I’ve been following politics for many years; I’ve written a book on presidential campaigns and I’ve delved quite a bit into the minutiae of the 2012 campaign. And I’m increasingly convinced that Mitt Romney is the worst national politician I’ve ever seen.
There are so many proof points to back up this supposition that I could go on for a while, but I’ll just stick to Romney’s train wreck of an interview on "Meet The Press" on Sunday. This was not exactly a hard-hitting inquiry, what with inquiries from David Gregory like, “Do you feel like an underdog or do you feel like you’re right in this thing?” and a dearth of many follow-up questions.
Still, none of this stopped Romney from stepping on landmine after landmine. He was unable to offer a single tax loophole that he wanted to close. even though closing these loopholes and deductions is foundational to his argument that massive tax cuts for the rich won't actually lessen their tax burden.
On health care, Romney said that he wouldn’t get rid of all of Obamacare, even though he’s been saying for months that repealing the law will the first thing he’ll do upon taking office. Embarrassingly, only hours after making this statement he reversed it . . . twice. As Steve Benen noted, “over the course of one day, Romney went from supporting full repeal [of Obamacare] to partial repeal, while taking four different positions on protections with those with pre-existing conditions."
But here’s the crazy thing: I actually don’t think this was the most politically clueless thing that he did in the interview.
When asked by Gregory about the budget sequestration agreement, mandatory spending cuts, including to the Defense Department budget, that are part of the debt limit deal signed by President Obama and passed by Republican House last summer, Romney said this: "That was a big mistake. I thought it was a mistake on the – on the part of the White House to propose it. I think it was a mistake for Republicans to go along with it."
This is a fascinating statement, not only because Romney attacks the White House (this is basically pro forma) but he is also attacking the 201 members of his own party in the House of Representatives who voted for the sequestration bill, including his own running mate.
In fact, here’s what Paul Ryan said (hat-tip to the folks at Think Progress) about the bill when it passed: It "represents a victory for those committed to controlling government spending and growing our economy" and that "the agreement – while far from perfect – underscores the extent to which the new House majority has successfully changed Washington’s culture of spending."
Now, this vote and these statements of support did not stop Ryan from telling an incredulous Norah O’Donnell yesterday morning on CBS that even though he voted for the sequestration, "the goal was never that these defense cuts actually occur.” A reasonable followup would have been: Then why on Earth did Ryan and his Republican colleagues in hold the President hostage, culminating in an agreement to spending cuts in return for raising the debt limit?
It’s bad enough that Romney is attacking his own party and that Ryan is basically lying about his own vote for sequestration. What takes this rhetorical screw-up into the realm of the stratospheric is that it’s hard to discern much of any political benefit from what Romney is doing.
At least on his bit of Obamacare flip-flopping, one can locate the political advantage of Romney saying that he’d keep the bill’s provision on pre-existing conditions in place; and not being specific about the tax loopholes you’re going to close while bragging about cutting taxes is Politics 101.
But how to explain Romney bending over backwards to demean the sequester deal? Does he see such a significant political benefit in criticizing defense cuts and backing defense increases, even to the point of hanging his own running mate out to dry?
Contrary to the tired political playbook that Republicans have been using for years to justify giving the Pentagon every penny it wants, defense spending is today not that terribly popular. Recent polling shows that voters are quite happy with the idea of giving the Department of Defense a haircut, and they have a definite preference for seeing the military take a hit rather than Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security or education funding. In fact, a recent poll done by the Center for Public integrity, the Program for Public Consultation and the Stimson Center shows broad public support for defense cuts. The public would be content with an average spending reduction of $103 billion from the Pentagon’s bottom line.
It's not a partisan preference. Two-thirds of Republicans and nine out of ten Democrats were fine with immediate spending cuts – like those that will go into effect at the end of the year as part of the sequestration package voted for by Ryan.
Now of course Pentagon spending is usually about more than just Pentagon spending – it’s often a stand-in for how one thinks about foreign policy and America’s role in the world. More spending equals more toughness on foreign policy; less spending, which is the charge hurled by Romney-Ryan at Obama, means weakness. But as Democrats reminded all Americans in Charlotte, it’s pretty hard to make that weakness label stick against the guy who killed Osama Bin Laden.
For Romney, who already doesn’t have the most stellar reputation on foreign policy (see: disastrous overseas trip), and who has been needlessly bellicose on national security in general, calling for more Pentagon spending may have the effect of making him seem like a blustering, even reckless, candidate.
