Here’s a great example of a dilemma: how to take Bob Shrum’s essay comparing Mitt Romney to Thomas Dewey. On the one hand, Shrum is acquainted with grief, so he should be able to spot a loser a mile away. On the other hand, reading that piece made me understand why Shrum loses all the time, and why we should be afraid of any Democrat who listens to him. Here’s a pearl:
This year, as summer wanes, watch the two acceptance speeches to see the struggle, the decisive struggle, to mark out the ground of decision on 2012.
Yeah, the acceptance speech, centerpiece of every modern campaign. I’ll spare you more detailed excerpts while your breakfast is still settling. Shrum’s basic thesis is that Romney will be injured by his tendency to hang back and avoid taking positions on issues, a tendency Shrum identifies as a declining “engagement across dividing lines”. I was trying to think of the preface that would set up the alternate reality where that matters. Here’s my best shot, maybe you can do better:
Imagine a world where Citizens United never existed, where the political contest is one where the ideas of each candidate are carefully examined by a rational electorate who weighs the substance of each candidate’s proposed policy, and where an objective media turns in analysis pieces detailing the highlights of each party’s platform, and holds each candidate’s feet to the fire when they contradict themselves or twist the facts.
It’s really telling that there’s not one single word in that whole piece about Romney’s real defining characteristic: he’s the most consistent, persistent liar that we’ve seen in a long time. You might think that Shrum has some inkling of what he’s dealing with when he says that Obama shouldn’t be afraid of Republicans accusing him of negative campaigning. But Shrum’s definition of “negative” is contrasting Obama’s stands on the issues with Romney’s. (“To paraphrase Truman, he’ll just tell the truth—and yes, they’ll call it negative.”) I’m sure the Romney campaign pisses the bed every night worrying about that prospect of the Obama campaign boldly telling the truth.
Shrum is the brains behind the weak Democrats we all have come to loathe, someone who thinks that “better” positions on the issues will be understood by the electorate and fairly reported by the media, no matter what Republicans say. Someone who thinks that the way to beat the noise machine is to speak the truth softly. Someone who quotes Mark Halperin’s analysis of the Romney campaign. His output wouldn’t even be worth considering if his DNA still wasn’t embedded in a bunch of Democratic campaigns.
NotMax
Blogged daily for over ten years, but now only rarely.
However, could not resist posting this snarky little tidbit of indigestion relating to Mitt R.
Mark B
Yeah, Romney’s only strength is his amorphousness. By not standing for anything, his supporters can imagine him standing for anything they want him to stand for. And for a moment, he probably will, as long as he can keep it on the down low. He’s the perfect blank slate for the people who have no core beliefs except an overwhelming hate of the current president to imprint upon.
Chris
Not the first person to compare this election to the 1948 one. In both cases, the do-nothing Republican Congress is a big factor in why the Democrat has a chance.
mistermix
@Chris: I agree with the general comparison. My beef is that Shrum would have us use 1948 tactics to win.
japa21
My brother went to college with Shrum. His comments about Shrum are not suitable for mixed audiences.
Regarding Romney, his whole campaign is predicated on one principle: do not lose any votes. He is not trying to win over new voters, he just wants to make sure that he suffers no defections or desertions from the 45% that will always vote Republican. He is counting on turning enough voters off on Obama that the Dem turnout is low enough that he can squeak by.
If he were actually to make any commitment to anything, he risks losing some group of voters. That is why, ultimately, the only thing that will matter is the debates and the extent that Obama can push him into a corner. And of course, how succesful the media is in turning a losing debate performance by Romney into a win for Romney, like they did for Bush in 2000 and 2004.
Mudge
Looks like Shrum has read David Petrusza’s 1948, which discusses Dewey’s lack of articulation of positions in some detail. Both Dewey and Romney face incumbent Democrats who are burdened by do-nothing congresses (at election time). A major difference is that Dewey was perceived to be a shoo-in..he failed to be controversial in order to hold a big lead. Romney is no shoo-in.
magurakurin
These cats like Shrum and Carville need to sit quietly in the back seat and just let Plouffe drive. They had their turns at the wheel and they are now rapidly becoming old and in the way.
Shrum is 69 and his list of losing campaigns is a long and impressive one Gephardt, Dukakis, Kerrey, Gore, Kerry. All came out losers. Yeah, like he should be telling Axlerod and Plouffe, the guys who helped a black guy with a middle name of Hussein to be POTUS, what they should be doing. I think not.
