-
Updated: NBC News: Holder Personally Approved Fox Reporter Warrant
May 24, 2013 | 8 comments
-
Obamacare is a Big and Growing Problem for Democrats
May 24, 2013 | 5 comments
-
Dismantling Networks, Preventing Footholds
May 23, 2013 | 3 comments
-
I Agree With Andy McCarthy: No Special Counsel
May 23, 2013 | 5 comments
-
Issa Recovers
May 22, 2013 | 4 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Perhaps the most important number out of Florida’s Republican primary last night is not that Mitt Romney beat Newt Gingrich by 14.5%. Rather, it’s that Romney beat “the Anti-Romney,” namely the combination of Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum. (Ron Paul’s count can be excluded from this analysis since those votes are no more likely to go to either of the non-Romney candidates than they are to go to Romney himself.)
Romney’s 46.4 percent exceeds, if just barely, the 45.3 percent garnered by Gingrich and Santorum together, for the first time in this race preventing either Gingrich or Santorum from arguing that one of them could, as the “true conservative,” garner the nomination if only the other would exit, stage far-right.
Romney’s bogeyman of being unable to get beyond about 25% in any contest (he was even under 28% in South Carolina) has been has been mortally wounded, clearing away perhaps the largest obstacle to a renewed projection of inevitability — in a world where perception can often turn into reality.
Obviously, there is a realm of unknowns which could trip Romney up. But at this point, the 89 percent betting odds on his receiving the Republican nomination seem hard to quarrel with.
Another point:
I’m no longer buying the argument that a much longer primary process will make Romney a stronger candidate, especially with the gutter tactics Newt has now shown he will stoop to. As of now, the GOP primary is, despite Jeff Lord’s likening Gingrich to Ronald Reagan, a circular firing squad. Indeed, whether Jeff meant to point it out or not, the 1976 process led to a Republican loss, and we don’t know with any confidence that the general election outcome would have been different with a different GOP nominee. That too was a circular firing squad, though with smaller caliber ammunition than Gingrich and Romney and their Super-PACs are spraying in the early Republican contests.
As Bill McGurn concluded in an op-ed on Tuesday, “Those of us who believed that a primary fight would toughen Mr. Romney up have little to show for it. Far from sharpening his proposals to reach out to a GOP electorate hungry for a candidate with a bold conservative agenda, Mr. Romney has limited his new toughness to increasingly negative attacks on Mr. Gingrich’s character. It’s beginning to make what we all assumed was a weakness look much more like arrogance.”
McGurn believes, and I concur, that “at bottom the Newt insurgency is fueled by the sense that Mr. Romney’s tepid policy agenda reflects no fixed beliefs.” This is something Romney should — but won’t — change, because his obvious election strategy from the beginning has been to be only as conservative as necessary to win the nomination so that he can maintain an aura of “moderate” in order to appeal to independent voters in the general election.
I understand the strategy but don’t agree with it, at least in degree. This should be not just an election about competence but also about ideas, not least because Barack Obama has woken the American people up to the damage that bad ideas can cause. But Romney is running as a pure technocrat with very little principled underpinning. This is not only bad for his own campaign in the sense of not inspiring the GOP base to donate their time and money to help him, but the lack of inspiration may also be bad for Republican candidates on the ticket who would benefit from a highly motivated GOP electorate.
I am not saying that Romney’s strategy will be a losing one. I continue to believe that he will win in November because so much motivation for voters comes from just wanting to avoid another disastrous four years of Barack Obama. But I don’t think it’s his (or the party’s) best strategy, and I sure wish Mitt Romney would give us something we really want to vote for, rather than just leaving us in the usually less successful environment of “Vote for me because I’m not the other guy.”
As the WSJ editorial board put it succinctly this morning, “After crushing Gingrich, can he make his campaign a cause?”
View all comments (33) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Ross Kaminsky
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/02/01/romney-take-that-bogeyman
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Wincing at Cumberbatch
- Ailes: A Voice for the Silent Majority
- Razing Reagan
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
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Bumr50| 2.1.12 @ 10:25AM
It's hilarious to hear supporters of the guy who spent 17 million on negative ads talk about "gutter politics."
Project much?
Romney's problem is not so much that many of us can't stand him (which is true), it's that he's given us no ammo with which to defend him should we choose to do so.
He's now on record yesterday saying that "he's not concerned about the very poor." While he may be right in his analysis, how is that NOT going to become a soundbite? For such an "electable" guy, he sure says a lot of stupid things.
Ross Kaminsky | 2.1.12 @ 10:36AM
There is nothing about spending money that is "gutter".
Other than that, I basically agree with you.
I'm not a "Romney supporter." I just fear and loathe Obama.
Occam's Tool| 2.1.12 @ 6:22PM
Fear and loathing of the Liberal scumbag is a sign of worthy intellect. Paul is further to the Left than Obama on foreign policy. He has been destroyed. Therefore, I believe that all 3 Republican candidates would be better than Bam-bam. I will vote for my favorite (the Rickster) and vote for the eventual candidate (probably Mitt).
4 more years of Alinsky makes my skin crawl. Romney may be McCain redoux. But McCain was winning until an economic pratfall hit right before election day. This time, if the economy lurches, Obama will be blamed. McCain is better than Obama. OK?
Bill| 2.1.12 @ 10:27AM
Romney cannot defend Romneycare, neither he can outperform Obama over Obamacare in the debate, and Obama;s argument will be "Mitt, we've learned from you." The GOP voters, who voted for Romney, will be demoralized when they will watch the fading Romney in the debates and in the campaign trails. Romney wins in FL in the GOP primary, wait, Obama will wind up winning the "FL Purchase" with his "$1 billion" war-chest and an army of "union-thugs." Romney cannot win against Obama.
Ross Kaminsky | 2.1.12 @ 10:37AM
Bill, the question to me doesn't come down as much to what Romney supported in the past as whether he will aggressively pound the table against Obamacare and repeatedly promise to do everything he can to repeal it.
Bill| 2.1.12 @ 10:58AM
With all due respect,Romney still supports the individual mandate, which is the core issue of Obamacare. In that perspective, Romney and obama are in the same page, demonizing "We the People."
Ross Kaminsky | 2.1.12 @ 11:06AM
Bill, I'm not here defending Romney's views on the mandate (or anything else.) His defense of Romneycare is wrong, though maybe his only viable political strategy.
But I repeat: If he will work hard to repeal Obamacare, I don't really care if he still thinks what he did in Massachusetts is OK.
Bill| 2.1.12 @ 12:59PM
Mr. Kaminsky, Romney is proud of Romneycare in MA, and the individual mandate that he put in place there (although he denied that sometimes). How can he make an argument over Obamacare, telling Obama that "You're wrong, Mr. President." Obama will reply, "I used your playbook, Romney. My Obamacare is the blue-print of our Romneycare." As being a Christian and "staunch" conservative, I do not trust a "New England big-government liberal RINO," and will NOT vote Romney.
Mike 3/505| 2.1.12 @ 10:30AM
Mr Kaminsky,
Assuming for the sake of argument, Romney wins the nomination, please tell me one critical thing. What unifying message has he demonstrated commitment to that will impact the overall electorate? Reagan had the "Shining City on a Hill" and the theme of American exceptionalism. What does Romney have? How do you see him bringing that message to "Joe Everyman?"
Regards,
Mike
Ross Kaminsky | 2.1.12 @ 10:43AM
Mike,
I think my note above basically expresses agreement with your question's implication.
Romney is NOT yet inspiring, not yet running primarily on principle. And I do think it's a risk for the reasons I said and the reasons you say.
Running against the other guy rather than for something only wins during extreme voter antipathy toward the other guy. We saw that in 2008, for example, where all Obama needed to be was not McCain, not Republican.
It could win for Romney, but he should be using a more "vote FOR me" strategy.
As for bringing a message, I'm not saying he'll be great at it, but the message is "if you re-elect Obama, your kids will have less opportunity for a good life than you have had." It's a corollary to the extremely effective "Are you better off than you were four years ago?" question asked by Reagan about Carter in 1980.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loBe0WXtts8
teflon93| 2.1.12 @ 10:52AM
What principles will Mitt Romney run on?
Isn't this a little late in the game to be wondering?
DRed| 2.1.12 @ 1:01PM
What principles would you like Romeny to run on? He's perfectly prepared to tell you that's what he's doing. And he's also more than willing to repeat lie after lie about Obama. You'll come to like him.
Occam's Tool| 2.1.12 @ 6:26PM
Also, who do you want appointing judges to the SCOTUS? Several will come up over the next 4 years.Ginsberg is holding on until she sees who wins the election---she WILL be replaced in the next 4 years. Folks, who will work with the Republican Senate majority on Judges---Mitt or Bam-bam?
THINK, folks. The most powerful branch of government holding back government extension will be the SCOTUS. And you want Obama replacing a physically ill Ginsberg (she was always ethically sick) with a much younger version of her for the next TWO DECADES? Have you gone mad?
