Romney Needs a New CEO (WSJ-Noonan)

WSJ ^ | September 21, 2012 | Peggy Noonan

[pieceofthepuzzle]

...There were wistful notes from the Republicans who'd helped run previous campaigns, most of whom could be characterized as serious, moderate conservatives, all of whom want to see Mr. Romney win because they believe, honestly, that the president has harmed the country financially and in terms of its position in the world. They're certain it will only get worse in the next four years, but they're in despair at the Romney campaign. Some, unbidden, brought up the name James A. Baker III, who ran Ronald Reagan's campaign in 1984 (megalandslide—those were the days) and George H.W. Bush's in 1988 (landslide.)

What they talked about, without using this phrase, is the Baker Way.

[Jim Noble]

That's a terrific analysis (wish I had written it).

You're leaving one thing out, though, maybe because it's just speculation.

Romney said, during the primaries, "I'm not going to set my hair on fire (to appeal to conservatives)". I believe that Romney, and the Romney faction in the GOP, fear a conservative ascendancy and a sweeping conservative victory more than they fear Obama. Romney's faction never amounted to more than about 35%, but under rules that allowed a plurality "winner" (stupid, stupid, STUPID), they were strong enough to prevail.

This is partly a class problem. Mitt and his crew are just not comfortable with the NASCAR demographic. But I think it also reflects that they are in fundamental agreement with the post-1965 compromises, but believe that they are being badly implemented or that they "go too far".

We believe (I believe) that the post-1965 social and political Grand Compromise contains the seeds of its own destruction, that it CANNOT be properly implemented because it is improper to start with, that it was inevitable that it would "go too far" because that was the intent of its designers.

The problem we have (the reason I believe that Sarah could not have won) is that the People are not ready to fold the tent on the post-1965 arrangements. Politicians, at all levels except a few specific Congressional districts, must lie to the People in order to win elections.

This means that the Democrat, who can lie openly and unashamedly, will usually have an advantage over a Republican who often will be in coverup mode, with an opponent and baying media trying to "out" him as to his true beliefs and true agenda.

I voted for Gingrich, and I would have been much, MUCH happier watching him campaign against Obama. But I acknowledge that, until things get much worse, that overturning the Great Society by a direct appeal to the voters is not possible, and that, therefore, much worse is how things are going to get.

[MrDem]

The reality is that despite incredibly biased news coverage Romney is well-positioned, and the democrats are scared.

Dead on! The Marxist and his wicked cohorts were very cocky and self assured that they could kill off Romney early, and when that didn't happen and the real polls show him even or leading in the swing states, they are scared. And this is before Romney has even started firing the heavy guns. Team Empty Chair fired their best shots multiple times and the shots bounced off the side without much damage.

[LibLieSlayer]

Reagan fired the b!tch... there was a reason. Now we too know what it was.

LLS

[Alberta's Child]

Like him or not, one thing that weighs heavily in Romney's favor is that -- despite his political background -- he is not a politician. He's an effective, capable executive (maybe the most capable person to run for that office in U.S. history) who approaches everything he does with a clear objective in mind and then goes about trying to get it done.

Remember this, folks -- he is not a politician. He's not pursuing a political ideology and he's not running for this position on a lark. The stated objective is to mount a winning presidential campaign, and based on what I know about how these CEO-types operate, I can assure you that everyone in his organization is working to meet that objective. Any bloviating you hear from "conservative" talking heads -- none of whom have any idea what it takes to be an effective, competent leader -- is just background noise.

[FreedomPoster]

Peggy has been inside the Beltway far, far too long. She has lost all perspective on the country.

[Alberta's Child]

I voted for Gingrich, and I would have been much, MUCH happier watching him campaign against Obama.

I will not criticize anyone here on FreeRepublic for their support of any particular candidate in the Republican primaries, but Newt Gingrich would have been a complete disaster for the GOP. For one thing, he hadn't even been a face on the American political scene for more than a decade before he crawled out from under a rock somewhere and announced that he was running for President in 2012. And it's not as if he had spent 10+ years off on his own running a business or doing something else productive with his time, either. He was a Beltway lobbyist for all those years -- which meant that he was part of the problem in Washington.

One of the best quotes I ever heard during the 2012 political campaign season was from a producer on Don Imus' radio show: "Jerry Sandusky will be a guest on Sesame Street before Newt Gingrich wins a presidential election."

[Diogenesis]

Ms. Noonan brings conservatives “advice” directly
from the bed of Obama the Undocumented Moslem Marxist.

[bray]

She’s probably one of the advisers who advised against the “Tear down this wall” line.

Pray for America

[Holly_P]

“Romney conceding 47% of the vote and telling his potential dollars that he must concentrate on the remaining 3% of undecideds and independents”

Is Romney also assuming that 47% will vote for him, no matter what and is going after the remaining 3%-6% of undecideds and independents? If so, it is a very large assumption.

