|
Advice for Romney
I saw most of the debate Wednesday evening. McCain’s meanness, egotism, and nastiness, so unsuited for a president (though perhaps some people see it as toughness), were again apparent, and Romney again showed himself an all-round better human being. But that’s not enough. If Romney is going to stage a major rally in the next week, which he must do to stay alive in this race, he has got to express two qualities he has so far not expressed. First, he has got to show the will to lead, and I don’t just mean generic executive abilities, which are manifest in Romney, but the will and toughness to be the leader of the U.S. Second, he has got to show a killer instinct, the ability to convey an attitude of (excuse the vulgarity) “ef you” to opponents and enemies. Bush demonstrated that quality against McCain in South Carolina in 2000, and it saved his candidacy. Romney hasn’t yet demonstrated it against McCain in 2008. Instead, he comes across as a nice businessman type, not as someone with the quality of controlled anger (Reagan had that quality), someone capable of coldly sticking in the knife when necessary. On leadership: For people to vote for someone as president, they need to see that person as president. To talk about one’s credentials does not convey that. I cannot believe the number of times I have seen Romney dwell on his experiences in business and as governor. No one cares about Romney’s credentials. He has got to present himself as president of the U.S., and to do that, he has got to see himself as president. Did Reagan in 1980 go on and on about his eight years as governor of California? No. He presented himself as the leader of the United States of America, as someone who had definite things he wanted to achieve as president. On the killer instinct: Romney has got to be much more aggressive with McCain. I don’t mean merely being negative. I mean clearly and definitively exposing the things that are unacceptable and disqualifying about McCain: his record of repeatedly siding with Democrats to undermine the conservative Republican agenda in the Senate; the way he calls people bigots who don’t agree with him on open borders, even his fellow senators; his repeated use of his POW status to silence criticism of himself; his contempt for democratic processes as shown in McCain Feingold and his attempt to pass the immigration bill without a debate. Romney doesn’t seem to understand that McCain is ahead because not enough voters know about his truly bad side. Romney has got to inform them of it. He must stick in the knife—not to be mean, but because it’s what McCain deserves and it’s the only way to stop him. I hear that there is one more debate before Super Tuesday, a one on one between Romney and McCain. Romney will have one more chance to discover his inner tough guy. And finally, I say to Gov. Romney, if a reporter at a debate asks you a really fascinating question like why you’re more qualified to be president than your opponents, don’t obediently answer the question in the reporter’s terms. You’re not a candidate for Student Council president. Use the question as a launching pad to make the points you want to make, to present yourself the way you want to present yourself. Also, speak to the audience, don’t speak to the reporter. That fool Cooper Anderson is not the one you have to win over. It’s the Republican voters and the American people you have to win over.
By the way, if there is anyone who took Huckabee seriously, it should have been ended by his measly and cowardly answer to the question about whether President Reagan’s appointment of Sandra Day O’Connor to the Supreme Court was a good thing. He said that because he was a guest in the Reagan Library, he didn’t dare criticize anything Reagan had done. How pathetic. Romney’s answer to the same question—he said clearly and strongly that he would not have appointed O’Connor—was the best of any of the candidates’. But he should have gone further and said that, while Reagan did great things as president, the appointment of O’Connor was a major error. In fact, he should have gone even further than that and spoken the plain truth about how the O’Connor disaster occurred: that Reagan let his desire to put a woman on the Court trump his commitment to appoint originalist judges, and that he, Romney, would never let diversity be more important than qualifications. That would have shown Romney as someone with the brass and principles to be a real leader.