W| 2.1.12 @ 10:46AM
Mr. Kaminsky
This primary is similar to the 1968 Dem primary where the Gene McCarthy supporters were upset that Bobby Kennedy came in late to steal Gene's thunder. Then after Bobby's murder by Sirhan Sirhan, who incidentally Billy Ayers (Obama's pal) dedicated a book, the McCarthy supporters were to pure and good to support Hubert Humphrey. Even McCarthy witheld is support till late and it was a weak endorsement.
HH lost a close election to Nixon because of the disunity among the Dems and the third party votes to George Wallace.
The McCarthy voters believed they were better and the pure peace Democrats and that HH was the establishment pick. Now the Paul and some of the Newt voters are too good to vote for Mitt and say they will stay home to show how smart and principled they are.
Obama and Axelrod are laughing at us and probably Axelrod has people writing on this site saying they will sit this election out. Look at the volume of comments from names never seen here saying they will sit it out.
If you want to stay home and let Obama win they you have no credibility to complain about the course of our country with Obama as president.
Any of the Republicans is a vast improvement over Obama. Any Rep will appoint more conservative judges, more conservative heads of agencies such as OSHA, NLRB, HHS, etc. Any Republican will grant waivers to Obamacare and sign a bill to repeal it if Congress passes a bill. Any Republican will work to cut taxes and spending and allow for drilling of oil. Any Republican will build a wall along the southern border and deal with the illegal immigrants.
Ross Kaminsky | 2.1.12 @ 11:12AM
W,
I think my best response to you is in my comment to George Neumayr's article today:
While I understand Neumayr's fundamental point that Romney is hardly the banner-carrier for principled conservatism, I don't understand why he is so dismissive of "electability" as an important factor.
This is not a race for an open seat, against a no-worse-than-average Democrat.
This is a race to save the nation from another 4 years of Obama. If it takes Romney to do that, even if I desperately wish we had a better candidate, I can live with it.
My two young kids' futures can't afford another Obama term. Romney is better than Obama in every possible way. Just because some theoretical candidate would be better than Romney doesn't mean Romney is as bad as current Newt supporters would have us believe.
Romney is more than good enough.
And I say that as someone who refused to vote for John McCain last time around.
Lesser Weevil| 2.1.12 @ 3:05PM
It's painful, Ross. I voted for McCain as not-Obama, but I hated to do it. Now we are supposed to settle for another completely uninspiring not-Obama. Yes, anyone this side of Hugo Chavez would be a major improvement, and Romney would probably tend more towards disappointing than disastrous, but really, how long can the GOP keep going this way? We are in this fix today in large part because of Republican ineptitude. Most of the base will probably turn out, however reluctantly, for anyone rather than Dear Leader, but unless Mr. Electable figures out how to make a case for himself, I think it's four more years, and I can't see any kind of future for the GOP after that. Your kids and mine will pay the price.
Occam's Tool| 2.1.12 @ 6:27PM
And I am sure, Ross, regret that decision. I, being from Chicago, knew that Obama was pure poison.
teflon93| 2.1.12 @ 10:51AM
Oh please. It's "gutter tactics" when somebody punches back at Romney the way he's been sliming conservative rivals since 2008, but he's merely engaging in "smart politics" with all his mudslinging and "I don't think I saw that ad" lies.
There's an opening at National Review for you, Kaminsky. Better take advantage of it before they start selling off the fixtures.
Ross Kaminsky | 2.1.12 @ 11:13AM
Seriously, robo-calling senior citizen Jews to tell them that Romney wanted to steal their poor relatives' kosher food? That's lower than anything I've heard from the Romney camp, and I'm not saying they've been a well-behaved group.
teflon93| 2.1.12 @ 11:33AM
How about Romney shopping oppo research to the Left Wing Media? How about the ad Blitzer called him out on that he denied seeing until the "I'm Mitt Romney and I support this message" tag? How about accusing Gingrich of influence peddling, or the crap he fomented about the long-discredited story Gingrich asked for a divorce from his wife while on her deathbed (she is very much alive, his daughters refuted the story publicly. Again), or the lies Romney promulgated about Gingrich's ethics investigations in the House (which were David Bonior seeking revenge for his having taken down a Democrat Speaker and taking the House for the GOP)?
Romney has been a well-known slime merchant---at least when it comes to attacking conservatives---since at least his 2008 campaign. This is why so many past and current rivals despise the man.
