Posts Tagged ‘TMP’

According to the non-partisan Michigan Campaign Finance Network, Romney spent $2 million in an ad campaign lasting for about the past month, compared to McCain’s $744,000 over the last ten days, and Huckabee’s $484,000 in the past week,” writes Eric Kleefield in a TPM post titled Analysis: Romney Outspent Michigan Competitors In A Big Way

Romney spends more on paid media in MI than either of his principal rivals combined. Yet Romney ekes out a narrow victory in a state that he calls his own. Yet more evidence of Romney’s risibly low ROI for his every campaign dollar.

But the real cost of Romney’s MI campaign is the check that he issued that can never be cashed. That check is Romney’s super-preposterous, atavistic promise to nationalize the US automobile industry. And it is a cost that Romney will never have to pay. That bill goes to the US taxpayer.

candidate endorsed by the National Review, Romney, suddenly veers hard left, argues that Washington must subsidize, become “partner” with, US automobile industry

After humiliating defeats in Iowa and New Hampshire, Romney in Michigan finally develops a winning formula. It is a formula consistent with Romney’s risibly low ROI as it allows the hapless candidate to offload his astronomical costs on others. It is simply this: political spoil in its most primitive form. It takes this shape: Promise key sectors of the economy unlimited subsidies from the public treasury.

yours &c.
dr. g.d.


“Mitt Romney was asked today in South Carolina whether he thinks Pat Robertson’s endorsement of Rudy Giuliani will have an impact in attracting Christian conservatives to the Rudy camp. His answer, Jonathan Martin reports: ‘Not at all.'”—writes Eric vom Kleefield in a TMP ElectionCenter post titled Romney Downplays Robertson’s Endorsement Of Giuliani

“I don’t think that the Republican Party is going to choose a pro-choice, pro-gay civil union candidate to lead our party,” Romney added … etc.

Note the sleight-of-hand disqualification, a species of double-bind in which the respondent changes the content of the question or statement:

“I don’t think that the Republican Party is going to choose a pro-choice, pro-gay civil union candidate to lead our party.”

The statement is Functionally equivalent to: I don’t think a good little boy or girl should choose such a option.

First injunction: you will make a choice.

Second injunction: to be a good little boy or girl, you will choose what is my choice; hence, you effectively have no choice.

Our intuition: Romney has confused conservatism with some sort of creepy-nightmare-paternalism, a blunt-instrument American Caesarism, only the Caesar is the caricature of an uptight-screwball, seething-with-impotent-rage middle manager, affordable-tract-housing suburban father circa 1963.

yours &c.
dr. g.d.

P.S. Here is the problem for Romney: how many Evangelicals know who e.g. Weyrich is?—or Bopp, despite his cool name? But everyone knows who Pat Robertson is—whether you agree with him or not, you know who he is, and you know that he is a staunch believer etc.

“Mitt Romney’s campaign has now fired back at John McCain’s recent attacks on the candidate. Romney spokeswoman Gail Gitcho released this response,” writes Erik Kleefield in a TPM ElectionCentral post (mis-)titled Romney Campaign Hits Back At McCain’s “Flailing Attacks

Romney flak Gail Gitcho: “Angry attacks from campaigns without any new ideas on how to bring change to Washington aren’t what voters are looking for” … [Romney campaign anger, bitterness, pathology, projection, cynacism, and despair omitted]

Meanwhile Rick Evans of ReliablePolitics asks “[is] John McCain Gaining Ground?” based on hypothetical general election polls that show McCain gaining, and Romney tanking. Conclusion: there is no downside to either being attacked, or attacking, Willard Milton Romney. Why is this case?—Romney’s unprecedentedly high negatives.

We explore the issue of Romney’s negatives elsewhere:

Here is what we concluded then, and what we still hold to now:

Again, see:

Rasmussen poll: Romney unelectable in general election; polarizing figure; 25% of republicans say they would definately vote against Romney

Allow us to articulate our argument in more familiar terms. It is common wisdom that a candidate whose negatives are high should not go negative. The negative campaigner may bring down her rival or rivals, but not without bringing herself down as well. Does any remember Dick Gephardt’s bitter attacks on Howard Dean and how they backfired on him? Neither do we. But the same was once said about Gephardt as is now said about Romney by Geraghty and others. Gephardt, however, was at least limited by the poverty of his campaign and Gephardt’s own loyalty to the interests of his party.

Romney has high negatives and has clearly gone negative. He has a far smaller-narrower base of support but far, far more resources than Gephardt ever had. And: Romney has far less of a commitment to the success of the GOP than Gephardt, a loyal soldier to the end, had to the DNC.

So: Imagine a Republican Dick Gephardt, on steroids, angry, alienated, estranged, adrift, and with no larger sense of party loyalty to restrain him, a man surrounded by hirelings, contractors, and highly-paid specialists, as opposed to the usual politicos, interest group players, and party insiders that surround other candidates, i.e. people with larger and longer term interests at stake. Now imagine that this hypothetical Republican Gephardt with nothing to lose but everything to gain has both the will and the resources necessary to slime and vilify whatever candidate or candidates he chooses.

This is Willard Milton Romney.

And this is where we are at this historical moment.

These are interesting times for the GOP … more

yours &c.
dr. g.d.