RSS Feed MenuClick here for all of David Frum’s blogposts on Mitt Romney’s “No Apology”.
It’s page 258 – and suddenly we are back in Campaign Mode. The transition is very abrupt. On pages 256, Romney is describing an interesting program he advocated in Massachusetts: “a Parental Preparation Program for every underperforming school district. In order for parents in these districts to enroll their children in public school, the parents would have been required to attend classes themselves, where they would learn about the value of education as well as ways in which they could support their children’s educational experience.”
On p. 257, a funny story about Romney’s business career, about his unsuccessful attempt to woo a bright young MBA to join Bain in the late 1970s. The MBA declined, preferring to join a college friend’s startup company. Punchline: “I saw Steve Ballmer twenty-five years later at the home of Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates. He reminded me of my long-ago effort to recruit him. I joked that if he’d taken my offer instead of joining Microsoft, he’d likely be doing pretty well by now.”
And then, p. 258 – we are suddenly hearing about the dangers of “soft tyranny” extinguishing the American entrepreneurial spirit and of the imminent threat from “monarchists in spirit.” And from there to the end it’s a long series of salutes to one after another Republican constituency and shibboleth. “I am unapologetically pro-life,” Romney says on p. 265. Then it’s on to same-sex marriage and liberal judges’ attack on the Constitution, and from there to catch-in-throat heroism and sacrifice. I hope I am not belittling any of the gallant people Romney mentions here when I say that these pages read very much like the road-testing of some future nomination acceptance speech.
The book concludes with a 64-point action plan. Many of them are very good points. (Not all: The president elected in 2012 will want a weak dollar, not a strong one.)
But here are the final thoughts as one puts it down:
No Apology is the work of a highly intelligent, very well-informed man with a proven record of successful executive leadership. Romney was much disliked by the other Republican candidates in 2008, but as a pro-McCain friend joked to me: “I have to admit – Mitt Romney would make the greatest Secretary of Transportation ever.“
What kind of president would he be?
Peggy Noonan once wrote of the first President Bush that he saw it as his job to sit behind a big desk and wait for important decisions to be brought to him to be made wisely and well.
Romney has some of that Bush spirit, topped up with an additional measure of technocratic expertise.
Yet it’s never been enough for a president to be a very smart guy who is good at running things. America has lots of smart guys who are good at running things. Why this smart guy of all the possible smart guys?
That’s the question that remains unanswered at the end of No Apology – and maybe the core weakness of the Romney political campaign.
lowandslow // Mar 13, 2010 at 8:26 am
[I]“Why this smart guy of all the possible smart guys?”[/I]
That’s kind of the rub right there, who are the other possible smart guys that want the job? I don’t see any out there right now, do you?
Chekote // Mar 13, 2010 at 9:11 am
No. The voters will not buy Romney. He killed his chances when he decided to become a culture warrior in a futile attempt to win in Iowa. The man is a total phoney.
mike farmer // Mar 13, 2010 at 11:09 am
We need separation of State and economy. The private sector has plenty of capable CEOs ad they shouldn’t be mixed with government work. A president should be executive over a limited government which doesn’t interfere in a free market. If Romney’s goal is to be CEO of America, Inc, making statist/business decisions in a government/corporate enmeshment, then I say we need someone else.
blowtorch_bob // Mar 13, 2010 at 12:08 pm
I think Romney will be a perfect fit for 2012 -in the role of sacrificial lamb. Because, let’s face it, baring a major screw up on the part of the Dems or any other unforseen circumstances, Obama will win in a cakewalk -that’s the nature of the beast.
Look at him! If there ever was a sacrificial lamb Romney is it. He was born for it. The bible is filled with references of animals and first borns etc being slaughtered and offered up to appease the gods of Wall Street. Well Romney will be drawn up, quartered and thrown on a barbecue pit (a la John Kerry) and offered up to the dark lords. Maybe with a chorus of medievel chants in the background led by Dick Cheney for added effect.
Chekote // Mar 13, 2010 at 12:13 pm
Because, let’s face it, baring a major screw up on the part of the Dems or any other unforseen circumstances, Obama will win in a cakewalk -that’s the nature of the beast.
Newsbreak: The Dems and Obama have already screwed up. Check out the approval polls.
mlindroo // Mar 13, 2010 at 1:11 pm
Chekote wrote:
> Newsbreak: The Dems and Obama have already screwed up. Check out the approval polls.
The job approval ratings are almost entirely driven by the global recession, however.
Do you really think there would be significantly less unemployment now or that the economy would be in better shape if McCain were President?
MARCU$
wonda // Mar 13, 2010 at 1:41 pm
Things would be way worse if McCain were president. And I’m saying that not because McCain is a conservative but because he’s McCain. I’m not completely happy with Obama, and certainly not happy with our democratic Congress, but if it were McCain vs. Obama all over again, I’d still vote for Obama. I don’t support all his political views or policy proposals, but I still think he’s a more competent executive than McCain would be.
No way would McCain have been temperamentally suited to the demands of this job even in the best of times, but all the problems he would have had to deal with, he would have disasterous.
sinz54 // Mar 13, 2010 at 2:45 pm
blowtorch_bob: Because, let’s face it, baring a major screw up on the part of the Dems or any other unforseen circumstances, Obama will win in a cakewalk -that’s the nature of the beast.
Like Jimmy Carter?
Or George H.W. Bush, who had a 90% approval rating right after the Gulf War?
“Unforeseen circumstances” are inevitable in the next three years, given everything on America’s plate. I’ve never seen a Presidential campaign yet which was accurately predicted three years prior.
We’ll get a better feel for Obama’s chances after the November 2010 congressional elections. But even then, we won’t know.
Carter and GHW Bush lost re-election because of events that took place in the last 18 months of their presidency.
sinz54 // Mar 13, 2010 at 2:51 pm
mlindroo: The job approval ratings are almost entirely driven by the global recession, however.
True, but that’s because there hasn’t been a major foreign policy disaster (yet).
OK, let’s look at the unemployment trends:
http://i42.tinypic.com/nyfqes.jpg
and also
http://i40.tinypic.com/900tbr.jpg
It looks like unemployment will remain high for quite a while.
We may not get back to the prosperity of the 1990s till 2016 at this rate. Long after Obama will have had to face the voters.
aDude // Mar 13, 2010 at 7:30 pm
Ronald Reagan’s approval ratings in the 30’s just 18 months before he carried 49 states. Unemployment stayed in double digits for many months. But the economic timing was right for November 1984. Bush Sr lost not so much because of what he did but because the Republicans had held the White House for 12 years and were looking rather tired. That’s one reason why the Republicans will take the White House again by 2016 or 2020 at the absolute latest.
By 2012? It is possible. And I do think Romney is the best shot at retaking the White House. Voters have learned to respect intelligence and stability of character, and Romney has both of these. Of course intelligence isn’t enough (Carter really was a nuclear engineer, after all, and Hoover was one of the smartest of the 20th Century presidents; how well did they work out?)
One worrying thing is that he reminds me a bit of Dukakis – it’s almost like he wants to be Governor of the United States, as opposed to President. He has lots of micro ideas, which, of course, is where governors live. While he has all the right ideas about stimulating economic growth, he seems a bit vague on the specifics of America’s place in the international order. But there are still a couple of years to go, and he certainly has the capacity to learn and grow into the role by November 2012. He is too good to be a sacrificial lamb.
kevin47 // Mar 13, 2010 at 8:57 pm
lowandslow
“That’s kind of the rub right there, who are the other possible smart guys that want the job?”
Pawlenty and Jindal are smart. Ron Paul is smart, though non-viable. I think Palin is smart, but I’m not going to open that can of worms.
Bob,
“Because, let’s face it, baring a major screw up on the part of the Dems or any other unforseen circumstances, Obama will win in a cakewalk -that’s the nature of the beast.”
Obama remains a favorite to win re-election, but I think he is well capable of a major screw up. I think he has already screwed up, and here’s how. He has framed his agenda as a series of centrist, cost-cutting measures. Nobody really believes him on that score. So, after the 2010 elections, when he makes his run to the center, how does he convince voters he really means it?
“The bible is filled with references of animals and first borns etc being slaughtered and offered up to appease the gods of Wall Street.”
Well that’s some unmitigated crazy right there.
Marcus,
“The job approval ratings are almost entirely driven by the global recession, however.”
I see little evidence that this is the case. His policies are unpopular, and it seems ridiculous to assume this has nothing to do with his approval ratings.
“Do you really think there would be significantly less unemployment now or that the economy would be in better shape if McCain were President?”
Emphatically, yes. The uncertainty created by a government that demonstrates a willingness to trample over private industry (or buy it outright) is more than enough to freeze hiring. Obama has created instability by outsourcing his agenda to an incompetent Democratic leadership. McCain would not have done so.
Wonda,
“Things would be way worse if McCain were president. And I’m saying that not because McCain is a conservative but because he’s McCain. No way would McCain have been temperamentally suited to the demands of this job even in the best of times, but all the problems he would have had to deal with, he would have disasterous.”
This is begging the question.
Adude,
“Ronald Reagan’s approval ratings in the 30’s just 18 months before he carried 49 states. Unemployment stayed in double digits for many months.”
It did, and if the unemployment rate goes below 7% prior to 10/12, Obama will be in pretty good shape, even if he attempts to artificially deflate the rate through make-work policies.
“Carter really was a nuclear engineer, after all, and Hoover was one of the smartest of the 20th Century presidents; how well did they work out?”
Good point. I don’t buy into the notion that Barack Obama is a genius. But even if he were, would that make his policies any more effective? Is his work today the product of genius? Scarcely anyone would argue this it is.
“One worrying thing is that he reminds me a bit of Dukakis – it’s almost like he wants to be Governor of the United States, as opposed to President.”
That’s a very interesting point, and one that might apply to Obama as well, no?
Independent // Mar 13, 2010 at 9:18 pm
blowtorch-bob, if ever there was a more fitting name here, says: “I think Romney will be a perfect fit for 2012 -in the role of sacrificial lamb. Because, let’s face it, baring a major screw up on the part of the Dems or any other unforseen circumstances, Obama will win in a cakewalk -that’s the nature of the beast.”
Delusional, he is, at best.
mlindroo // Mar 14, 2010 at 4:30 am
>> “The job approval ratings are almost entirely driven by the global recession, however.”
> I see little evidence that this is the case. His policies are unpopular,
> and it seems ridiculous to assume this has nothing to do with his approval ratings.
I disagree. The job approval of virtually ANY president, regardless of ideological stripe, normally correlates closely with the state of the economy. Wars and personal scandals of course also have an impact, although the latter are less important as long as the economy is strong. Thus (IIRC) Ronald Reagan was not very popular in 1981-82 but he won 49 states in 1984 once the economy had recovered from the recession… His conservative policies (tax cuts for the rich, muscular foreign policy etc.) became indirectly popular as a result.
Partisans and ideologues frequently overestimate the importance of ideology on voting behavior. Liberals firmly believe Bush, DeLay, Frist etc. were rejected by voters because their partisan, hardcore Southern “christianist” policies were unpopular. Conservatives argue that Republicans lost because they abandoned too many conservatives principles, e.g. the principle of limited government. I would argue that casual voters in 2006-08 cared more about the apparent RESULT of Republican control of all branches of government: anemic economic growth, corruption scandals, the mishandling of Iraq and Katrina. Karl Rove & co. certainly favored a divisive “let’s placate the GOP base” policy whenever possible, but it would not have mattered if the results had been better!
MARCU$
sinz54 // Mar 14, 2010 at 8:51 am
aDude: Bush Sr lost not so much because of what he did but because the Republicans had held the White House for 12 years and were looking rather tired.
That’s not why Bush Senior lost.
