Romney's Big Debate Flip Flop Could Sink Him

I've no problem saying that my immediate gut reaction to last night's debate was that Romney managed to stop the bleeding. All in all, I believe he scored a slight win on points and presence, though I'm not certain his attacks on Gingrich will get him the traction his supporters think - traction he very much needs at this point. It's the larger story playing out and the flip flop it entails that could sink him if Gingrich wants to capitalize on it, or it becomes the take away from last evening.

Romney is feeding into his own worst problem: who is Mitt Romney and what does he actually believe in? And just how arrogant are his consultants to think no one saw this coming? It's as if they think they're the smartest guys in the room because they've never bothered to take a look around inside it.

It remains to be seen how Romney’s sudden change of debate demeanor will play with voters who had previously watched him try to maintain an above-the-fray posture that seemed to look forward to the general election.

Romney struggled to sustain the intensity of his criticism for the duration of the evening, as the debate veered off into Florida-specific subjects such as sugar subsidies and the more than half-decade-old Terri Schiavo case.

Here is what I tweeted over 24 hours before the debate. It's precisely what happened; their only saving grace may be that when Newt gears it down a bit, it's not his best mode of operation. But the bigger problem is, Romney doesn't seem to have a mode of operation that comes with any authenticity in public settings.

They must think Newt's dumb. If he acts the statesman, doesn't take the bait, Mitt is left hanging out to dry as a desperate, angry guy.

On paper, take away the progressivism he demonstrated in Massachusetts and Romney is the ideal GOP candidate. I see that and understand why many like him as the potential nominee, especially some within the establishment. The problem is, once you get beyond the resume and take a good look at him, there's no way to confidently discern who, or what he is - or how he might govern. He's too much of a chameleon and not a very good one.

His changes, from progressive to conservative, or now from statesman to attack dog, are so convenient, transparent and, ultimately, clumsy and ham-fisted, it seems that, no matter what Mitt Romney does, one always comes back to his core problem - who the hell is Mitt Romney and what the heck does he actually believe in?

Until that problem is solved -and I'm not sure it can be, he may, or may not win the nomination, but I doubt he'll ever beat Obama. Like him or not, at least voters get a sense that they can know the man. I would not underestimate the value in that simple proposition.

Yes, we now have yet one more iteration of Mitt Romney. No longer the poised and presidential-looking frontrunner, the proverbial man from inevitable; now, he's the almost feisty, or perhaps too-dogged attack dog born of desperation because he was trounced in South Carolina. Well, golly gee whiz, folks, now, really, who among us didn't see that one coming?

I can't speak for everyone, but I know I did. And so too did Newt Gingrich, obviously. I'll reiterate and add one item. Maybe his partially misleading attacks on Gingrich will take Newt down a peg, or two, if not more. Unfortunately, this latest program him and push the button version of Mitt Romney may just take himself down along with him. That doesn't bode well for the GOP's positioning coming out of any convention, except perhaps to have innoculated both men a bit from their larger faults or problems. As for Newt Gingrich, I get that, too. Many don't like him. But at least one comes away with a sense that they may know him enough to pull the lever for what he's selling. And that, more than anything, is what matters to me as we face off against Obama come November.

They must think Newt's dumb. If he acts the statesman, doesn't take the bait, Mitt is left hanging out to dry as a desperate, angry guy.

 

Comments

[Ragspierre]

"But what is going to happen as I see this thing is, you're just not going to have a winner in this primary process. I'm looking for a brokered convention," former House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas) said on CNBC tonight.

"But whatever -- however that works out, at some point they're going to have to have a nominee. We understood, those of us that are devoted to the small government constitutional limited government movement, we've understood for some time unless we get a late entry, somebody like Mitch Daniels, we're not going to have a reliable small government conservative who we can count on to advance, you know, innovative, creative ways to control this government and cause this economy to grow. So we're going to have to get the House and the Senate beefed up," he said.
--RCP

Hmmm....

More of THAT kinda talk...

[Ragspierre]

Perspective...

Rep. Jim Jordan, chairman of the House Republican Study Committee, notes that the last time the Senate passed a budget, “you had never heard of the iPad, Tiger Woods was only known for his golfing abilities, General Motors had never declared bankruptcy, you had never heard of Swine flu."
--PowerLine

THAT is some serious obstructing...

