Replies

Is unfortunate for a reasoned analysis of the Romney campaign that the criticism here comes from Peggy Noonan whose recent history could not be more calculated to antagonize conservatives. Let us not forget the Peggy Noonan supported Barack Obama four years ago.

But the real question before us is not the faithlessness of Peggy Noonan rather it is the health of the Romney campaign.

This campaign is being conducted by those who believe on one side of an issue and it is being criticized by those of us who believe the other side of the issue. The issue is whether a political campaign should conduct itself to attract uncommitted voters whom we call "independents" or "undecideds." This side of the question is invariably the side favored by Rinos.

The other side of the debate, advanced by conservatives, is that the campaign should energize its base and that pandering to the mushy middle is counterproductive in that it diminishes turnout among the party faithful.

So far, Romney has conducted a campaign designed to appeal to independents and he has disappointed many movement conservatives. Let me move quickly to acknowledge that the selection of Paul Ryan as his running mate put many of us offguard and caused us to believe that Romney was prepared to conduct an aggressive attack on Obama and a full throated endorsement of conservative values. Many of us thought that Romney was capable of an aggressive campaign, questions of ideology aside, as we watched him systematically and even ruthlessly dismantle his conservative opponents in the primaries.

It is in this context that the criticisms outlined by Mr. Lombardo who worked in the 2008 Romney campaign, as quoted by Ms. Noonan, ought to be analyzed.

Please note that neither of these critics of the Romney campaign are criticizing Romney ideologically, to the contrary, they are talking tactics, perceptions, professionalism. We conservatives will instinctively react to say, "the Rinos are laying the predicate to blame Romney and his advisers for incompetence in the event of a loss of the election rather than accept that Romney lost implementing the Rino side of the age old argument."

We conservatives believe that a full throated conservative attack and advancement of conservative values will not only energize the base but will also draw in undecideds and independents. We cite Ronald Reagan as the candidate who could articulate the conservative message and we cite the millions of "Reagan Democrats" who flocked to his banner and gave him landslides as evidence that our side of this argument is correct.

For months now I have been posting on the subject but I have always been careful to note that Romney undoubtedly has the best polling and focus group data that money can buy and these data must undoubtedly be telling him that the Rino side of the argument is statistically sound. After all, we all know that we would all crawl over broken glass to vote against Obama even though we might not cross the street to vote for Romney. But consider, the tape recently released showing Romney conceding 47% of the vote and telling his potential dollars that he must concentrate on the remaining 3% of undecideds and independents could mean that Romney has carried a Rino preconception right from the beginning of the campaign and has refused to abandon it in the face of objective polling data. In other words, Romney is not informed by current polling and focus group data but he is locked into a prejudice.

If Romney loses this election, Peggy Noonan will have no ground upon which to stand and say, "I told you so." Rather, it is we conservatives who will own the high ground but that will be of small comfort as we watch from our elevated height the Republican Party being torn asunder.

Great post. Noonan0 supported BHO in 2008? Nuff said. There’s a reason she’s on Morning Joe. There is no longer a reason she should be at the WSJ.

General - very insightful. From my perch in NH I feel I can agree with much of what you say, particularly that Romney likely has access to the best data available.

We were seething here as folks were saying NH was lean Obama and we never even saw a Romney ad. Lo and behold the Granite Staters popped up for Romney by a decent margin this week. Romney and his mushy crowd (Old Bill Weld and Paul Celucci people) of campaign staff have a unique experience in running as GOP in Boston. They know how to win when the Dem advantage IS REALLY +15 not just imagined by some pollster’s research designer.

We shall test their conservatism once they are in, but its best to get them in and save the American ideal before it’s too late. I believe that of all who tried to run this year, we have the very best crowd to deal with Obama’s leftist media amen corner and actually get into office.

“Many of us thought that Romney was capable of an aggressive campaign, questions of ideology aside, as we watched him systematically and even ruthlessly dismantle his conservative opponents in the primaries.”

Thanks for a very thoughtful assessment. I think it's still relatively early, and to be honest, I haven't heard many of Romney's stump speeches, so I'm not sure how aggressive he's been verbally. Also, to be fair, the media weren't covering for his Republican opponents in the primaries like they are for Obama. If anything, because they saw Romney as less conservative than some of his opponents, they were probably more than happy to help him beat those opponents.

I believe that a viable campaign approach has to include efforts to divide some of the coalitions that make up the democrat base, and to work on suppressing their support. I know this sounds distasteful, but its what they do, and to me it's much more ‘distasteful’ to lose our nation as we know it.

I also think that Romney needs to really hit hard on the economic front, and point out to all of those saving for retirement that they may lose much of the value of everything they've saved and invested because of a looming collapse of what is now a financial house of cards. Also, point out to home owners that they've lost a significant amount of their equity (if they have any at all and aren't underwater), and that this is not going to get better unless we have significant economic growth. People respond most predictably to what they perceive is in their best interest.

