Romney and Cain: It’s Complicated

In 2008, Mitt Romney received a glowing endorsement from a popular talk-radio host.

“Mitt Romney’s leadership credentials offer the best hope of a leader with substance, and the best hope for a good president who could turn out to be great,” the talk-show host noted in an opinion column, pointing to Romney’s business background, Olympic leadership experience, and life largely spent outside politics.

According to the RealClearPolitics average of polls, Cain and Romney currently lead the GOP field. In Facebook lingo, the two frontrunners have a “complicated” relationship. Beyond a doubt, Romney and Cain have the most extensive business experience of all the GOP candidates. They also both first ran for Senate and lost, although Romney won the GOP nomination. Romney has occasionally thrown a friendly word toward Cain; Cain, in turn, has more vigorously attacked Rick Perry (including announcing last week that he would not consider being the vice-presidential candidate on a Perry ticket) than he has Romney. Underlying their dynamic is a shared interest in seeing Perry lose support: Cain is directly competing with Perry for the not-Romney candidacy in the primary. From Romney’s perspective, Cain can reduce Perry’s support — and if Cain emerges as the main alternative to him, all the better.

Asked for public comment, neither campaign is effusive. “Governor Romney respects Mr. Cain and thinks real-world economic experience is an essential attribute,” says Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul. A Cain aide is even more succinct, saying simply, “They get along well.”

Romney’s friendliness toward Cain has been particularly apparent in the debates. “Herman Cain and I are the two on the stage here who’ve actually worked in the real economy,” Romney argued during the August debate held in Ames, Iowa. “If people want to send to Washington someone who spent their entire career in government, they can choose a lot of folks. But if they want to choose somebody who understands how the private sector works, they’re going to have to choose one of us, because we’ve been in it during our career.”

In the September debate held in Tampa, Fla., Romney was quick to showcase his agreements with Cain on health care. “Herman Cain is right,” Romney said, answering a question about health care immediately after Cain had, “and let’s get back to getting the cost of health care down. I happen to think that’s an enormous issue. And I agree with almost everything you said, Herman, but the reason health care is so expensive, I think you hit the nail on head. You said it’s not just because of insurance, it’s because of the cost of providing care.” Discussing Obamacare in the debate held later last month in Orlando, Romney once again highlighted Cain in his response. “What you heard from Herman Cain is one absolutely key point, which is Obamacare intends to put someone between you and your physician. It must be repealed,” Romney said.

Cain, for his part, mentioned Romney first when talking about which fellow candidate he would most likely pick as vice president if he were the nominee. “If Governor Romney would throw out his jobs-growth plan and replace it with ‘9-9-9,’ he has a shot,” Cain said before going on to speculate about Newt Gingrich as another possibility.

But if Romney has largely held his fire so far, Cain has not been similarly reluctant. He has said that Romney’s business background is “Wall Street,” while his is “Main Street.” Asked by Jay Leno on the Tonight Show what he thought of Romney, Cain said, “Good hair.” In June, Cain told the Washington Times that Romney was hurt this cycle by having “an ankle bracelet on called Romneycare.” Noting that he had endorsed Romney in 2008 (“I like Mitt”), Cain pointed out that Romney hadn’t won the nomination and added, “I don’t think that he is going to be any stronger this time around, [against] Barack Obama, even though Barack Obama has a terrible record.”

His hesitation about Romney is nothing new. It’s true that Cain endorsed Romney in a glowing column in 2008. But that may have had more to do with what he thought of John McCain than what he thought of Romney. Cain disliked McCain’s record on taxes and immigration, among other issues.

Even more significant is how few mentions Romney earned in Cain’s weekly column during the election cycle. In a December 2006 column, Cain dismissed the GOP field as “as inspiring as Saturday’s leftovers for Monday’s lunch,” and, noting Romney, pointedly asked, “Where does he stand on the issues today?” In March 2007 column entitled, “Presidential Baggage Check,” Cain wrote, “Mitt Romney is a flip-flopper on the social issues; he’s Mormon; and his hair is too perfectly groomed.” Cain tackled Romney’s Mormonism in greater depth in a confusing October 2007 column titled, “Mitt Romney Is a Mormon and I Am a Baptist: Get Over It!” In the piece, Cain argued that Mormons shared religious beliefs with other Christians, including Baptists, Methodists, and Catholics. But he ultimately made the case not for accepting a Mormon candidate per se (“This is not an endorsement of Mitt Romney, nor is this intended to defend or explain the Mormon religion. It is a reminder that Christianity has several denominations with different practices.”), but for preferring a candidate who clearly had religious beliefs. “Since the First Amendment to the Constitution protects us from a president imposing his religious preference on the rest of us, I would rather have a president with some religion than one whose religion is suspect,” Cain wrote.

