February 15, 2010
Feb 15 01:13 Will The REAL Mitt Romney Please Stand Up? Feb 15 08:38 Inspiring Rhetoric, Thug Tactics Feb 15 11:15 Thiessen Exposing Obama Administration's Aversion To Gathering Intel Feb 15 16:15 It's Official: Senate In Play After Bayh's Retirement
Prior Months: Jan
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009
Will The REAL Mitt Romney Please Stand Up?
During the 2008 campaign, I remember hearing a pundit say during a TV interview that, not surprisingly, Mitt Romney was a chameleon because that's what CEOs do. With that in mind, this article comes as no surprise. Imagine the shock of finding out that Mitt's back to his reinvention tricks:
From the looks of it, the 2012 version of Romney will be somewhat different than the one that lost in 2008. In that campaign, Romney tacked hard to the right - where Romney and his strategists perceived an opening as the conservative alternative to front-runners John McCain and Rudy Giuliani.A moderate/chameleon is probably pretty close to who Romney is. Mr. Fix-It is probably pretty accurate, too, if we don't talk about how Mitt Romney 'fixed' Massachusetts' health insurance system.
In retrospect, Team Romney believes their strategy was in error, according to some who are familiar with the campaign's post-election brainstorming. Although exit polls showed that he did well among the most ideological conservatives, particularly those most adamantly opposed to McCain's immigration-reform stance, he was not able to win over religious Christian conservatives. That left him unable to make up for sacrificing the votes of relatively moderate primary-goers.
In a nutshell, he made himself too conservative for blue-state Republicans, who opted for McCain, but wasn't conservative enough for red-state conservatives, who opted for Mike Huckabee.
"He was a Massachusetts moderate who tried to be a hard-right conservative," says one Republican strategist. "It turned out he probably would have been better off sticking with what he was, Mr. Fix-It."
"He got himself caught up in the social-issues debate," says Bill Achtmayer, chairman of business-strategy consultants the Parthenon Group and a supporter of Romney, his former colleague at Bain Consulting. "It diverted people's attention from what he does bring to the table."
It's time Mitt Romney stopped pretending he's the man who can defeat President Obama. In a TEA Party world, Mitt fits like a fist in a baseball mitt. Imagine his surprise to find out he zigged into who he really is only to find that the American people zagged for real conservatism.
This paragraph is illuminating:
Today, Republican insiders and political analysts say that Romney is already the de facto front-runner , regardless of whether he says he's running or not, thanks to his name recognition, his proven fundraising ability, and his established national operation. Others are either unknown, untested, or, like Sarah Palin, too flaky.There's no questioning that Mitt is the political insiders' choice. That's why TEA Party activists will reject him. The name recognition and fundraising things are vastly overrated, too. Think Charlie Crist and Chris Cannon. Jason Chaffetz was unknown and running on a tiny budget but he handed Rep. Cannon his walking papers because his message resonated with people.
Charlie Crist was anointed by the NRSC and Mel Martinez. The initial polls showed him leading an unknown named Marco Rubio. He had a great fundraising network in place from his 2006 gubernatorial campaign. Now he's desperately flailing because his message isn't selling.
What people forget is that Romney's message didn't resonate with voters in 2008. He outspent Mike Huckabee by a 9:1 in 2008 while losing handily. Iowa and New Hampshire activists demand that you be a good retail politicker, something that Romney isn't. Romney is better suited for addressing a room full of corporate directors than he is at just chatting with real people in diners and in their living rooms.
The other thing that's still a puzzle is what niche he fills that others don't. Sarah Palin has substantial support with TEA Party activists, as does Tim Pawlenty. It's important that we note that Sarah Palin has a record of ridding government of corruption and that Tim Pawlenty can point to his running a liberal state as a fiscal conservative.
Plus, at least for the moment, pressing economic and foreign-policy concerns seem to have sent to the back burner the social issues that dogged Romney in '08. "It looks like the environment is shaping up to be favorable to him," says Dennehy. "Mitt Romney is the guy to beat. He's positioned himself real well since the 2008 election."Positioning is nice but Sarah Palin can electrify audiences while Tim Pawlenty's personality and record of accomplishment will attract a significant following. Mitt Romney can't compete on those issues. While people will respect and probably even admire the things Gov. Romney did in the private sector, including turning around the Salt Lake Winter Olympics, voters haven't noticed how Mitt's economic policies have benefited Massachusetts' people.
Here's the bottom line: There are alot of years where the 'next in line' candidate should be considered the frontrunner. I'm betting that 2012 won't be one of those years, partially because Mitt doesn't have a list of accomplishments while he was governor of Massachusetts but mostly because the activists that will drive conservative Republicans to victory in 2010 will be attracted to candidates with solid conservative credentials.