That's a terrific analysis (wish I had written it).

You're leaving one thing out, though, maybe because it's just speculation.

Romney said, during the primaries, "I'm not going to set my hair on fire (to appeal to conservatives)". I believe that Romney, and the Romney faction in the GOP, fear a conservative ascendancy and a sweeping conservative victory more than they fear Obama. Romney's faction never amounted to more than about 35%, but under rules that allowed a plurality "winner" (stupid, stupid, STUPID), they were strong enough to prevail.

This is partly a class problem. Mitt and his crew are just not comfortable with the NASCAR demographic. But I think it also reflects that they are in fundamental agreement with the post-1965 compromises, but believe that they are being badly implemented or that they "go too far".

We believe (I believe) that the post-1965 social and political Grand Compromise contains the seeds of its own destruction, that it CANNOT be properly implemented because it is improper to start with, that it was inevitable that it would "go too far" because that was the intent of its designers.

The problem we have (the reason I believe that Sarah could not have won) is that the People are not ready to fold the tent on the post-1965 arrangements. Politicians, at all levels except a few specific Congressional districts, must lie to the People in order to win elections.

This means that the Democrat, who can lie openly and unashamedly, will usually have an advantage over a Republican who often will be in coverup mode, with an opponent and baying media trying to "out" him as to his true beliefs and true agenda.

I voted for Gingrich, and I would have been much, MUCH happier watching him campaign against Obama. But I acknowledge that, until things get much worse, that overturning the Great Society by a direct appeal to the voters is not possible, and that, therefore, much worse is how things are going to get.

That's a terrific analysis (wish I had written it).

You're leaving one thing out, though, maybe because it's just speculation.

Romney said, during the primaries, "I'm not going to set my hair on fire (to appeal to conservatives)". I believe that Romney, and the Romney faction in the GOP, fear a conservative ascendancy and a sweeping conservative victory more than they fear Obama. Romney's faction never amounted to more than about 35%, but under rules that allowed a plurality "winner" (stupid, stupid, STUPID), they were strong enough to prevail.

This is partly a class problem. Mitt and his crew are just not comfortable with the NASCAR demographic. But I think it also reflects that they are in fundamental agreement with the post-1965 compromises, but believe that they are being badly implemented or that they "go too far".

We believe (I believe) that the post-1965 social and political Grand Compromise contains the seeds of its own destruction, that it CANNOT be properly implemented because it is improper to start with, that it was inevitable that it would "go too far" because that was the intent of its designers.

The problem we have (the reason I believe that Sarah could not have won) is that the People are not ready to fold the tent on the post-1965 arrangements. Politicians, at all levels except a few specific Congressional districts, must lie to the People in order to win elections.

This means that the Democrat, who can lie openly and unashamedly, will usually have an advantage over a Republican who often will be in coverup mode, with an opponent and baying media trying to "out" him as to his true beliefs and true agenda.

I voted for Gingrich, and I would have been much, MUCH happier watching him campaign against Obama. But I acknowledge that, until things get much worse, that overturning the Great Society by a direct appeal to the voters is not possible, and that, therefore, much worse is how things are going to get.

Like him or not, one thing that weighs heavily in Romney's favor is that -- despite his political background -- he is not a politician. He's an effective, capable executive (maybe the most capable person to run for that office in U.S. history) who approaches everything he does with a clear objective in mind and then goes about trying to get it done.

Remember this, folks -- he is not a politician. He's not pursuing a political ideology and he's not running for this position on a lark. The stated objective is to mount a winning presidential campaign, and based on what I know about how these CEO-types operate, I can assure you that everyone in his organization is working to meet that objective. Any bloviating you hear from "conservative" talking heads -- none of whom have any idea what it takes to be an effective, competent leader -- is just background noise.

“Romney conceding 47% of the vote and telling his potential dollars that he must concentrate on the remaining 3% of undecideds and independents”

Is Romney also assuming that 47% will vote for him, no matter what and is going after the remaining 3%-6% of undecideds and independents? If so, it is a very large assumption.

The simple fact of his nomination, has created a large pool of “undecideds” among usual republican voters.

ping to self for future reference.

The RINOs are Johnny-one-notes. Their RINO appeal mushies is the only trick they know. Then again, their approach is the only effective one in heavy DEM-liberal districts, where GOP candidates can come up with creative ways of appealing to liberals without insulting conservatives.

I know a few solid conservatives in DEM-liberal districts who are trying to run an “energize the base” campaign. When they inevitably fail, they’ll say that it was due to lack of effort and that next time, the voters will see the light. People with such a blind spot are likely as useless to our cause as the knee-jerk RINOs.