Republicans say: hey, you know what would be a good idea right about now?
A circular firing squad.
See this and this, wherein the Weekly Standard gives Romney a tongue-lashing for his style of focusing on the economy, and the WSJ excoriates Romney for taking pretty much the only tack open to him on the bizarre SCOTUS decision on Obamacare.
Now, I don’t say their suggestions are bad. The WS thinks Romney shouldn’t just say the economy’s in trouble, but be more clear about what he would propose to fix it. Fine, great—but my guess is that, since the campaign still hasn’t reached what you might call a fever pitch where people are paying a ton of attention (that would involve the conventions and the selection of a VP and then the debates), perhaps Romney will be planning to do more of that in the future? And that a private message to that effect, or a more subtle public one, rather than a tongue-lashing in a piece comparing him to Mike Dukakis might be a better way for the press on the right to handle it at this point?
And the WSJ could acknowledge that the SCOTUS decision on Obamacare=tax presented any Republican candidate with the dilemma of past statements on the mandate as a penalty and the present need to call it a tax (plus Romney’s own history in Massachusetts re mandates), which necessitated a legalistic response such as the one Romney gave: “It’s a tax because SCOTUS has spoken, but I disagree with SCOTUS.”
Nope, it’s hardly the strongest position possible, and yes, I agree that Romney could and should have followed up with something more hard-hitting, but watch the video and see what he actually said. Remember, also, that the format was a joint question-and-answer interview with his wife Ann, not a campaign speech (and may indeed be only an excerpt from a longer exchange with reporter Crawford, because the tape seems to begin in the middle of the discussion):
Here’s part of the WS critique of the interview and Romney’s words on the economy:
But what are voters to think when they hear the GOP nominee say, as he did yesterday to CBS’s Jan Crawford, “As long as I continue to speak about the economy, I’m going to win”? That they’re dopes who don’t know the economy’s bad, but as long as the Romney campaign keeps instructing them that it is bad, they’ll react correctly and vote the incumbent out of office?…
The economy is of course important. But voters want to hear what Romney is going to do about the economy. He can “speak about” how bad the economy is all he wants””though Americans are already well aware of the economy’s problems””but doesn’t the content of what Romney has to say matter? What is his economic growth agenda? His deficit reform agenda? His health care reform agenda? His tax reform agenda? His replacement for Dodd-Frank? No need for any of that, I suppose the Romney campaign believes. Just need to keep on “speaking about the economy.”
Recall once again that this wasn’t a speech, this was a short question-and-answer format joint interview with Romney and his wife. Not really the venue for outlining his economic plans. And here’s what Romney actually said right before that quote [emphasis mine]:
The people of America will stop and say, “Is my life better because of the president? Did his policies get us back to work? Did they improve our lives? And if not, does Mitt Romney offer different answers with a different possibility for us?” And the question is, of course, that’s why I’m in the race. I’ve laid out what I’d do to get this economy going, and as long as I continue to speak about the economy, I’m gonna win.
There’s no other interpretation of the quote possible than that Romney meant “as long as I can to offer solutions about the economy,” exactly the opposite of the WS critique.
Now, don’t get me wrong. Romney’s campaign, and Romney as a candidate, are far from perfect. Although I’ve supported him from the start as the best GOP candidate willing to run this year, I’ve made it clear he’s not the person I would have selected from the entire Republican pool if I were dictator of the world. He has lots of flaws, as does almost every possible candidate. And he will make errors, as would anyone.
I expect the left and the usual MSM sources to compare Romney to Dukakis and Dole and whoever else is thought of as a loser. I expected the harshest of criticism from the other candidates during the Republican primaries, and we got it. I most definitely expect it from Obama and Axelrod and the rest of the administration shills. And I expect them all to distort what Romney says in order to put the worst possible light on it. And I expect the right to criticize Romney as well, but I don’t expect that sort of distortion and hyperbole from the right, not when we’re in the fight of our lives.
But then again, remember:
[NOTE: Some of you may say that other candidates would have been less vulnerable to this. I agree that Romney has some special weaknesses in the area of HCR because of the Massachusetts health care law many refer to as Romneycare (although the version passed is not the version he originally proposed, but that’s too fine a point). I agree that many other candidates (among them one of my original favorites, Christie) have more forceful and combative personalities. But because Romney is the nominee, we are seeing his weaknesses rather than theirs. Believe me, had any of them been the nominee, we’d be wringing our hands over that person instead.]