Apparently John Hinderacker at Powerline had the same thought about Romney as I:
Businessmen, in my experience, are generally more idealistic than politicians. Businessmen really do make deals with a handshake. No one would dream of doing that with Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi or the Clintons. Turning a businessman loose in the political world is basically a mismatch. That’s the sense I get of McCain’s reaction to having Romney as his last serious rival. He can’t believe his good fortune; Romney is an amateur. McCain can poke him in the eye, knee him in the groin, and the rule-following businessman has no idea how to respond.Mark Jaws writes:
It has been my experience that far too many conservative white politicians, who grew up in afffluent households and neighborhoods, lack the killer instinct sometimes necessary to vanquish their political foes on the Left. Furthermoe, men raised in post-1965, feminized America, in which the greatest virtues preached are tolerance, anti-discrimination, and conflict resolution, are likely to exhibit Mitt Romney characteristics. The simple truth is that sometimes you have to employ vitriol to defeat your enemies. The men of my father’s generation understood that and many of them would have gladly chose “to step outside and settle matters like men,” instead of avoiding the fight at all costs. I am proud to remember two instances in which my father physically beat up men who were oogling my mother. Those were days when white men were men, and not the linguini-spined Eloi we have today. It is no coincidence that pathetic third worlders are brazenly spitting in our eye, while a nation of emasculated white men, to include Mitt Romney, does nothing. I am roorting for Mitt, but I think it is far too late for him to grow a spine, so I believe he is doomed, and we are stuck with McCain.Paul K. writes:
John Hinderacker at Powerline writes: “I think we should recognize that professional politicians bring important experience and skills to the table, and that one of those skills is the ability to knee an opponent in the groin and get away with it.”Ed writes:
Romney lost the debate last night because he failed to demonstrate a “killer instinct.” In order to win the nomination at this point it was necessary for Romney to deliver a knockout punch. Instead it was McCain who mopped the floor with Romney. [LA replies: I don’t think many people would agree that McCain mopped the floor with Romney. My point was that Romney failed to wipe the floor with McCain.] In fighting the war against Islam, who would you rather have as a president? Insofar a immigration is concerned Romney is no better than McCain. tt showed itself clearly in the debates, when asked about immigration, what was Romney’s answer. He said he would deport illegals gradually and with compassion for their individual situations and how long they have been in america. HE WOULD WAIT for the school year to end before deporting families with children and give them time to arrange their affairs before they would be required to leave. THESE are all evidences of weakness and a failure to understand the nature and seriousness of the problem. [LA replies: Romney clearly opposes amnesty, meaning permanent legal residence for illegals. McCain is still totally and unrepentantly FOR amnesty. If Ed doesn’t understand that, I throw up my hands.] I started as a supporter of Romney and now I see that he is worse than McCain, not better. Plus he has no spark or personality, very bland while McCain has fire in his belly. McCain really wants to win and be president, while candidates like Romney and Gulliani are not really hungry for the presidency. In a campaign against Hillary, McCain will give no quarter while Romney will be a “nice guy.” McCain should appoint Romney as head of a task force to make America energy independent within ten years. That job would utilize Romney’s considerable abilities. [LA replies: I agree that McCain has an intensity that Romney lacks, but what Ed fails to understand (and Paul K. points it out above) is that McCain’s intensity is directed mainly against conservatives.]LA writes:
In talking about the need for a killer instinct what we really mean is the quality that Plato in The Republic called spiritedness, which is what the guardians, the leaders and defenders of the polis, must have. Spiritedness comes from love. The guardians love their city, and so any threat to it makes them fearful for their city, and out of that fear comes the courage and indignation to defend it. Those who do not truly love their country, do not fear possible harms to it, and so lack the indignation and courage to defend it.Jeremy G. writes:
I agree with your advice for Romney. For reasons that are beyond my comprehension, McCain’s toughness on the war, although not popular in the country at large, is very popular with the conservative base. Romney has to go after McCain’s weaknesses, which are precisely the ones you have delineated.A reader writes:
Without making an outright endorsement, Rush gave a little help to Romney today. He said Rom’s negative ads are simply presenting the truth about McCain’s positions, and McCain is acting like the Clintons, anything negative is “personal.” He said also that McCain’s attacks, on the other hand, are really personal.A reader writes:
I read the Advice for Romney thread. You unleashed a lot of anti-Romney criticism. What was the point of that? He’s already on the ropes, he has only a few days, and you have these disgusting thugs writing in and saying you have to knee people in the groin in order to be a man. This is reprehensible.LA replies:
See the whole coverage, everything posted today, in context. It’s pushing Romney and also discussing his weak points where he needs to strengthen himself. This is good for him, not bad. Bringing attention to what Romney needs to do to strengthen himself helps Romney. Posted by Lawrence Auster at January 31, 2008 07:38 AM | Send Email entry |