poor” Romney has not, at least when taken in
context, come close to reaching:
Karen and I have seven children, ages 20 to three, not exactly
the best time to be out running for president of the United States.
We’ve given up our — our jobs. We’re living off
our savings. Yeah, we’re making a little sacrifice for a very, very
big goal…
Yes, during his Tuesday evening speech, Rick Santorum’s
only mention of someone losing a job was about him and his wife
voluntarily giving up whatever they were doing in order
either to become highly paid residents of the White House or, in
what some might consider a better result, to dramatically raise
their future earnings with book royalties, speaking fees, and
consulting contracts.
Talking about “living off our savings,” something many
unemployed Americans only wish they had as a fall-back position,
also struck a discordant note from the Republican most trying to
portray himself as a “man of the people.”
Note to Rick: It was your choice to have seven children.
(We certainly cannot question your opposition to contraception.)
Don’t use them as an excuse for your financial woes; we don’t want
to hear it, especially while you drag them around the country like
a traveling circus act.
Other important issues during this campaign season include
debt (Romney mentions: 3, Santorum: 0), unemployment (Romney 3,
Santorum 0), economy (Romney 9, Santorum 1), tax (Romney 9,
Santorum 0) and perhaps the biggest threat to the economy, Obama
(Romney 9, Santorum 2).
It is understandable that Santorum would not try to
compete against Mitt Romney on a message of job creation,
especially following Romney’s revamped jobs and tax plan which
economic conservatives, including the Wall Street
Journal’s editorial page
praised (though acknowledging that
it, like the other candidates’ plans, is not without flaws). Romney
has the strongest business credentials of any candidate in this
election, perhaps of any candidate in any modern American election.
No Republican (or Democrat) running in 2012 will out-business
Romney.
So Santorum’s message is by necessity a different one,
some might say a more principled one. Santorum mentioned “liberty”
three times; none for Romney, and “rights” five times to none for
Romney. He reminded us that “we are a great country because we
believe that rights don’t come from the government.”
A message of liberty and limited government, as important
and welcome as it is during these days of many Americans believing
government should force religious institutions to pay for abortion
pills, is probably not enough to win election in 2012. But if
that’s your strategy, Rick, whether due to playing to your own
strengths or avoiding your opponents’, then stick with
it.
Instead of a messaging rifle, Santorum has a rhetorical
shotgun, which is not nearly as likely to take down the political
big game he is stalking.
AFTER HEARING SANTORUM on Tuesday, and in many prior
speeches, it’s hard not to be a bit confused about his focus. Is he
about the economy, or about contraception? Is he about liberty, or
is he about family (8 mentions)? Is he about being an underdog,
being outspent, being proud of coming in second a lot? Is he
concerned about an overly intrusive federal government, the costs
of Obamacare, and assaults on religious freedom? Does he think
about individual opportunity, “energy… manufacturing… and financial
services,” Romneycare, standing with our allies, being a fighter,
the “greatest generation,” or not “so badly want(ing) to be the
most powerful man in this country” — all of which he mentioned in
a 20-minute speech?
Newt Gingrich is the only man in the race who can get away
with having lots of ideas, because that’s what is expected of him.
From any other candidate — and even from Newt to some degree — it
just comes across as being undisciplined, as the political
equivalent of a “jack of all trades and master of none.”
Between Rick Santorum’s lack of focus and his too
frequently whiny, self-pitying tone, including bemoaning Newt
Gingrich’s refusal to get out of the race, the Santorum campaign’s
raison d’être is a blur. He appeals on a topic, then moves
on to something else with an attention span shorter than my
four-year old son in a candy store, searching furiously among all
the containers for the one he thinks will taste best today — and
then asking for three different things.
As far as calling for Gingrich’s departure, does Santorum
forget that he refused a similar request from the former Speaker of
the House in mid-January, describing Gingrich’s calls for him to
get out of the race as “not
cogent thoughts”?
Later that month, with Newt Gingrich coming off a South
Carolina victory and looking strong in Florida, Bill McCollum, the
former Speaker’s Florida campaign co-chair,
complained that Santorum’s presence
was diluting the conservative vote: “If he weren’t in it, we would
clearly be beating Romney right now… I think a vote for Rick is
simply… a vote that’s wasted at this point.”
Santorum responded: “You know I think one
opponent calling for the other opponent to get out just shows the
weakness that opponent feels — obviously feels in their own
campaign. I’m not calling for anybody to get out. We’ll beat them
straight up.”
So what does Santorum expect to happen when he and a Super
PAC supporting him call for Newt to drop out, a
message they are pressing aggressively in the hours since Super
Tuesday? In his own Tuesday night
comments, Gingrich’s belief in “what’s good for the goose” is
evident:
[R]emember when it was Tim Pawlenty who was going to crowd
me out? And remember then when it was Michele Bachmann? And then it
was our good friend, Herman Cain the first time? And then, for a
brief moment, it was Donald Trump almost. And then it was our good
friend, Rick Perry, then it was Herman Cain the second time, and
now it’s Santorum…. There are lots of bunny rabbits that run
through. I am the tortoise. I just take one step at a
time.
Instead of drifting from economics to birth control to the
size of government to being a fighter, instead of complaining about
being outspent, his own “sacrifices,” or the unfairness of having
opponents who won’t do him the courtesy of dropping out (when he
selfishly wouldn’t do the same for them), Rick Santorum needs to
get a message — any message — and stick with it.
Until then, keeping in mind that Republicans’ goal in 2012
is to defeat Barack Obama — usually a model of messaging
discipline — Rick Santorum’s lack of focus is as much an argument
against his candidacy as is his lack of a central message. His
self-pity is just icing on his opponents’ cake.