Finally, it's important that we note that conservative Christian voters will reject Mitt Romney because he isn't a pro-life candidate. If the powers-that-be want to throw cold water on the TEA Party movement, the fastest way of that is nominating a Mitt Romney I'm-pro-life-one-day-and-something-else-the-next-day type of candidate.
Posted Monday, February 15, 2010 1:19 AM
Comment 1 by The Lady Logician at 15-Feb-10 06:54 AM
Boy Team Romney made it easier for our boy T-Paw didn't they? They don't get that a BIG reason why they lost the evangelical vote was because of his FLIP FLOP on abortion! Many evangelicals didn't trust him on their one key issue - abortion.
Swinging to the mushy middle will be the death of a very decent political candidate. It's a shame - I caucused for him.
LL
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 15-Feb-10 07:06 AM
LL, You've got it exactly right. Being who you really are won't help if where you really are isn't what voters are looking for.
Comment 3 by walter hanson at 15-Feb-10 12:16 PM
Mitt had a couple of problems that hurt:
One, was he wasn't in a position to capture the evangelical vote. Part of it was because of his positions. Part of it was by default Mike Huckabee who in some cases is more liberal than John Mccain was able to capture it because he was a pastor and quoted the bible (something that even though I go to church) has no merrit to earn the votes.
Two, what dragged Mitt down was that he thought he was going to win Iowa and New Hampshire be called the front runner and win the nomination. Huckabee won Iowa which McCain didn't try to win because McCain focused on New Hampshire. McCain won New Hampshire. That kept him alive for South Carolina where his military ties helped and Florida where about the only state where his immigration positions helped along with the endorsement of Charlie Crist. If you're looking for a reason that is causing Crist trouble in Florida that doesn't get talked about. South Carolina and Florida allowed McCain to coast to the nomination.
And another reason. In 2008 my choices were John McCain (a liberal democrat), Mike Huckabee (a liberal democrat), Rudy (who I could've lived with but died in the campaign), Fred Thompson (who got in too late and died with South Carolina helping McCain beat Mitt), and a bunch of unknowns. Mitt was the closest thing to a real conservative Republican and he's not a real conservative Republican to begin with.
On a personal note while I like the job Tim has done on spending and taxes he'll governor like a liberal democrat nationally.
Until somebody else comes along Sarah has the nomination hands down once she announces.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 4 by eric z. at 15-Feb-10 08:10 PM
The man is not a moderate. He's simply not enough a right-winger as some might prefer.
Ron Paul is a moderate on many issues, choice not being one.
But Romney is little different than McCain. Neither are moderates. Obama is a moderate. Kucinich is more a liberal. Tarryl Clark and Maureen Reed are both moderates.
To you, Michele Bachmann would be "moderate." Or am I wrong there?
Kline, a moderate?
Paulsen, a moderate?
Pawlenty?
I think your definition of moderate is off base. As you probably think mine. But I grant that your side's propagandizing has been more effective in shifting "moderate" to a place FDR or Truman would never recognize as moderate. Nor Washington nor Jefferson, certainly not Hamilton.
Comment 5 by walter hanson at 16-Feb-10 03:23 PM
Eric:
Liberals are Obama, Tarryl Clark, Mccain, and Huckeby.
Very Solid conservatives are Michelle Bachmann and John Kline.
The fact that you think Obama is a moderate along with Bachmann and Kline shows you must be a far a left winger because you can't recongize a liberal.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Inspiring Rhetoric, Thug Tactics
This editorial by the Washington Times' Editorial Board talks candidly about Obama-style bipartisanship. In doing so, they've exposed President Obama as a man of inspiring rhetoric and thug tactics. President Obama campaigned as a healer of our political wounds, a post-partisan, post-racial candidate who wouldn't tolerate secrecy or lobbyists in his administration. It isn't surprising to me that President Obama has failed to deliver on any of those promises.
There was little need for Mr. Obama to include Republicans in his legislative calculus. The Democrats enjoyed supermajorities in both houses and, armed with what they thought was a political blank check, went on a spending and regulating rampage. They exhibited the worst aspects of old-style politics: favoritism, cronyism, unrestrained spending, backroom deals, arrogance, conceit and extreme partisanship. Mr. Obama's freshman year left the country with astronomical deficits and not much else.One of the famous lines from the 1996 GOP convention was J.C. Watts' quote that "Character is doing whats right when nobody is looking." Apparently, this administration has difficulty doing the right thing when the American people are watching.
