Is Romney The Next Dukakis?

We realize that we are not supposed to say anything remotely negative about the heir to the GOP throne.

But come on.

Mitt Romney seems to think that his job is to talk about how wonderful he is as a manager and human being. Since the economy is in the dumps and his opponent appears inexperienced and feckless, Romney believes that by doing this somehow the election will be handed to him, like an entitlement. Unfortunately, this strategy sounds a lot like the strategy used by another former Massachusetts governor in 1988, Michael Dukakis. And we all know how that turned out.

Today, William Kristol, echoing points we’ve made on this blog multiple times in the past, once again brought this issue into focus:

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.”
The Romney campaign will answer that they’re imitating Bill Clinton in 1992, who famously focused on “the economy, stupid.” But Bill Clinton was a full spectrum presidential candidate, with detailed policy proposals on welfare reform, health care, education, and foreign policy. He also made real efforts to convince the voters he was different from the losing Democratic candidates who preceded him (“a new kind of Democrat,” “ending welfare as we know it,” a hawkish-sounding foreign policy, Sister Souljah, etc.). So far, the Romney campaign doesn’t resemble the Clinton campaign. It seems to be following more comfortably in the tradition of the five post-Cold War Republican presidential candidates who preceded Romney. They received 37.5 percent, 40.7 percent, 47.9 percent, 50.7 percent, and 45.7 percent of the vote, respectively. The average GOP presidential vote in these last five elections was 44.5 percent. In the last three, it was 48.1 percent. Give Romney an extra point for voter disillusionment with Obama, and a half-point for being better financed than his predecessors. It still strikes me as a path to (narrow) defeat.
By the way, Romney made his comment about speaking about the economy on July 4th—a date that might suggest there’s more to the American experiment than the economy.

Indeed. And there is a lot more to the American experiment than just family and the American flag as well.

All Romney wants to talk about is the economy. And indeed, a poor economy bodes well for his chances. Yet, the whole idea that success at the ballot box will come from harping on the economy is overblown. Most of this idea comes from the 1992 election, when the Clinton campaign had as its mantra, “It’s the economy, stupid!” However, a look at some basic facts belies the idea that the 1992 election was just about the economy.

In 1992, George H. W. Bush was famously perplexed by how to handle “this vision thing”. The problem was that he lacked a vision for where he wanted America to go in the next four years, so all he could do was run on his record (which included a tax hike that he had vowed he would never make). In 1988, this wasn’t a problem, as he was running as a continuation of the Reagan administration, and Reagan was all about vision. However, in 1992, he could no longer use Reagan as a campaign prop.

It is true that James Carville made the mantra “It’s the economy, stupid!” the centerpiece of the Clinton campaign. However, Clinton offered a vision for where he wanted the country to go in the next four years, and Bush did not. This, and the fact that Clinton offered up some sort of plan regarding the economy, while Bush held (correctly) that the downturn was just a part of the business cycle and would thus heal itself, sealed the deal and won the election for Clinton in 1992.

It really is time to dispense with the phrase “It’s the …, stupid!” First, Carville directed this phrase not to the public or even the campaign, but to Clinton himself. Clinton was the one being called “stupid”. Second, Clinton had so many ideas and so much vision that he needed a knock on the head so that he could be kept focused. This situation does not exist with the Romney campaign. And people who want Romney to talk about where he wants to take the US in the next four years and who want him to start acting like a candidate instead of an heir are not at all being stupid.

They just don’t want another four years of Obama.

Enhanced by Zemanta
This entry was posted in politics and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Is Romney The Next Dukakis?

  1. jlue says:

    You are right, people know America cannot take another four years of Obama and Mitt Romney is the only choice we have, so – VOTE FOR ROMNEY!! Romney isn’t dumb. He may not be a good candidate, but may make an excellent president. He has already withstood a great deal and frankly I admire the fact that he is a person rather than a candidate.

  2. I do agree with William Kristol, that the Romney campaign needs to step it up and become more proactive and aggressive if they want to win in November, but that is as far as I go in agreeing with or liking Mr. Kristol.

    Kristol is a self serving Neo Con, the group I hold most responsible for “losing” America to the the Leftists, along with the “false prophets” of the so called “Religious Right”. In fact a detailed look into Kristol’s history, and the backgrounds of Eric Kohen, Robert Kagan, Lawrence Kaplan et al will show that they are all disillusioned leftists that became NEO conservatives after the political Left began its move towards supporting the palestinians. Add in William Bennett, Gary Bauer, Dick Cheney, Dan Quayle, Elliot Abrams, Jeb Bush, Richard Perle, Forbes, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz et al and you have the cast of “The Project for a New American Century” , Kristol’s “think tank” founded in 1997. While neo-cons are often branded by the Left as Right wing conservatives I find this laughable. Neo Cons are not “Conservative” at all. They are just the flip side of Obama, elitist, Harvard (or similar) “educated” RINO “liberal” men and women who equate conservatism with Corporate Capitalism (preferably with an international flavor), militarism, US hegemony , “multilateralism”, support for Israel, etc. They are not believers in either the US Constitution or the principles The Founders believed in. These Neo-Cons are quite simply out for themselves and would just as quickly and gladly all “jump ship” again and declare themselves French, or Chinese, Socialist, or Communist as long as they (the Neo Cons) got to run the show and call the shots. They are the reason we we are losing the “battle” with the “Left”. We need real conservatives, not RINO’s, Neo-Cons, or Theocrats like Gary Bauer. All these self styled leaders feel themselves better educated, more intelligent, superior to, and for some more “holy” or God fearing than the rest of us. They’re all self serving hacks.

    Romney will lose the election if the Conservative Christians don’t vote for him because he is a Mormon. That’s the voting block that will determine the Election for the Republicans. Stating too many “policies” will only leave Romney open to attack from the Left. The Neo Cons want him to state policies because he scares them, just as Reagan did, because they can’t control him. What will a Romney presidency bring? I don’t know, but I do know what an Obama presidency has brought and I don’t like it one bit. 4 more years of going down the road to perdition under Obama and we may lose this great nation completely to the dark side.

    I am a Conservative (old school) white, middle aged Christian male. I am not a Mormon. I am not a Papist. I am not a Fundamentalist. I am not a Ron Paul supporter nor am I an “Internationalist”. What I believe is that Capitalism without Christian Ethics and Morals is only another form of Statism and will lead to tyranny just as easily as Communism. I bow to no worldly man and I am not beholden to any mortal man’s interpretation of Scripture. I am simply a man who will stand before God and let Him judge me every day. I will support Mitt Romney.

    • Don E. Chute says:

      SwaptionsNG (@SwaptionsNG) Good Lord…what pearls of wisdom…you are, like it or not right on! Romney doe’s need to step it up, but to what end? Obamanation supporters minds are made up…Romney supporters minds are made up…Independent voters are just friggin’ clueless and many are not ‘likely voters’ anyway…BTW did you ever think of running for Congress?

      As for the post “Is Romney The Next Dukakis?” TOM Blog…I pray to God No…If he is we are truly headed into darkness!

      PLU from SSF

  3. Pingback: The Benghazi Campaign Ad That Never Ran | The Tree of Mamre

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s