This is pretty pathetic by any standard, but Helene Cooper is very, very worried that if Obama paints Mitt Romney as a flip-flopper, it will be good news for… Mitt Romney:
The other picture paints him as the weathervane-watcher who was for Roe versus Wade before he was against it; who said he believed that humans contributed to global warming before he said that actually he was not so sure about that; and who said he was glad Mr. Obama was “copying” parts of his Massachusetts health reform before he said he would seek repeal of the federal health-care overhaul.
“Yesterday, Mitt predicted victory. Today, he says 3d would be fine. He can’t even stick to the same position on THAT!” an Obama adviser, David Axelrod, said on Twitter on Tuesday, before the voting began. A Democratic National Committee ad — “Mitt vs. Mitt: The Story of Two Men Trapped in One Body,” has been making the rounds on the internet since it aired back in November.
But there’s a kink in that approach: independent voters might view Mr. Romney’s shifting positions as nothing other than pragmatism. And by highlighting evolving positions by Mr. Romney, political analysts say, the Obama campaign runs the risk of unintentionally promoting the image of Mr. Romney, the former governor of that bastion of liberalism, Massachusetts, as a moderate.
In the general election, that would be the equivalent of the Obama campaign shooting itself in the foot. The very thing that has made Mr. Romney less palatable to the conservatives who populate the Republican primaries and caucuses — his past moderate positions—is the thing that makes him, at the end of the day, more palatable to the independent voters who will show up in the general election.
Shorter Helene Cooper- “Mitt Romney’s greatest weakness may be his greatest strength! Watch out, Obama!”
The only way to describe that analysis is “Halperinesque.”
(via)
kindness
It’s almost confusing. Is the analysis ‘Halperinesque’ or is it a ‘Reverse Roveian’ with a twist?
Ron
Short version: “This is excellent news for Mitt Romney!”
comrade scott's agenda of rage
No one could have predicted this.
It was simply a question of which member of the Press Corpse said it first.
PeakVT
Cooper deserves a ride on the tire swing for that.
catclub
I have to agree, in part, with Cooper.
To the extent that the Obama team is tarring Romney with the healthcare mandate of massachusetts, that works to weaken Romney in the GOP race but not in the general. For low information voters, romney being able to say (not that he will) that he best understands the healthcare system because it is his, and he can best fix it, sounds reasonable.
The flip-flopper aspect works all the time, and on that she is wrong.
Baud
So Obama risks painting Romney as a moderate by pointing out that Romney has flip-flopped to more conservative positions over time?
Facepalm
Splitting Image
There is a difference between Centrism: finding a somewhat acceptable compromise between two very dissimilar groups of people and sticking to it, and Centrism: leaping from one side to the other depending on which one can be the most help to you in the immediate future.
If Romney turns out to be the nominee, he and Obama will make a very good contrast on this issue, “centrists” though they may both be. I don’t think Romney looks good by the comparison.
Also, Splunge!
Dork
Shorter — Mitt’s in luck if most of his Republican base deserts him cuz he may just grab at least 40% of the Indy base. So that’s a big bonus, or something.
BC
Lessee – in 2004, it was “You may not agree with him [Bush], but you know where he stands” That was the definition of a strong candidate. And it worked.
In 2012, it’s “Don’t show how he has changed his positions to pander to whatever constituency he faces, because there might be somebody who agrees with the positions he has taken”
Might work.
amk
Third rate msm hacks like helene is the reason why
Obama Openly Asks Nation Why On Earth He Would Want To Serve For Another Term.
fasteddie9318
@catclub:
It’s going to be very hard for Romney to pivot on a dime from “I believe the individual mandate should be a model for national health care reform” to “PLEASE STOP TALKING ABOUT THE MANDATE THE TAXACHUSETTS COMMIE HORDES FORCED ME TO HAVE A MANDATE AND I HATED THE MANDATE ALL ALONG AND I NEVER WANTED THE MANDATE TO BE ADOPTED ANYWHERE EXCEPT MAYBE HELL SO FORGET THAT BULLSHIT I WROTE ABOUT THE MANDATE IN THE EARLIER EDITION OF MY BOOK” to “Why, yes, I did develop the individual mandate as part of my groundbreaking health care reform in Massachusetts, and as such I am the best person to oversee its implementation.” Even most low information voters catch on eventually. Meanwhile, it takes really the only part of the ACA that engenders wide public opposition and renders it moot in terms of Romney using it to attack Obama.
