“The Mitt Romney I know”
The excellent blogger/Weekly Standard writer Dean Barnett has a very candid, informed, and informative piece about Mitt Romney’s character and campaign missteps in the New York Times (I know, I know).
Just read it and tell me what you think. A snippet:
I spent a lot of time with Mr. Romney that year, and I occasionally served as his volunteer driver, taking him to local campaign events. The Mitt Romney I got to know was warm and likable. He had an electric intelligence. He was unfailingly decent. He was totally committed to his family. He treated everyone with respect and kindness.
If you’re like most politically attuned Americans, you probably don’t agree with my description of Mr. Romney. You may consider him to be the personification of political ambition. You possibly believe he will say anything to get elected president. You might even consider him one of the least honorable politicians in the country.
As a longtime admirer of Mr. Romney’s, it pains me that many Americans believe these things. Even worse, Mr. Romney’s presidential campaign has given them cause to feel this way. As a result, in the Michigan primary today, he is fighting for his political life.
I often marvel at how the public perception of Mr. Romney differs so radically from the man I know. The blame for this lies in the campaign he has run…
***
Allah answers commenters here who have unfairly dismissed Barnett as a Romney spin doctor–and also offers an ouch-inducing assessment of Romney’s problems:
Some of the commenters at MM’s site are dismissing Barnett’s piece as spin but he’s been telling me all of this privately for months — Mitt’s a wonderful guy, razor sharp, but he’s run an essentially dishonest campaign insofar as he made “values” the centerpiece when his top priority lies elsewhere. All of which is comforting yet devastating in how it undermines the legend of Romney as a manager par excellence. If that’s so, how’d he end up stuck with the wrong message and hanging by a thread?
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Mitt Romney
Hotline On Call
» Chambliss Wins; 60 Eludes Dems
JustOneMinute
» David Gregory To Host Meet The Press (While Hiding From It)Belmont Club
» A self-made hellRiehl World View
» Update: Chambliss WIns Georgia Run-offGateway Pundit
» 2 Year-Old Moshe Holtzberg Was Beaten By Terrorists... His Murdered Mother Was 6 Months PregnantNewsBusters.org
» Four Years Later, Kerry Admits He's a LiberalHotline On Call
» Obama Records Radio Ad For LA House HopefulPoliPundit.com
» US Capitol Visitor Center Opens
it may be the campaign he has run; and it may be the media’s perception that has influenced the people, too. i see the media’s goggles on when hearing many chatting or speaking about romney.
one thing for sure, he is not the media darling like say huck the schmuck and mcpain. wonder why?
The reason the Romney has not connected is he is too decent a guy. People are uncertain about anyone who is just so nice.
What attracted me most to Romney was the fact that he was such a good businessman with exceptional managerial skills. This is what the country needs — a man who can manage money. OUR money.
I still think he would make a great president.
Just look at him and then compare his skills, background and character to the three clowns in the dem party.
There is simply NO comparison.
Barnett’s a smart guy and I enjoy listening to him on the radio (plus he’s a fellow chowderhead), but let’s keep it real. Barnett and his running mate, Hugh Hewitt, are complete shills for Romney, so anything written or said by either of them must be taken with a very large grain of salt.
I will accept Mitt as my next POTUS… should he be the candidate. It sounds to me that most people expected Mitt to be the frontrunner hands-down. NRO definitely has him pegged as a knight in shining armor. Whatever the failings are with his campaign he is doing pretty well.
As far as his persona goes, if that’s the impression people have (and they do!), there isn’t much one can do about that…just ask cHillary. No sense in crying over spilled milk. One thing he has going for him is that most people can look past their preceptions and elect him.
perceptions
#6 Amen.
I’m sure Hillary had glowing things to say about her friend(s) before the 1st Hsu dropped….
I am very impressed with his past success as a business manager and the way he saved the doomed Winter Olympics held in Utah turning it into a great success. He appears like a decent individual and my wife thinks he is very good looking and we both think he is an articulate speaker. What kills him is his record as Governor of Massachusetts. We need a real conservative that sticks to conservative principles to turn this country around another weak leader that compromises with the liberals will only continue to erode our rights and freedoms. Bipartisanship is bad news for the hard working taxpayer and has only resulted in disaster enhancing the nanny state and further dividing the country toward the breaking point of the 1860s.
Vote for the only candidate who can stop Huckabee and McCain…Vote Romney!
Boomer, gee are we glad we don’t elect our leadership based on looks and how they speak? Oh, wait…I’m confused. First we had Clinton (looked and sounded good) and then we had (GW Bush)…don’t speak so good…
I think the problem is that we, as a nation, for the last 40 years have looked in the wrong places. Constitutional principles have lost out to the media’ beauty pageant. Just think how difficult it would be to to sell cars and feminine hygiene products based on those?
