TNR BLOGS

July 05, 2009 | 4:05 PM
July 05, 2009 | 12:13 PM
July 04, 2009 | 11:18 PM

March 09, 2009 | 5:19 PM
March 09, 2009 | 5:16 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM

July 05, 2009 | 12:02 PM
July 01, 2009 | 10:33 PM
June 30, 2009 | 8:42 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

July 03, 2009 | 10:13 PM
July 02, 2009 | 12:57 PM
July 01, 2009 | 7:02 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
07.02.2008
Mitt's Done

His CPAC speech today apparently turned into a withdrawal speech. Key passage:

I disagree with Senator McCain on a number of issues, as you know. But I agree with him on doing whatever it takes to be successful in Iraq, on finding and executing Osama bin Laden, and on eliminating Al Qaeda and terror. If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror.

One thing you'll probably hear a lot as the pundits pick this over is that Romney wants to "preserve his viability" (not to mention his bank account) for another run. That's not a bad move given that: a.) the Democratic nominee will enter the general-election campaign as a huge favorite, and b.) even if McCain wins, there's a much higher than usual chance he'd only serve on term. You might also add c.) The general will give Romney a chance to show he's a good solider/loyal party man, and d.) By the time conservatives have been through an entire campaign with McCain, Romney may look pretty good.

Also, I'll say more on this when I have more time, but another thing you're going to hear a lot of is that Romney screwed up by running as the conservative standard-bearer rather than as a wonky pragmatist. I disagree, for reasons I got into a bit here. Quickie version: There's little evidence that Romney's wonky-pragmatist persona was catching on. And, while you can argue that it might have had he not changed his story so many times, my hunch is that it wouldn't have provided enough of a base to win the GOP primary.

My feeling is that he needed to do a better job selling his evolution as a conservative, and in such a way that didn't undercut his technocratic selling points. That's a tall order, I know. But I think it was his best shot. (Which is to say, the Romney people had more or less the right idea, they just didn't execute as well as they needed to.)

--Noam Scheiber

Posted: Thursday, February 07, 2008 1:28 PM with 17 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

roidubouloi said:

Romney is angling for Veep.  Hence his latest reinvention as McCain.

February 7, 2008 1:39 PM

adaglas said:

There once was a candidate named Mitt

With the right, he never quite fit

Though he wore many faces

He won none of the bases

And his prospects turned quickly to shit.

He spent and he spend very hard

Played pro-life and bigotry cards

Though perfectly coiffed

Voters thought he was soft

And found himself feathered and tarred

He said, "Double Guantanemo Bay!

Lock all those terrorists away!

And kick out Mexicans, to boot,

Then some varmints we'll shoot!"

Still his chances have faded away

There once was a candidate named Mitt

Whose teeth were so white that they lit

By Brooks Brothers clothed,

By evangelicals, loathed

Now finally, the bullet he's bit.

February 7, 2008 1:52 PM

teplukhin2you said:

"There's little evidence that Romney's wonky-pragmatist persona was catching on"

Spot on. Romney's problem was never his ideology; it's that 'mericans don't speak PowerPoint. Unlike other rich men involved in US politics recently-- Bloomberg and Perot, esp-- Romney was trained as a consultant, and he made his big money not by leading a company but by cobbling together deals. His approach to any problem has always been to try to assemble a raft of data points and then create a Strategic Plan that can be expressed in bullet points. That mindset is almost guaranteed to alienate normal people who care about things like values, character, decisive leadership etc.

February 7, 2008 1:56 PM

Crock1701 said:

Yeah, I don't see Mr. One term governor out of office for six years being viable in 2012.  He's either Veep hunting or Cabinet hunting or money saving.

February 7, 2008 1:58 PM

virginiacentrist said:

Mitt dropping out is huge for Obama in all future open primaries. Now that the GOP race is basically over, EVEN MORE indies will trend towards the Democratic race.

February 7, 2008 2:16 PM

blackton said:

adaglas, very well done lad. It was the evangelicals, stupid. I said from day one he won't win them over because of his religion. It is sad but true. Maybe in the future but something tells me there will always be the evangelical candidate like Huckabee around.

As to Huckabee, he will stay in it, and I daresay at the request of McCain, they will have love in "debates" that will get televised, fresh wins for McCain to crow about. Huckabee will be the perfect sacrificial lamb (how Jesus like it will make him feel) and he will ride that all the way to the VP or Cabinet post.

