« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Mitt Romney and John F. Kerry – Parallel Lives?

Mitt Romney - One Rick Perry Dean Scream From The GOP Nomination

It is not histories I am writing, but lives; and in the most glorious deeds there is not always an indication of virtue of vice, indeed a small thing like a phrase or a jest often makes a greater revelation of a character than battles where thousands die.

– Plutarch (HT: Livius.org)

History doesn’t tend to repeat itself in completely sinusoidal fashion. It does, however seem to accumulate repeatedly around archetypical individuals the way metal filings arrange themselves in response to a strong magnetic field. Put the same guy out there at Quarterback in a similar down and distance situation, and you’ll keep seeing that individual replicate the same sort of successful or failed play.

Plutarch of Chaeronea picked this vibe up as he wrote the biographies of great Romans and Greeks who fulfilled similar roles in the respective histories of each great empire. I sense a similar potential connection between the Presidential candidacies of Democrat John F. Kerry and Republican Willard “Mitt” Romney.

Michael Gerson, taking to the editorial rostrum of The Washington Post, nicely tees up the choice Republicans will ultimately face this Winter during the Primary Silly Season. In his piece entitled Mitt Romney, a safe choice for risky times, he endorses Candidate Romney in the most logical fashion possible. Gerson depicts Romney as the steady captain steering his vessel through a feke-storm. He does this in opposition to The Cowardly Barack Obama and The Cowboy, Governor Rick Perry.

Gerson frames this dichotomy in terms of the current economic situation that oppresses our nation. He unloads on Obama with a professional polemic that combines cynicism and scorn.

His American Jobs Act — combining minimal ambition and minimal creativity — was greeted with bipartisan skepticism. Obama has repeatedly demanded that Congress “act now.” In response, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) has effectively told the president to get in line for the Senate’s “next work period” in October.

Then Gerson delineates the “riskiness” of Rick Perry in what almost amounts to an invocation of the archetypical stereotype of “The Reckless, Tootin’, Shootin’ Texan.” He waxes David Brookslike in his characterization of the dangers associated with such intemperate rhetoric.

Perry is purposely provocative in style and content. He questions the legitimacy of 70 years of federal entitlement commitments. He proposes a fundamental reordering of the relationship between the federal government and the states. He is highly critical of the Federal Reserve and its chairman. Perry’s specific economic policies remain defiantly unspecific, but his rhetoric and intentions are ideologically ambitious.

Then, to complete his analogy, he gives us the safe and reassuring option of Willard “Mitt” Romney.

But unlike Perry, Romney refuses to hurl the accusation of “socialism.” Romney argues that an overbroad condemnation of Social Security would leave Republicans “obliterated as a party.” His own 59-point economic plan contains a “number of options” for incremental entitlement reform…

What this all reminds me of is how Senator John F. Kerry won himself the opportunity to fumble away an imminently winnable Presidential Election against Republican George W. Bush in 2004. Kerry, like Mitt Romney, excited his base about as much as having to sit through a Wagnerian Opera; staged by ugly people, who couldn’t carry a tune with a shovel. Nobody writing for the hip, new online Marxian Journal Adbusters pines for a new Kerry phase of Leftwing activism. If Mitt Romney attempted to crowd-surf at a Tea Party meeting, he would be unceremoniously dropped upon his 4th point of contact.

Both men are rich like Croesus. John F. Kerry performed CPR on his nomination bid by selling millions of dollars of prime, urban real estate. He was also married to the rich widow of Senator Heinz. He had more than enough ketchup handy to cover his plate of fries. Romney has a similar arsenal of dollars. He is the son of Former Michigan Governor George Romney, and has also done quite well for himself as both a CEO and a Wall Street investor. Like Senator Kerry, Mitt Romney can buy himself air time aplenty in single-state markets and then blitz the South like General Sherman when Super Tuesday rolls around.

Both men have opponents who engage in what Barack Obama humorously dubbed “rhetorical flourishes.”* I can’t even summon a mental picture of Howard Dean without the soundtrack from a crappy death-metal album playing in the background. “We’re going to New Hampshire, we’re going to Neptune, we’re taking this campaign to Alpha Centauri! YEAAAAAGHHHHH!