When the public objected to this irresponsible and reckless behavior, exhibited at town-hall protests and Tea Party demonstrations, Mr. Obama responded, "I don't want folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking. I want them to just get out of the way so we can clean up the mess." Shut up, sit down and take your medicine; that's bipartisanship Obama-style.
Robert Gibbs's attempt to tell the American people that the process followed to get to a health care agreement was pathetic. His saying that lots of committee hearings were televised on C-SPAN didn't sit well with the American people. Committee hearings have always been televised on C-SPAN. There's nothing new about that. President Obama said that he'd insist on health care negotiations would be put on S-SPAN. That didn't happen.
After health care passed the HELP and Finance Committees, Harry Reid merged the bills, with the help of Rahm Emanuel, Max Baucus and Chris Dodd. Speaker Pelosi rewrote the House bill in her office, too. There was nothing bipartisan or transparent about the process in either case.
The deals with Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu weren't struck in public. The deal struck with unions to exempt them from the excise tax on Cadillac plans was held behind closed doors in the White House. That certainly didn't meet Candidate Obama's insistence on transparency and bipartisanship.
This information is extremely damaging to the Obama administration:
Now Mr. Obama is talking up bipartisanship again, but nothing has really changed. His proposed bipartisan fiscal commission will have no authority and will serve only as a political fig leaf. The planned Feb. 25 televised bipartisan gathering on health care obviously is intended as a made-for-TV spectacle. Mr. Obama claims he wants to use the event to hear the best ideas for pushing forward the stalled health care legislation, but those ideas have been available since the beginning of the process. It's not the Republicans' fault the Democrats ignored them.Knowing that the GOP ideas for reforming health care have been available for months now, coupled with Wendell Primus saying that Democrats have a plan in place to pass health care, say everything that needs to be known about President Obama's sham health care summit.
If I was consulting Republicans, I'd recommend that they put President Obama and congressional Democrats on the defensive by first laying out the things in Paul Ryan's bill that cut health care costs and health insurance premiums , that increase access to insurance to more Americans and that guarantee access to affordable insurance to people with PECs. I'd then ask President Obama why he didn't adopt those measures months ago.
Finally, if I was consulting Republicans, I'd recommend that they ask why Democrats insisted on passing legislation that's filled with tax increases, constitutionally questionable individual mandates and fines for people who don't buy government-approved health insurance plans like HSAs.
I'd approach it with the mindset that it's the Democrats' plan that isn't popular with the American people. I'd confront President Obama in a firm tone of voice. I wouldn't use a hostile tone but I'd be confident that we're playing from a position of strength and that the Democrats' plan is hugely unpopular.
By doing this, we'd show, on national TV, that (a) Republicans are the party of ideas, not the party of no and (b) Democrats are the party of tax increases and backroom deals.
Make no mistake about this: President Obama isn't planning on this sham summit being proof that he's willing to play fair. He'll attempt to appear to be willing to play fair but he's planning on putting Republicans on the defensive. Mr. Ryan should be the Republicans' point person. The minute that President Obama tries putting Republicans on the defensive, Mr. Ryan should respond by asking why President Obama is ignoring the will of the people in insisting that the Democrats' bill be filled with tax increases on middle class families.
Letting him know that they're willing, and able, to counterpunch as good as they get will put President Obama and the Democrats in the room on their heels. It also is a great tactic for exposing the Democrats' aversion to bipartisanship and transparency.
That alone will turn the event into a GOP win. It would also prove to the American people that Republicans are listening to the American people , which should be the goal heading into the midterm elections.
Posted Monday, February 15, 2010 8:49 AM
No comments.
Thiessen Exposing Obama Administration's Aversion To Gathering Intel
Marc Thiessen has done a great job of exposing the Obama administration's aversion to gathering intel. He's done such a good job of it that the Washington Post is reporting about it :
When a window of opportunity opened to strike the leader of al-Qaeda in East Africa last September, U.S. Special Operations forces prepared several options. They could obliterate his vehicle with an airstrike as he drove through southern Somalia. Or they could fire from helicopters that could land at the scene to confirm the kill. Or they could try to take him alive.Simply put, the Obama administration doesn't want to capture terrorists because that'd mean they'd either have to keep Gitmo open or they'd have to find a country willing to house them. As Ed Morrissey notes in this post , there's a simple solution to this question:
The White House authorized the second option. On the morning of Sept. 14, helicopters flying from a U.S. ship off the Somali coast blew up a car carrying Saleh Ali Nabhan. While several hovered overhead, one set down long enough for troops to scoop up enough of the remains for DNA verification. Moments later, the helicopters were headed back to the ship.
