Posts Tagged ‘Romneyism’

“Talk really is cheap for elected Massachusetts Republicans who publicly endorsed former Gov. Mitt Romney for president,” writes Jessica Heslam for the Boston Herald in an article titled Money, whoa; GOP officials balk at ponying up for Mitt

A Herald review has found only nine out of 27 Bay State GOP politicians who are supporting Romney actually ponied up money for his campaign. None came close to the maximum donation of $4,600 allowed under federal law.

The excuses range from, “I’ve got kids in college,” to “I just got married,” to those who hadn’t “gotten around” to writing a check.

Several officials contacted by the Herald said they “thought” they had contributed but couldn’t say when. After being reminded that donations made before Sept. 30, 2007, are posted publicly on the Federal Election Commission Web site, most of those officials remembered they had not donated […]

Romeny’s so-called friends issue their excuses and rationales:

[…] Greg Casey, chief of staff for Sen. Scott Brown (R-Wrentham), who has received $1,250 in donations from Mitt Romney, said the senator has been primarily focused on his own work in his district.

“He hasn’t been terribly focused on the Romney campaign,” Casey said. “He has acted as a surrogate speaker for Mitt and has spoken on behalf of Romney on several talk shows.”

An aide to Sen. Robert Hedlund (R-Weymouth) said the senator hasn’t “gotten around to writing a check.” Hedlund has received $1,250 in contributions from Ann and Mitt Romney.

Rep. Richard Ross (R-Wrentham) said he made calls on Romney’s behalf up in New Hampshire before the primary. Why hasn’t he donated any money to the campaign? Unlike Romney, Ross said he doesn’t have a personal fortune. “I’ve got kids in college,” Ross said […]

Conclusion: To endorse or support a self-funder is easy and cheap. This accounts in part for Romney’s illusory support. See:

yours &c.
dr. g.d.


“Chris Wallace of Fox News Sunday called one of Mitt Romney’s mailers in New Hampshire ‘not true,” writes the all-seeing eye of in a post titled Fox News: Romney mailer “is not true”

What is Romney’s strategy? Lie about everything through the primary? CNN caught him being dodgy yesterday. But the guy has the money to do it.

I don’t think that the Republican Party wants a guy who spends millions of his own money to spread lies about other Republicans. I just think that the party is more decent than that.

Comment: There are Republicans that are more decent than that—however many or however few remains an open question. But is the party more decent than that? That would depend on what you mean by “party.” The basis of the US party system is the state organization—US parties tend to be nearly incoherent at the national level except during presidential election cycles; they are far more coherent and organized at state and local levels. Part of the task of the Romney campaign has been to generously fund state and local party organizations, right-wing and right-of-center foundations, PACs, think-tanks, ad hoc committees, pressure groups etc. at a time when Republican party influence (and, hence, fund-raising power) is on the wane. We refer to this as Romneyism, when a national party in decline recruits the rich and the super-rich—so-called self-funders—to compensate for its competitive deficits. See:

Romneyism: when a corrupt and disconnected party establishment recruits the rich and the super-rich to subsidize its non-performance

Our conclusion: While many Republicans are probably far more decent than to support a candidate who spends millions of his own money to slime other Republicans, the Republican party establishment and its many elites are content to allow Romney the full use of his resources to destroy the careers of better men than he just so long as the party elites get their cut.

Some people ask us why we are so opposed to Romney. This is precisely why.

yours &c.
dr. g.d.

P.S. The Coptic Eye provides this update: Quote of the day from Rudy Giuliani’s campaign:

“Mitt Romney’s already changed his own position on illegal immigration, so it should come as no surprise that he’s trying to change everybody else’s position as well.”

“The facts are well-known, but worth repeating,” writes Jonathan Martin of the Politico in a post titled Huckmania running wild in Hawkeye Country

Mitt Romney has been on TV almost non-stop for nine months in Iowa. He’s been to the state dozens of times over the last three years. His 99-county organization is viewed as the most formidable of any Republican in the state.

And now he’s lost the lead he’s enjoyed for the past six months to somebody who just in the past few weeks has gone up on TV, has been to the state less (almost not at all in the past month) and whose campaign team, by their own admission, does not have what Romney does on the ground.

The cross-tabs are not available on the Register website now, but apparently voters sampled see Romney as more presidential and Giuliani as more electable. So why are they moving to Huckabee? Beyond his social conservative credentials, he also wins points for being the most civil and principled in the field. In short, they just like him.

Romney’s challenge now is to change that dynamic by providing them new information (i.e. oppo) that will lessen this ardor. But it won’t be easy. As I’ve said before, Romney risks a serious backlash by going negative. He’s started to do contrast in the mail and in campaign appearances, but it’s a bigger and riskier step to do so on TV … etc., etc.


(1) We predicted this:

(2) Another string on which we harp here is Romney’s fantastically low ROI for his every campaign dollar, i.e. the ultra-low efficiency of Romney’s organization.


