It’s interesting that Romney so often gets criticized for seeming inauthentic. A gaffe such as today’s is the essence of authenticity: The problem, politically speaking, is precisely that he failed to calculate about how his remark would be received. Ditto his comment about liking to be able to fire people. It was all too authentic when he revealed that $10,000 would be a trivial sum for him to wager. And there is a deal of authenticity in the naked ambition of a statement such as “I can’t have illegals, for Pete’s sake — I’m running for office!”
Maybe there is some angel out there who could be, without affectation, just what we want our politicians to be. But what we really seem to expect of them — for we well know they aren’t angels — is a believable sort of fakery. (Romney sometimes does fake it, of course, but he doesn’t seem believable — e.g., his pink-slip comment. Perhaps it is these moments, and the various flip-flops, that create the impression of inauthenticity, while the authentic, unguarded Romney is simply disliked.)
Some people think Romney is inauthentic because he has changed positions on any number of issues. I think that really misses the mark. If anything, Romney has been very consistent. He always tells the electorate whatever they want to hear.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt's not about authenticity! Romney is not "inauthentic" (dread leftist word). Please read James Bowman about this issue. The concentration on "flip-flops" and evolution of positions and gaffes are not about the candidates, they are about the bizarre way we judge candidates in the 21st century.
The reason why we can't find "some angel out there" is because we scrutinize the candidacies per se rather than judge the content of their rhetorical case. We are mired in inane discussions about the contours of the election -- the horse race -- as if we are all Mike Murphy operatives with profound observations on the "how" of winning. Electors should be concerned ONLY with the "why" of winning. "Electability" should be removed from our vocabulary.
National Review and all of conservative media have to get their heads on straight about something: amateur punditry. All commentary about "electability" should be left to people who do this for a living. We Are All Pundits Now. We are about to nominate a man not because of our agreement or disagreement of his direct appeal to us, but rather because of how we think others will view him. This is the death of the republic.
When comment-section urchins are speculating about the effect of absentee ballots or how the Florida Panhandle will vote or how a gaffe will move someone's poll numbers, we have slipped the bounds of candidate analysis to meta-analysis. Meta-elections produce men like John Kerry and Mitt Romney: politicians whose chief qualities are superficial. They "look" presidential and are bereft of all substance. People can't explain this other than calling them "robotic." It isn't a simple falseness, it is a mode of campaigning. Their candidacy isn't about a platform of ideas or leadership, their candidacy is about their candidacy, and fill in the substance later.
I hope someone on staff is reading this. Take a step back and survey this absurd process. Please bring it to the attention of conservatives. I am going to keep repeating this until somebody notices here. Someone with a soapbox has to talk about this issue, or the complicated case for conservatism will collapse in this milieu of sound-bite arguments and postmodern meta-assessments.
The disease is so rampant that it's hard to even make a straightforward case against it. Since when do citizens elect their representatives based on individualized perceptions of popularity? Vote up or down on the appeal of the direct case the candidate makes, not on what you think your fellow Republican will think of it, much less what you predict your neighbor will think of it in November. Does anybody understand the importance of this?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd maybe the problem is precisely is as it appears - the Romney is as clueless about the lot of the average American as Barack Obama.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIs this post a joke?
No one ever said that authentically saying stupid things is a plus.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat I appreciate most about Mitt is that he is so transparently phony that there is no doubt when he's trying to bamboozle us. While that sounds like a slam, it's actually a plus for a politician since we know exactly when to not believe his baloney.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhich brings to mind the old Bill Cosby joke:
I said to a guy, “Tell me, what is it about cocaine that makes it so wonderful?” And the guy said, “Well, it intensifies your personality.” And I said, “Yes, but what if you’re an a--hole?”
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCocaine?
Teflon has been leaving the most ugly prejudiced comments for months in regards to Mr. Romney. Often we have seen overt distortions of Mr. Romeny's record, existence, life, etc.
It all wreaks of a dysfunctional personal hatred, which is hardly Conservative.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBut is it "fashion", Old Liberal?
Were Romney caught with a powdered nose, you'd be out here touting the innumerable benefits the Medellin Cartel has brought the world.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTo OldFan, anything less than a tongue bath for Romney, is unacceptable criticism.
The only one here displaying his prejudice for all to see, is OldFan.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think someone can be/seem insincere, prone to resorting to vague platitudes, and distant while still speaking clumsily from time to time and/or producing unfortunate sound bites or near sound bites for the opposition.
Mistakes don't necessarily add to one's perceived authenticity. One can lack perfect rehearsed smoothness and still come off as a fake who needs more practice speaking and campaigning.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is the problem with Romney - he is not really a conservative. He doesn't really understand conservative principles and therefore cannot clearly articulate them. No mystery there. He's a trained RINO monkey and puppet.
The second, and much more troubling, problem with Romney is precisely because he is not a conservative, he cannot energize the base. If you can't energize the base, you can't win a general election even against a deeply flawed incumbent like Obama.
Case in point - Florida. The turnout there was down 16% vs 2008. In South Carolina, Newt won because the base turned out in droves - turnout there was up 24%. So, you might ask why the conservative base did not turn out - answer - money.
The Romney team knew that Florida is a much more moderate state, but their internal polling almost certainly still showed Newt up over Romney by a substantial number. So, their strategy wasn't so much meant to destroy Newt, but more importantly they had to reduce turnout. They knew if the base turned out, Romney would lose. So, the 17 million they spent was mostly intended to insure the conservatives stayed home - and they did. Still, 70% of the conservatives that did turn out to vote voted for Newt.
It doesn't seem so strange now that Romney won by 17% of the vote and the turnout was 16% lower than in 2008. It appears the Romney camp spent just the right amount of money to drag him over the finish line.
Simply put, if Romney is the nominee, Obama wins going away.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"But what we really seem to expect of them — for we well know they aren’t angels — is a believable sort of fakery."
If we believe them not to be angels, why in the world do we keep asking them to solve our problems?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI only ask them to stop creating so many. The constitution does not ask them to solve any problems.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseUhh... you gave four examples of Romney's authenticity. The first (his gaffe today) is legitimate. The second, that he said he likes to fire people, is factually incorrect, since his statement was referring to companies. The third, that he is openly "authentic" (i.e., clumsy and foolish) about showing his wealth has never been contested (remember his expensive house upgrades last year?). The fourth, that he is nakedly ambitious for office, has also never been contested, and is in fact the very thing that is most troubling about him as a man (i.e., in a John Kerry sense, he has done everything possible to get himself "elected president someday" since the age of 12, with that calculated goal ALWAYS outweighing principle when the two are in conflict). So you give four reasons for his authenticity, one of which was factually incorrect and two others of which are chief vices. And your 25% accurate post is somehow supposed to prove his authenticity?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is interesting - I write a substantive reply to Mr. Steort's post and it doesn't get published because it's a little too critical of RomneyBot. What the Hell people - learn to entertain contrary opinions for once.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWelcome to the new NRO. It's all Mitt postive all the time. Get with the program!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHeh, well said Mr. Steorts.
It all reveals a growing contradiction. Those supposed to be coming from the sound Conservative side cannot seem to keep the narrative straight - there is no consistency. Just like the lean towards failed Public Sector Products, over a proven Private Sector success with similar Conservative credentials, the once serious Conservative Movement has been exposed as quite contradictory. It is all emotive identity nonsense, not substance or principle.
Ms. Rubin says it quite well:
"Romney as the nominee will be flyspecked and criticized over every word. He needs to avoid actual gaffes. But he can’t keep the media from editing out all the inconvenient parts of every sentence, paragraph and interview. He’ll need to work on talking directly to voters, making his case in ads and debates. The good news for him, at least in the primary, is that the media that are predisposed to pounce on every (other) word and offer the most negative interpretation of his every statement and performance appear to have zero influence among voters. Perhaps a less crazed approach to covering Romney would restore their credibility."
Even those amongst the mighty NR, are showing they have followed the fashion of a small vocal element which is deeply dysfunctional. They have created an irrational standard for Romney which is different than they hold for others. This is not Conservative, but hints at a form of prejudice, which resembles some forms of ugly bigotry encountered throughout history. Folks best wake up. The credibility is sinking for many by the day.
Some went overboard on Romney's bet of 10G with Perry, following ABC Democrats obsessed with class warfare. Here today, we see a number of folks doing the same, running with another Democratic Partisan populist narrative coming from the left, which clearly tries to take Mr. Romney out of proper context. We know the so-called hipster Conservatives from the sideline arena wouldn't entertain leftist politics if this with someone they perceived as more fashionably accepted.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"This is not Conservative, but hints at a form of prejudice, which resembles some forms of ugly bigotry encountered throughout history. Folks best wake up. The credibility is sinking for many by the day."
I know; it's utterly racist to be against the only black man running for office. Oh wait! This is a straight laced white guy, the last of the Ward Cleaver era. Never mind.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJust because you want to declare that this isn't a gaffe that damages Romney's campaign does not make it so.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"It is interesting that Romney so often gets criticized for seeming inauthentic".
This statement is a red herring. Just another one of the ways Mitts is authentically similar to Obama. He or his minions set up straw men to push over.
The knock against Mitts is not that he seems inauthentic. It is that he has no core values other than his authentic desire for the Presidency. This being the case, he spouts platitudes which say little about his intentions once in office and how he will bring these to fruition.
Perhaps Mr. Steorts is confusing authenticity with passion for what one believes in. I believe Mr. Romney has difficulty in expressing passion as he does not believe in the conservative political philosophy, which is strange considering he is running to be the nominee of the "conservative" party.
Throughout this campaign, the only things I have seen Romney show passion about are personal destruction of his opponents and Romneycare. What does that say about him?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse