When compared against his Republican rivals, Mitt Romney enjoys far more support from his party's establishment, giving him a small army of GOP surrogates he can dispatch to get his message out to the public.
Of course, this only works when the campaign's surrogates (a) aren't embarrassing, and (b) actually agree with Romney's message.
Take Rep. Joe Heck (R) in Nevada, for example. The Republican congressman is a top Romney backer in the Silver State and a campaign surrogate, but he doesn't mind talking publicly about how wrong Romney is on housing policy.
"Mitt Romney and I don't agree on every issue and certainly housing is one of them. When you look at what is going on here in Southern Nevada, you can't say you got to let the housing market hit bottom. We have been bouncing along the bottom for years. And the fact is we have to do everything possible to: 1) keep people in their homes and 2) get people who are out of their homes back into their homes."
Hmm. So, according to a top Romney campaign surrogate in Nevada, Romney's policies would be bad for struggling homeowners in Nevada.
What's more, as my colleague Mike Yarvitz noted yesterday, incidents like these keep coming up. Randy Pullen, a former Arizona Republican Party chairman and a top campaign backer in the state, offered this assessment of the race yesterday: "Santorum connects with people. Unfortunately, my guy has a hard time doing that."
That's not what leading campaign supporters are supposed to say on the record.
Rep. Fred Upton (R), a top Romney backer in Michigan, said this week that Romney was wrong about the auto-industry rescue. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R), one of the campaign's most prominent surrogates, contradicted Romney on the release of tax returns. Sen. John McCain (R), a very high-profile supporter, told a national television audience Romney's position on Taliban negotiations isn't his position.
Then there's Romney's other group of surrogates: the ones he doesn't want to talk to anymore. Arizona Sheriff Paul Babeu was a top campaign surrogate until his recent scandal, and Rep. Michael Grimm (R-N.Y.) was a leading surrogate before he was caught up in his own ethics controversies.
And in case all of this weren't quite enough, Romney backer Jon Huntsman was on MSNBC this morning, arguing in support of "some sort of third-party movement or some alternative voice out there that can put forward new ideas."
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
With friends like these....
Leave a Comment:
Translation: "Oooh, ooh! Pick me! Me! Me! PLEEEEEEEZZZZ! Pick me!"
A name for this new party has been announced-
G.rand
O.ld
O.il
B.ackers
A.ssociation
M.aiming
A.merica
Or go obama for short ---ooops.
Steve, are you saying things may not be going exactly as planned for Mighty Mitt the Magnificent Master of Management?
I shouldn't be enjoying this as much as I am.
Decadent ain't it? Maybe a few hail Mary's? No, they threw all of those they could.
Actually Romney does want a third party challenge because he knows he can't get to 50% of the vote. His only hope is to divide what we laughingly call the left in this country from the independents. It doesn't matter if he gets the independents, so long as Obama does not. In a three way race he figures he can win with just 38% of the vote.
A third party actually seems like an increasing possibility - not necessarily this year, but with the chasm of differences between moderate Republicans and the far right, I can see them splitting once they realize it isn't working for them. But I do have my doubts still - the money supporting the extremes on both sides is likely to drown out a centrist party in pretty short order.
One would think a candidate with so much money, establishment backing, and self-proclaimed management experience could organize his campaign and get his surrogates on the same page with his message. After all, it's been done before, even without establishment backing and (according to the Republicans at the time) without management experience. As I recall, it was in 2008 - some guy named Barack Obama.
The Republican Party has deep troubles that not even an establishment victory in the next two states will fix. Romney has clobbered his foes over the head and kept them at bay for now, but the nearly 100 percent negative campaign run by Romney and his allies gives the candidate nothing to stand for. Romney has no clear policy and no clear agenda at the moment, other than to destroy Santorum. He will enter the general campaign with Obama a battered candidate with a trunk full of negative ads and nothing more. This is why Mitt's national negative ratings are going through the roof, and why Obama has a real shot in November. http://www.sunstateactivist.org
It's too bad John Huntsman didn't get much of shot, he really seems like the most sensible of the dozen GOP candidates that tried.
...if you find the Ryan Budget and a Balanced Budget Amendment sensible, then yes. He was intelligent and didn't pander to the crazies, but his views are pretty extreme.
It would be so great if you could ask Santorum or Gingrich about these aspects of Catholic Social Teaching:
Preferential Option for the poor and vulnerable
Jesus taught that on the Day of Judgement God will ask what each of us did to help the poor and needy: "Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me. The option for the poor or the preferential option for the poor is one of the basic principles of the Catholic Social Teaching tradition In Christian eschatology, the Last Judgment or Day of the Lord is the judgment by God of every human who ever lived "[18] This is reflected in the Church's canon law, which states, "[The Christian faithful] are also obliged to promote social justice and, mindful of the precept of the Lord, to assist the poor from their own resources. "[19]
Through our words, prayers and deeds we must show solidarity with, and compassion for, the poor. When instituting public policy we must always keep the "preferential option for the poor" at the forefront of our minds. The moral test of any society is "how it treats its most vulnerable members. The poor have the most urgent moral claim on the conscience of the nation. We are called to look at public policy decisions in terms of how they affect the poor. "[20]
Pope Benedict XVI has taught that “love for widows and orphans, prisoners, and the sick and needy of every kind, is as essential as the ministry of the sacraments and preaching of the Gospel”. Pope Benedict XVI ( Latin: Benedictus PP XVI; Italian: Benedetto XVI; German: Benedikt XVI; born Joseph Alois Ratzinger [21] This preferential option for the poor and vulnerable includes all who are marginalized in our nation and beyond—unborn children, persons with disabilities, the elderly and terminally ill, and victims of injustice and oppression.