The strike was considered a major success, according to senior administration and military officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the classified operation and other sensitive matters. But the opportunity to interrogate one of the most wanted U.S. terrorism targets was gone forever.
The Nabhan decision was one of a number of similar choices the administration has faced over the past year as President Obama has escalated U.S. attacks on the leadership of al-Qaeda and its allies around the globe. The result has been dozens of targeted killings and no reports of high-value detentions.
We could restore the ability to get that kind of intel if we just admitted we need Gitmo to remain open.That won't happen because President Obama would lose the support of his political base if he announced that.
A former intelligence official briefed on current operations tells the Post that killing, instead of capturing terrorists is far from ideal, saying "now there's an even greater proclivity for doing it that way...We need to have the capability to snatch when the situation calls for it."It doesn't require Sherlock Holmes' intuitive skills to know that gathering information on the terrorists' support networks, operations and future terrorist attacks is important information. Larry Holmes could figure that out. Rather than doing everything we can to learn about the terrorists' intentions, this administration insists on playing ostrich with regards to intelligence.
He is right. As I explain in Courting Disaster , the interrogation of high-value terrorists is not just one additional source of intelligence; it is often the only tool we have to connect the dots and stop a terrorist attack. In the book, former CIA director Mike Hayden explains that intelligence is having to put together a puzzle without being allowed to see the picture on the cover of the box. You can't see how the pieces are supposed to fit together. There are lots of ways to get more pieces. But the only way to find out how they fit together is to capture the senior leaders who know what the picture on the cover of the box looks like.
We know for certainty that having a robust interrogation operation during the Bush administration yielded lots of information that was used to thwart terrorist attacks, disrupt or throttle their financing networks and rolling up entire networks. Why this administration insists on dismantling terrorists a leader at a time rather than capturing and interrogating terrorists, then using that intel to roll up entire networks has me questioning their philosophy and their priorities.
The Bush administration's policies undeniably kept us safe while preventing terrorist attacks. We hope that this administration will keep America safe but it's far from certain that that's what will happen.
Posted Monday, February 15, 2010 12:18 PM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 15-Feb-10 11:52 AM
Gary:
I got the book on Friday. I've gotten about half done with it. A couple of interesting things:
One, Thiessen pointed out that some of the big Democrats were acting inconsissent with today. Holder made public statements supporting the program. As quoted, "One of the things we clearly want to do with these prisoners is to have an ability to interrogate them and find out what their future plans might be, where other cells are located."
And Nancy Pelosi who claims that she coundted on a letter written by somebody else to express her concern on waterboarding was willing to call officals like Rice to object to a different program (a program met to offset the influence Iran was trying to play in Iraq's elections). So it's bull that she objected to waterboarding and she shouldn't be let off the hook for having said the CIA lied. Which the author pointed out the media is allowing her to get away with.
Another interesting thing is about the controversy over the "Underwear bomber" While the book was obviously written before the incident you can make the following points:
* Once it was found out that the attack didn't suceed Al Queda will go into coverup mood. Thus the best and only source of information will be the day we got him. Even if he's singing like a bird now Al Queda had time to hide. Thus there should be no doubt now that Obama's Justice hurt our national securtiy. Furthermore, as the book has shown part of the value of the people we questioned was we questioned them multiple times after comparing notes or learning something new. Thus even now you can make the credible argument we haven't learned everything we know.
As for the incident that you used to show about how Obama doesn't care. It's people like this person who we killed if we questioned him could help us connect the dots. Or as one CIA person described in the book give us a picture of the puzzle that we're trying to put together.
I can go on, but I'm getting even more alarmed about how much more in danger we are in because of the Obama administration and how they are handling terrorists.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
It's Official: Senate In Play After Bayh's Retirement
Evan Bayh's retirement makes it official: the Senate is in play. Bayh's retirement is as big a stunner as Byron Dorgan's retirement. What's worse for Democrats is that they've got to scramble to put a candidate on the ballot. Here's the part of Sen. Bayh's retirement announcement that most jumped out at me:
For some time, I've had a growing conviction that Congress is not operating as it should. There is much too much partisanship and not enough progress, too much narrow ideology and not enough practical problem-solving. Even at a time of enormous national challenge, the people's business is not getting done. Examples of this are legion but two recent ones will suffice.I'm not willing to let Sen. Bayh off the hook with that holier-than-thou missive. Sen. Bayh voted twice each for President Obama's failed stimulus bill and for the Senate health care bill, each of which represent significant departures from fiscal discipline. I would've given Sen. Bayh the benefit of the doubt if he'd voted against cloture on either of the bills. He failed on both accounts. TWICE. That isn't how a fiscal conservative would vote.
