Romney's Master Plan

This opinion piece from David Broder sums up nicely some of the great challenges that Governor Romney will face as the endless election drags on. It introduces nothing new, but is a nice summary of Romney's larger challenges nonetheless. It specifically mentions his flip-flopping and charges that he will say or do anything to win. I am curious to see how Romney's campaign will respond once the attack ads run regarding his flip-flopping because I have no idea how or if such ads will be countered.

The Mud Is Beginning To Fly

So the mud is beginning to fly... and it makes me think that when it gets bad, it's going to get pretty bad. First up, the State is reporting that Mitt Romney is getting attacked via anonymous mailings in South Carolina:

Anonymous mailings critical of GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney, on the eve of what has become an all-important Spartanburg straw poll, have raised the specter of a long, nasty battle between now and the 2008 S.C. Republican primary.

One of the pieces was sent via U.S. mail Monday to several Spartanburg County Republicans. The letter, a copy of which was obtained by The State, is a six-page attack on Romney’s record on abortion, gun control, taxes and “conservative values.”

It is postmarked Columbia and headlined “Mitt Romney: Say anything to get elected.”

A second piece was sent via electronic mail from the address “upstaterepublican@gmail.com.” It said it was from “Martin W.” and attacked Romney’s faith.

The e-mail is headlined: “Mitt Romney has a family secret he doesn’t want you to know.”

It says: “Those dark suspicions you hide deep inside yourself about Mormonism are trying to tell you something. Trust your instincts! æ.æ.æ. The light of truth will burn through the smoke and mirrors of Mitt Romney’s movie star looks and crafty words!”

The e-mail includes a copy of a recent Associated Press story about how Romney’s ancestors practiced polygamy.

Next, an erroneous comment that Romney made about Giuliani is getting play too. In his interview with David Brody yesterday, Romney said Giuliani was "pro-gay marriage" (which he is not) prompting various news outlets to report that Romney was "smearing" Giuliani. A source "close to the Giuliani campaign" responded to the allegation by saying "It is sad, but unfortunately not surprising, that Mitt Romney's flailing campaign has chosen to misrepresent Rudy's positions. He can't keep his own positions straight let alone Rudy's."

Is it just me, or does it seem like the dam is starting to break on a vicious campaign cycle?

Smitten with Mitt

This article is nearly two weeks old, but I just found it for the first time and thought that it was well written and fair. Over at the Politico, Terry Michael, executive director of the Washington Center for Politics & Journalism, writes:

If all that reads like cheap armchair psychoanalysis of the candidates and the voters, go to Mitt TV and see what I mean. I scared myself. I believe the Iraq war is a nearly criminal enterprise. I’m a social-cultural leftie who wants the government out of my bedroom and away from my body. But I was nearly mesmerized by a guy whose religion I consider akin to a cult, whose Iraq war support angers me and whose posturing against gays I find obnoxious.

So, I find it kind of appalling that I find him appealing.

Michael is apparently conflicted about Mitt. He dislikes his substance, but loves his style. Still, Michael points to probably Mitt’s biggest problem right now, (the label of flip-flopper and comparisons to John Kerry) and how easily he was won over once he saw Mitt:

Kerry’s problem in 2004 was not flip-flopping, not that he had changed his mind. Rather, he came off as a candidate whose mind often held two simultaneously competing views: for and against the war in Vietnam, for and against the war in Iraq.

Observe how Romney looks straight into the camera and almost laughs off his switch from gay rights in his failed Senate campaign to anti-gay marriage in his presidential bid. Just got 13 years older, more gray hair and wiser, he deadpans.

Cynics in the media and politics are generally quick to label and slow to observe change. Thus, the label of “flip-flopper” has been tough to shed as Mitt is almost exclusively defined by the media and political insiders at this point in the campaign. Yet, for first time observers like Michael and those less cynical, Mitt is anything but insincere in his change when observed in person. People are won over as he explains his views. Admittedly, Mitt has a long way to go before anyone but media and political types are following his campaign, but once there, there is little doubt that people will have a similar reaction to Michael’s. The question is whether he will be able to hold out that long to get the chance for people to see him for the first time.

Romney News Tidbits

A few interesting things I've run across:

• Romney's favorite movie is Raiders Of The Lost Ark (CNN)

• Romney is the "PowerPoint president." (US News & World Report)

• Romney raised almost $300,000 on one day last week... in Southern Utah (SL Trib)

• Romney is attacking McCain as a mudslinger to conservative pundits (CBN)

• "[P]eople don't know who the hell [Romney] is yet.” (SL Trib)
  

• Romney raced his sons around a track in January and finished last (AP - 1/2 down page)

• AP reports on Romney's efforts to "overcome inconsistencies" going on to say "As previous White House hopefuls have learned, once a candidate is perceived to have a pattern of inconsistency, labels like flip-flopper and waffler are extremely difficult to shake." (AP)

• Virginia U.S. Senator John Warner has endorsed John McCain (Richmond Times)
  

The CEO Candidate

Slate’s Daniel Gross has an article where he links Romney’s business background to his current political trouble:

It's easy to conclude that Romney lacks core principles and will say or do anything to get elected. But I think there's something deeper at work. Romney's behavior—and the fact that he doesn't think his obvious flip-flopping should arouse suspicions—suggests that he may be the first real CEO/MBA candidate.

I applaud Gross for his great intellectual insight and courage to look beyond the easy answer to find the deeper issue. Gross continues by saying that Romney’s “flip-flops” are blasé in the board room:

But such hypocrisy, which turns off voters, is something like a job requirement for CEOs. In the executive suite, abandoning deeply held attitudes and reversing positions are job requirements.

Gross shows more about his own attitudes about corporate America than he does in proving his thesis about Romney. Indeed he speculates as to future occurrences and attributes positions to Romney:

His wife, Anne, has multiple sclerosis, yet he's opposed to embryonic stem-cell research. If an MS treatment derived from embryonic stem cells were to be developed overseas, it's a pretty sure bet that Romney would use his influence and funds to get that treatment for his spouse.

He then characterizes this hypothetical situation as some sort of hypocrisy for which Romney can be condemned in the present, as though it has already happened.

Gross is clearly advocating for an ideologue: someone who has had his same positions for his whole life. And yet at the same time wants someone to follow public opinion. He criticizes Romney for moving right when he says the public is moving left. This conflict shows the true colors of Gross’s intent. Indeed it seems that Gross just disagrees with Romney's positions. He disagrees with Romney's stance on gay rights, abortion, and stem-cell research. All of which has little to do with Romney's previous executive experience, but provides an easy link for to two targets he apparently disdains: corporate America and conservatism.

The fact is that Romney is not an ideologue. Romney understands the importance of nuance and complexity. Romney understands that while his healthcare plan in Massachusetts works for that state it may not work nationwide, that respecting gay people does not translate to recognizing gay marriage, and that there are other ways to accomplish stem cell research that doesn’t devalue the sanctity of life. These are thoughtful positions on difficult issues. Indeed Gross does get this, without recognizing its significance:

It is clear that Romney approaches politics not as a crusade.

Isn’t this the type of leadership that America is looking for?