Mitt goes Hillary on Huckabee

"Fading" Mitt Romney has gone Hillary on Mike Huckabee. One of the turning points of Hillary Clinton’s campaign was when she went personal on Barack Obama. She said that he wanted to be President since he was in kindergarten.

Well. Romney, after achieving Clintonian honesty, is now borrowing Clintonian negative tactics. Today, his campaign sent out a press release entitled "Huckabee’s Playground Diplomacy."

Hey Mitt, childish personal attacks didn’t work for Hillary when she was desperate. Probably not going to work for you when you are desperate.

Tags: ,

Twitter of the day: Romney delegates in LA

Twitter is an amusing tool. A lot of things become more public. Like this from Chris Johnston:

I was contacted today about being a delegate for Mitt Romney in the Louisiana Caucus

Tags: , ,

National Review endorses Romney

Yesterday, National Review endorsed Mitt Romney. This came as a surprise to no one, and it’s significance is unclear. It seems that the operative parts of the endorsement are:

Our guiding principle has always been to select the most conservative viable candidate. In our judgment, that candidate is Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts. Unlike some other candidates in the race, Romney is a full-spectrum conservative: a supporter of free-market economics and limited government, moral causes such as the right to life and the preservation of marriage, and a foreign policy based on the national interest. While he has not talked much about the importance of resisting ethnic balkanization — none of the major candidates has — he supports enforcing the immigration laws and opposes amnesty. Those are important steps in the right direction. …

Romney is an intelligent, articulate, and accomplished former businessman and governor. At a time when voters yearn for competence and have soured on Washington because too often the Bush administration has not demonstrated it, Romney offers proven executive skill. He has demonstrated it in everything he has done in his professional life, and his tightly organized, disciplined campaign is no exception. He himself has shown impressive focus and energy. …

More than the other primary candidates, Romney has President Bush’s virtues and avoids his flaws. His moral positions, and his instincts on taxes and foreign policy, are the same. But he is less inclined to federal activism, less tolerant of overspending, better able to defend conservative positions in debate, and more likely to demand performance from his subordinates. A winning combination, by our lights. In this most fluid and unpredictable Republican field, we vote for Mitt Romney.

They seem to be saying that Romney has checked all the boxes and checked them best. This point was made in a National Review piece last month that described Romney as:

Romney and Thompson, meanwhile, are fighting over who is the most conventional, paint-by-numbers conservative circa 1987. Creative domestic policy is off the table.

Ramesh and Lowry made the argument that the party by the old "circa 1987" model is broken. The issues of today and tomorrow are not the issues of 1987 and at least some people at NRO understand that.  What about todays issues? We have globalization, technology, and competition. Romney has good stories to tell on some of these. However, the most defining issue of today’s conservative movement and Republican Party may be national security. And as Ari Richter, the managing editor of the Concord Monitor, points out:

But it’s nonetheless striking that in the first contested Republican primary after 9/11 — and while we remain at war — NR’s editors decided foreign policy experience was not a prerequisite. (See, by contrast, the Union Leader.) Who would have guessed that NR’s endorsement would mention the word "Iraq" once (in the section on McCain!) and the words "Iran," "Islam" and "terrorist" (or variations thereof) not at all?

In other words, in a time that most conservatives think the war in Iraq and the broader War on Terror is the number one issue, National Review doesn’t discuss the issues and reverts to check boxes.

What does that tell us about the conservative movement?

Tags: , ,

Romney goes negative on Huckabee

The first negative TV ad of the cycle comes out with Mitt Romney attacking Mike Huckabee’s immigration position.  The commentariat and the Huckabee campaign have responded pretty sharply.

Jonathan Martin called it "Mitt desperation".

Chris Cilizza said:

First, it attempts to blur any differences between Romney and Huckabee on issues of importance to social conservative voters by noting that both men are pro-life and favor traditional marriage … Quickly segues into another issue of real import to conservatives — illegal immigration — and seeks to show how Romney fought benefits for illegals in Massachusetts while Huckabee backed proposals for in-state tuition and even scholarships for illegal immigrants in Arkansas. … Why is he doing it? The ad amounts to an acknowledgment by Romney that his once-wide lead in Iowa has evaporated. Being the first candidate to go negative is always a risky strategy, but it’s clear that the Romney campaign believes they have no choice in the matter.

Marc Ambinder:

It means their internal polls confirm what the public polls are saying. …
The decision to run this ad is not universally popular within Romney’s campaign, judging from some early e-mail traffic.

And the Huckabee campaign responds with the endorsement of an anti-immigrant hero:

Mike Huckabee, under fire for some of his immigration stands while governor of Arkansas, picked up an endorsement in Council Bluffs, Iowa, from the ultimate illegal immigration opponent: Jim Gilchrist, founder of the Minuteman Project, the group that has roamed the border for the last several years operating effectively as an independent border patrol.

Tags: , , ,

Fox News: Romney mailer “is not true”

Chris Wallace of Fox News Sunday called one of Mitt Romney’s mailers in New Hampshire "not true." Watch the video.

What is Romney’s strategy? Lie about everything through the primary? CNN caught him being dodgy yesterday. But the guy has the money to do it.

I don’t think that the Republican Party wants a guy who spends millions of his own money to spread lies about other Republicans. I just think that the party is more decent than that.

UPDATE: Quote of the day from Rudy Giuliani’s campaign:

"Mitt Romney’s already changed his own position on illegal immigration, so it should come as no surprise that he’s trying to change everybody else’s position as well."

Tags: , , ,

More thoughts on Romney’s speech

I was not too impressed with Mitt Romney’s speech at the time. I wanted to give the speech several days to settle before I weighed in. Several things seemed clear to me.

The first thing is that Romney had a clear "comma problem". Ron Fournier at the AP wrote about it like this:

Indeed, there was intense debate inside the campaign about whether to deliver a religion address. Romney was torn from the start, telling advisers that he had a "comma problem." Political journalists always follow his name by a comma, the words "a Mormon," and another comma, Romney said, according to two advisers involved in the conversations. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they’re not supposed to reveal private talks.

"If I give a speech about Mormonism," he complained privately, "I’ll never get beyond the comma problem."

Romney had to get beyond the discourse in the media about his religion. And it succeeded at this. Prior to the speech, the question was "will his religion matter" and after the speech it was "it shouldn’t matter". For example, the Des Moines Register and David Broder. It is not that Romney’s faith will stop being an issue to some voters. It is that people will stop writing about it. That is not just good for Romney, but it is good for America. Romney has done the country a service.

Second, Romney tried to rejigger the lines. David Brooks captures it nicely:

Romney’s job yesterday was to unite social conservatives behind him. If he succeeded, he did it in two ways. He asked people to rally around the best traditions of America’s civic religion. He also asked people to submerge their religious convictions for the sake of solidarity in a culture war without end.

In other words, the battle is between people without faith and people with faith, without regard to what that particular faith is. There is an argument that this has become part of the public stance of a large part of the GOP. Of course, there are internal contradictions on this. Romney’s comments about Muslims. The Southern Baptists’ public statements about Jews. Etc. But it is a coherent position with wide appeal to the American people for good reason. Broadly, the ridiculous assault on Romney by the media about whether atheists have a role in America is helpful

Third, as I have long asserted, there is a certain advantage to Romney to this discussion. Properly framed, there is no reason at all that the Mormonism issue should damage him too much. As Dick Morris explains in this interview with Bill O’Reilly, Romney may want to focus on this because it sucks the oxygen out of other issues. The more that Romney can talk about this broader conflict between the faithful and the secular or real people and the politically correct, the better his chances are. If the topic is his integrity or his flip-floppery (or as Morris calls it, his "flip-flop-flip on abortion") then Romney has a lot of problems. Romney’s task is probably to keep the focus on this, while opposing campaigns try to move the ball towards his integrity and character issues.

Fourth, and complimentary to this, the guy got a 30 minute infomercial and a lot of op-ed copy dedicated to him. It made it hard for people to evolve messages much last week. That clearly didn’t hurt Huckabee, and Rudy Giuliani is bottoming out of, at least, this cycle of bad stories.

All in all, it could have been a good idea. There is little evidence that it is actually moving voters. Anecdotes are not positive. Polling will take some time, and it will depend on a whole lot of confounding factors like other stories coming out.

I will point out that this is not the timing that they wanted. As Peggy Noonan points out, this probably wasn’t the timing that they wanted:

In May he decided to do it, but timing was everything. His campaign wanted to do it when he was on the ascendancy, not defensively but from a position of strength. In October they decided to do the speech around Thanksgiving. Mr. Romney gathered together all the material and began to work in earnest. Then they decided it would get lost in the holiday clutter. They decided to go after Thanksgiving, but before Dec. 15. The rise of Mike Huckabee, according to this telling, didn’t force this decision but complicated it.

