In re: slk29 comment of 03-05-2009

slk29 commented on "In Case You Were Counting" earlier this month and asked some interesting questions about Governor Romney.

slk29 asks about Romney's shift "to the far right of the [Republican] party" and expresses concern that such a shift "will make it very difficult for him to appeal to the broad middle of the American Electorate in the future (a clear electoral majority of "moderate Republicans," independents, and "conservative Democrats)."

I too have been concerned with the apparent shifts over time. This ties in to my concern over the tight leash that I felt those close to him during the primary kept him on. The "Mitt" that I knew and interacted with was not always the Mitt that appeared out in the media. Some of that I think was the MSM portrayal of him; some of that was what seemed to me was dogged determination to stay on message--even perhaps at the expense of saying what he really thought vis a viz what the strategy/message was.

The concerns surrounding Governor Romney intrigue me. Some feared he was too moderate, and pointed to his election and leadership in Massachusetts and some of his "hands off" government policies that appeared to contradict personal beliefs. These individuals opined that he would need to move right in order to garner votes during the primary campaign. I think we saw this during the 2008 primary season.

According to some studies, past election data has shown that primary voters may not accurately reflect the attitudes and values of the general election voting populous; hence the need to cater to the party "extremes" and then "swing back" to the center during the general election campaign. Other studies disagree.

Others, such as slk29, fear that he is too conservative, and will not be able to gather enough votes in a general election.

Both sides have valid points: Romney needs the support of the so-called ultra-conservative primary voters to win the GOP nomination; and he needs the broad-based support from moderate Democrats and Republicans to clinch the Presidency through the Electoral College.

John McCain faced similar challenges this cycle. Billed as not really conservative, a maverick in the party, he was the party outcast for much of the primary battle. It seemed he had no "real" conservative stance--whether on immigration, campaign finance, or other issues. Then, come general election time, he and his ticket were too conservative, unable to bridge the gap to the independent and moderate Democrats who might have swung the other way given the proper candidates.

[ASIDE: I feel the selection of Alaska governor Sarah Palin only further strengthens the claims that he was, or was trying to be, too conservative. While her selection rallied the base and brought in loads of much-needed cash in a short amount of time, she only served to shore up a largely disinterested base and made little attempt to woo the independents/moderates. In the lingo of disruptive innovation, what some hailed as a brilliant strategy and thought was a "disruptive innovation" for the McCain campaign was really a dangerous "sustaining innovation" that ended up getting beat by the truly disruptive candidate Obama. There's a great write-up about this over at the Innosight Blog.]

I agree with slk29 that Governor Romney "has the capacity to be an exceptional Center/Right candidate" - but question the conclusion that "he seems to want to be just a Right-wing candidate."

Does he want to be a right-wing candidate? Or has he been placed in that box and hasn't found his way out yet?

Perhaps his measured response to the questions about the Obama Administration's "Stimulus" Bill indicate he's trying to get out of that box. He said, as reported by a [surprisingly?] positive Boston Globe article:

Parts of the stimulus will, in fact, do some good," he averred. "But too much of the bill was shortsighted and wasteful.

"So far, the administration has been unclear on what it will do to address the huge decline in the pool of risk and investment capital," he said, arguing that an elimination of taxes on capital gains, dividends, and interest could spur investment.

While conceding it is "ridiculously early" to be talking about 2012, the Globe suggests that "Romney's latest moves have put him in a far stronger position than most people would have imagined just six months ago."

I posit that the challenge is this: Romney needs to connect with the people.

He needs to pick one persona and stick with it, no matter the situation (donors, stump speeches, small groups, press interviews, etc.). I vote for the persona that embodies his turn-around attitude from Bain and the SLC Olympics, the quick-thinking "Hillary response" Romney, the moderate politician who was the governor of Massachusetts and used common-sense principles to make things work.

My apologies for the half-hearted research attempts and scattered unsubstantiated claims. But hey, this is a blog, right? And it's been a long day, but I've been meaning to respond to this comment for some time now. I welcome discussion and suggestions for improving the line of thought presented here.