Mitt Romney’s opponent, Governor Rick Perry, says exactly what he feels. He says it when perhaps he totally shouldn’t. Ponzi Scheme doesn’t quite resonate like YEAAAAAGHHHHH! However, it still scared more than a few seniors who rely on Social Security to pay the monthly grocery bills. Many critics will also point out that Rick Perry all but threatened to kick Ben Bernanke’s rear-end during a recent critique of Federal Reserve policy.

These gaffes don’t seem like much at the time. I find them refreshingly honest taken one-by-one. But, if Rick Perry is “refreshingly honest” on a daily basis, this will eventually add up in the public perception to one big campaign-killing “YEAAAAAGHHHHH!”

John F. Kerry and Mitt Romney both have chosen years to run for The White House against incumbent Presidents who qualified as damaged goods. George W. Bush was being dubbed “A Miserable Failure” long before Abu Ghraib and Hurricane Katrina were morphed into a damning compurgation of his tenure in office. With Barack Obama, “The Scariest Jobs Chart Ever” became a part of the American vernacular.

Of course history will forget John F. Kerry unless the muses feel sadistic enough to rhapsodize over “Halp us Jon Carry, We R Stuck Hear in Irak!” This is because John F. Kerry was seen by the American People as too weak and too out of touch with the cultural norm to be a worth leader. Fred Reed described the 2004 Election in an October column that accurately predicted John F. Kerry’s demise.

The way it looks to me is coastal snots against the heartland. The wine-and-cheese folk against pickups with gun racks. Texas against Massachusetts. Maybe that’s too simple…

(HT: Fred on Everything)

So if the GOP nominates Mitt, can Barack Obama pull off a similar feat of political Judo? I’ll bet you 46 heads of Arugula that he’ll try as manfully as he ever gets. That would be the risk of playing it safe with “My man Mitt.” Mitt Romney is accused of being many things to too many people. In the end, is he enough of anything to win?

*”Rhetorical flourish” belongs in the euphamism Hall of Fame. I almost admire President Obama for his restraint in not developing a facepalm tic everytime the name Joseph Biden is mentioned to him in the company of professional journalists.

COMMENTS

  • earlgrey

    I dont know how people can vote for him, because they have no idea what he will do. He is never consistent.

    Establishments types at folks at NRO just love him though.

  • edintexas

    Which one does that fit, or both? Oh, wait – NRO isn’t in love with Dear Leader, so that only leaves Romney as the correct answer. :-)

    • edintexas

      That started out as a reply to earlgrey, don’t know how it switched to a separate comment.

      • earlgrey

        Romney.

        I don’t get what is so wrong with Perry.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    the safe, middle of the road, Republican candidate never wins.

    • Repair_Man_Jack

      but there are counterexamples that give credence to your point.

      • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

        I am not so sure, and as for GHW Bush, well he got elected once as the successor to Reagan but then lost when he acted un Reagan-like.

        Although you might say that GW Bush was a moderate, but he ran like a conservative.

    • Ausonius

      Oh right!

      John McCain! And did he win the presidency?

      But the MSM thought he was a reasonable Republican, always ready to compromise and play nicely with Democrats..

      …and thereby to let them win.

      I have no enthusiasm for Romney: I had no enthusiasm for his RINO father.

      The lesson is: if the MSM likes the Republican candidate, there is something wrong somewhere.

      • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

        not so bad for a Republican, or best of the bunch, Then that is reason enough to be suspicious of that candidate.

  • Massachusetts_Transplant

    let the Romney bashing begin by comparing him to John Kerry. Ughhh.

    Bringing a little historical context to this discussion – lets remember that John Kerry did in fact come within 2 points in one state (Ohio) of becoming President, whereas if the Dems had in fact nominated the guy that really excited the base – they would have ended up with Howard Dean. I am guessing Bush would have been knocking on 350 electoral votes with Dean as the nominee as he would have also won Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire and maybe a Michigan.

    My fear with Rick Perry – and this is anecdotal – is that he is going to have trouble getting the votes of socially moderate voters – mainly Catholics and Jews – in places like Pennsylvania. And these are people that think Obama is clueless on the economy – yet I can tell you that they look at Perry’s “Prayer Rally” suspiciously – and truthfully as a Catholic, I do to some extent as well. That is just the way it is outside much of the South. And lets face, with his mannerisms, accent, and boilerplate talking points about Texas – he is going to remind many people of George Bush. I think we need a clean break from Bush.