People may choose to be critical of his campaign strategies, but he seems to be doing as good of a job as all the lifelong professional politicians.
Unlike McCain, his paychecks have come from somewhere other than my pocketbook and I appreciate that.
I’m hoping that he does well in this campaign, because he strikes me as the best candidate to have thrown his name in the hat.
Well I have been leaning towards Romney from the beginning. He just seems like a nice, smart guy & I really haven’t heard a lot of bad things about him. But maybe I am just being fooled - after all I voted for Bush twice & now find myself disappointed, especially with the illegal immigration/border issue.
I personally don’t think I’ve even commented of what I think of Romney, Hucklberry, McCan’t yes, oh I take that back I did say that my problem was that Hucklberry started a who’s a better Christian shooting match with Romney and he got sucked right into it and I did’nt like that and I still don’t. My feeling of Romney has alway’s been good and if Fred had not entered the race Romney would have most likley been my pick. All the candidate’s get hammered in one way or another, it is up to the voter to do his research and not listen to the MSM opinion’s and slam’s to form an opinion with the best possible info you can lay your hand’s on. My introduction to Romney was with the Olympic’s and I thought then this guy would make a good politician, he has a voice that draw’s you in and is an eliquent speaker, I have absolutley no animosity against him, the who’s a better Christian argument bothered me though.
Isn’t Dean a former contributor to the Hugh Hewitt-Romney blog? Yes, he was.
Enough said, I’d say.
The real life-long (not midlife conversion) Reagan conservative is Fred! Thompson.
I’d vote for Romney as chameleon candidate for president.
I agree totally! But you cannot forget the bigger picture….whoever can stop Hitlary or Obama. No matter how we complain and moan about Huckabee & McCain (rightfully so I might add), nothing could or would be more devistating to this country than one of the unqualified socialists from the left. Stop this “teach the Republicans a lesson” crap. We might not have a country left if a Democrap wins!
Let’s make sure our guy gets the message loud and clear that we won’t tolerate a RINO. But never sit out because “your guy” didn’t win the nomination and allow this country to be flushed down the toilet forever.
I have absolutely no problem with Mitt Romney as a man. Where I doubt him is in his political convictions.
What he might see as nuanced, I see as flip flopping. It’s that simple. He may believe he is consistent on the issues but he is not and his public utterances prove that.
I think there’s a lot of jealousy out there when it comes to Mitt. He has a lot of money, he’s been very successful in the private sector, he’s not really a politician, he’s handsome, he’s very smart. I agree with this article. I keep emailing his campaign urging him to be more natural, get rid of the scrips, talk from the heart, don’t change his views, but communicate more like the Huckster and Thompson.
These days, we’ve been “burned” by so many “nice” candidates, we tend to be suspicious of a smiling face, and firm handshake, asking ourselves, “What is he hiding?” A normal reaction now.
If Mitt gets the nomination, I’ll support him 100%. Until then, I’m still troubled by his support for gun control(yes, I know he recently joined the NRA, but he can’t buy my vote that easily).
Until then, I’m a 100% Fred Head!
Many people have their theories on why Romney isn’t running away with the campaign. And Barnett’s partially right, but he’s missing the obivous.
The Republican field is full of reasonable choices for the nomination (reasonable to a certain set of voters, that is!)
Romney’s a good manager & a nice guy, but he was governor of Mass. Any East Coast Republican is immediately going to turn off any social conservative because there are taxes they have to pay to the social liberals in order to get elected.
Rudy’s got a similar problem. We all know he did a great job with 9/11 and cleaning up NYC. In the meantime he dumped his 2nd wife after she stuck through his cancer run. Then he married his nurse! That sound you hear is the puking of several social conservatives, especially after knowing Rudy’s pro-choice stances.
Fred! seems great. Good ol’ Southern Boy. Nice charm, wit, relaxed, and seemingly conservative. But he got in the race way too late (or the race started way too early– you decide) and he’s fighting an uphill battle to capture those who’ve committed to Mitt or Rudy or McCain. He’s gathering steam– but is it enough steam to win on Super Tuesday? That’s the question.
Huckabee is a Christian Minister, which really excites the Americans for Jesus crowd. I’m Catholic and I like Jesus just fine– what I don’t like is Huckabee’s complete capitulation to higher taxes and bigger government in Arkansas. He’s a social conservative but political liberal. (Didn’t the USS Enterprise use those two forces to power the warp drive?) He’s got the Christian vote– well, the ignorant Christian vote, and that’s power from the pulpit.