Carville is 68. And while I sort of like ole James, the ragin Cajun, Carville, and it is true that he has one big, big win…I’d still like to say, I hope JC thanks the little Lord Jesus every night for Ross Perot. He needs to shut his pie hole and sit quietly in the back seat as well.
And as an off topic thought…regardless of whether or not the Bloomberg poll showing an Obama blowout is an outlier or not, does anyone doubt that if the numbers had been the other way we wouldn’t be hearing a peep about outliers just a steady drum beat of Obama’s impending doom.
I think there is a good chance that poll is actually the tip of the spear that is about to come. Romney sucks and he aint gettin any better as the summer begins. Polls like this could be the norm come September.
catclub
@Mark B: Actually that description is very scary, because it also (intentionally?) describes how Obama was seen in 2008. One difference is that Obama does not lie every other sentence.
Litlebritdifrnt
Romney’s whole “I know how to create jobs” thing (while not telling us how he will do it) reminds me of the McCain “I know how to get Bin Laden” thing from 2008. Everyone was saying “well if you know tell us” but it was like some sort of big secret that he would only reveal if he was elected POTUS. Romney’s whole campaign is like this, apparently he has all the solutions but he’ll only tell us what they are if he gets elected.
West of the Cascades
@japa21:
FTFY
Raven
Rise up this mornin’,
Smiled with the risin’ sun,
Mark B
@catclub: I think you have a bit of a point, but whatever people thought of Obama in 2012, he’s got a record to stand on now. He’s a moderate to conservative Democrat who has quite a few accomplishments, but is reviled by those both on the left and right for not being sufficiently ideologically pure.
Also, the opponent makes the 2008 analogy not work out so well. 2008 was a cipher vs. a pure asshole with a crazy person as a running mate, and 2012 is a moderate vs. a cipher with ? as a running mate. Plus, as you mention, Romney’s long history as a stone cold liar with no conscience provides a pretty striking contrast with Obama’s record.
Culture of Truth
and now Dewey LeBoeuf is bankrupt.
to be fair though, Dewey was a dream compared to today’s GOP.
Omnes Omnibus
@Mark B: How many people are operating on overwhelming hate for Obama? On the right, I would guess it is the usual 27%, and, on the left, it is a vocal but very small minority.
Linda Featheringill
Another pundit who is always wrong. Excellent! I’ve now placed two on that list, the first being Maureen Dowd. These folks can be extremely valuable. We’ll just wait for them to address some confusion issue and assume the truth is opposite of what they say and will probably do okay.
Yeah, I know that isn’t scientific but I’ve found that method to be helpful, even about stuff other than politics.
BGinCHI
I think “shrum” is that worthless fish you cut up and throw out to catch larger fish.
Let’s fish instead of cutting bait, please.
/malapropism dept
Hill Dweller
Yesterday, one of Willard’s senior advisers said Romney was a better campaigner than Obama. As far as I know, said adviser wasn’t laughed out of the room.
I’ll say it again, Willard is an awful candidate. He has a talent for making people loathe him. But the media is desperate for that sweet ad revenue, so they’ll do everything they can to cover up Willard’s ineptitude and the Republican’s economic sabotage.
Mark B
@Omnes Omnibus: 27% who turn out at a very high rate is roughly equivalent to 40-45% of voters who are apathetic. Perhaps more. Toss in a few uninformed people and you’ve got enough to win an election. In any case, I wouldn’t call 27% a small percentage. And I think your estimate is low. I think it’s probably in the 30s.
burnspbesq
Here’s another thing you might not want to read over breakfast: a look inside the head of Randy Barnett, the intellectual father of the challenge to the ACA.
http://www.salon.com/2012/06/20/the_brain_behind_the_healthcare_fight/
slippy
@BGinCHI: It’s chum, Chum, and Shrum doesn’t have enough substance to be chum, Chum, so if we threw him in the water in one piece or many, the sharks would just let him sink because he’s just dead weight.
Some Chum you are. I know Chum, and Shrum he’s no Chum at all.