[Gary Gross]

Last night, Mitt looked as perplexed as a chameleon trying to hide against a plaid background.

[Joan of Argghh!]

There's plenty of video evidence of Romney being nasty. Not, "hurt" or "angry" but just plain nasty. When Newt gets a dose of criticism he's always personally hurt that someone can't see his brilliant thought-child to be as beautiful as he does, or hurt that someone would think less of him than he thinks of himself. But he never gets nasty and mean. But he does condescension quite well and only where deserved. Mitt's condescension is poorly targeted at fair questions.

I've seen Romney do the exaggerated laugh when Newt or someone else hits the mark, as though he is trying to act out his idea of dismissive incredulity. But Newt is genuine in his incredulity. Romney secretly believes every bad thing someone says about him, and that sort of insecurity makes him grow mean and nasty. Newt secretly believes everyone should love him. Of the two, and if you've ever worked for either iteration of an Ego, Romney is the scarier one.

[ljm]

1.He said he supported Rockefeller before he said he supported Goldwater.

2.Was against Ryan Plan before he was for he wasn't anymore.

3.Was for cap and trade before he was against it.

4.Lobbied congress for Medicare part d before he said he wasn't a lobbyist.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/24/politics/truth-squad-lobbyist/index.html

5.Was for fidelity in marriage before he was against for it- then for it - then against - then for it.

6. Was for positive campaigning before he was against it.

7. Was for a no-fly zone over Libya before he was against any intervention.

8. Was for criminal court trials for suspected terrorists before he was against it.

9. Smoked marijuana before he supported legislation to give lifetime imprisonment to anyone coming home to America caught with 2 oz of pot and the death penalty to anyone caught coming home with 2 oz. the 2nd time. He still supports that legislation BTW( I can only guess how well that is going to go over in the west coast swing states)

10. Was a congenial debater before he was an aggressive debater and then doddering passive elder statesman rambling about sugar beets.

[Ragspierre]

Another ljm lie...

8. Was for criminal court trials for suspected terrorists before he was against it.

Flip: “Well, I think if [members of the Bush administration] believe they have enough evidence to convict [Jose Padilla], going through the process of convicting him and holding him, I suspect, may be for the rest of his life without parole would not be — would hardly be seen as a loss. I think this administration is still wrestling with what are the real ground rules for dealing with people who are clearly outside of normal warfare? They’re not wearing a uniform. They’re not part of an army. They are openly threatening to kill thousands or even millions of people.” — November 22, 2005

Flop: “Why would you take a Nigerian national who just tried to blow up a plane over Detroit … Why would you take that person, put them in the American criminal justice system, give them an attorney, read them their Miranda rights?” — January 4, 2010

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2011/11/25/flip-flopping-newt-gingrich/

There is a REAL significant difference between trying an AMERICAN citizen...

and trying a foreign terrorist.

Hence, while you may disagree with the position...

it is a lie to depict it as a contradiction.

[ljm]

I wouldn't call that a flip flop, rags, nor would I call Romney's debate performance a flip flop or the taken out of context statement from Romney in the irresponsible blog post below a flip flop. When Newt's comments are put into context they are sound.

I wouldn't call Newt a lobbyist either, yet. If you read the link that I provided you would see that those fact checkers found Romney's lobbyist accusations without evidence. The jury is still out on that one.

[Ragspierre]

I didn't say "flip flop", did I?

I quoted what you said, and noted it was an implicit lie, providing quotes from Gingrich to show it was not a contradiction.

"I wouldn't call Newt a lobbyist either, yet."

So...

"4.Lobbied congress for Medicare part d before he said he wasn't a lobbyist."

Was outright used simply for smear value...????

[ljm]

Irony is lost on you.

This has become tiresome. You don't read the posts. You demand support then you don't follow the links. If you can't make a reasonable argument you resort to juvenile ad hominem taunts. This little exercise in futility is over.

[Ragspierre]

"Irony", huh...

Well, yeah, I'd have to allow that your "irony" was totally obscure to me.

"This little exercise in futility is over."

Bet you flip-flop...