As to Romney, Sec. of the Treasury?

February 7, 2008 2:45 PM

cypess said:

Good point blackton that if McCain and Huckabee have more debates (without R. Paul) then it's basically free advertising.  

And bravo adaglas!  Now if we could only get will.i.am to give it some music...

Now that the GOP field has settled, it'll make it easier for Clinton/Obama to attack a specific enemy instead of each other.  However, is there any way that McCain's candidacy helps Hillary?  McCain has oodles more "experience," has better Commander in Chief cred, and will actively enjoy making her cry.

Considering she voted for the war (and hasn't recanted), McCain can take credit for the war's phantom successes and she can't attack him about the failures.

February 7, 2008 3:00 PM

virginiacentrist said:

cypress:

Yup. I think McCain would beat HIllary by 4-5 points in the general election. Her hands are tied against him.

February 7, 2008 3:26 PM

virginiacentrist said:

oh and she solves McCain's base turnout problem...

February 7, 2008 3:27 PM

Rhubarbs said:

On cypess's point, a short list of major votes on which Hillary and McCain did not disagree:

Bush tax cuts

Patriot Act

Iraq war

Bankruptcy "reform"

Flag-burning Amendment

Bush Iran resolution

On all these points, Hillary will _claim_ that she disagrees with McCain. But in doing so, she will be contrasting her stated positions now with her actual votes just a few years ago, and she'll make herself look like a scheming flip-flopper with no effort required on McCain's part. She'll make John Kerry look like the model of steadfast consistency.

Which is to say, a vote for Hillary in the primaries is now a vote for McCain for president.

February 7, 2008 3:29 PM

cypess said:

Thank you virginiacentrist & Rhubarbs for your responses.

Like you, vc, my gut tells me that it will hurt Hillary in reality but will it sink in to the primary voters?

Rhubarbs, that's a good list.  

How would a Hillary supporter argue?  I assume the 'experince' vs. 'experience' - i.e. that McCain can say 'the wolrd is too dangerous for this kid!  When I was in the Hanoi Hilton he was watching sesame street!' or something like that

February 7, 2008 3:46 PM

BHLnyc said:

Rhubarbs, I think you've nailed it with that list. Kerry had a lot of trouble explaining his muddy position on Iraq and lost by a not-insubstantial margin to Bush. Hillary has even more fuzzy positions she has to deal with and is facing a candidate who's more authentic.

February 7, 2008 4:21 PM

adaglas said:

Blackton and Cypess, my thanks.  The muse Erato struck me when I realized Mitt rhymed with shit.

February 7, 2008 4:36 PM

ironyroad said:

Although I hate to say so, I think that McCain's age could be a real disadvantage, especially if he's running against Obama.  There's got to be a suspicion (even if unvoiced) that McCain's VP might have a better than usual chance of either falling into the top job or being the nominee before 2016.  That may well have an effect on running mate choice, and I doubt that the party would accept Romney as Veep after him being trounced so effectively by key blocs of voters.  Huckabee could face a problem of a different kind, which is that although he knows more about economics than McCain does, but has a strong populist message that grates on the ears of the Repug business constituency.

February 7, 2008 4:45 PM

fougasseu said:

Mitt Rmoney, like Al Checchi, now fades away, having learned you can't buy a public office like you buy a Burger King franchise.

February 7, 2008 10:18 PM

mmathog said:

It's as usual, 100% game theory folks (a discipline that I think Scheiber, like myself, studied in grad school.)

Romney is 'getting in line,' that's all.

If he stays in, a whole lot of kinda bad things could happen (piss people off, spend a lot of money, lose anyway.)

If he gets out now, McCain has an excellent chance of losing in November, so in 3 years, he can say 'hey GOP, you shoulda picked me, I'm the real conservative.' And as Noam suggests, he can work on his party/conservative bonafides until 2012.

February 8, 2008 12:17 PM

purcellneil said:

Romney had so many problems that we might overlook the core issue of religion.  His party is a religious party - it is the political wing of Evangelicalism - and there is no way he was going to be their candidate.  Even with his pledge to double-Gitmo and his pandering speech about how he embraces Jesus, he could not win the black-hearted base of the GOP.  

Neil

February 8, 2008 12:23 PM