He should be doing a lot better — and it’s increasingly becoming more apparent why he’s not.
(Page 2 of 2)
Many of the criticisms of Romney’s campaign are aimed at his campaign staff, and appear justified. The Wall Street Journal wrote last week that if Romney’s “Boston boys” let Obama get away with accusing Romney of being “outsourcer in chief” on jobs, they should be fired for political malpractice. And so they should. A campaign shakeup at this stage of the campaign would be no more than normal and wouldn’t hurt Romney. It could, instead, help rouse him from the summer doldrums that beset his campaign. It’s also the least likely action he’ll take because of his misplaced loyalty to his troops who repeatedly let him down.
But Romney’s choice of a running mate or any replacement of key campaign staff can’t overcome the reason for his basic weakness. It all comes down to him, and he has to find it in himself to connect with voters before the Republican Convention in late August. If he can’t build a strong campaign momentum going into the convention it will be hard, if not impossible, to do so later.
Obama’s vulnerability is in the radical liberalism that shapes everything he does. Perhaps I’ve missed it, but I can’t find a single instance in which Romney has labeled Obama that way. The most common accusation against Romney is that he’s risk averse. But how risky is it to speak about the radical liberalism that is represented by Obamacare, the disarming of America, and Obama’s back-door amnesty for illegal immigrants? It’s not enough to criticize Obama’s actions. It’s essential to create an accurate characterization of Obama that will dominate the remainder of the campaign.
The late Robert Novak once told me that when a person goes into the voting booth and pulls a lever for a presidential candidate, he’s making as personal a choice as choosing a spouse. Obama made the 2008 race personal. Romney needs to make the campaign a personal choice between his ideology and Obama’s.