eyeon08.com

Update: A reader points out the date of this: Feb. 28, 2005. This is after Romney’s supposed conversion. Romney now says that he was pro-life when he gave this interview. Does this sound pro-life:

I’m personally pro-life but I won’t change the laws, you could describe that as - well I don’t think you can describe it in one hyphenated word.

Mitt Romney claims to defy description. I’m believing that.

After an overnight flight to Brussels, where I will be until Sunday, I sat down to read the DC news. And one of the first things that pops up is this review of Mitt Romney by Ruth Marcus:

I reprint so much of Romney’s answer (you can read or listen to the full exchange online) because its baroque circumlocutions seemed to say so much about him. It was hard to know what Romney actually thought about abortion rights other than that this was a political minefield it was best to avoid stepping into for as long as possible.

But it was also hard to see how a man with deeply held convictions on abortion rights — either for or against — could take a position so calibrated and inconclusive. Listening to Romney that day was like watching a chameleon in the fleeting moment that its color changes to suit its environment. Indeed, several months later, after vetoing a bill to expand access to emergency contraception, Romney wrote in the Boston Globe about how his views on the subject had "evolved and deepened."

I am struck by the language of this. The media respects and perhaps even fears (feared?) George Bush. Remember all the stories, now seemingly false, about the White House run with military style?

The media doesn’t respect Mitt Romney. They think he is phony. They think he is lying. In the end, you can defeat a media that opposes you. But can you lose a media that dismisses you as merely a fraud?

Tags: Media, Romney

In the last couple of days, Mitt Romney has been savaged — SAVAGED — by the Boston Herald, Boston’s conservative newspaper.

Some examples:

• This morning, Casey Ross writes about all the MA Republicans who are supporting other candidates.
• This morning, the editorial board wrote a scathing attack that ended with, "But he won’t get too far by treating voters as if they’re stupid."
• This morning, one of their columnists attacks his dad’s car and the underlying metaphor for his candidacy. The title, "Anyone Behind the Wheel, Mitt?"
• Yesterday, one of their columnists — who happed to be chief of staff to Bill Weld and Paul Cellucci — dumped on him for his fiscal record:
  • "we have seen what happens when a Republican governor refuses to take a no-new-taxes pledge, and then, not surprisingly, raises taxes"
  • "a fiscal phony"
  • To New Hampshire she says, "Democrat John Lynch scored better (receiving a B) on the annual fiscal report card issued by the libertarian Cato Institute than Romney (who got a C). The 2006 Cato report described Romney’s message that he was a governor who stood by a no-new-taxes pledge as “mostly a myth.”
  • "Romney raised corporate taxes by an estimated $210 million and only backed down under pressure from pushing for even higher taxes on business."

If Massachusetts Republicans and conservatives continue to go after Romney for his record, he’s in deep, deep trouble.

Tags: Media, Romney

Update: Whoever’s mistake it was, it has been pulled.

Mitt Romney’s attack on Brian Camenker has been criticized in a number of places (I did it here). However, National Journal’s Danny Glover has what might be the beginning of the explanation: Carl Forti doesn’t get the new media:

Yes, that’s right, the same Mitt Romney who earned endless kudos this week for being so smart about new media has hired as deputy campaign manager and political director the same man (Forti) who has been dismissive of blogs. While working as communications director at the National Republican Congressional Committee, Forti pretty much ignored blogs and made it clear why: "A lot of times, you just don’t know how reliable the information on these things is. … Ninety percent of the time, we know more than they do."

Forti’s problem is that they have to find a way to respond. But do you respond to a whisper and blog campaign with a press release? Whatever you do attracts attention to it, validating it. For the campaign to go to these lengths, it appears that  "The Mitt Romney Deception" must really be making a difference.

In addition, however, Forti acted on a bad habit of his. He didn’t attack the substance of the attacks on Romney. Instead, he attacked the messenger. He did the same thing last year when Charlie Cook and Stu Rothenberg made ultimately correct predictions of the 2006 elections. Rothenberg details just how wrong and petty Forti’s response was:

Forti knows that control of the House is in jeopardy just as well as I do. He has the polling right in front of him. If I’m wrong in my general portrayal of the cycle or in my handicapping of individual contests, I’d certainly like to know about it. … and bashing the messenger is a petty way to deny the facts.

Glover continues his analysis with:

But if not, there may be some serious clashes between Romney’s online team and Forti, who, according to Hotline, will oversee the campaign’s politics and field desks.

Several people have pointed out to me that this mistake would combine two of Forti’s weaknesses. Matt Lewis describes plenty of ways that this could have been done much more gracefully .. by someone else:

If Camenker is so irrelevant, then why is Romney trying to take him down? Why not let someone else take down Camenker (heck, the AP is already doing the dirty work by calling him a gadfly)? Get a surrogate, for crying out loud, Gov. Romney, but don’t dirty your hands on this man …

A number of strongly Romney-friendly blogs could have done this. Or a conservative activist could have gone on Fox to disagree. But no. They use a press release.

I have heard that there are already some recriminations over this. And justifiably. Matt Lewis was told by someone from an opposing camp:

As a source close to one of Romney’s potential rivals told me, "This is the dumbest stunt by a tier one presidential candidate since George Romney claimed he had been brainwashed by the generals and diplomats."

As a side note, this comparison is vicious. There’s plenty of evidence that Romney’s unwillingness to deal with the press is grounded in his father’s implosion. Romney understands deeply what Conrad Burns said about himself:

"I can self-destruct in one sentence," he told supporters. "Sometimes in one word."

This really is poking Romney where it almost certainly hurts.

Tags: Media, Romney