Baud
Only by endorsing Romney can Obama hope to defeat him.
Mnemosyne
OT, but Amazon’s Kindle Deal of the Day is one that B-Jers might be interested in — three Dava Sobel books are on sale, including Galileo’s Daughter for 99 cents.
Satanicpanic
It’s still to early to read something this stupid.
amk
@Baud: LOL. I wouldn’t be surprised at all if some msm hack reads it and writes/says it.
gogol's wife
I’m glad you’ve turned the spotlight on Helene Cooper. The fact that the NYTimes has assigned the political coverage of Obama to someone who clearly and obviously has a personal animus against him is one of the most glaring signs of the newspaper’s decline. This is by no means the worst example of the way she tries incessantly to undermine him. Her articles are always full of snark, which may be fine for Dowd but does not belong in the news pages.
The Moar You Know
Mitt Romney has no positions on anything. It changes, like a magical mirror, depending on who’s doing the asking.
Obama’s going to ruin him in the general. Never thought I’d say this, but McCain was a far better candidate.
Obama’s good, but he’s also the luckiest motherfucker alive.
Brandon
It looks like Helene Cooper has decided to continue the tradtion of her venerable predecessors Kat Seeleye and Adam Nagourney. I suspect that if Bob Somerby has read this, he’s gotta be at threat level midnight by now.
Brandon
It looks like Helene Cooper has decided to continue the tradtion of her venerable predecessors Kat Seeleye and Adam Nagourney. I suspect that if Bob Somerby has read this, he’s gotta be at threat level midnight by now.
Cat Lady
75% of the people who Romney needs to show up and vote for him REALLY want to vote for someone else. In Cooper’s world, that’s trouble for Obama. OK, sure, you betcha.
Cris (without an H)
Cause we all remember how Independents broke for pragmatic Senator Kerry.
I still don’t know how this happens. You know the old quip (I’ve heard it attributed to Arnold Palmer), “The more I practice, the luckier I seem to get?” You can’t practice for this kind of shit.
cat
@Baud:
Some of them aren’t just conservative, they are bat-shit crazy conservative positions! The fact the articles writer glosses over those positions he now holds and only focuses on his ‘old’ moderate positions shows how biases they are.
catclub
@fasteddie9318: “It’s going to be very hard for Romney to pivot on a dime”
But I am betting that he can, and will. And will call anyone who calls him on it a liar. There is plenty of evidence for such behavior already.
Whether it will fool enough rubes is the only real question.
Brandon
I wonder if it was the mention of Kat Seeleye, Adam Nagourney or Bob Somerby that landed me in moderation. I am going to guess that it was that filthy Ad Nags that did the trick. I thought I would be fine though because I didn’t even mention Frank Bruni.
J.A.F. Rusty Shackleford
@amk:
That was brilliant.
Villago Delenda Est
The horse race narrative must be sustained, at all costs! If it isn’t, we’ll lose our phoney-baloney jobs!
Citizen_X
Turns out “Make my enemies into complete fucking idiots” is a pretty useful superpower, after all.
Kane
By this logic, Helene Cooper should be warning the Romney campaign that it’s a losing strategy for Romney to claim that President Obama hasn’t kept all of his promises. After all, he is only making Obama more palatable to the independent voters by highlighting Obama’s pragmatism.
kth
If the indies think that Romney is just saying shit he has no intention of following through on to please the teabaggers, what’s to stop the teabaggers from thinking the same thing?
kay
Romney is inauthentic. It has nothing to do with his policy positions, or “flip flopping”.
He’s inauthentic as a conservative or as a moderate. There is no “real” Mitt Romney, and that’s what people are responding to.