    What I want to see at the end of the day, is someone with the laser like focus of yesterday’s WSJ lead editorial or yesterday’s NRO from the Editors “Obama hits Bottom” be articulate enough to explain to the American people why Obama’s tax plan is so destructive, and intelligently articulate as the NRO piece does so well exactly why the Obama tax plan is so destructive and be able to explain exactly why capital gains are taxed differently than income and why dividends shouldn’t be taxed at all etc. I know Mitt Romney can do it because he walked the walk in the investment world and because I have seen him do it before such as when Shannon O’Brien tried to make a big deal out of lowering the debt for Massachusetts as State Treasurer and Romney calmly pointed out that all she did was the obvious step of refinancing the debt, no differently than so many homeowners that had taken advantage of lower interest rates to refinance their mortgages.

    After watching Bob Dole, George W. Bush, and John McCain fail to intelligently articulate conservative economic principles over the last 4 presidential elections and just repeat slogans about “tax cuts” and “fighting earmarks”, I want the smartest guy on that stage – not shouting “socialism” and “class warfare”, but rather completely deconstructing Obamanomics in front of the American people, and really be able to explain “why” our tax plan makes sense and Obama’s doesn’t.

    Well – I’ll go back to reading the WSJ and NRO with the rest of the “establishment” now.

    • toothpick

      I’m curious how exactly the architect and defender of Obamneycare will articulate and LIVE BY the principles of free markets, liberty, and constitutionalism.

      OK, maybe Obamneycare isn’t *unconstitutional* since it was implemented by a state. That doesn’t make it the right thing to do.

      I’ll take a guy with strong conservative principles who owns up to, and corrects, mistakes (Gardasil) over a guy who can hide his liberal instincts behind some pretty words when required on the campaign trail.

    • SoFiMil

      Not saying you’re saying this, but Conservatives must not bend on core principles. Come what may, right is right.

  • Right Reason

    . . .if you think the key to winning the election is detailing the minutiae of capital gains and dividend tax policy. This is not an election that will be about who can best articulate policy. This is an election that will be about the fundamental role of government in our lives – what government should and should not do.

    Romney may be the better policy wonk, but he is ill-equipped to have that kind of discussion.

    • Right Reason

      The above was meant as a reply to Massachusetts Transplant

    • Massachusetts_Transplant

      To posters on Red State – the “fundamental role of government in our lives” is what the election will be about, but to the mostly everyone else, “jobs” and “will America ever gets its mojo back” are the issues that the election will be about. Therefore our nominee has to first convince voters that they have the right prescription for getting the country back on track and working again – and then articulate why shrinking government is a critical part of that program. Paul Ryan does this well, Newt Gingrich does this well . . . Rick Perry does not do this well because he leads with wanting “government to be as inconsequential to your lives as possible” so it comes off as ideological bluster rather than connected to a well thought approach to improving the economy, our competitiveness abroad, good jobs, higher wages etc.

      And I also disagree on your tax point. Yes, its a smaller point in a larger campaign, but envision a debate where Obama is talking about how a “do nothing” Congress blocked his plan to tax “millionaires and billionaires” via the “Buffett Rule”. I want our nominee not to respond “that’s class warfare”, but rather with surgical precision to be able to explain that the reason capital gains taxes are lower is because of the risk associated with putting one’s capital to work in our economy – which spurs innovation and growth, and then relate it back to the middle class folks holding mutual funds or retirees with stock. Again – from what I have seen so far, I am not sure Perry can do this effectively without falling back on folksy platitudes that play to the base but not to moderate voters in Bucks County Pennsylvania – who are more worried about getting layed off when their firm moves to China than in “shrinking government”. Yet, Romney can do it – and will be effective at completely deconstructing every single thing Obama says about the economy.

      • Right Reason

        And even the apolitical can see it. Evidence the polls regarding Obama’s proposed next round of non-stmulus stimulus. People realize that the reason the economy stinks is because government is in the way.

        Perry proposes getting government out of the way. Romney proposes having government keep the lead, just in another direction. Who do you think voters will listen to more?

        Where you see Perry’s “ideologiocal bluster”, I, and apparently many others, see a man who passionately states what he believes and sticks by it. Where you see Romney explaining tax policy with “surgical precision”, I see a man concentrating on minutiae because he has no principles about which he feels passionately.