Bush Senior lost because of the 1992 recession that inevitably occurred after the downsizing of the military budget following the end of the Cold War–and caught Bush just as he was trying to run for re-election. It wasn’t Bush’s fault–recessions have followed every major war, the Cold War included, due to the idling of military forces and defense industries. But Bush seemed out of touch with the problem.
sinz54 // Mar 14, 2010 at 9:06 am
mlindroo: Wars and personal scandals of course also have an impact, although the latter are less important as long as the economy is strong.
When there is a major war that isn’t going well, that takes precedence over the economy. For obvious reasons: American families are seeing their loved ones getting killed in a dubious cause–and the emotional impact of that is high.
Lincoln might have been defeated for re-election in 1864 by a peace candidate from the Dem Party (and the Union might have been permanently split up), if he hadn’t found two good generals, Grant and Sherman, who turned the war around.
The Dems’ troubles in 1952 were due largely to the quagmire in Korea.
The Dems’ troubles in 1968 were due largely to the quagmire in Vietnam.
If there is no war, or if there is a war that is going well, then the economy becomes the big issue.
mlindroo: I disagree. The job approval of virtually ANY president, regardless of ideological stripe, normally correlates closely with the state of the economy.
But a president’s “ideological stripe” helps determine how he deals with the economy–and how it performs.
FDR was able to cut the unemployment rate in half, because his ideology was more conducive to strong Federal action than Hoover’s.
Reagan was able to turn the American economy around where Carter had failed, because Reagan’s ideology was more conducive to eliminating the high taxes and supply bottlenecks (notably energy) that were contributing to stagflation.
So what of Obama and his supporters? Their ideology has driven them to focus on health care reform–their Holy Grail for 70 years–rather than unemployment. Having passed a stimulus package last year, they then washed their hands of the unemployment problem and went right back to what they had always dreamed of: Cradle-to-gave universal health care like Europe or Canada.
In fact, Rahm Emanuel’s infamous statement “Never let a crisis go to waste” implied that the Obama Administration saw the the fact that millions of unemployed Americans were losing their employer’s group health insurance as just a convenient talking-point to help implement health care reform.
The Obama Administration knows that it’s during times of high unemployment when Americans worry most about losing their group health insurance if they lose their jobs. And the Administration was prepared to cynically make the most of it.
The dirty little secret of Obama’s health care reform push is that a strong economy works against liberals’ drive for health care reform. If the economy recovered and Americans all went back to work, they would no longer worry about losing their group health insurance–and public pressure for health care reform would evaporate.
That means that if they really, really want health care reform to pass, they have a vested interest in NOT reducing unemployment till it’s passed.
And guess what. That’s how it is shaping up. Next week when Pelosi has her vote, the unemployment rate will be 9.7%.
mlindroo // Mar 14, 2010 at 12:22 pm
Sin54, I don’t disagree with most of your views above except for the following:
“Their ideology has driven them to focus on health care reform–their Holy Grail for 70 years–rather than unemployment.”
What exactly would you want them to do, then? The stimulus isn’t perfect, but virtually every credible economist agrees the job losses and economic downturn would be even worse if the stimulus package had not been approved. The health care debate may divert attention from other issues, but this will change hopefully next weekend when the House passes the Senate bill.
As for “Obama Administration knows that it’s during times of high unemployment when Americans worry most about losing their group health insurance if they lose their jobs”, what on Earth is wrong with that?!?! If unemployed Americans are losing their group health insurance in record numbers, perhaps the government should try to do something about it, no?
BTW, this recession is not just a convenient plot dreamed up by Rahm Emanuel. It’s had a huge negative impact on every single OECD country with the possible exception of Norway. Even relatively deregulated markets such as Estonia, Latvia and Ireland have been badly hit. So it’s not clear to me how president Paul Ryan would be significantly more successful tackling the unemployment problem.
MARCU$
DFL // Mar 16, 2010 at 12:53 pm
Romney will likely give the heart of the Republican Party the back of his hand. He is very conniving, a political chameleon, and constant to no one. If elected president, he will demoralize his own party. A Republican Party forced to run in 2014 with a President Romney will lose at least 50 seats and perhaps 100. Better to let Obama win in 2012 and demoralize the Democrats.