-
I Agree With Andy McCarthy: No Special Counsel
May 23, 2013 | 3 comments
-
Issa Recovers
May 22, 2013 | 3 comments
-
Colorado Governor Gives “Reprieve” to Murderer
May 22, 2013 | 1 comment
-
Steven Crowder: Jesus vs. Muhammad
May 22, 2013 | 2 comments
-
Kaminsky’s Corollary to I, Pencil
May 22, 2013 | 2 comments
The Spectacle Blog
In last night’s Republican debate, the newly aggressive Mitt Romney came out slamming Newt Gingrich, repeating the charge that Gingrich “resigned in disgrace,” blaming Gingrich for Republican losses in the House in 1998 (though the GOP retained its majority), and reminding people of Gingrich’s work for Freddie Mac. He also directly questioned Gingrich’s leadership qualities.
From a purely tactical level, this strategy may be necessary but it is a mixed bag for Romney.
First, Romney doesn’t play the angry aggressor very well, so when he does so it makes him seem as if he’s willing to appear less than genuine in order to go after an opponent. This is a big problem for Romney when one of voters’ big fears about him is that they’re not sure who or what he really is. Even though those fears have been on policy issues, i.e. “Is he really a conservative, or did he change his views for purely political reasons?”, a parallel will be created in peoples’ minds: “Is he really a nice guy or is he just pretending to be so to get elected?” The latter will be easier for people to conclude if they already question his sincerity on policy. (For the record, based on what friends who know Romney have told me, he is indeed a nice guy, but some small fraction of one percent of the American electorate will ever actually meet a presidential candidate.) While voters might not put “nice guy” near the top of their lists of characteristics they care about in a nominee, it still removes one clear differentiator between Romney and Gingrich, since “nice guy” would not fall from any Republican’s mouth when asked to describe the former Speaker.
Second, to the extent that Romney’s charges against Gingrich are disproven or adequately explained by the former Speaker, it puts Romney’s truth-telling ability into question. It’s one thing to represent facts in a way that favors your side, but it’s something else to make a statement that the public comes to believe was simply untrue.
Third, on the good side for Romney, these attacks will keep Newt Gingrich slightly off his game, keeping him from spending as much time on “big ideas” and other things that the public really wants to hear from him. It falls somewhat into the category of, as former Congressman Bob Schaffer has reminded me, “if you’re explaining, you’re losing.” The other side of the coin, though, is that it also takes Romney off of his game, which is talking about how he will put the economy in a position to create jobs, and how the real enemy of prosperity is the Obama administration.
Fourth, Romney’s criticisms of Gingrich are unfocused. They don’t force people to focus on a particular issue or flaw, whether ethics, Freddie Mac, or whatever. When putting the frame around your opponent, having people think a little bit about a bunch of things is not nearly as effective as having them unable to forget one particular thing.
What would be more effective for Romney, while he’s making these various attacks and accusations, is to continually tie them to his fundamental point — which he is leaving mostly implied when it should be explicit — that Newt Gingrich is unlikely to be able to beat Barack Obama. Poll after poll has shown that that characteristic — electability — is foremost in Republicans’ minds. It’s one thing for Romney to attack Gingrich’s history, but if he wants those attacks to do anything other than make himself look like a guy who is “desperate” and will “say anything,” as Gingrich put it, then he must make the conclusion in voters’ minds: Gingrich’s history makes him unelectable.
The way Romney is doing it now, with scatter-shot attacks on multiple aspects of Newt’s history, is not working. After last night’s debate, betting odds showed a few point increase in Newt Gingrich’s chances of winning the Florida Republican primary, rising to about 60 percent, with Romney falling about 3 percent to 40 percent. While Romney is still trading around 63 percent to be the eventual nominee, these are his lowest betting odds in more than a month.
Gingrich’s success is taking Romney away from the strength of his game. Romney can’t play Gingrich’s more aggressive game and expect to do well. Instead of all-over-the-map criticisms of the former Speaker, Romney should pick one or two major issues to go after Gingrich with, tie that to the question of electability, and return some of his focus to what was working before: a focus on jobs and the economy, emphasizing his own expertise in the private sector and not apologizing for his success.
View all comments (26) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Ross Kaminsky
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/01/24/mitt-its-not-working
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Screwtape Talks Turkey
- Wincing at Cumberbatch
- Self-Righteous Republic
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
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.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
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?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
RJ| 1.24.12 @ 10:14AM
I would like to tell all of the candidates that they should spent the vast majority of their time telling us why we should vote for them rather than tearing down another candidate. I don't care about tax returns or being reminded of someone's baggage. The question is "Why should I vote for you?" Romney's answer last night as to why he went negative (because Newt went negative on him) was really weak. So, Mr. Romney, you are not raising these points because you think they are important, but only because he did it to you. Swell.
Calvinball| 1.24.12 @ 12:11PM
Of course each candidate tries to tell you why you should vote for them, but do you also expect them to tell you their flaws? Or do you expect Obama to go easy on any of them if only the GOP primary could avoid going negative? The negatives, and seeing whether a candidate can handle them effectively, are a very important part of the process.
What should be most appalling to anyone with their eyes open is how much voters are willing to look the other way when the negatives come out. The rationale for Newt seems to be that even though most voters are repulsed by him (look at his unfavorable/favorable numbers), and even though his support for individual mandates and tarp and so on do Obama the favor of taking those issues off the table, and even though he's likely to suffer a crushing defeat in the general and hurt downticket races too ... it would be worth all of that to see Newt debate Obama (so long as Obama can't get under Newt's very thin skin the way Mitt managed to do early in last night's debate).
RJ| 1.24.12 @ 12:29PM
Sure the negatives need to be aired. The media will see to that, I just think that the candidates need to focus their time on making their case in support of their candidacy. You bet Obama and his media will go negative, big time and it is important that the GOP candidate can defend himself. It doesn't look like Romney is up to that job. Newt and Santorum seem much better on that aspect of the campaign.
Drek| 1.24.12 @ 12:58PM
If Romney were confined to advancing the case in chief for his own candidacy, and prohibited from attacking his peers on stage, -------------- then he might as well spare himself the effort and go off to one of his vacation villas.
Romney's campaign consists of attacking his competition, and SOLELY consists of attacking his competition.
For without running down his peers, there isn't anything to the Romney candidacy.
Mike D| 1.24.12 @ 10:39AM
Excellent points. Gingrich's portrayal of Romney as "a liar" damages Mitt's most important virtue - his relatively unblemished history. Gingrich, a man with moral shortcomings as white as his hair, has amazingly been able to paint Romney as untrustworthy. This illusion has been a masterful piece of political footwork that should scare perceptive voters. We complain about the politicians we have in office, but when candidates like Gingrich manipulate public sentiment in their favor (despite the evidence) long enough to get elected, we should expect inevitable disappointment. If Romney wants to survive, he will have to do a better job of recognizing and thwarting Gingrich's attempts to drag the race into (borrowing a line from "Steve Jobs") the reality distortion field.
Drek| 1.24.12 @ 1:03PM
Purely as a matter of abstraction:
What's worse, the guy who cheats on his wife, or the guy that intends to deceive tens and tens of millions, SCORES OF MILLIONS of people about his intentions, about his beliefs, about what he will or will not do in high office.
And we're not talking any office here. This isn't one Senator out of a hundred.
The President of the United States is the most important person on the planet.
That's just how it is.
And to gain that office, Romney will say anything, to anyone, to any group, to gain their vote and support.
So when I compare one guy who entered a sexual relationship outside of the marriage to his wife, who we all now know to have been an utter harpy, -------------- and then we compare that to the guy who lies, lies and lies some more, ------------------- it seems to me the guy who is worse morally, intellectually, character wise, is the guy who intends to deceive not one wife, BUT AN ENTIRE NATION.
We got a guy who deceived one woman, {a harpy}, and then on the other hand we have a guy who has spent upwards of a DECADE deceiving a whole nation of roughly 300 million people.
Dai Alanye | 1.24.12 @ 1:25PM
On woman? I must have miscounted. In fact, two women that we know of. And if one of the women was a harpy, what does that say about Newt's judgment? Gingrich's judgment is what I'm most concerned about, as we should all be -- his political judgment most of all.
And as for Romney's judgment... don't get me started.
Gadfly| 1.24.12 @ 2:55PM
Not to mention that Gingrich shifts in the wind at least as often as Romney. I think he's at least as likely as Romney to "deciv[e] a whole nation of rougly 300 million people" once he gets into office.
Either of these guys would need a Republican Congress to keep them in line. I think Mitt's more likely to beat Obama and less likely to start an internecine fight with Congressional Republicans if he gets into office.
Al Adab| 1.24.12 @ 10:46AM
Dear Mitt, it's time to quit. The 30% plurality might gain the nomination but what it actually means is that 2/3 rds of GOP voters want someone else. The states of NC, VA, FL and Ohio will decide this election. Who can carry those and gain the electoral votes we need? That person should be our nominee and the others need to get out and coalesce around whoever that may be.
Calvinball| 1.24.12 @ 12:13PM
The states of NC, VA, FL and Ohio will decide this election.
The only people on the primary ballot in VA are Mitt and Ron Paul. And you want Mitt drop out. Hmmmm.
Al Adab| 1.24.12 @ 2:05PM
Not the pri,ary Calvin, the general election in Nov. Remember electoral votes? Those decide the issue and those four states control
Al Adab| 1.24.12 @ 2:07PM
Sorry, that's primary and NO, I am not a Paul fan.
Drek| 1.24.12 @ 1:05PM
It's not enough for Romney to quit.
He has to apologize to all of us for his many lies, his many deceptions, his many misrepresentations of not just his own record and intentions, but those of his competition.
His entire candidacy, a candidacy of upwards of a decade by the way, has been nothing but one lie after another.
It isn't enough then for him merely to quit. He must apologize.
Gadfly| 1.24.12 @ 3:00PM
Who exactly do you think is getting more than a 30% plurality right now? You could write the same comment about any of the candidates.
Nobody needs to drop out right now. Just let the process go on. It's probably good for the Republicans that the nominee will be determine by many of the states that will be swing states in the general. You gotta figure that success in the primaries in FL/OH is at least somewhat relevant for success in the general election in those states.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 1.24.12 @ 10:58AM
Mitt Romney needs a debate coach.
Other than that he should prepare his observations of Gingrich in a more coherent message.
He's doing that by tying Gingrich into the Florida housing mess.
He simply needs to refine his message and the average person will get it.
martin j smith| 1.24.12 @ 11:13AM
But Ross you miss one crucial element. Romney must convince voters-which so far he has not-that HE actually WANTS TO DEFEAT OBAMA. The opnly thing that Romney has done is to convince me that he wants to bloody his opponents and be nominated--BUT NOT ACTUALLY RUN A CAMPAIGN TO DEFEAT OBAMA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You are either dense or do not care and voters see that in Romney. That is why I HOPE HE FAILS .
Calvinball| 1.24.12 @ 12:37PM
LOL you think Romney is in this to win the nomination, and doesn't care about winning the election?
BTW, you're not alone in hoping Romney fails. Team Obama attacks Romney more than any of the other candidates because they hope he fails too. He's the only candidate the DNC has spent ad money to attack. Maybe you hope for the other things the DNC hopes for too?
As for Newt, Newt wasn't even in the race to win the nomination. He isn't even on the ballot in his home state. He gives the appearance of having been more surprised than anyone that Notromney Fever would boost him to the top in South Carolina.
You don't see Team Obama running ads against Newt. Why? Because they're hoping Newt gets the nomination. They're saving ten years worth of pro-mandate clips and op eds for use against him, in addition to Newt's couch scene with Pelosi, his support for TARP, and a dozen other things that make Newt a weak candidate to run against Obama ... and that's before getting to Newt's personal moral failures, getting booted for ethics violations, etc.
Newt didn't get into the race to try to win the nomination, he got into the race to boost his name recognition, sell books, get onto talk shows, etc. Much like Santorum got in to boost awareness of the issues he's so sanctimonious about.
You've basically managed to come out in opposition to the only one of the three who motivates the DNC to run attack ads during the primaries, the only one of the three who has the kind of national organization it would take to win, the only one of the three who got into the race to win it and win the general election rather than just to get a temporary media boost. Awesome.
Clint| 1.24.12 @ 12:47PM
We Are Being Set Up By The RINO-CINO Flunkie Stooges For The Ruling Elites' Frontman Mittens Romney.