It's hard to believe you don't know about this stuff, Ross. How precisely is it you ignore it?
Ross Kaminsky | 2.1.12 @ 2:01PM
Haven't heard the deathbed story for a long time because I think most politically active people know it to be false. And again, you have never heard me say that I thought the Romney campaign was behaving well. I simply said Newt's recent unkosher ad was a new low for this campaign.
W| 2.1.12 @ 6:46PM
1. The divorce story is crap as most divorce stories are. But that story has been out for 20 years, and I don't think Mitt used it.
2. The ethics charge is real, not made up. Yes, it was filed by Democrats because Newt filed one against Wright to remove Wright. So what? Just because the Dems filed it does not mean you roll over and pay a $300,000 fine. Fight it. If Newt was innocent then he should have fought it. He should have shown the same tenacity against the Dems that he is now showing against Mitt. It was $300,000 not a $300 fine.
3. Of course Newt was influence peddling. Fannie/Freddie paid money to Dems and Reps to keep everyone happy and quiet. Why do you think they paid 1.6 million to Newt? You don't believe they paid it to hime because he is a historian and they wanted his advice as he said? What advice, do we see any memos on that advice.
4. I hope Mitt shows the same attack mode against Obama.
5. Just because an ad is negative does not mean it is untrue or not accurate. Bush's people did calls in 2000 that McCain had a black child out of wedlock when they knew she was adopted from Bangladesh. Now that is negative, untrue, and slime. Newt accused Mitt of vulture capitalism, stealing, more or less, from the companies. That is negative,untrue, and slime. Or that Mitt denied kosher foods to Holoaust survivors.
Occam's Tool| 2.1.12 @ 6:31PM
But Ross, it is precisely that type of gutter punching (on truly verifiable facts, such as Bernadine Dorhn killing a cop with a nail filled explosive device) that will be required for Mitt to win. The problem is not with the sleazy tactic---the problem is that it was not true in the sense that Mitt's opponents would have you believe.
However, Obama starting his political career in Dorhn's house despite knowing of her terrorist past IS fact.
I disagree with the facts in the tactic, not the tactic itself. Obama needs to be slimed.
Bill| 2.1.12 @ 10:59AM
I was born and raised in the South, and don't like the "New England Rockefeller big-government liberal RINO."
randyinrocklin| 2.1.12 @ 11:16AM
Romney will lose in the general election just as HW Bush,Dole, and McCain. The conservatives will stay home again.
Ricco| 2.1.12 @ 12:53PM
I'm begining to think that Newt has entered Rumsfeldian territory. He's smart, articulate, passionate but a lightning rod with and against those with whom he disagrees and one who is interested in conflict.
When it is certain that he cannot win the nomination, it appears he will continue on caring not about defeating the current POTUS but solely to feed his ego.
Peppermint Tea| 2.1.12 @ 1:21PM
What ultimately won FL, was Romney working hard for the past 3 years. When Gingrich said he was the Marco Rubio and Romney was the RINO, Rubio said that wasn't true--Romney had campaigned for him in 2010. The goodwill that Romney won from Rubio was echoed by others in Washington.
It's showing more and more that only Romney really wanted the job and showed up in a suit with an organization, although Santorum appears that he wants it next time.
David T| 2.1.12 @ 1:46PM
Ross--The real reason for the GOP loss in '76 was Ford's pardoning RMN, not the primary battle leading up to the convention.
Ross Kaminsky | 2.1.12 @ 2:02PM
Good point, David. Still, that doesn't support the other author's suggestion that the GOP would have won the race if only Reagan had been the nominee.
Oldefarte| 2.1.12 @ 3:51PM
Ross, great one as usual! The only question now FOR ME is whether or not Romney can garner the fire-n-brimstone to paint the necessary truthful picture of Obama/Democrats needed to win!!!!!
Oldefarte| 2.1.12 @ 3:54PM
PS: As indicated Newt's human failings in comparison to Reagan might have done him in. Being in the company of a great leader does no good IF one doesn't also have the capacity to lead!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Marco2| 2.1.12 @ 6:30PM
I keep hearing that self-styled "true conservatives" will sit on their butts this fall to re-elect Obama. Why does no one ever wonder if many Romney voters would stoop to vote for either of his undistinguished opponents in a general election?
Occam's Tool| 2.1.12 @ 6:33PM
Well, if the "true Conservatives" vote to replace Ruth Bader Ginsberg with the CURRENT head of the ACLU, don't say I didn't warn you.
In writing.
Here.
While there was an ample opportunity to avoid that gruesome fate.