Perhaps the most head-scratching aspect of the Republican presidential debates has been that no one has been able to land a hard blow on Mitt Romney’s record on health care. But there are several good reasons why it hasn’t happened. These reasons may turn out to be far more consequential than anyone would have thought.
5. Romney has been running for president since 2007. As many others have remarked, Romney has been refining his positions for many years. He is clearly a much stronger candidate this time around than he was in 2008. But there are plenty of other people who run for President every four years, and never improve, so this alone doesn’t explain Romney’s strength.
4. Romney is very intelligent. Romney’s superior ability to absorb and analyze information is the key to why he has improved as a candidate from 2008 to now. For that matter, compare Romney today to the 1994 version, when Ted Kennedy beat Romney to a pulp with his record at Bain Capital. Jon Huntsman tried that tack last night, and Romney crushed him. Romney’s domestic policy staff, while not widely known in conservative circles, is sharp and aggressive.
3. Moderators have not asked Romney a challenging health-care question. The key to tripping someone up in a debate is asking him a question he is unprepared for. It’s not obvious that those who have moderated the GOP debates are up to the task. Romney is well-practiced at answering the “Romneycare is different from Obamacare” question, and delivers his rejoinder with confidence. A stronger line of criticism — one that almost no one has employed — would be to point out how Romneycare has worsened the free rider problem, increased the cost of health insurance, and worsened emergency room crowding. Romney’s successor has been forced to try to clean up the mess by raising taxes and instituting price controls on insurance premiums. Even these points, however, are hard to pursue in a thirty-second format.
2. The eight-candidate, sound-bite debate format plays to Romney’s advantage. Because the debates must give sufficient air time to each of eight candidates, it has been difficult to ask follow-up questions and pursue the weaknesses in Romney’s well-crafted statements. The format of the Palmetto Freedom Forum would have been ideal for discussing health care policy, but that debate focused more on constitutional and social issues. For Romney’s rivals, it was a missed opportunity.
1. Mitt Romney knows far more about health policy than any of the other candidates. Health care policy is not a classical conservative concern. Romney, having made health-care reform the top priority of his governorship, knows the ins and outs of the issue in a way that no one else in the field does. The prominent Republicans who could have given Romney a run for his money — Mitch Daniels, Paul Ryan, and Bobby Jindal — aren’t running. Newt Gingrich comes closest to Romney’s health policy heft, but Gingrich has his own checkered history on the issue, and has generally stayed away from attacking the other candidates.
It’s hard to see how this dynamic changes between now and January. And given Romney’s strengths in most other policy areas, it’s hard to see how the race changes if Romney’s rivals can’t make health care an issue.
No one really touched Romney on this because other than Romney, Perry is the only candidate in the field who is actually running for president:
Cain is running for a Fox News gig. Bachmann is running for House Majority Leader or Whip. Newt is running to drive more traffic to the webstore at newtgingrich.com. Ron Paul is running because of whatever, the gold standard, let's say. Huntsman is running for Sec'y of State in the Romney administration. Santorum is running for a better Google search result.
Perry is actually running for president, but he has rocks in his head. So Romney will waltz right in...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI was with you until your final comments. Don't know where you get the rocks in the head bit, but frankly, our state would not be in such fantastic shape if our Governor of three terms had rocks in his head. You aren't referring to some Joe Blow who hasn't been out there making the kind of governing-leadership decisions that make or break the states. This isn't the Gov of California you are talking about, it is the Gov of Texas. We're doing great compared to most of the other states. Rocks in the head is just an insult that holds no water.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf I remember rightly, the Governor of Texas is institutionally weak under the Texas Constitution compared to governors of some other states; I am not convinced that Perry himself has done all the things his backers attribute to him. And he clearly has rocks in his head, the man can barely think on his feet.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe governor is institutionally weak compared to SOME other governors, but stronger than others. You don't have to believe he's done all those great things but the facts say he has. Texas was a plaintiff lawyer's playground and they were the most powerful lobby in the state––until Rick Perry became governor. He was the driving force behind tort reform, the most recent being "loser pays". Rocks in his head? Try this:
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseExternal Link
@Linearheights
You seem to be behind on the times.I would advise you take a look at the latest polls. For the last 3 weeks, Cain has begun a insane climb in the GOP rankings that continues to this day. Currently, he leads Mitt Romney in Iowa by 8 percentage points. Last year Obama won Iowa and he later became president. Despite Romney's massive war chest, he's not making a dent on the Hermanator.
I wouldn't discount Newt Gingrich either. Over time, he may make his mark in the race as well.
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@Linearheights
You seem to be behind on the times.I would advise you take a look at the latest polls. For the last 3 weeks, Cain has begun a insane climb in the GOP rankings that continues to this day. Currently, he leads Mitt Romney in Iowa by 8 percentage points. Last year Obama won Iowa and he later became president. Despite Romney's massive war chest, he's not making a dent on the Hermanator.
I wouldn't discount Newt Gingrich either. Over time, he may make his mark in the race as well.