And don’t forget McCain. He’s great with foreign policy. But as the season rolls on, we are reminded again of the horrible McCain-Fiengold legislation. Don’t forget his formation of his coalition of senators to undermine Republican leadership in the Senate. And don’t forget his tarnished past– AZSCAM, for example. He may be an ex-POW, but he’s spent so long in politics he’s got a closet full of skeletons and a Conservative base that doesn’t trust him.
So we’ve got Rudy, Mitt, Fred, Huck, and McCain– each with a solid core of supporters. (And there’s Ron Paul, too, bringing in the Troofer/Stormfront vote.) The vote is solidly split because each of the candidates has something that attracts a core of voters.
So the idea that “people don’t like Mitt” is tenuous. I’d be more willing to state that people like other people more than Mitt. Or Rudy. Or McCain. Or Huckabee. Or Ron Paul.
(But everyone likes Duncan Hunter– they just don’t think he can win. How can someone everyone likes not win?)
if thompson is such a ‘true’ conservative, then why is there rumor that he will give his delegates to McPain? Why didn’t he come out and slam McPain over his liberalism and just Huckster’s?
If Thompson were a true conservative then he would be on McPain like white on rice.
I have heard this throughout the blogs, and I just ain’t buyin’ the only true conservative rant.
I agree, Rick (#18). It is more than a subtle distinction or difference in expression with Romney. It’s more akin to flip-flopping, I would think.
I seem to remember GW campaigned on the ‘I’m going to change Washington and reach across the isle and make goody good with the Dems yada yada yada.’ We see how that turned out. I want a Republican president that will go to DC and tell the demwits to sit down and shut up, I am in charge and were going to listen to the American people who elected me. Is that to much to ask? I want new blood in DC, I want someone who has been on the outside of the beltway….I want a real man in the oval office. Not McCain who is nothing but a democrat or Thompson or Huck or Paul….the only one that really gives me a glimmer of hope is Romney. I hope he stays in I would at least like to vote for him in the TX primary. I have learned that no candidate is going to meet all my expectations but we have a few on our side that should just be on the other.
I actually felt relieved when I read the Barnett article because it validated my perception that we’re not getting the whole story on the real Mitt from the MSM. In fact, it seems that there are quite a few pundits who have a thinly veiled bias against him. If Barnett is right, it appears we’re not getting access to the real Mitt from the campaign either, however misguided that strategy might be.
I think we’ve had a few glimpses of the real Romney, namely, the secretly-recorded radio interview with Jan Mickelson (especially the off-air commercial break beginning at 10:30 on the tape), the Faith in America speech (video or transcript), and most of his debate performances - his knowledge of the issues gives him the ability to debate with facts and logic. (Frankly, I think it would be hilarious fun to watch him debate ANY of the Dems and their spew of empty rhetoric and fantasy.)
I’m a supporter because I believe that’s who he really is, and because he has an unique and successful resume with indisputable results in turning around failing and underperforming enterprises.
I’m turned off when he can’t seem to answer a simple question. To me that screams “politician” - like he has to run a set of possible answers against what he thinks people might want to hear.
If he’s the cadidiate I’ll vote for him, but he’s not conservative at his core in my opinion.
Even though I mailed out my vote today for Mitt, CNN’s Anderson Pooper Scooper already said he was finished. He was talking to “too much candy” and said if Mitt goes 0-3 he’s toast. (Wyoming doesn’t count as a win for some reason, but I’m sure if Mitt lost that one it would be on their count)
Media blackout… well, it’s not completely the media’s fault. Hunter has some culpability but excluding Hunter from the Republican debates as Fox and ABC did, is inexcusable.
Godvoter.org has endorsed Hunter. They cite their reasons for doing so here.
Clarity:
Don’t count him out just yet…
This is the Mitt that I pick up on when I see him talk.
The person, the self he puts out there is very sincere and his qualities would make him a very good Pres.
I think for some people he comes across as strained and trying too hard and maybe he is but for myself thats a Mitt Romney who’s giving 110% and thats not a bad thing.
I was a Fredhead who sent him more money after his great debate performance and I want him to win, but Mitt is my other guy and we HAVE to fight to keep him in the race. McCain and Huckabee are NOT conservative.
Mitt has won me over more and more, the career politicians haven’t been able to reduce out of control spending, illegal immigration etc.(i.e. Bush-Clinton-Bush) why not let a guy whose been very successful in private enterprise give it a shot? I agree the media appear to not like him and are trying their hardest to swing the election away from him.
I don’t want to, and rumors of his demise have been greatly exaggerated.
He did pick up my endorsement.
If we continue as “issues” Republicans, we won’t retain the White House. Focus on the big picture: Who most closely follows our values and principles and is electable?* It can’t be a single value or one principle. Once they are in office, we hammer them and our local representatives with emails and phone calls to keep them on track. Not really that difficult.
* W/all fairness and respect to my fellow Iowans and idealistic Christians everywhere, it ain’t Huck.
Thanks for the link doc. Hunter is #1 in my book, then Fred with Romney in third. He is gaining traction. Hunter ‘08
I would really like to hear about his “Top Values that lie elsewhere”. I still like Romney and often wonder where he really stands on some issues. I would vote for him in a heartbeat.
Michelle, everyone is entitled to be enthusiastic about their candidate of choice. No need to offer an apology with the “I know, I know” part.;-) This is your place in the internet - what better place to express your enthusiasm?
I do of course, disagree with Romney as a first choice (Ronmey would be my second choice). Re that, let’s have some fun on the board with a variation of a question I’ve posted elsewhere, but one that so far has not had a direct response.
Rudy’s my first choice. We know what Rudy accomplished: Managed the 3rd largest economy in the US, and in so doing lowered taxes enormously while turning an inherited deficit into a surplus and transformed the worst urban blight into prosperity. Took on the mafia in strongholds and mostly won despite death threats of a very serious nature, removed porno and street crazies legally despite the endless vilification for the acts from the MSM and of course led the city out of the 9/11 aftermath (I feel, brilliantly).
Those are among his manifest, tangible accomplishments. I’ve asked people to drop the rhetoric of the candidate of their choice and stack that person’s record of manifest, tangible accomplishment against that of Rudy’s. It’s a good game but needs to be played fairly. That means straight and direct answers only to the question as put forward, with no links to negative propoganda at anti-this or anti-that sites. Just straight-up answers on the positive - meaning pro-active - merits.
It’s a good game - and important; talk for politicians is cheap and we’ve been lied to before. Let’s see what they’ve done in the executive capacities of their jobs relevent to the Presidency (that by definition removes most senators from the contest but hey, anyone can play).
Any takers?
I see Romney as slightly increasing the angle of the Republican slouch toward socialism that Bush and the 107th and 108th Congress restarted. Even that is better than what Rudy McCabee represent; all-out collapses of various portions of the conservative coalition into the abyss.
That acknowledgement out of the way, I might not be a spring chicken anymore, but that level of slouching is going to result in two socialist parties well within my lifetime, and I’m not nearly ready to accept that.
I’m not voting for a fishing buddy, I’m voting for the President of the US.
Flip Flopney’s record on abortion, judicial appointees, health care, the 2nd Amendment, Gorebal Warming, taxes etc. STINKS!
If Hillary was nice and chummy that wouldn’t be enough for me to vote for her either.
I’m not voting for a “nice guy” either. Just before going out to vote today here in Michigan, I caught Romney in other of his lies. He claims to have been a hunter all of his life, when he doesn’t even own a gun. Earlier, a prominently aired TV ad in which Romney claimed he was pro-life throughout his tenure as Massachusetts governor particularly ticked me off. I won’t vote for this man under any circumstances.
Incidentally, I voted for Fred Thompson.
Doesn’t anyone want to compare records of manifest accomplishments, or have we all just become a nation of entertainment wonks buying opportunistic rhetoric as reliable fact?
One thing I am getting sick and tired of seeing is politicians who are the sons and daughters of politicians. It is getting to be a real regular thing and bordering on being an “elite” group. And when they need to there is not one of them who will not use daddy’s name when necessary to help get themselves elected.
I’d be happy with either Fred or Mitt, and I wouldn’t really swallow too hard to vote for Rudy. I can’t stand McCain or Huckebee, and Ron Paul’s not even in the running, except for entertainment. The only candidate in the race that admits he made mistakes in the past — and got over it, which is more than some of you can say — is Mitt Romney. If he’s right now, that’s all that matters unless you can show a pattern of deception, and you just can’t.
The above are dripping loves notes from a Rawmoney sycophant. I’m not impressed.
…Especially regarding a subject like Chappaquiddick Fats.
OK - so Mitt likes Ted. Fine. Both of you please stay in Massachsetts and leave the other 49 states alone.
It’s interesting. It is a piece of information.
Hearing about Kerry going to the front of a ticket line and bellowing “Don’t you know who I am?” when heckled was interesting.
Hearing how Hillary, Bill and Algore treated the Secret Service and military people around them was interesting.
Hearing how John Edwards keeps people waiting in the summer heat is interesting.
Enough to base a decision in? No, but it has credibility and it has a little bit of weight with me.