If Romney is the nominee, the histories will be revised to say that this was a great moment of American politics. No doubt about that.

Tags: , ,

CNN setting a Romney narrative?

From yesterday.

Note the closing quote:

this is a narrative that is continuing with Mitt Romney that he says something publicly that might not match what he is doing privately or what he has done in the past

H/T: Jen Rubin. Marc Ambinder was also there.

Tags: , , ,

Romney’s speech

UPDATE: I’ve watched. The twitter traffic was positive for Romney. The comments that I have heard have not. Bill Bennett on CNN was pretty negative I thought.

I’ve read the excerpts of Mitt Romney’s speech. They seem pretty banal. If this is all it is, is it worth it?

Tags: ,

Huck rises, Rudy slides, Romney’s strategy breaks down

Well, this race is certainly in flux isn’t it? Two sets of polls

The first is Rasmussen’s daily trackers for a little over a week. The second is RCP’s averages for the national race from Wednesday, December 5th. RCP messed up the dates a little. Rasmussen should have been at the top, rather than the bottom. But something is clear. Giuliani is experiencing a steady drop. Huckabee is rising.

There are a lot of basic assumptions in this race that get thrown out at this point.

The first one is that Rudy can survive to Feb. 5th without solid victories in early primary states. The WSJ makes this argument:

If the trend continues and Giuliani looses his national lead, he would find it harder to raise funds. It would also greatly complicate — perhaps even doom — his unorthodox primary strategy.

Giuliani is betting he can survive losses in the early-voting states of Iowa, New Hampshire and Michigan, where polls show him trailing Mitt Romney and other candidates, and come back with a convincing win in Florida on Jan. 29.

Then if all goes as planned, he would put the nomination in the bag by winning a series of delegate-rich big states, including his native New York and neighboring New Jersey, in the “Tsunami Tuesday” round of primaries on Feb. 5.

 That would seem great for Mitt Romney, the Rudy Giuliani challenger. But not so much. I think that this dynamic of Rudy falling and Huckabee rising creates a very serious challenge for Romney. You see, his proposition has long been that conservatives should rally around him because he can defeat Rudy. But if Rudy is … falling … then that argument goes out the window. You see, here’s what Romney surrogate Jim Bopp had to say:

"Either a conservative is going to emerge" with the financial and organizational power to take on Giuliani, predicted Bopp, or "Giuliani is going to be the nominee."

Ummm. It seems that a conservative is emerging — Mike Huckabee — and that Rudy may well not be the nominee. I am not willing to shut the door on anyone yet, but if the Huckabee guys started making that argument ("We are up in Iowa and nationwide. What do you mean Rudy is going to win?") it would be very hard for the Romney guys to push back. You see, part 2 of Romney’s argument was:

Bopp’s rhetoric was aimed not just at Giuliani but also at former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee who has made up considerable ground on Romney in recent week here in the Hawkeye State. "I love Mike Huckabee," Bopp said, quickly adding: "Something I know for sure [is] he does not have the resources to compete." Boiled down, Bopp’s argument is simple: You might like Huckabee best but he can’t win. So, vote for the guy — Romney — you like second best.

Well. It seems like, on the day before the big Mormon speech, the Romney guys might need a new rationale for how they get conservatives.

And the Rudy guys, without being the frontrunner, may have a real problem on their hands.

Tags: , ,

Is Romney closing on Mormonism?

Let me get this straight. A candidate has a religion problem. He is giving a big speech on religious liberty. And his supporters are dropping a movie, Article VI: The Movie. They also sent out a media advisory, the text of which is after the jump. But the text is the interesting part: (excuse the erratic formatting. It was in the text of the release)

Filmmaker Bryan Hall of Living Biography Media along with co-producer and former Assistant White House Press Secretary Reed Dickens will announce the release of the feature length documentary entitled, Article VI. The film is an intense discussion of the role of faith in politics intended to examine the national scrutiny of a candidate’s religion in the 2008 election

The filmmakers and representatives will hold a conference call with bloggers to discuss the film and its potential impact on voters in key primary states.  The film will be accompanied by an aggressive grassroots marketing campaign.    

So supporters of Romney intend to highlight his religion in the last several weeks of the campaign? When he has to win Iowa and South Carolina, two states whose nominating contests are dominated by evangelicals? In essence, going into Christmas, evangelicals are going to be presented with a large-scale discussion of Romney’s religion. How can that be good?

Advisory after the break Read More »

Tags: ,