Flip flopping has nothing to do with policy. It’s about trust.
amk
@J.A.F. Rusty Shackleford: It is.
TheOnion is what jon stewart wants to be but falls short of often.
MattF
Technically interesting because Cooper is making a trivial logical error. She’s confusing ‘independent’ with ‘apolitical’. It may be that ‘apolitical’ implies ‘independent’, but the converse isn’t true.
GregB
Halpernian high Broderism at its level best.
Kane
Because Romney has a reputation of having no core principles, voters tend to assume the worst outcomes, not the best outcomes. Democrats believe that he will govern further to the right than he claims, while Republicans believe that he will betray them once he is office. The Independent voters won’t know what to believe, which will make the attack ads of Romney being a flip-flopper all the more effective.
Satanicpanic
@Cris (without an H):
Romney is looking more and more like the Kerry of 2012. Rich guy, no charisma, wants to talk policy and issues all the time. The only thing Romney has going for him is his sociopathy
TG Chicago
What fact that clearly swings to Obama’s favor will be the next to be declared Good News For Republicans?
*Obama has only been married to one woman. In an era of increasing divorce rates, this shows that he’s out of touch with mainstream America.
*Obama’s personal favorability ratings are still higher than his opponents’. In tough times, people are unaccustomed to seeing things that they like. They will gravitate towards the familiar and unlikable.
*Romney is unable to get the GOP electorate to accept him. However, he still soldiers on to win their approval. This shows that he is a fighter, unlike lazy Obama who has never had to work hard to gain favor from his base.
*Also, this relentless campaign will keep Romney sharp for the general election while Obama has gotten soft from the years of not campaigning. Who has Obama debated recently, huh?
*Obama ordered the death of Osama bin Laden. This means that he can no longer call for the American people to rally around him to fight Osama bin Laden. Critical error by the president.
The scary thing is that some of these ideas will probably actually end up as the basis for MSM commentary in the upcoming months.
danimal
@Splitting Image: There is a difference between pragmatism, which Independents (whoever they are) value highly, and opportunism, which annoys all Americans. Romney is the dictionary definition of opportunism and Americans of all ideological stripes understand that.
@Citizen_X:
For proof, I present Alan Keyes, a Marylander running against Obama for Senator from Illinois. How much superpower trickery it took for Obama to run against Alan Keyes is beyond imagination. And now the top three Republicans are a robot, a loon and a racist loon.
Cris (without an H)
Excellent distinction.
I kind of hate to admit it, but I think most of us vote for representatives based on a gestalt impression of their personality, much more than on their particular policy positions. Because while we do have our specific issues that act as a baseline (e.g. I insist on a pro-choice, pro-gay-rights candidate), we also need to trust the judgment of that person on issues we haven’t given much thought to.
So when we perceive someone as “inauthentic,” whether they’re Mitt Romney or John Kerry or Mike Dukakis (what is the deal, Massachusetts?), we can’t invest that trust.
What was the line the GOP tried to use against Clinton in ’96? Was it “Values matter?” In spite of its intent and source, it’s actually true.
pamelabrown
I think it’s high time to retire the “Good news for McCain joke/canard to it’s “Good news for Willard”. Expect to here this from our illustrious MSM at every turn.
BTW, I’m excluding Faux and 24/7 hate radio from my “MSM” claim, guess I’m addressing the “liberal media”. Heh.
gnomedad
@Cris (without an H):
Obama has the self-control to shut up when his enemies are digging themselves into a hole. (Okay, you can’t create the luck to have Alan Keyes as an opponent.) The trick is to get people to hear your message with a Voter Attention Span Unit of the election. If he repeats himself too often, the MSM will be all “yawn, this again.”
Kola Noscopy
Wouldn’t the Romney general election campaign, if accused of flip-floppery by the Obamans, respond by highlighting the myriad ways in which Obama flip flopped from a center/left progressive candidate to a Reagan Republican Security State apparatchik following his election?