The final mention of Romney in the Cain columns from the previous election cycle is in a February 2008 column, in which Cain briefly notes that Romney “has gracefully ended Act One of the drama in the Republican presidential primary by suspending his campaign.” Over the course of that campaign, Romney got exactly five mentions by Cain, including the endorsement column — hardly the sign of an enthusiastic supporter. Significantly, Cain only endorsed Romney on February 4, 2008. Just days later, Romney officially ended his campaign.

So far, Romney has handled Cain’s sudden meteoric rise in the polls by continuing his friendly attitude. Asked on Fox and Friends last week what vulnerabilities Cain had, Romney refused to go that route, saying “Herman Cain’s a good man and I respect him. I’m not going to look at his vulnerabilities.”

But as the intensely negative back-and-forth between Romney and Perry in recent weeks has shown, Romney’s not afraid to attack when he feels threatened by another candidate. For Cain, the best sign that he’s a viable contender for the GOP nomination may not be a surge in the polls, but criticism from Romney.

I honestly wish equivalent effort would be spent showing the virtues of one's candidate rather than attacking another candidate. At the end of the day, all FReepers are on the same side in terms of what they want for the US - that they want the country to be strong and free. The differences are how, and who, will be leading that, but the important thing is that the final man/woman standing is someone who can lead the country. Whether it is Perry, Cain, or someone else. I wish all people would concentrate on the virtues and policies of their preferred candidate.

To this regard, posting a photograph of Cain shaking Romney's hand is a weak debate strategy. One could easily find one of Perry shaking Romney's hand. For instance, the two below:

Will Perry be the GOP candidate? It is VERY possible, and in a contest between Romney and Perry Perry actually is much preferrable. However, dear C's Wife, please note that many FReepers find Cain and his policies very attractive, and find the man more preferable (as a Conservative) compared to the other candidates running. Not all FReepers, maybe not even most, but based on posts and threads Cain has strong support among FReepers (and among Tea Party adherents). Respect them. Rather than threads about him supporting Romney from a couple of years back (replete with a picture of Romney shaking Cain's hand - which, as shown above, can easily be matched by Romney shaking Perry's hand), or comments about the 2nd amendment (that Cain perfectly explain, but that is not brought up when some people post) ...why not have threads of Perry's policies, strategies, strengths?

I am not attacking you (or Perry, as some other pro-Perry person was claiming stating I was giving him/her 'very much attention' when I had only posted once to them ....as I stated then, very low hurdle for 'attention') ....I am not attacking Perry. Or supporting Cain. I cannot even vote for either even if I wanted!!!! I am trying to inject logic.

Think of it this way ...what if the race ends up being between Romney and Perry (which is quite possible, especially if Cain gets knocked out by, say, propaganda attacks from the Left). Thus, let's assume it is between Romney and Perry. How do you think all those FReepers/Tea Partiers who were in strong support of Cain will feel, especially when they perceive (AS IS CURRENTLY HAPPENING ON FR) that pro-Perry people have been attacking Cain? Sure, someone (pro-Perry) last week said that between Romney and Perry they feel true Conservatives will support Perry over Romney, but are you sure about that? What if they decide to hold their nose ...and still NOT vote? That could easily give Romney the win, and that means a choice between Obama or a RINO.

If I was supporting Perry (for example), this is how I would do it. I would focus on Perry's attributes. His strengths. His leadership qualities. His track record. His ability to garner and gather resources. His ability to execute campaign promises into reality, and to do so in a way that is effective and efficient. I would focus on how his policies would make for a stronger United States of America. I would then also focus on how those policies are better than the policies of the other candidates (note: not saying how people supporting another candidate are 'acting like lovestruck teenage girls' like another pro-Perry supporter was saying, but rather on how his POLICIES are better than those of other candidates). Not attacking people who have support from fellow conservatives, but rather the policies. Why? Because that way, if their preferred candidate loses, they can support your preferred candidate. Trust me - no one will support someone whose supporters were calling them giggling blushing teens.

I hope you see my point.

At this stage it is about ideas and policies - the character attacks will come when it is Obama vs the GOP candidate. Right now circular firing squads is nigh-suicidal.

Another way of seeing this point - look at any of the threads that have been done about Cain by any of the pro-Perry FReepers (apart from those by Shield, who has taken the approach I am advocating above of focusing on policies and ideas rather than Cain shaking Romney's hand). Look at any of those threads, and honestly ask yourself how many allies you have made for yourself there (i.e. how many people you have convinced to take a more favorable look at Perry, or a more critical look at Cain). Going through them all I see is a couple of pro-Perry FReepers saying 'yes,' and a lot of pro-Cain (and increasingly a new breed that is becoming anti-Perry) saying 'no.' It is not working, and the risk is that people get fed up so much that the 'anti-Perry' camp (as opposed to a pro-Cain or pro-Bachman or pro-XXXX) becomes big.

Look at what happened to Duncan Hunter on FR ....at one point he looked very interesting, then a certain section started pushing him down FReepers throats. Then what happened? People have a visceral reaction to certain things.

Anyways, enough of this post. I really hope you see what I am trying to say. I am not attacking Perry. I am raising an issue with some of the approaches being used by a section of his supporters. I am also saying that maybe the best thing to do at this stage would be to concentrate of a war of policies and ideas rather than personality attacks. Because, if this continues, you will end up with a situation whereby a certain section of the Tea Party camp will be anti-Perry, and if it comes to Romney vs Perry for the nomination then you will have a section that is really against Romney staying home because they also cannot bring themselves to vote for Perry. Result - Romney wins. Put ego aside and see if what I am saying is making sense. Otherwise, go ahead and continue with the usual spate of threads. Just ask yourself how come on those thread there is a significant overhang of people who are disagreeing with you (to an extent becoming anti-Perry) as compared to those agreeing with you? Hmmm ...maybe a strategy of comparing policies may work better than one of issues that are not policy driven or half-truths (like on another thread today where someone said Cain's only experience is delivering pizzas ...patently not true, and not just that but casts the competing candidate's supporters in a bad - and childish - light, and risks alienating voters that may make a big difference in the future).

Or hey ....maybe I am giving you 'too much attention.' Anyways, looking at your threads - is your approach working? Is it possible that an approach focused on issues and policies and winning people over may work better? Again, I am not attacking you or Perry (I believe in Proverbs 13:10 about quarrels and pride ...not interested in any of that at this stage), all I am questioning is this strategy. How many FReepers has it won versus the many it may have pushed away?

This is the last post I will make to you on this issue (and just in case anyone is counting this is the 4th, and for the other FReeper I was paying 'too much attention' too the count to that one is still 2 - not even copied on this one). I may be making no sense to you, but again I ask - how is your approach working for you based on reaction to the threads? Might it work better focusing on policies and strategies as opposed to what some are doing calling other candidates' supporters high school names? What if at the end only two are left (say Romney and Perry), and there is such a bad taste in some peoples' mouths that some, who may have otherwise have voted for Perry, decide to stay home giving Romney a win? Can all those FReepers saying pro-Perry supporters are attacking other (particularly pro-Cain supporters) all be wrong? Also, even if they are wrong, is there a better way to handle it? How does posting a picture of Cain shaking Romney's hand help things out (Shield's picture of Perry shooting at a range are a thousand times better and project a certain image that is quite positive - however, to most pro-Cain supporters, a picture of Cain shaking Romney's hand simply comes across as an attack that just increases the level of bile).

Anyways, I hope you see whatever wisdom there is in this. Or maybe there is none, which is quite possible, and that also makes all those people complaining against some tactics by some specific pro-Perry supporters delusional people who don't know what they are saying. However, those 'delusional people seeing insults that don't exist' from pro-Perry supporters still vote, and their votes count, and their votes may be needed by Perry himself.

Alienate them at your peril.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.