These Are The RINO-CINO Flunkie Stooges Who Gave Us The Serial Traitor To Conservatism, John McCain Of McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy,McCain-Lieberman,Gang Of 14, Opposing Bush Tax Cuts Of 2001 & 2003,TARP.
Now They Are Trying To Give Us RomneyCare,TARP, Cynical Flip-Flops On Abortion, Gays, Refuses to Sign Pro-Life Pledge, Illegal Immigrants, "Little Chain Saw Al" At Bain, Crony Capitalism Campaign Money Trail.....
The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.
Gadfly| 1.24.12 @ 3:05PM
I agree with all of this, Calvinball. It makes Newt's crusade against the media all the more silly. The media wants Newt politically because a Newt nomination makes a second Obama term more likely; they want a Newt nomination professionally because he's more controversial/interesting than Mitt and able to keep the viewers glued.
Mitt wasn't my ideal choice, but in my mind, there's no competition between him and Newt or Santorum. Newt's an attack dog, not a candidate.
bill glass| 1.24.12 @ 11:40AM
Mitt might have a problem with his team...Rush said it was Charlie Crist's team... but I think his verbal volleys with Newt are not too negative. I mean, everyone knows Mitt's "loaded" so the tax thing--easily demagogued but not a big deal - and the Bain thing - who's really against making money?? - and finally, who is better than Mitt talking about health care and insurance? -- but, bottom line, Mitt's gonna wear much better long term, and Newt will eventually BLOW UP.
Drek| 1.24.12 @ 1:10PM
This is another error.
Newt doesn't "blow up." Newt isn't the USS Maine, which blew up off Cuba.
No.
Newt doesn't damage himself, even though many have misrepresented the events of his tenure as Speaker.
What MIGHT happen is that he gets hit with saturation aerial bombardment, combined with off shore bombardment and direct and indirect artillery fire. Now after sustaining weeks and weeks of bombardment, like he was one guy in a redoubt in some World War I trenchline, he might get overwhelmed momentarily.
But only momentarily.
For given half a chance to recover, he grabs his helmet, grabs his Springfield and rushes out to his position prepared to repel all attack.
He might be overwhelmed by attacks.
That's a possibility.
But that can happen to ANY politician, for there are none so unblemished that the liberal media can't obliterate them given the opportunity.
But he isn't going to implode.
martin j smith| 1.24.12 @ 12:24PM
bill glass
This not convincing argument you offer. Voters are not happy with Romney and he must prove that actually can lead and wants to win. He must demonstrate that is capable of taking Obama on. He has so far not satisfied me yet. I awaite his move in that general area.
Drek| 1.24.12 @ 1:12PM
Martin,
It's more than voters merely being "unhappy" with Mitt.
Republican voters know he isn't remotely ready to engage obama, and know even if he were to prevail in the general, that nothing in his past indicates that he's the guy to implement the types of change necessary.
PattyMor| 1.24.12 @ 2:49PM
Mitt had all the advantages going into the primary season. He's had the "establishment" behind him, Tons 'O Money, Good Looking, Nice Family, same wife for lots of years. Yet, he couldn't answer a simply question if he was going to release his tax returns or not. Ok, so he's a rich guy---we already knew that. But, he can't sell conservatism because he's never done anything conservative. And he won't repudiate Romneycare. Its a disaster and its the foundation for Obamacare.
He's the same bland, reach across the aisle, let's get along politican like Ford, Dole, and McLame. By way, all these candiates lost. And, its just not good enough.
Teflon93| 1.24.12 @ 4:24PM
We need somebody who will carpetbomb Obama and take out his fighter escort in the Left Wing Media in the process.
Last night Romney demonstrated he isn't that guy. Period.
Dcarter| 1.28.12 @ 12:40AM
What planet are you on? Newt was on Greta tonight not 1 charge Newt made was correct. Which candidate pulled down TV advert ? Newt! Which candidate was chastised twice in 2 days by Rubio? Newt! Which candidate is the real progressive & said his favorite Prez of 20th century was FDR (not Reagan)? Newt! I could go on & on. Newts unfavorables make him the worst candidate against Obama.