The simple fact of his nomination, has created a large pool of “undecideds” among usual republican voters.

[tips up]

Wasn’t she part of the Republican smart set that kept telling us that Romney was the only GOP nominee that could beat Obama?

[nathanbedford]

When an elected leader governs according to his ideology and succeeds, he is said to be governing according to his principles.

When an elected leader governs according to his principles and fails, he is said to be governing according to ideology.

in If we look at the career of perhaps the most successful businessman and politician and certainly the man most qualified in the 20th century by virtue of his biography and accomplishments to be President of the United States, Herbert Hoover, we see a man who could not lead as president at the time of economic crisis but who could lead companies and entire nations as he did, for example, in feeding millions in Russia.

I suppose the point is that a businessman might be a good leader in a business environment but not in a political environment and a politician to be successful in a democracy must be seen as a successful leader. Franklin Roosevelt confronted the same economic crisis, his results were no better than Hoover's probably because his policies were much different, but Roosevelt fooled most of the people most of the time and therefore succeeded as a leader.

Romney seems to have been successful in at least three disciplines, business, international sports (Olympics) and politics (Governor of Massachusetts). As a candidate he has a mixed record. Although he won the governorship of Massachusetts he lost the race for Senator and he lost the race for the nomination last cycle for president. It remains to be seen whether Romney is on the right path or not.

Sometimes chaotic campaigns that revolt the button-down mind of corporate Republicans like Governor Dewey (and perhaps Mitt Romney) are not as effective as chaotic campaigns conducted by charismatic Democrats like Bill Clinton.

But the point of my post is to clear the argument of underbrush and understand that there is a dichotomy between conservatives and Rinos, between those who want to stimulate the base and those who want to reach out to undecideds, between those who want an aggressive attack and those who want to conciliate women. These are different considerations from tactics, deficiencies, and professionalism. We ought not confuse the two but we certainly ought to understand that there is always an interaction between these two sets of considerations.

I concede that a poorly run chaotic conservative campaign runs at a disadvantage. I have already conceded that Romney is undoubtedly privy to the best data that money can buy. The question is whether it is such data that is guiding his campaign or simply a Rino mindset.

[nathanbedford]

but believe that they are being badly implemented or that they "go too far"....

...it was inevitable that it would "go too far"

Boy, did they ever go "too far" when they enacted Obama care!

I entirely agree with you about Gingrich. It is inconceivable to me the Romney team has not pulled Gingrich in and asked him to be campaign manager emeritus to oversee the entire operation and focus the attack. It is Gingrich who knows how to identify the inevitable excesses, dramatize them, and promote a solution that is both conservative and attractive to everyone. What stops Romney taking this obvious step? One can only chalk it up to ideology or ego if it is not entirely dictated by internal polling data.

There is a companion thread in which a FREEPER asks, why is energy not being emphasized by Romney? I just heard Gingrich yesterday laying out a campaign focused on energy. I cannot believe that Romney's internal polling data tells him not to make this a major issue.

To continue on the theme of energy and apply it to Obama. We all knew before the 2008 election what Obama was going to do to the coal industry and by extension to energy in general, yet the media simply ignored the story to death. So you are right in your long-term pessimism. Things will have to get worse but that raises the issue whether the Republic will survive?

[SeminoleCounty]

Seems like whenever Romney says something truthful and conservative....all the PhonyCon RINOs come out of the closet.

Peggy....time to join the DNC...if you have not already done so

[iopscusa]

The fact that the Rupert M’s WSJ keeps this washed up pundit Miss Peggy on board should be a clue as to the worthlessness of it’s Editorial Board. Great statement by NB about Conservative thinking and the mishmash of Romney.

[Georgia Girl 2]

Who died and left Peggy Noonan a political expert? All she ever did is write a few speeches for Ronnie in the 80’s. She’s a smarmy Blanche Dubuois who was gaga over Obama when he was elected. STFU Peggy. Nobody cares.

[Cruising For Freedom]

Okay. Let’s see which liberal columnists are out there talking down Obama...

*crickets chirp*

Dammit, Noonan. Stop your whore mouth. You’re just adding to the MSM narrative. There’s plenty of time after Election Day to talk stuff about Romney all you like.

[campaignPete R-CT]

ping to self for future reference.

The RINOs are Johnny-one-notes. Their RINO appeal mushies is the only trick they know. Then again, their approach is the only effective one in heavy DEM-liberal districts, where GOP candidates can come up with creative ways of appealing to liberals without insulting conservatives.

I know a few solid conservatives in DEM-liberal districts who are trying to run an “energize the base” campaign. When they inevitably fail, they’ll say that it was due to lack of effort and that next time, the voters will see the light. People with such a blind spot are likely as useless to our cause as the knee-jerk RINOs.

[major-pelham]

I’m convinced Americans will support a conservative agenda once they see it working again ala 1982 until 2007. But, there’s no chance for it to re-emerge if we lose.