Skip to comments.Santorum: It was dumb to make Obama’s “you didn’t build that” comment the theme for GOP convention
Posted on 06/14/2013 7:04:29 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
This deserves wider attention, especially at a moment when the stupid, stupid Republican leadership has convinced itself that its real problem with the electorate is being insufficiently pro-amnesty.
One after another, [business owners who were invited to speak] talked about the business they had built. But not a singlenot a single factory worker went out there, Santorum told a few hundred conservative activists at an after-hours session of the Faith and Freedom Coalition conference in Washington. Not a single janitor, waitress or person who worked in that company! We didnt care about them. You know what? They built that company too! And we should have had them on that stage.…
When all you do is talk to people who are owners, talk to folks who are Type As who want to succeed economically, were talking to a very small group of people, he said. No wonder they dont think we care about them. No wonder they dont think we understand them. Folks, if were going to win, you just need to think about who you talk to in your life.…
Our leaders dont accurately reflect who we are, he said. They reflect the interest groups around here who are lobbying for an advantage. Everyone who is up here is wanting an edge for their company or their industry. Weve got to get away from that.
“This makes so much sense to me,” writes Mollie Hemingway, “that I am confused as to how the GOP and Romney messed it up so badly last year.” I think I can explain that. The reason it caught on with the GOP, at least in part, is because it caught on first with grassroots ideologues like me. I thought, and do think, that O’s “you didn’t build that” line was a window onto his essential statism, an unusually blunt expression of contempt for private initiative. It’s one thing to demand higher taxes for the rich, it’s another to deny entrepreneurs, even rhetorically, the credit they deserve for having taken great risk to build wealth-generating enterprises. If you’re a true-believing libertarian-leaning capitalist, it’s Obama at his sneering liberal worst. But here’s the thing, and it’s something I’m reminded of constantly: Most voters aren’t ideologues. One of the lessons of last year’s campaign was that 99 percent of the daily “gaffes” and kerfuffles that political media, left and right, regularly wets its pants over mean next to nothing to the average joe. If you’re going to devote an entire convention to the other guy’s allegedly damning gaffe, you’d best be sure that gaffe is really, really damning in the eyes of most voters. It is to an ideologue like me and to America’s proud entrepreneurs. What about the other 80 percent of the electorate?
Santorum’s making a point here that should be prosaic among prominent Republicans by now but which, apart from occasional gestures from Eric Cantor and speeches by Bobby Jindal, remains mostly overlooked: You need to win America’s wage-earners too. Gun rights are great and border security is excellent, but expecting the masses who are earning 15 bucks an hour to rally behind a message that Obama’s too hard on their bosses is expecting a lot. It’s hard for an ideologue like me who works in political media to keep his eye on that particular ball in the middle of a campaign, when he’s at virtual war with the ideologues on the other side every day. The question is, why was it hard for Team Romney? Mitt is many things but an ideologue isn’t one of them. His guys were paid, very handsomely, to come up with a message that would win, ideological or not. Romney’s whole selling point with conservatives, in fact, was his alleged electability; the party nominated him in the full expectation that he’d move to the center for the general election, so he had nothing to fear by ignoring one of their ideological hobbyhorses. And yet somehow he and his advisors decided that going all in against “you didn’t build that” at the convention was the way to go. Why? Romney’s core political identity was that he’d say anything to win. Why did he think that making a stink about that would help him do it?
One footnote to all this. As much as I hate what Rubio’s doing with the immigration reform, I’m paradoxically reassured by the fact that he seems to realize it won’t much hurt him in 2016. Ideologues like me will hold it against him, but if your goal is getting elected president, who cares what ideologues think? We couldn’t stop either Romney or John McCain(!) from being nominated in the last two cycles and we’ll be the first ones at the polls on election day 2016 to pull the lever for the nominee, even if it’s Marco “Legalization First” Rubio. He doesn’t need to impress us, he needs to impress the non-ideological middle class. How he plans to do that by effectively amnestizing a huge new labor supply is … unclear to me, but voters do seem to think that immigration reform is pretty nifty. If he figures out a way to talk to blue-collar voters, he’ll be very viable. Amnesty or no.
what would Reagan do?
No it was dumb to run a statist socialist commie like Romney.
When you repeat the other guy’s line, no matter how stupid or untrue it is, you sell the other guy, IMHO.
I can tell you why he did so well here in Michigan.
He talked the language of the factory floor and spoke about street level taxes and things that would create jobs immediately instead of the jobs that will eventually filter down. Things like the ridiculous way manufacturing is taxed.
The GOP-e would rather lose with a statist than win with a conservative.
Santorum would have lost 48 states.
We need a Reagan type who can handle the media and be a
leader to their party. These current clowns are a has been.
Need new people.
.... and what about the sweater vest?
Don’t mistake my criticism of Romney as an endorsement of Santorum.
Or maybe we lost because Romney is a pathological liar who, amongst many other crimes, invented Obamacare, but still chose to run and sabotage his conservative opponents, including Palin back on the even of the election that saw Obama elected in the first place.
Shutting out Governor Palin and the base, probably had the biggest effect of anything related to the convention.
It was dumb for Rick to betray America, too- but he did it anyway.
It was dumb for Santorum to think he had a chance.
***...and well be the first ones at the polls on election day 2016 to pull the lever for the nominee, even if its Marco Legalization First Rubio.***
Don’t be so sure. Millions sat out the previous election. This time around there’s not much more to lose. But then again the party bosses already plugged that into their political calculation, and it’s expected. The pro-American conservative has been written off. Will it pay off for the GOP? They seem to think so.
Not a single janitor, waitress or person who worked in that company! We didnt care about them. You know what? They built that company too!”
Wrong, the menial laborers did not create anything. It is this feel good populist crap that these assclowns pull to out liberal the liberals.
I knew he was a stuffed sweater vest when I saw that his campaign “issues” page had an article on the horrors of pornography on the top of the bloody list. Not Obamacare. Not illegal invasion. Just a polemic against porno, followed by other insipid articles touting his virtues and large family.
I’m a Christian, but I know when someone is full of it.
I think it is a good point. I think the “You didn’t build that” was not a bad theme but it was one prong of what was needed. There was little or no talk about Obama’s “war on religion and conscience”, Sarah Palin wasn’t there which immediately deflated the convention unnecessarily. Those same people who are always going on about a “big tent” didn’t have room for Palin and I think that speaks to the Romney problem. It was a perfectly forgettable convention outside of ‘the empty chair skit’. I enjoyed a lot of it but it was not overly inspiring not in the way George W Bush and his team knew how to throw a convention and inspire. The Romney team was so worried about appearances that the convention came off like a the perfect cocktail party that everyone says was so nice but did little to touch a heart. Ann Romney came the closest but in the end it was a convention that left me wondering “is there not more?”.
Christie did absolutely nothing for Romney at that convention. Christie promoted Christie and now we know that really that is what Christie is about. He gets to be the cool fat boy and he’s selling his soul out to keep that position. I really thought he could be something special but instead of helping build the Republican party he has helped build his own little fan club. I guarantee he wont be out there going full in for whoever the Senate candidate is for the October Special election and that should be his end as a Republican.
breakfast at Tiffany’s
we has zero chance
has —> had
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.