Litlebritdifrnt
@Omnes Omnibus:
On a tip from someone here the other day I went over to Hillaryis44 to see if they were still fighting the good fight over there. They were talking about voting in the CA primary and all writing in Hillary for POTUS. Bless their hearts. The comments are priceless, and you have to be charmed by the names they have come up with for POTUS. “Kim jong Bama”
“O’Turd” and the tag to the post is “Obama sucks”. Poor dears
japa21
@West of the Cascades: Correct. In my mind the statement read “turnoff enough and supress enough” but fingers don’t always match thinking.
japa21
@West of the Cascades: Correct. In my mind the statement read “turnoff enough and supress enough” but fingers don’t always match thinking.
NCSteve
Wow. I don’t know when I’ve ever read a post anywhere that so completely aligns with my own thoughts followed by (thus far), such uniformly excellent comments.
I can’t hate Shrum, because his heart’s always been in the right place. What I do hate is the mentality embedded in the Democratic Party’s political mentality and campaign consultant infrastructure that’s caused them to go back to Shrum, and Shrum’s approach to campaigns, over and over and over and over and over and over again, no matter how many times he loses, no matter how impervious he is, and they are, to the lessons of his many defeats.
For three decades, I’ve run into it at every level from the unpaid party activists who run most local and rural state elections, all the way up to Congressional and presidential races (which, of course, I’ve only read about).
God knows I love ’em and I’d rather hang with them all day rather than spend ten minutes with serious Republicans, but they just don’t understand how to win the hearts and minds of voters who don’t already agree with them about everything.
For three decades I’ve watched them come out of asskicking after asskicking, dazed and confused sputtering “but, but, but . . . we had the best policies . . .”
I’ve sat in living rooms with them and shaken my head as they’ve consensused themselves into beliving that printing pocketbook issue planks from the the convention platform onto 8 x 10 posters and posting them in the local party HQ window will win over undecideds. I listened to dozens of them insisting that only Hillary could win in 2008, because she’s the only one who had the policy chops and background to really win over those undecided voters.
And top to bottom, I’ve always known that Republicans are right about one thing–the thing that loses elections for us is that Democratic Party apparatchiks almost uniformly people who are so deeply embedded into the public spirited, public service, public sector mindset that they are utterly naive, if not actively disdainful, of the grubby Mad Men realities of commerce. People who, however jaded and cynical they think they are, at some level flinch away from the notion that a candidate is a product who has to be sold like detergent of cereal. People who, even when they accept the necessity, lack the intellectual and professional tools necessary to do it well.
People who don’t get that the voters who don’t already agree with them (and many who do), don’t respond to logic or policy details but, instead, “reason” symbolically, live in a world of symbols, and respond only to symbols.
By early summer, the people who give a damn about policy have already chosen sides. From that point on, getting over 50% is all about weaving a coherent and engaging tapestry of symbols for the rest–“branding” to use the crude, grubby commercial term.
And the Bob Shrums and, lord bless her, Donna Brazilles of the world, even if they grasp the concept and the necessity, are just totally inept at that stuff.
Chris
@Mark B:
Quite true. Really, in a country where half the people don’t even vote, 27%’s a majority all by itself. Toss un voter suppression and a few mushy independents and you can make it a landslide.
Culture of Truth
@NCSteve: Well put
waynski
@mistermix: I think historical comparisons are out the window with Citizens United in play. SCOTUS essentially sent us back to the 1890s with that decision, but you can’t compare then to now either. There wasn’t any mass media or Intertoobz. The advertising shitstorm the Prez is about to sail into is uncharted waters. I’m just glad Shrummy’s not an officer on the deck.
Maude
Shrum and Carville are dinosaurs. You know what happened to the dinosaurs.
low-tech cyclist
Hell, Nixon at least told the truth on most things, most days; he just lied when it was important to him to lie.
Mitt lies just all the damned time. Are his lips moving? Then odds are 3-2 he’s lying. I’ve never seen anything like this in my life from someone of such prominence.
SatanicPanic
@Maude:
Jesus kept them as pets?
Maude
@SatanicPanic:
WIN
MattF
This is it, folks, we have to keep saying, over and over: “Liar, coward, plutocrat, sanctimonious pr*ck with a daddy problem, soulless quasi-human.” Thing is, it’s all true, it’s all very relevant, and people actually do pick up on it and understand, and eventually agree. Just do it.
Southern Beale
Who was it that said Bob Shrum’s nickname in Democratic circles was “Dumb Shrum”? Yeah seems fitting.
Hoodie
The 1948 analogy is stupid and relying on it risks making boneheaded tactical decisions, something Shrum is an expert at. Truman had a fractured party; Dewey, while stiff and often vague, was a fairly reasonable northeastern Republican with a record of fighting organized crime and increasing education funding; there was nothing like modern media back then. Obama’s biggest vulnerability is that, while swing voters like him better than Romney, they may want to make a change simply for the sake of changing, i.e., his risk is that the public will do something stupid out of desperation. A better analogy might be Humphrey in ’68, who had to deal with the legacy of a quagmire in Viet Nam.
The strategy of the Republicans is to increase that level of desperation. The risk of that strategy is that people eventually may get sick of all the negativity, stop believing at least some of it and start wondering what’s the agenda of the folks pushing doom and gloom. In that context, you don’t want to portray Romney as Dewey, you portray him as what he is — a manipulative man with a corrupt agenda who is taking advantage of the country’s misfortunes. Remember, even Republicans don’t trust Romney.
Rob in CT
“Imagine a can opener.” That’s the joke about economists building theories on top of ridiculous assumptions, right?
But I gotta admit… that paragraph? That’s totally something I wish too. It’s the reason I’m a Democrat. I know it’s a fantasy, but I can’t help wanting it anyway. And yeah, my personality is definitely one that meshes poorly with sales. I had a sales job. It was the 11th circle of hell. I hate selling things to people, and I dislike being sold things (I’ve always loved the line in Say Anything about selling/buying/processing).
So it’s probably best I not become a Democratic election strategist.
Cacti
From the GOS…
ABC News has committed an act of journalism. A leaked memo for a weekend Romney retreat in Utah shows that he will be meeting with Karl Rove and others to discuss media strategy.
Rove, of course, runs the American Crossroads Super PAC, that Rmoney swears he has no control or involvement with, because that would be, ya know, illegal.
Steve M.
I thought Romney’s real defining characteristic was that he started with the corporate-Nietzschean desire to throw widows and orphans out onto the street for sport and reinforced it with the pimple-faced adolescent Randian’s desire to see the same thing done everywhere and at all times as a matter of law, an infusion of anti-empathy he picked up from contact with the likes of Paul Ryan.
Valdivia
@Cacti:
yesterday they also reported the Rubio and some other Romney surrogate would be attending a CrossRoads strategy meeting and headlining as speakers there. So yeah, no coordination at all!
Enhanced Voting Techniques
@magurakurin:
I noticed the contempt thing happened the same day the Bloomburg came out. I think the GOP is terrified the media is going to latch on to what a loser Mittens really is and how deeply he is disliked by even his own party. A few to many outliers like Bloomburg, the media might just take up the “Mitten = dork” mem and then those outliers will become the reality. And a 13 blow out is bad news everywhere for the GOP.
Villago Delenda Est
If there’s a more incompetent campaign conslutant than Shrum, it’s probably that Penn fucktard.
Or perhaps the fabulous new centrist conslutantcy of Davis and Steele, Twits At Large.
Brachiator
This is why I hate political punditry and the crap emanating from campaign consultants. I don’t give a shit what Shrum thinks might injure Romney. I might be interested in reading how actual voters respond to Romney, and how campaign strategists exploit voter sentiment.
Fortunately, since I am not a candidate paying for this championship level noodling, I don’t have to pay attention to it.
Villago Delenda Est
@Cacti:
Rmoney has a long history of violating the laws about outside groups coordinating campaign strategery with political campaigns. He was directly involved with such an unlawful act in the Quitta’s 2006 Gubernatorial campaign in Alaska.
cckids
@magurakurin:
This. Also, he needs to be really, really thankful that he had one of the best natural politicians/campaigners to work for. Think his famed “its the economy, stupid” schtick would have elevated Dukakis? Kerry? Not hardly.
Nellie
… and in this world can I imagine Sparkle Ponies and Luck Dragons? ‘Cause I’m thinking they’re just as likely as an informed and discerning electorate.
Schlemizel
You give Shrum too much credit by far. its not even that he thinks the campaign should be about ideas its the ideas he want them to be about. Dems should be OK with no gun control and anti-abortion rights legislation. They should be in favor of tax cuts and Medicare and Social Security “reform”. Not because he believes those things but because he thinks that the conventional wisdom of the beltway is popular and will win election.
He is a fool & only an idiot would listen to him