Here's the other portion of Sen. Bayh's speech that jumped out at me:
All of this and much more has led me to believe that there are better ways to serve my fellow citizens, my beloved state and our nation than continued service in Congress. To put it into words I think most people can understand, I love working for the people of Indiana. I love helping our citizens make the most of their lives. But I do not love Congress.The reason this jumps off the page is because it ties into a rumor floating around Washington, namely that Sen. Bayh notified President Obama this weekend of his retirement decision but didn't notify Sen. Reid until half an hour before his retirement speech.
The Fix reports something else that shouldn't surprise anyone but that has to be giving Democratic consultants heartburn:
The Cook Political Report , one of the nation's leading handicappers of congressional elections, now carries 10 Democratic-held seats in its most competitive categories , meaning that if Republicans sweep those races (and lose none of their own vulnerable seats), they will have a 51-seat majority. Cook, incidentally, moved Indiana from a lean Democratic seat to a lean Republican seat in the wake of the Bayh news.That certainly makes sense, especially considering the fact that the three most likely candidates have to scramble to get their names on the primary ballot. Jim Geraghty has an entertaining perspective on that angle:
There are three House Democrats being mentioned as possible candidates for Bayh's seat: Congressmen Joe Donnelly, Brad Ellsworth, and Baron Hill. (Keep in mind they have about 48 hours to get 500 signatures in each of the state's nine congressional districts.)Which Republican gets lucky remains to be seen but whoever it is just inches Republicans that much closer to the majority. In my opinion, Baron Hill isn't likely to be the Democratic candidate because he'd be a sacrificial lamb against Dan Coats. He'd drag the entire Democratic ticket down, which might lead to a big pickup of House seats in Indiana. That's something that the Democrats can't afford this year.
It's quite possible some Republican House candidate is about to win the lottery and have the Democratic incumbent effectively disappear.
Here's the bottom line: Democratic control of the House was already difficult. With the retirements of Byron Dorgan and Evan Bayh, added to the difficulties Democrats will have holding seats in Colorado, Nevada, Illinois, Delaware, Pennsylvania and Arkansas, coupled with Scott Brown's win in Massachusetts, the Democrats' margin for error is razor thin. It gets worse if Republicans can recruit a viable candidate to run against Kirsten Gillibrand in New York.
Factor in Sen. Boxer's difficulties in California, Patty Murray trailing Dino Rossi in Washington and Russ Feingold's difficulties in Wisconsin and you've got the potential for a disastrous year for Democrats. Losing the House would be a real shot to them heading into a presidential election. Losing the House and Senate, giving Republicans the ability to push their policies and putting the White House on the defensive would make life miserable for Democrats in the near future.
Regardless of what other things happen this year, there's no denying that this will be a fascinating election cycle. (Unless you're a Democrat. Then it's fascinating only if you enjoy watching train wrecks.)
Posted Monday, February 15, 2010 4:21 PM
Comment 1 by The Lady Logician at 15-Feb-10 06:03 PM
Let's see - 60 seats in the Senate and how many in the House? And yet it is the Republicans fault for being too partisan???? Yeah right dude.....pull the other one.
LL
Comment 2 by eric z. at 15-Feb-10 08:00 PM
Have you thought, Gary, Bayh perhaps was criticizing YOUR side, not the bona fides of his. Your entire premise is he's a hypocrite for saying what he said. But consider, had he named names, McConnell, Kyl, others, your theory leaks.
He was not willing to shoot at individuals, but what he said is true.
Now, stir in besides the GOP impeders, Ben Nelson, Lieberman, Landireu, and it is a bipartisan simmer, of do-nothing-good miscreants.
Your unwillingness to criticize the GOP side is interesting, and devalues the argument you make.
Indiana, I consider that's "in play" your way.
Remember, Dan Quayle, the "potatoe."
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 15-Feb-10 11:40 PM
Eric, Don't read what I didn't say. I'm certain that Bayh was being critical of both sides. I'm just questioning him because he's preaching about fiscal discipline, even after he's voted for a pork-filled stimulus bill, an over-bloated & pork-filled budget bill & the biggest new entitlement in the last 35+ years.
The GOP refused to vote for President Obama's budget because it will bankrupt the country within the next decade if it isn't corrected.
As for "do-nothing-good miscreants", I prefer them over the "surely we must do something" legislators who've ignored the Tenth Amendment for far too long.
Not every situation is meant to be 'solved' by the federal government. Doing too much is something both sides engage in but that might be coming to a screeching halt in the near future.
I'll be smiling the day that happens.