Isn’t that a pretty glaring flip-flop? No…I think the Obamans should rethink this strategy. It will backfire, but not for the reasons this moronic writer thinks.
Citizen_X
@Cris (without an H):
Well, Bush was an authentic asshole, and Perry’s an authentic moron, so: point, Texas!
Cris (without an H)
@Citizen_X: And Paul’s an authentic nutcase!
JGabriel
David Axelrod:
Willard Mitt Romney: A man who can’t even remain committed to his own first name.
.
Brachiator
@Kola Noscopy:
No.
SATSQ
Hal
@The Moar You Know:
Jack Ryan to Alan Keyes after Ryan got assimilated by 7 of 9.
The unstoppable Hillary runs a bad campaign with way too much reliance on Mark Penn.
Old man McCain decides his best chance is to hire Caribou Barbie to be his running mate cause he just figured he needed a minority in his pocket too.
So now I’m just wondering what ridiculous running mate Mitt will pick in order to shore up his limited support.
Personally, I think Obama should swap Biden for Hillary. Then his GOP contender will panic and end up choosing Megan McCain as VP.
ET
wrong. wrong. wrong. The reason for tepid Romney support in the GOP is likely to be the same for “independents” – they know that the “evolving positions” (by which we mean revolving positions) are nothing but pandering. It is that obvious. There is no pragmatism – unless by pragmatism you meant making sure you say what that base wants so you can the nomination and they you either do what that say or just if not more likely ignore them. Sorry for me that isn’t pragmatism.
kth
@Brachiator: exactly, “Obama not pursuing the radical agenda he campaigned on” is probably not a winning message for Mitt Romney.
Chyron HR
@Kola Noscopy:
Yes, Romney’s going to base his campaign on calling Obama a “Reagan Republican”. That is exactly how 2012 is going to go down. I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Quaker in a Basement
That’s true. They might. They might also believe it’s going to rain refreshing lemonade. Not likely, though.
Mnemosyne
@Kola Noscopy:
Yes, I’m sure that telling independents and voters who lean Republican that Obama isn’t turning the US into a soshulist paradise like Republicans have been claiming for four years and instead is governing as a moderate centrist is totally a winning strategy for Republicans.
I hope to God this was snark, or else I’m wondering how you manage to breathe without constant reminders.
Emma
@Kola Noscopy: At which point, the independent conservatives will say: wait it minute, he might be a liberal but he can see reality when it hits him in the face and move right; maybe I should take him a little more seriously.
zubalove
The conclusion, which we MUST lead them towards, is that Willard Romney will say ANYTHING IT TAKES to get elected. Flip-flopping is a dog whistle to the GOP base when said about a Democrat. However, they don’t make that logical conclusion when said about one of their own.
Willard Romney will say whatever he needs to in order to become President. Take it a step further, and equate him to John Kerry. Is it true? No. But will it resonate with people his support is soft with? Yes.
Rob
Helene, the 2004 election called, they want you to pay attention to them.
FlipYrWhig
@Kola Noscopy: That’s a brilliant strategy for winning over the legions of Libertarian Quasi-Progressives For Ron Paul.
FlipYrWhig
I think the Kerry comparison is unfair to Kerry. Kerry’s worst sin was longwindedness. The things he got hit with for “flip-flopping” were of a technical nature, like two different ways of dealing with the costs of the war. Kerry didn’t take both sides of issues that his party has made litmus tests for whether you’re One Of Us or not. Romney has.
sy
Nuance worked so well for John Kerry.
Cooper’s transparent efforts to prognosticate a competitive horse race is maddening. Makes me miss stupid shit from Sarah.
Cris (without an H)
@FlipYrWhig: I’ll cop to being unfair to Kerry. In spite of my visceral reaction to his uninspiring public persona, I usually love what he has to say.
(Also, disclaimer: my lack of support for his 2004 campaign (yes I voted for him duh, I just didn’t campaign or contribute) was first and foremost about the AUMF.)
Satanicpanic
@FlipYrWhig: Kerry wasn’t a bad guy, he was just unrelatable. That’s what will kill Romney’s campaign.
FlipYrWhig
@Satanicpanic: The Bob Somerby pieces about the press corps and its “war on Gore” really bring home how much of a headwind that stuff creates. The media comes up with stuff among its own membership, which is, basically, lifelong dorks with feelings of inadequacy. They find fantasy wish-fulfillment in hanging out with the candidates. John McCain, behind the scenes, fun to be around, like the uncle with a motorcycle and tattoos. George Bush, behind the scenes, fun to be around, like the uncle who lets you have a sip of his beer and tells fart jokes. Mitt Romney is not fun to be around. Santorum, Gingrich, god knows there’s no fun to be had around them. Ron Paul, OTOH, may be fun to be around, like the uncle who’s been reading some old coot’s crazy newsletters for 25 years.
Robert Green
i don’t like this line of attack, i don’t respect it, i don’t believe it works, and i ultimately don’t understand it.
so romney has assessed policies and decisions made in the past based on new evidence, and has changed his positions accordingly. where i come from we call that a rational and informed process. there is a 60 minutes interview that inevitably will happen that will allow romney to make this point, and though he isn’t exactly the greatest speaker in the world, he will make this point nonetheless to much acclaim. because he is essentially making an argument from intelligence rather than emotion, it will resonate with the halperins as being counter-counter-counter intuitive (honestly those guys are so post-modern i don’t know what level of contrarian is contrarian any more) and david brooks will like it and ross douthat will buy it wholesale for a dollar. and because kerry was trying to say this but failed so fucking miserably in his advisors/writers/delivery, romney will have that to learn what not to do.
but here’s one more key thing: IT’S TRUE. PEOPLE CHANGE THEIR FUCKING MINDS BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT SMART PEOPLE DO. IT’S NOT IN FACT A FLAW OF ROMNEY’S. it’s about the only thing about him that doesn’t make me want to vomit. the dude is a downsizer, a billionaire, a douche, an elitist and a pompous ass, and all of that plus
magic underwearwill be what is used against him, but he will jiujitsu the shit out of this. if people like david a and john keep pounding on it it is a recipe for Obama fail.so here’s my free memo to john, and axelrod, and everyone else–good luck with this line of attack.
Satanicpanic
@FlipYrWhig: Sadly it’s been proven time and time again that this is what matters to voters. The media was caught off guard by Obama because he’s more like a cool older brother than the dad figure they love so much.
Cris (without an H)
I know. It was one of the things that really impressed me about Walnuts in 2000: confronted with a question about climate change, McCain said “I’m not sure, I’ll get back to you” and a few months later he actually got back to us and in fact acknowledged the reality of climate change.
So I’m not fundamentally disagreeing with your premise. The thing with Romney is that he does not leave anybody with the impression of changing his mind the way smart people do. He very strongly leaves the impression of changing his mind the way panderers do. Could we be getting the wrong impression? Sure. But his changes of mind, throughout his career, sure seem timed conveniently with short-term electoral advantage.
Smart people use the phrase “such as.” That doesn’t make this answer smart.
Tom Hilton
Now, be fair: it worked for John Kerry.
Oh, wait…
ETA:
@Robert Green: Except that Romney’s flip-flops aren’t about being smart or pragmatic or adapting to changing circumstances (except to the extent that “changing circumstances” refers to the GOP going over the crazy cliff). They’re about pandering, and transparently so. They’re about trying to win over crazy people by disavowing earlier non-crazy positions.
So yeah, it is abso-motherfucking-lutely a legitimate line of attack.
Triassic Sands
Obama should appear at debates with Romney wearing a neck brace — trying to follow Mitt’s flip flops puts a real strain on the cervical vertebrae.
Rule for 2012: Anything that was good for McCain in ’08 will be good for Romney in 2012.
Robert Green
the point is tangentially whether or not romney’s change of mind is from a genuine post-enlightment scientific rational place. in the main, i doubt it, as he does come across as more obsessed with the end result than what he has to do to get there. but, you know, that’s what politicians are like. all of them, pretty much. i’ve worked for them. many of them.
the point is rather that romney can use our own words against us in this, and say (as he has begun to do): “hey when i was younger i believed some stupid shit, i’m so much older than that now.”
etc.
Cris (without an H)
And personally I’m comfortable with that. You know one thing I love about John Cole? He says, often and without hesitation, “I was wrong.” That’s a sign of somebody who changed after careful reflection. If Mitt is saying that, and showing some consistency with his new-found faith, I’ll be glad to lay off this line of attack. But the onus is on Mitt.
Robert Green
@Cris (without an H): and that is why i spend time on this blog. it is because of the quality of john’s intellectual honesty and contrition. the latter is harder for me–see, i DIDN’T buy into republicans bullshit because, you know, watergate? but for someone who did, john has really made a true conversion into a open-minded tough thinker of the first order.
DanielX
@Hal: As always, this is good news for John McCain. Also, too: the smart money says the real sign of panic will be when the GOP contender picks Megan McArdle as the VP candidate. After all, she’s at least as well qualified as Snowbilly Snooki was….
Mnemosyne
@Robert Green:
How did Romney come to the logical, rational conclusion that women need to be forced to give birth to children they don’t want? He used to be a supporter of Planned Parenthood (which you can be even if you personally are anti-abortion) and now he’s declared himself pro-life and anti-Planned Parenthood.
That doesn’t seem like a rational, thought-out decision about women’s healthcare to me. That sounds like switching positions to appeal to the Republican base.
ETA: Shorter me: you can argue in general that an ability to examine your positions and adjust them if necessary is a good thing, but I do not think that’s what Romney is doing. I think he’s pandering.
RalfW
And this would be the same gal who wrote “Obama Gains Reputation as Distant in Washington.”
I couldn’t give one flying crap what Mme. Helene Cooper thinks. Or if she thinks. The evidence is scant.
FlipYrWhig
@Mnemosyne: The “tell” is that Romney, at least as far as I know, has never reconsidered his position to shift it to something _less_ politically palatable for the audience to whom he’s speaking. If it was a matter of dispassionate consideration of facts, that would happen, at least from time to time.
4jkb4ia
It’s a new secular year, and I get to roll my eyes at John again.
I saw the flip-flop attack used against Kerry, and it was devastating. But this is going to be a little different. This attack used against Romney is “He will say anything to win”. But he might know his own mind. With Kerry you never were sure if he knew his own mind about the things he was flip-flopping about, so you didn’t really know what you were voting for. YET, there were very good reasons to support Kerry in the primary. See handle. He was a genuine war hero, so the people in charge of giving my husband a DOD security clearance would not freak out. He had a record of really caring about foreign policy and environmental policy, neither of which was the Bush administration strong suit. Similarly, Mitt has a record. You can evaluate him on the basis of the things he did rather than the things he says now. That provides a much more devastating attack on his business experience and as Sargent said today, the differing measures that he is using as far as creating jobs vs. the Obama administration. But when you look at when he was governor, a moderate is what you see. When you look at the other candidates in the primary, with a big assist from the MSM, a moderate is what you see. You will also see this because Romney will happily tack to the center as much as he can get away with in the general election and hammer on “Obama is a failure” just as he did in his speech yesterday. It is better to say “Romney is a failure” in response rather than “Romney is a phony”, which Mitt has neutralized at least a little this year.
(But I am sorry about ABL, on however many levels there are.)
4jkb4ia
Sargent is absolutely right to have taken up “Romney is a LIAR”. “Romney is LYING”. Obama has enough speechmaking talent to say that and not in so many words.
AA+ Bonds
PLEASE, Halperin is a nancy boy and a shit strategist, that is Rove all the way: attack Obama’s strengths = pimp Romney’s weaknesses
Ken
“And by highlighting
evolvingrevolving positions by Mr. Romney, political analysts say..”ellennelle
evidently axelrod has since tweeted that taking a left position and then an extreme right one does not make mitt a centrist – it makes him a charlatan.