Dignity of work and the rights of workers
Society must pursue economic justice and the economy must serve people, not the other way around. Social justice, sometimes called civil justice, refers to the concept of a Society in which Justice is achieved in every aspect of society rather than An economy is the realized social system of production exchange distribution and consumption of goods and services of a country or other area Employers must not "look upon their work people as their bondsmen, but. . . respect in every man his dignity as a person ennobled by Christian character. "[22] Employers contribute to the common good through the services or products they provide and by creating jobs that uphold the dignity and rights of workers.
Workers have a right to work, to earn a living wage, and to form trade unions[23] to protect their interests. Living wage is a term used to describe the minimum hourly wage necessary for a person to achieve some specific standard of living A trade union or labour union is an organization of workers who have banded together to achieve common goals in key areas such as wages hours and working conditions forming All workers have a right to productive work, to decent and fair wages, and to safe working conditions. [24] Workers also have responsibilities—to provide a fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay, to treat employers and co-workers with respect, and to carry out their work in ways that contribute to the common good. Workers must "fully and faithfully" perform the work they have agreed to do.
I don't have a problem per se when an endorser disagrees with the candidate on a specific issue. But if you follow, for example, Rep. Hack's objection to Romney's housing policy to its logical end, then Hack has to disagree with Romney over the Wall St. bailout because it was the financial sector's insane gambling with people's mortgages that led to the collapse that followed problems in the housing market. And, then the next step for Hack is that because of the housing collapse that led to the financial collapse, he has to disagree with Romney about the auto bailout, as well, because the credit markets were frozen and without government help retructuring and refinancing, the entire industry would have collapsed - turning the Great Recession into Great Depression II.
So Rep. Hack, exactly why is it that you are backing Romney instead of Pres. Obama?
Romney's problems go beyond his surrogates, some of whom have the same problem. He is unable to communicate with voters. When he speaks and particularly when he goes off script, he gives people the impression that the election is all about him rather than the voters. Consequently, Romney's fulfills peoples expectations of a self-absorbed, self-indulgent, rich white guy who has never worked a day in his life and is out of touch. And his campaign staff are not helping him when they put out his political statements.
Huntsman knows 3rd parties are about being either ideologicaly suicidal or a cynical spoiler. Huntsman needs to take a position on a federal preferential voting scheme. Every election we are presented with manichean choices. This arrangement is ill suited for a diverse pluralistic society.
We had that system before and it resulted in presidents and vice-presidents being from different parties. The concept of the president and vice-president running together was a political change in our election system. This resulted in an entrenched two party system. Preferential voting will do nothing if parties continue to run both offices together. Technically, we are using preferential voting when we vote for the president and vice president that appear on each party.
That's not what I meant. You are talking about the way the President and VP were chosen prior to the 12th amendment where the person coming in 2nd was VP.
Preferential voting is where the voter indicates what their first, second, third.. etc. choices for president is. There are many ways to evaluate but for example one of the most common used in the US since the 1800s is instant runoff voting. You count each ballot as for the top most preferred candidate. If one of the candidates has the majority of votes, they win. Otherwise, you eliminate the candidate who received the lowest number of votes. You continue this until one candidate has a majority.
Third party candidates are no longer a spoiler under these schemes. All of the preferential voting schemes are better than the current voting method for this reason, but some of these methods of calculating the vote are demonstrably more effective at getting closest to the public's true preference than others.
Why would anyone expect Mitt Romney's surrogates to agree with him on issues?
MITT ROMNEY can't even agree with MITT ROMNEY on the issues!!!!
I don't see how this is remarkable behavior for the GOP. Is this really different from any random Republican's position on earmarks / funding-for-my-very-important-constituent-project? Or how saving the auto industry is socialism except for politicians whose constituencies depend on it? Pain is good policy...for other people. Just not for Rep. Heck and the good people of
Rock RidgeNevada's 3rd congressional district.Two words for you here: Russ Feingold . . .
I like what Mr. Huntsman has to say, for the most part. However the only way he is free to say it as a Republican, is because he knows the far right has already rejected him.
Huntsman's political career is about as successful and relevant as his rock 'n' roll career.
It is hardly suprising that Romney's surrogates disagree with him, it is the end result of the Republican "Rugged Individualist" image. Also known as every man for himself or rats deserting a sinking ship mentality.
All the players in this primary field are following the "Luntz" script.
"Okay...Romney don't talk unless you have a teleprompter".
"Everyone else BE AS LOUD, STUPID, RUDE, OBNOXIOUS, ARROGANT, AND INSANE AS POSSIBLE...NO HOLDS BARRED...
"WE GOTA' MAKE THIS GUY LOOK GOOD”