So what we have is a presidential candidate attacking their own party and their own running mate on an issue that is as much as a political liability as it is a political benefit. That’s our Mitt!
There are so many proof points to back up this supposition that I could go on for a while, but I’ll just stick to Romney’s train wreck of an interview on "Meet The Press" on Sunday. This was not exactly a hard-hitting inquiry, what with inquiries from David Gregory like, “Do you feel like an underdog or do you feel like you’re right in this thing?” and a dearth of many follow-up questions.
Still, none of this stopped Romney from stepping on landmine after landmine. He was unable to offer a single tax loophole that he wanted to close. even though closing these loopholes and deductions is foundational to his argument that massive tax cuts for the rich won't actually lessen their tax burden.
On health care, Romney said that he wouldn’t get rid of all of Obamacare, even though he’s been saying for months that repealing the law will the first thing he’ll do upon taking office. Embarrassingly, only hours after making this statement he reversed it . . . twice. As Steve Benen noted, “over the course of one day, Romney went from supporting full repeal [of Obamacare] to partial repeal, while taking four different positions on protections with those with pre-existing conditions."
But here’s the crazy thing: I actually don’t think this was the most politically clueless thing that he did in the interview.
When asked by Gregory about the budget sequestration agreement, mandatory spending cuts, including to the Defense Department budget, that are part of the debt limit deal signed by President Obama and passed by Republican House last summer, Romney said this: "That was a big mistake. I thought it was a mistake on the – on the part of the White House to propose it. I think it was a mistake for Republicans to go along with it."
This is a fascinating statement, not only because Romney attacks the White House (this is basically pro forma) but he is also attacking the 201 members of his own party in the House of Representatives who voted for the sequestration bill, including his own running mate.
In fact, here’s what Paul Ryan said (hat-tip to the folks at Think Progress) about the bill when it passed: It "represents a victory for those committed to controlling government spending and growing our economy" and that "the agreement – while far from perfect – underscores the extent to which the new House majority has successfully changed Washington’s culture of spending."
Now, this vote and these statements of support did not stop Ryan from telling an incredulous Norah O’Donnell yesterday morning on CBS that even though he voted for the sequestration, "the goal was never that these defense cuts actually occur.” A reasonable followup would have been: Then why on Earth did Ryan and his Republican colleagues in hold the President hostage, culminating in an agreement to spending cuts in return for raising the debt limit?
It’s bad enough that Romney is attacking his own party and that Ryan is basically lying about his own vote for sequestration. What takes this rhetorical screw-up into the realm of the stratospheric is that it’s hard to discern much of any political benefit from what Romney is doing.
At least on his bit of Obamacare flip-flopping, one can locate the political advantage of Romney saying that he’d keep the bill’s provision on pre-existing conditions in place; and not being specific about the tax loopholes you’re going to close while bragging about cutting taxes is Politics 101.
But how to explain Romney bending over backwards to demean the sequester deal? Does he see such a significant political benefit in criticizing defense cuts and backing defense increases, even to the point of hanging his own running mate out to dry?
Contrary to the tired political playbook that Republicans have been using for years to justify giving the Pentagon every penny it wants, defense spending is today not that terribly popular. Recent polling shows that voters are quite happy with the idea of giving the Department of Defense a haircut, and they have a definite preference for seeing the military take a hit rather than Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security or education funding. In fact, a recent poll done by the Center for Public integrity, the Program for Public Consultation and the Stimson Center shows broad public support for defense cuts. The public would be content with an average spending reduction of $103 billion from the Pentagon’s bottom line.
It's not a partisan preference. Two-thirds of Republicans and nine out of ten Democrats were fine with immediate spending cuts – like those that will go into effect at the end of the year as part of the sequestration package voted for by Ryan.
Now of course Pentagon spending is usually about more than just Pentagon spending – it’s often a stand-in for how one thinks about foreign policy and America’s role in the world. More spending equals more toughness on foreign policy; less spending, which is the charge hurled by Romney-Ryan at Obama, means weakness. But as Democrats reminded all Americans in Charlotte, it’s pretty hard to make that weakness label stick against the guy who killed Osama Bin Laden.
For Romney, who already doesn’t have the most stellar reputation on foreign policy (see: disastrous overseas trip), and who has been needlessly bellicose on national security in general, calling for more Pentagon spending may have the effect of making him seem like a blustering, even reckless, candidate.
So what we have is a presidential candidate attacking their own party and their own running mate on an issue that is as much as a political liability as it is a political benefit. That’s our Mitt!