        Ask yourself, which makes the better stump speech, “Government isn’t the solution to the problem, government IS the problem” or “the excessive taxation on capital appreciation threatens to reduce the velocity of capital investment, which would have a negative effect on funds availble for new business ventures, resulting in reduced economic activity and thus lower level of GDP growth zzzzzzzzz…”.

  • lansing

    The Left was actually fired up to an unprecedented level in that election (mainly out of Bush hatred) Would a more ” base-pleasing” Howard Dean have won that election? No way, it would have been a Mondale level wipeout, independents would have left in droves. Kerry lost because Americans were still hawkish and the domestic economy was strong. It’s actually amazing Kerry made it as close a race as he did for being a Massachusetts liberal with a voting record to the Left of Ted Kennedy.

    I want to nominate conservative candidates that stand by their principles, but I honestly don’t always buy the “base pleasing” strategy for winning elections. I look at examples like Nixon that won 49 states or George HW Bush that also won a landslide. Both men were liberal Republicans, yet they won huge elections. Much of this is timing and their opponents.

    At the end of the day, independents and swing voters unfortunately decide these elections. It’s not just about about getting conservative or liberal voters to the polls, despite what the activists would have you think on both sides.

    • Repair_Man_Jack

      Barack Obama was very much a man of his base. (Cry our beloved country!) Candidates with base appeal can win over moderates of all stripes, if they sufficiently out-perform their Centrist opposition.

    • toothpick

      …the first G Bush really won Reagan’s third term. As soon as he had to run on his own record, he was tossed out in favor of a newbie governor from a relatively small state.

      So I wouldn’t credit GHWBush for establishing that a squish conservative can win big.

  • Darin_H

    That’s probably the sole reason Kerry lost.

    • Repair_Man_Jack

      I *Do* remember taking great pleasure in ribbing an old, liberal drinking buddy about “The Global Test.” Who grades it? What if Iran cheats and smuggles in crib notes?

  • barleycorn

    “”These gaffes don?t seem like much at the time. I find them refreshingly honest taken one-by-one. But, if Rick Perry is ?refreshingly honest? on a daily basis, this will eventually add up in the public perception to one big campaign-killing ?YEAAAAAGHHHHH!?”"

    I don’t consider your examples to be gaffes. If Perry has “gaffed” it was in his explanation cum backpedaling following those statements.

    If we want politicians and leaders who speak the truth, we should not then jump on the finger pointing gaffe bandwagon when they in fact do speak the truth.

    • Repair_Man_Jack

      There is a way to tell people hard and unpleasant truths. I philosophically agree, for example, that SS sucks. What made Perry’s statement of that truth a gaffe was the manner in which he presented it. Jonathan Chait, who wrote the “Diary of a Dean-o-phobe” column for TNR in 2004, probably at least tacitly approved of what Dean believed. It was how Hatred-Powered Howard presented it that made Chait cringe.

      To complete my thought here, Ronald Reagan and Dwight Eisenhower could both tell people things they really weren’t too keen on listening to. They both were just way better at doing so than either Rick Perry or Howard Dean.

      • Right Reason

        . . .how calling Social Security a Ponzi Scheme should scare anyone about Rick Perry. He plainly stated that there was a real problem while others are proposing tinkering “solutions”. He didn’t say he’d cancel it. What he implicitly said, however, is that it would collapse under it’s own weight. He said what everyone under 40 knows damned well is true.

        Everyone who was “shocked” by his statement was only so because they were pandering to the senior voting block. I’d go further to say that none were actually shocked about the statement, they were merely shocked that Perry had the courage to make it.

        We can’t sit on boards like this lamenting the lack of politicians who tell it like it is and then get the vapors when one comes along who DOES tell it like it is.

      • barleycorn

        I know the liberal media has their collective panties in a knot over what Perry said but I have yet to see any decisive evidence that it has hurt him or frightened the populace.

        The polling numbers have tightened somewhat but that is likely due to several unrelated factors, one of which could be the “ponzi scheme” quote.

        Perry’s numbers have been relatively steady while Romney has picked up a few supporters, but its all basically within the MOE anyway.

        My main point is that conservatives need to be real careful about buying into the liberal media’s conventional wisdom.