Mitt's National Movement Fizzles

by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright Nov. 3, 2012
All Rights Reserved.                                         

      Three days and counting before Election Day, GOP presidential candidate former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney showed veiled confidence in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, telling an audience that the state where he began his campaign June 2, 2011 would put him over the top.  While the polls say otherwise, the former Wall Street investment banker kept a stiff upper lip, telling a relatively small audience that he’d win the election, though his words lacked conviction.  “New Hampshire won me the Republican nomination, and New Hampshire is going to get me to the White House,” said Mitt, knowing that all polls in key battleground states point to a decisive Electoral College victory for President Barack Obama.  Romney’s had a difficult time selling to independent voters his doom-and-gloom scenario about Obama’s economy or Mitt’s ability to fix it.

            Becoming more philosophical on the stump hints that Mitt knows the end is near.  Barack gave Mitt some false hope Oct. 3 when he let the 65-year-old former Massachusetts governor walk all over him in their first debate.  When the president showed up Oct. 16, Mitt saw a more feisty Barack point out Mitt’s flaws.  “I’ve watched over the last few months as our campaign has gone from a start to a movement.  It’s not just the size of the crowds.  It’s the conviction and compassion in the hearts of the people,” said Romney, despite Obama’s leads in key battleground states destined to call the election.  When Mitt talks of a “movement,” it’s certainly not one leading to the White House.  When he picked House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) Aug. 12, he watched his campaign head south, much the same way in 2008 when Sen. John McCain picked former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.

            Instead of picking a running mate on the same ideological page, Mitt pandered to his Party’s right wing, choosing Barack’s biggest nemesis in the House.  No one in the House opposes Barack’s policies more than Ryan.  He’s been in the GOP lead to obstruct any economic plan to fix the economy.  Romney and Ryan’s political strategy involved doing anything and everything to weaken the U.S. economy before the election.  As Labor Department reports pointed to more solid jobs gains and economic recovery, Mitt and Paul had to harden their message, despite growing data that their message was false.  Every time the Labor or Commerce Department reported good economic news, Mitt and Paul ignored the data entirely or twisted the facts to fit their campaign theory, namely, that Obama botched the economy.  Independent voters simply couldn’t believe Romney’s message.

            When Mitt talks of a “movement,” he’s referring to the Tea Party that he hoped would rally his campaign to victory.  Mitt’s running mate had no qualms talking about privatizing Social Security and Medicare, something Baby Boomers couldn’t support.  While Ryan tried to explain it wouldn’t apply to anyone under 55, the more he talked, the more he turned off aging Baby Boomers.  Instead of picking a moderate GOP voice, Mitt chose one of the most conservative members of Congress.  Since launching his campaign in June 2011, Mitt faced mounting criticism that he lacked real conservative credentials.  When other GOP candidates fell by the wayside, Mitt adopted more conservative positions until he won his Party’s nomination May 30.  By the time he accepted the nomination at the GOP national convention Aug. 28, Mitt acted more conservative than radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh.

            Hoping the Tea Party would ride him to the White House, Mitt promised to scale back the federal establishment.  Without spelling out what he’d do to create 12 million jobs in his first term, Mitt promised to cut taxes, despite current budget deficits exceeding $1 trillion.  All indications point to Mitt and Paul ordering a federal hiring freeze, and more likely laying off federal workers.  Tea Party advocates believe the government taxes and spends too much, despite the fact that tax rates are at record lows.  “It made me strive to be more worthy of the support I have received across the country and to campaign as I would govern, to speak for the aspirations of all Americans, not just some Americans,” said Mitt, alluding to Obama’s intent to raise taxes on the rich.  Campaigning as he would govern scared off independent voters worried that Mitt and Paul would mess around with popular government entitlements.

             When Mitt was caught on tape early this year saying that 47% of the population that didn’t pay taxes and received government largess wouldn’t vote for him, eyebrows raised.  While that’s probably true, it slapped a lot of voters in the face.  Obama and his VP Joe Biden have reminded voters about Romney’s offshore accounts in the Cayman Islands and Switzerland.  When Mitt talks of the “aspirations of all Americans, not just some Americans,” he’s referring to extending more tax cuts to the rich.  Faced with high budget deficits, average voters couldn’t fathom Mitt’s promise to reduce budget deficits by cutting taxes to the wealthy.  More signs of Mitt’s wealth turned off struggling middle or lower class voters, not convinced he understood their plight.  Whatever “movement” Mitt thinks is under foot, it’s not one to see more wealthy folks, like him, get more loopholes and tax breaks.

 John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news.  He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com.and author of Dodging the Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2012 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.