We have also harped on the string of Romney’s self-financing:

(3) Follow us for a moment: the point we want to make is a subtle one.

Say that someone buys a home in your neighborhood and what they pay is significantly below market value. What does this do to the price of your home? It drives it down. Say that some agent or agency dumps a commodity on the market at below market prices, even selling at a loss. What happens? Chaos. Dislocation. A crash in the value of the commodity, the ruin of competitors etc. Moral: free money or huge subsidies can cause distortions that correct themselves in chaos and collapse—generally, you want to pay for a good or a service what that good or service is worth (and no more), and you want others to pay for a good or a service what that service is worth. Otherwise, price become meaningless as an index of value.

Now, consider the Romney campaign, awash in free cash from Romney’s own pockets.

Political fund-raising is costly, especially for Republicans at this precise historical moment. But Team Romney is largely insulated from these costs—as well as from the learning these costs exact upon their payers. Campaigns organized on a more rational basis—i.e. campaigns whose spending is constrained by the success of their operations, campaigns more closely coupled to a broader base of funding sources and support—must adjust and adapt to develop their coalitions. Not so Team Romney, which behaves with the arrogance and sense of entitlement of a spoiled rich kid.

Further: the millions that Team Romney has squandered in Iowa and New Hampshire has so distorted perceptions that no one—not pundits, not pollsters, not analysts—can resolve a clear signal—no one really knows what is happening on the ground. The market realized as a price system—to continue our metaphor—will not support accurate comparisons. For example, when Gov. Huckabee gains on Romney in Iowa it is considered huge news for no other reason than what Romney has spent in Iowa, when the real and un-remarkable story is that Romney is a weak candidate with no clear message.

In other words, were Romney a real candidate and not an artifact of Republican decline combined with our absurd campaign finance laws—i.e. if what Romney could spend were a reliable indicator of his political fitness—then there would be no story, as there would probably be no Romney.

Our point: confusion is what results from what we call Romneyism. Romneyism is what happens when a corrupt political establishment sells off a national party for a pittance.

All of the operational questions that confront Team Romney reduce to one: How much of the patrimony of Romney’s beloved sons is Romney willing to squander? Does Boy Romney have the will and the nerve to sustain his current burn-rate?—or: does he lack to the good sense to cut his losses and pull out now? Here is the problem for the political primitives of Team Romney: the distortions caused by all that free-floating low-cost Romney-money will reach their limit in the form of a massive market correction, i.e. a big crash. We wish we could predict with confidence that it will be Team Romney that gets corrected, but we cannot. What is more likely is that Romney will take the party down with him.

“The system that you have is the system that you deserve,” our systems-administrator is fond of saying. The same could be said about leadership.

yours &c.
dr. g.d.

“It is undeniable that Mitt Romney flip-flopped on a whole bunch of things,” writes the all-seeing eye of in a despairing post titled Romney’s IA immigration piece and his strange cynicism

And a number of people are comfortable with that. What I find so cynical about Romney is that he attacks people for formerly holding positions that he formerly held. Again, “flip-flopping for me, but not for thee.” Thompson, especially, no longer holds the views that he was advocating back in the day. Huckabee has shifted to the right, something that I have blasted him on.

But you know? Romney has more money, and has done better polling. My gut is that he is going to pull this off. Not because his ideas are better. Simply because he is running a better operation. (Hillary Clinton, of course, is doing the same thing) That makes me sad … etc.

That makes us sad too. What makes us doubly sad is that Romney—not Romney the person, but what Romney represents, i.e. Romneyism, where a corrupt and disconnected party establishment recruits the rich and the super-rich to subsidize its non-performance—is the future of Republican rule in whatever pockets it can survive post-Bush. Regard:

“WASHINGTON, Nov. 25 — Confronting an enormous fund-raising gap with Democrats, Republican Party officials are aggressively recruiting wealthy candidates who can spend large sums of their own money to finance their Congressional races, party officials say,” writes Raymond Hernandez in a NYT article titled Short of Funds, G.O.P. Recruits the Rich to Run

At this point, strategists for the National Republican Congressional Committee have enlisted wealthy candidates to run in at least a dozen competitive Congressional districts nationwide, particularly those where Democrats are finishing their first term and are thus considered most vulnerable. They say more are on the way.

These wealthy Republicans have each already invested $100,000 to $1 million of their own money to finance their campaigns, according to campaign finance disclosure reports and interviews with party strategists. Experts say that is a large amount for this early in the cycle … etc, etc.

At the point that a political organization’s messages and themes can no longer pay for themselves with the vigor and substance of that organization’s clients, activists, supporters etc., the party is over, in this case the Republican party. What’s left of it—congressional seats, prestigious appointments, even a shot at the presidency—is on the block and up for sale.

yours &c.
dr. g.d.