Neoneocon,
Have you ever wondered if much of this conservative nit-picking is motivated by the media? I don’t mean in the sense of a liberal bias (although Lord knows, such exists), but in the sense that there’s always some reporter or editorial writer out there looking to establish or enhance his/her reputation on the basis of a nit-picking comment that suddenly “develops legs.” Everyone’s looking for that by-line and that re-attributed quote that just might make it to Drudge or a nightly prime-time broadcast.
I suspect that Reagan’s 11th commandment (never speak ill of another Republican) was a dictum perhaps more appropriate to an age where thethree liberal media networks controlled the flow of information and not so much to this age of cyberspace journalism and blogging.
I had the same impression when I read the WSJ piece and I could not agree with you more. It’s important to to remember that they aren’t called the “stupid party” for nothing.
Conservatives have that Scots Irish disease. They worship the virtue of the lost cause. If your cause is just, it does not matter if you win. If your candidate is not pure, he must be attacked. The left just goes after a win no matter how dirty. That’s one reason the liberals on the court never wander. It’s the reason we see stolen elections and voter fraud on the left. All morality is set aside to win.
The elections are too long, the candidates too weak, the messages too unfocused, the franchise too universal, the pundits too many, the advisers too clever, the opinions too nuanced, and the angst too too funny. In an election between the Magic Negro and a Magic 8 Ball, the Magic 8 Ball Wins. Whatever Romney is he’s not too Obama — no great accomplishment, no small advantage.
I also found that WSJ piece snarky. It sounded like Dorothy Rabinowitz, ie, a bit elitist. T is probably right that journalists have their own priorities.
Why should Romney give a major policy speech in a week when pundits are jumping all over Roberts and normal people are more interested in storm damage and setting up their grills for the Fourth? Gateway Pundit posted today that there are now 13 K pages of regulations for Obamacare, in addition to the 2,700 pages of the bill. Perhaps it is better to wait till we know what’s in the program and then attack in force.
I absolutely agree. For heavens sakes, no Republicans thought this was a tax…not until they saw a political advantage to it…and now they act as if Romney is supposed to pretend this was always his position..and theirs.
I expect Obama to lie, I expect him to attack Romney, but some of this from the right is just silly.
Unless Romney is calling for higher taxes, more spending, more regulation,etc the gum mashing should be directed at Obama and the democrats.
These people need to be ashamed of their stupidity.
neo,
i agree with you 100%. Exactly what I’ve been thinking.
“Believe me, had any of them been the nominee, we’d be wringing our hands over that person instead.”
Tell me about it! Can you imagine the topics dominating the conversation, permeating the MSM, if Santorum or Newt were the nominee? Shudder. 24/7 contraception, sodomy, “homophobia,” culture war; sleazy adultery gossip, bitter divorce stories, “family values”, etc. And the number of politically tricky policy positions or “flip flops” Romney brings to the table are matched by Santorum’s and Newt’s (especially Newt). Not to mention the gaffes we’d be dealing with on a daily basis. “Right-wing social engineering,” “Kennedy makes want to vomit”– it would go on and on.
Articles like these seem not so interested in engaging in tough but constructive criticism so much as bashing Romney with any “gotcha” to hand– as you put it, “distorting what Romney says in order to put the worst possible light on it,” engaging in “distortion and hyperbole.” Such articles are invariably written by pundits who strongly favored some other candidate in the primaries. Thus they seem more driven by the desire to smugly say “I told you so,” to justify and vindicate their advocacy of a not-Romney candidate, than to actually win this election and defeat Obama.
FFS, the stakes for this country couldn’t be higher. There’ll be plenty of time for all the “I told you so”s in the world, after the election, no matter who wins. (God willing, we’ll get to complain about Romney as POTUS.) Can’t these pundits move on from the primaries and table their lingering resentments and vain petty griping until then? By all means, criticize Romney, be tough on him, but don’t aim to *torpedo* him, just for the sake of seeing him fail and getting to say “I told you so.” Because you’re still pining for Santorum or Newt, really? Snap out of it!
When you sound just like a moby or concern troll (and there are plenty of those around), FYI something’s wrong.
What makes it worse, of course, is that you have the MSM (e.g. Washington Post) actively colluding with the Obama campaign, pumping misinformation and disinformation to the tune of Obama/ Axelrod propaganda– aiming to confuse and mislead low-information and swing voters. Those of us on the right, especially MSM pundits, have to counteract those distortions and lies, not aid and abet them!
Been too busy in meatspace to participate much here. But how can I resist…
You’ve only just begun to see Romney’s weaknesses in the general election campaign. Healthcare is just the trap y’all were expecting him to fall into.
Wait until the enemy ramps up the “rich white guy who fired you so he could buy his wife a fourth Cadillac” stuff. Or the “bankster corporate pawn” stuff.
The righties did O.K. blustering away those weaknesses in the primary. But that was a friendly audience, eager to be deceived. (ABO! ABO!)
Setting aside any genuine differences of opinion about Mitt’s record, I’ve been telling you for months that he will get killed on this stuff at crunch time.
And take a look at your local and Congressional races. Anyone tying their fate to Romney? Not in my part of flyover country.
Wringing my hands? No. Laughing with the carefree smile of a condemned prisoner. Anyone ready to join me in watching a spectacular collapse?
“The left just goes after a win no matter how dirty.”
That’s why the conservative leaning members of the MSM can be so infuriating. I have nothing against thoughtful criticism of conservatives, but harping on inconsequential issues is plain stupid as it provides ammo to the opposition. There are many things to criticize in BHO’s last 3.5 years, including his nastiness. Criticize BHO, not Romney. Reagen was correct, as was usually the case.
foxmarks:
You say Romney will killed on “this” stuff…what stuff?
Nonsense?
You sound like a guy with an axe to grind. Sore loser maybe.
foxmarks: no one on the right just recognized Romney’s weaknesses. They were discussed ad nauseum during the primaries.
And that also was the point of several parts of my post, as well.
You sound as though you’re gloating, although I have no idea why you would care to do that.
foxmarks,
I’m a fiscal conservative, believe in a strict interpretation of the Constitution and a severely restricted central government, and I am a social libertarian. Romney was never my choice, but Romney is the only choice when the other choice is BHO. Yes, Romney has several chinks in his armor. But BHO is the naked emperor wannabe.
I understand being disappointed that a better candidate will not face BHO. However, I think, despite his chinks (no racial slur intended, nudge-nudge) Romney is more intelligent than BHO, will be a steadier hand at the rudder, and BHO in a debate, no matter how slanted by the MSM, is a fumbler without the teleprompter. Come late September Romney needs to take off the Mr. Nice Guy gloves and hit hard, fast, and repeatedly. Will he? I don’t know.
However, it will remain the economy stupid, and from my POV the next 6 months do not look like we will be needing shades. The double dip has begun and will build steam, and Main Street will feel the pain.
BTW, glad you are back, I enjoy your comments.
I get so tired of these Pundits who have never run for any office, but see themselves as uniquely qualified to stand on the side and throw stones.
It seems to be a Conservative proclivity.
I am sure they are all very smart people. I wonder why they don’t enter the arena. Maybe they are too smart, knowing that others like themselves would be gathering stones.
See this for a good example of what journalists could be saying:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/304834/what-romney-needs-say-about-romneycare-mona-charen
Tax, mandate, penalty, fee – who cares ?? What matters is that the American people don’t want to pay whatever-the-hell it is.
neo: You heard me right. I am gloating. Not my proudest moment, but an honest expression. We all lose, but I get the pyrrhic satisfaction of predicting how it comes to pass.
I really do not think the BainCap stuff and the rich white guy stuff (Terrye) was fully argued in the campaign. We argued it here, and that was awesome. But when Newt played that card, I saw it being shouted down. I saw an awful lot of “why are you attacking capitalism”, which was, to me, missing the point. The general electorate has a much greater mistrust of what we call capitalism than does the GOP primary audience.
Parker: Thanks. I miss participating here.
“Circular Firing Squad” is an apt term for this ‘purist’ stuff. I prefer:”Loook…LOOK…WATCH while I shoot myself in the head!!!”
I’m a ‘Weekly Standard’, ‘WSJ:Opinion’ and ‘National Review’ subscriber and fan, but trying to find particles of flys**t in the bottom of Mitt’s sugar bowl is silly, destructive nonsense.
That said, I’d add: MITT, please, bro, grow a BIGGER Set…FAST!!” Your Obamster Acolyte Enemies want you destroyed. Bare Knuckle the ***kers with the hard facts–Over & Over & Over. Video–large quantities–adroitly done of His Infantile Majesty’s LIES, Shadings and Bull***t, laid relentlessly against the FACTS need to be aired constantly.
I mean that sensitively.