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLiterally laughed out loud at this post. Well done linearheights.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI will hold my nose and vote for Rommey if he is the candidate. Which Rommey will show up as President? That is the questions conservatives want to know.
Besides, I would vote for a dried up ham and cheese sandwich before I cast a vote for current occupant in the White House.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuselistening to romney is like watching tom brady play qb when he is "on". It's like a work of art, he's a master. Can't wait until he's president. Just hope he doesn't get caught up in technocratic solutions to things.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Romney is very intelligent. Romney’s superior ability to absorb and analyze information is the key to why he has improved as a candidate from 2008 to now."
Tingles up the leg, Avik?
The elephant in the room that so few are discussing, even at NRO, is that Romney isn't a conservative.
There's a reason his "sharp" domestic policy staff isn't "widely known in conservative circles."
Mitt Romney is a technocratic statist. It doesn't matter how sharp and smart he is personally, his political philosophy (to the extent that the he actually has one) is a rightly discredited failure, for the reasons Friedman pointed out DECADES ago.
Romney may well have a perfectly creased pantleg, but that doesn't mean he would be guided by the limited-government philosophy that is the ONLY hope for getting us out of the death-grip of the all-encompassing nanny state.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"technocratic statist" = Hoover's second term. Point taken!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe reasons you listed are why I don't like Romney for the job.
"Romney has been running for president since 2007." Reason enough for me right there not to back him this time around either.
"The eight-candidate, sound-bite debate format plays to Romney’s advantage." In the immortal words of Mona Lisa Vito (My Cousin Vinnie), "ooh you are a smooth talker. You are... you are!" Don't want a smooth talker, want a strong, committed leader who is taking us in the right direction - from strength to strength.
"Moderators have not asked Romney a challenging health-care question." There has been an assumption from the media/pundits that Romney would be the best candidate. It has been a manipulated presentation in EVERY debate in my opinion.
"Mitt Romney knows far more about health policy than any of the other candidates." That is probably true but whether we call it RomneyCare or ObamaCare, the American people do not believe we can afford it. We may not know exactly what we want, but we do know what we don't want: to be bankrupted by this attempt to cover everyone. If this were a plane going down, safety would demand you get your own air mask on before you try to help others get theirs on.
Debates are not the only place that candidates can get out their message. Hopefully those other means will turn the tide.
Someone recently compared these debates to an American Idol season. I hope we are headed for choosing someone with real governing ability and not just another smooth talking head.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"'Romney has been running for president since 2007.'" Reason enough for me right there not to back him this time around either."
By this reasoning we should have rejected Regan in 1980.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCan you think of a successful president who wasn't "smooth talking"?
Bush was a horrible communicator, and this was one of his greatest challenges. He couldn't sway public opinion, and he couldn't defend his otherwise plainly defensible positions because he couldn't string two sentences together without getting lost in his own thought - EXACTLY like Rick Perry.
Reagan, Clinton and FDR are all considered the three greatest presidents of the 20th century. What's the commonality between all three men? They're each superb communicators, and arguably represent the three greatest communicators of the same century.
While Kennedy wasn't in office long enough to merit the label of "great president", he certainly was an incredibly popular president, and in fact, his average Gallup approval rating was the highest for any president - 70.1%.
FDR, Kennedy, Reagan and Clinton could all move the needle, they could all manage a hostile media, particularly Reagan, and they all could conveyed an air of gravitas because of that communicative ability.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNewt Gringrich has forgotten more about healthcare policy than Mitt will ever know.
Do you want to compare IQs of candidates now?
Do you think Mitt would be on top?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhere was that superior IQ when he was asked if he wanted to appear in a Global Warming propaganda commercial with Nancy Pelosi?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis Texan is disappointed to admit that whether or not he has rocks in his head, Gov. Perry (for whom I had high hopes a month ago) seems to have marbles in his mouth, and in debate he's exhibited a surprising lack of well-thought-out lines of attack (esp. on RomneyCare) or responses to his own deficiencies (esp. on immigration issues). Only way he turns it around and challenges Romney is with a string of solid debate performances beginning next week, and so far I've seen nothing to make that an expectation.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI like this list and post. It is truly constructive.
However - Biggest reason?
1. The Economy.
The Democratic Party has made a disaster - again. Americans are sincerely concerned about the economy, not like they were in 2006 or even in 2008, when fears over Iraq dominated the political landscape.
Today we have a sincere mess on Our hands, and yes, many of us know the Democrats made it. Even knowing they began the recent malaise by undermining of the Mortgage Industry via quasi Government institutions they used to peddle influence.
The Democratic Partisan offering is so ignorant, so pathetic, so destructive, etc., the desire to have a serous professional with sound credibility in economics, business, and the Free Market becomes vastly more important than one State level Health Care reform.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRomney is stuck at 20% of GOP primary voters.
He is good till the votes start getting cast.
Remember Giuliani?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYeah, I remember it well. Thats when all the conservatives were calling Rudy and McCain supporters RINO's for not supporting a real conservative like Mitt Romney. It seems your memory is not quite as clear as you think.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse