Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why Romney Failed
National Review ^ | February 8, 2008 | Byron York

Posted on 02/08/2008 4:02:17 AM PST by monkapotamus

Why Romney Failed
Where was he coming from? Voters never really knew.

By Byron York

Washington, D.C. — It’s telling that Mitt Romney formally began his presidential campaign in Michigan and ended it in Washington, D.C. The man who made Massachusetts his home, who has lived there for 35 years, was its governor, and put his campaign headquarters in Boston, could never reconcile his past as a successful Massachusetts politician — a moderate — with the style of true-blue conservatism that he believed he would have to embrace to win the Republican nomination.

Last week, I was talking with a prominent political figure in South Carolina, working on a post-mortem of the Rudy Giuliani campaign. We moved to Romney and his problems in the state. Romney had poured millions of dollars and lots of time into South Carolina, yet it hadn’t worked out; shortly before the voting, Romney decamped to Nevada in part to distract from his failure in South Carolina. I asked if the simple fact that Romney was from Massachusetts, where Republicans have to lean left to succeed, had anything to do with it. The political insider told me that South Carolinians can relate a lot more to a New Yorker like Giuliani — they visit New York City and like it — than to a Massachusetts candidate like Romney. How could he win there and still be the conservative he appeared to be in South Carolina? “Massachusetts is Ted Kennedy,” the pol told me. “I heard it all the time about Romney: You’re from Massachusetts?”

Massachusetts, the place, meant something not entirely favorable to some conservative voters in South Carolina. But for Republicans across the country, Massachusetts was a symbol — a symbol of the problem at the heart of Romney’s candidacy: he was from one place, ideologically, and he acted as if he were from someplace else.

When Romney tried to present himself as the most conservative of conservative candidates — remember when he said, playing on Paul Wellstone’s old line, that he represented “the Republican wing of the Republican party”? — a lot of conservatives in Iowa and South Carolina and beyond didn’t quite know what to think. When they saw video of him in the fall of 2002 — not that long ago, during a debate in his run for Massachusetts governor — vowing to “preserve and protect a woman’s right to choose” five times in a relatively brief period of time, they didn’t quite know what to think. When they saw video of him almost indignantly saying that “I wasn’t a Ronald Reagan conservative” and “Look, I was an independent during the time of Reagan/Bush; I am not trying to return to Reagan/Bush” — they didn’t quite know what to think. And when they read the letter he wrote saying he would “seek to establish full equality for America’s gay and lesbian citizens” even more than Ted Kennedy, they didn’t quite know what to think.

Romney’s run from his past left a lot of voters asking: Who is this guy? He says he believes certain things deeply now, but he believed other things deeply not that long ago. And each time, it seems, his deeply-held beliefs jibed with what was most advantageous politically.

And now that he has left the Republican race, the question remains. What was Romney thinking? No one outside a very, very tight circle knows. He is an extraordinarily disciplined man, and during the campaign he applied that discipline to making sure that he never said anything too revealing or that might be taken the wrong way. So if you were a reporter, or a supporter, or anyone other than his wife and perhaps his children, and you thought that Romney revealed something special and private to you, you were most likely wrong.

Given that, no one knew what meant the most to Romney. What were the core values that lay deep inside him, things that meant so much that he would give up everything for them? Voters want to know that about a president; they piece together an answer by watching a candidate over time. With Romney it was hard to tell, so they were left to guess. For what it’s worth, my guess is that at the core of Romney’s being is his church and his family; if Romney were asked to surrender all his worldly success for them, he would.

I can’t answer the question any more definitively about John McCain. But if I had to guess, I’d say the things at his core are the United States of America and the defense of its national interest.

Romney made a lot of mistakes that didn’t seem like mistakes at the time. Drawing on his enormous success as a business consultant, he put together an impressively well-organized and professional campaign. That was good. But he never fully understood that the voters were looking for some spark in a candidate that connects him to them. Instead, Romney placed his faith in his magnificent organization and his PowerPoint analyses.

He hired a lot of people, spent millions to build organizations in key states, and then spent millions more for television and radio advertisements. The day after the Iowa caucuses, I dropped by WHO radio in Des Moines, and a top station official told me that Romney had been WHO’s second-biggest advertiser in 2007. (First was Monsanto farm chemicals.) In all, Romney pumped $1 million into WHO’s bank account. In South Carolina recently, a local politico marveled at how much money Romney’s in-state consultants made from the campaign. “Those guys made a mint out of him,” the politico told me. “It’s sinful how much they made.”

As a result of all that spending, Romney ran a campaign on a deficit, deeply in debt. Of course, it was in debt to Romney himself, who put $35 million of his own money into the campaign as of December 31, and likely a lot more since. All that money freed Romney and his team from making some of the tough decisions that other campaigns had to make every day. You could argue either way whether that was good or bad.

Just before the Iowa caucuses, I was at a corporate headquarters outside Des Moines, asking a few questions of Eric Fehrnstrom, the press secretary who usually traveled with Romney. Fehrnstrom looked at Mike Huckabee’s campaign and saw a ragtag lot. “We’re going up against a loose confederation of fair taxers, and home schoolers, and Bible study members, and so this will be a test to see who can generate the most bodies on caucus day,” Fehrnstrom said.

I interrupted for a moment. “Not that there’s anything wrong with any of those groups?” I asked.

“Not that there’s anything wrong, but that’s just a fact,” Fehrnstrom continued. “That’s just where he has found his support. I have a theory about why Mike Huckabee holds public events in Iowa like getting a haircut or going jogging, or actually leaving Iowa and going to California to appear on the Jay Leno show. It’s because he doesn’t have the infrastructure to plan events for him. And when he does do events in Iowa, he goes to the Pizza Ranch, where you have a built-in crowd, so you don’t have to make calls to turn people out. We’re very proud of the organization we have built in Iowa.”

They had reason to be proud; it was a good organization. But in a bigger sense, they just didn’t understand what was going on. Fehrnstrom, like his boss, placed a lot of faith in Romney, Inc. How could a bunch of seat-of-the-pantsers like the Huckabee campaign possibly beat the Romney machine? Well, they could, in Iowa, and McCain could in New Hampshire and South Carolina, and then in Florida and on Super Tuesday. The race was never about the imposing infrastructure Romney had built. It was about that ineffable something that voters look for in candidates. With Huckabee, some of those voters saw an intriguing and refreshing figure. With McCain, a larger number saw someone who wanted, above all, to defend the United States. And with Romney — well, they didn’t quite know what to think.



TOPICS: Editorial; Front Page News; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2008; byronyork; mittromney; romney
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-159 last
To: xzins

Nope. There were plenty of folks at that time with businesses that had real employees.

But, just because I don’t like being picky, I’ll acknowledget that running a plantation was a lot of work. However, I was reacting to the notion that a president isn’t qualified who hasn’t had run a business.

Eisenhower was a general. So was Washington. They were not renowned as businessmen. Certainly, those were not the reasons they’d been called to the presidency.

Most of the military spend their entire lives in that career, and never have to meet a payroll.

And, no place in the Constitution does it mention a “Businessman in Chief” but it does mention a “Commander in Chief.”


151 posted on 02/09/2008 6:38:19 PM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain -- Those denying the War was Necessary Do NOT Support the Troops!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: GATOR NAVY

Nope. There were plenty of folks at that time with businesses that had real employees.

But, just because I don’t like being picky, I’ll acknowledget that running a plantation was a lot of work. However, I was reacting to the notion that a president isn’t qualified who hasn’t had run a business.

Eisenhower was a general. So was Washington. They were not renowned as businessmen. Certainly, those were not the reasons they’d been called to the presidency.

Most of the military spend their entire lives in that career, and never have to meet a payroll.

And, no place in the Constitution does it mention a “Businessman in Chief” but it does mention a “Commander in Chief.”


152 posted on 02/09/2008 6:38:39 PM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain -- Those denying the War was Necessary Do NOT Support the Troops!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: xzins
I was reacting to the notion that a president isn’t qualified who hasn’t had run a business.

I agree with your post, I just thought he had a little more business experience than you were giving him credit for.

153 posted on 02/09/2008 10:39:23 PM PST by GATOR NAVY (Your parents will all receive phone calls instructing them to love you less now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Unfortunately, no lessons will have been learned.

The nature of the Liberal, hence Liberalism, is collectivization. Form a group. Follow leadership. Work for a common advantage.

The nature of the Conservative, hence Conservatism, is individualism. Independence and self reliance. Be a leader. Work for individual advantage.

It is only when the threat to individualism as perceived by large numbers of Conservatives is sufficient to motivate millions of individual efforts, that Conservtism is advanced.

There is no lesson that can be learned. It's like the parable of the scorpion riding across the river on the back of the frog and stinging him so they both drown. It's just in our nature.

154 posted on 02/11/2008 7:12:33 AM PST by DWar (The perfect is the enemy of the excellent!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: monkapotamus

Mitt can organize campaigns very well. However the best organization can not make up for the biggest weakness. Mitt Romney himself. Voters don’t know where he’s coming from because he’s a phony. That’s the problem. We don’t trust him to do what he says he will do.


155 posted on 02/25/2012 1:16:02 PM PST by Darren McCarty (Stop Romney - Rick Santorum in the Michigan primary)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Darren McCarty

Mitt Romney: The Plastic Banana.


156 posted on 02/25/2012 7:39:18 PM PST by Lets Roll NOW (A baby isn't a punishment, Obama is)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: xzins
118 posted on Friday, February 08, 2008 12:53:30 PM by xzins: “George Washington never met a payroll.”

Are you sure about that? I think he ran a very large agribusiness operation in the days that agribusiness was the major industry of Virginia.

Granted, quite a few of George Washington's workers didn't have the right to leave, but he still had to feed them, and there were lots of others who were freemen working for him.

157 posted on 02/25/2012 8:53:37 PM PST by darrellmaurina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Darren McCarty; All

Thank you for resurrecting this old thread.

One good thing about this year is we’re still having a real debate about who our nominee will be in late February. Read the dates. Last election cycle, the primary was basically over before it got to late February.


158 posted on 02/25/2012 8:59:53 PM PST by darrellmaurina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: darrellmaurina; xzins

“George Washington never met a payroll.” xzins....

“I think he ran a very large agribusiness operation in the days that agribusiness was the major industry of Virginia.” darrellmaurina......

Not to mention his earlier work as a surveyor. Last I checked surveying took a crew, and that means a payroll......


159 posted on 02/25/2012 9:38:34 PM PST by Forty-Niner (The barely bare, berry bear formerly known as..........Ursus Arctos Horribilis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-159 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson