Romney out of touch?

January 11, 2008 – 6:36 pm

I have worried about the strange sense that I get that Mitt Romney is out of touch. He seems like a rich guy who doesn’t understand what normal people go through. The question is whether this impression gets down into the voters. MSNBC’s exit polls found that in New Hampshire the only income class that Romney beat John McCain was $150-200k, and they tied above $200k.

I was reminded of this when I saw an AP story today about Romney’s tax plan:

But the former Massachusetts governor goes beyond that to say "anyone" with adjusted gross income under $200,000 — that’s after certain deductions — should be relieved of all taxes on capital gains, interest and dividends, pushing his definition of the middle class well into six-figure incomes.

Now, I don’t have a problem with Romney’s position, but the polling above suggests that people might be getting an impression here. This could be bad news for him in Michigan, when Mike Huckabee is relating to the people who have "been laid off" and Romney is talking about "getting rid of people." Especially when there is 7%+ unemployment.

Tags: , ,

By eye | Comments (4)

Romney ad “misleading”; McCain responds

December 29, 2007 – 1:18 am

Mitt Romney dropped a negative ad in New Hampshire attacking John McCain. However, it seems that Romney, again, has some truthiness problems. Given the factual errors below, it is clear why McCain goes straight to Romney’s credibility problem.

Factcheck.org, "More Mitt Malarky":

Romney’s latest ad attacks McCain in New Hampshire with false and misleading claims

WaPo’s Howie Kurtz:

Mitt Romney, who targeted Mike Huckabee in an earlier commercial, is now running the most negative campaign of any presidential candidate in either party. … Romney’s description of McCain’s failed immigration bill — which was backed by President Bush — is so selective as to be misleading.

New York Times:

Specifically, Mr. Romney assails Mr. McCain on both tax policies and immigration. On both topics, the commercial presents facts that could be construed either as selective or worse, misleading.

Mark Halperin from Time points out:

First negative ad against Romney by any candidate, first negative ad by McCain, first negative ad by any candidate besides Romney.

Negative campaigning. Lying. Debating what the definition of "saw" is. Who does that sound like?

Tags: , , , , ,

By eye | Comments (5)

Mitt’s Meet mistakes

December 16, 2007 – 11:40 pm

It has turned out that Mitt Romney’s Meet the Press appearance appeared decent at the time, but mistakes seem to be coming out of the woodwork. Race 4 2008 has one write-up.

First, there was Romney’s lie about the NRA endorsement. He claimed that he had received it in 2002. He hadn’t. Just made it up.

Second, he claimed that "…every piece of legislation which came to my desk in the coming years as a Governor, I came down on the side of preserving the sanctity of life." Fred Thompson’s campaign sent out a press release basically blowing that up.

Third, Jen Rubin at the Spectator drills down and finds Romney’s statements on taxes totally lacking. Key quotes:

On the subject of fees and taxes a pre-The Note Rick Klein reported in 2003: "A survey of states grappling with spending crises has found that Massachusetts imposed more fee hikes than any other state in the nation this year - at least $500 million. … ‘These are just indiscriminate, broad-based fee increases because of a reluctance to raise taxes,’ said Michael J. Widmer, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation. ‘It’s been disingenuous to say there’s no new taxes, in the sense that there’s very little connection to the fee increases and the cost of services that the fees are supposed to represent.’" Groups like Citizens for Limited Taxation at the time were similarly suspicion about the distinction.

And fourth, Romney "I was an independent in the time of Reagan/Bush" and "I voted for Paul Tsongas" said:

OK, Tim, let’s go back and let’s, let’s–I’m going to reject the premise, to begin with because, when I ran against Ted Kennedy, I realized the shot was a long shot, to beat Ted Kennedy in Massachusetts.  But I was tired of his liberal policies.  And as you’ll recall, I fought for the death penalty, I said secure the borders, I said at the same time we’re going to completely redo our welfare system and get rid of the old welfare system.  I ran as a Republican and a conservative.  And when I ran for governor in Massachusetts, you were there.  First question you asked me in the debate, "Tell me about the death penalty." I was for the death penalty.  I was for English immersion in our schools.  I said, I said…

Yeah. Whatever dude. Again, Jen Rubin whips out the quotes:

“I Am A Fiscal Conservative And A Social Moderate.” (2002)

“I Was An Independent During The Time Of Reagan-Bush.  I’m Not Trying To Return To Reagan-Bush.” (1994)

"I don’t know that the world is pining for a progressive-on-social-issues governor of Massachusetts." (2002)

Then there’s my personal favorite "my R doesn’t so much stand for Republican as Reform."

I just can’t wait for the video mashup of the 2007 statements against his actual record.

Tags: , , ,

By eye | Comments (4)

Grover on Rudy and Huckabee

December 4, 2007 – 12:09 pm

So much happened yesterday, and I was away from a computer for most of the day, that I was left nearly speechless.

Perhaps the most interesting was Grover Norquist’s comments on Rudy Giuliani and Mike Huckabee. Grover’s whole schtick for over a decade has been his tax pledge. You sign the pledge to not raise taxes. And then he beats you up and calls you a liar if you do. More likely, your future primary opponent beats you up and calls you a liar. It has never been obvious to me that the same logic applies to a Presidential candidate, but Grover has tried.

One of the startling things in the last debate was the number of candidates who have not signed. That seemed to represent a tangible weakening of his stature. Giuliani, John McCain, and Fred Thompson, 3 of the 5 top-tier candidates refused to sign. Mitt Romney flip-flopped to sign. And Mike Huckabee’s signature seemed …. dubious? But the story seemed clear. Grover would have to go with Romney because of the combination of Huckabee’s record and signing the pledge. But that’s not how it is playing out.

First of all, Grover defends Huckabee to the Christian Broadcasting Network:

He has signed the pledge and he has promised to veto and oppose any efforts to raise income taxes … So he’s made that commitment.

Now, Club for Growth has been rough on him because of his period when he was governor. We had arguments with him when he was governor because he supported too much spending and too much taxes as governor…

But then he launches into this "convert" language that borrows Romney’s language on abortion:

So some people say ‘If you’ve changed your mind, we don’t like you,’ but that’s not my position. I believe that when people say I used to be pro-choice but now I’m going to be pro-life and here’s why, if they can make a credible argument as to why they have switched in their position, I think we should accept converts. That’s what winning looks like."

I hear both an acceptance of Huckabee and a warning to Romney. "Back off. You are making the same argument in a different place. Don’t go there." Now, this is all kind of predictable because Huckabee signed the pledge. Although, I am a little surprised by the pointed language on abortion.

But what about Giuliani? Marc Ambinder described Grover’s statement as a "non-endorsement endorsement" and "[t]hat’s as close an endorsement as you’ll get from Mr. Norquist." But Rudy didn’t actually sign the pledge.

My friend Patrick Ruffini, a former Giuliani consultant, has described Rudy’s fiscal conservative outreach this way:

ATR’s Grover Norquist today became the latest fiscal conservative leader to shower praise upon Rudy Giuliani:  … Say what you will about Giuliani’s conservative outreach, but fiscal conservatives have been unusually kind to the Hizzoner. First there was the Steve Forbes endorsement. Then the glowing Club for Growth report. And now this.

He even frames the whole thing as:

Giuliani and Huckabee are the ying and yang of the GOP field. One is strong on fiscal issues and weak on social ones. The other is… the opposite. Unlike discerning minute differences in the shades of gray between Clinton and Obama, a Giuliani-Huckabee final would give Republican voters a real choice about the future direction of the party. That is, if Huck can topple Mitt in Iowa…

Of course, while Rudy has committed to not raising taxes, he has not signed the pledge. And Grover has been a strong advocate of fusionism. Like Marc, I can’t help but see this as a Giuliani endorsement. But something seems strange here. How can Grover praise Rudy like this in light of his pledge stance?

Tags: , , ,

By eye | Comments (0)

How anti-tax are IA GOP caucus goers?

October 30, 2007 – 3:04 pm

I am curious. If, as David Yepsen notes, Mike Huckabee is doing well in Iowa, it might be because Iowa caucus-goers are relatively strange. We already know that Iowa GOP caucus-goers are much more anti-war than the national party. We also know that Iowa caucus-goers are more religious than the national primary electorate.

I number of people, including Richard Land, have noted that less conservative positions on economic issues, especially trade, could play well with religious voters. He said this in the context of Duncan Hunter a long time ago, but it could equally apply to Huckabee.

Huckabee clearly has winning contrasts on social issues with Mitt Romney. (and now there is an incentive for the big money candidates to make the contrast… A Huckabee win probably devastates Romney.) And Romney’s foreign policy credentials are no better than Huckabee’s. And if taxes don’t really matter… It would be hard to see how Yepsen wouldn’t be right.

Any good polling information on taxes or the priorities of Iowa caucus-goers?

Tags: , , ,

By eye | Comments (2)

Thompson on Security and Unity

October 5, 2007 – 1:50 pm

Fred Thompson’s campaign’s motto is "Prosperity, Security, Unity". He addressed the first of these during his main speech to the Americans for Prosperity. He addressed the other parts during a speech to the Virginia delegation.

Nothing special, but interesting to see the rest of his message.

I was struck, again, by how much the crowd wants to like him. He did pretty well with this event. He got a big rousing standing ovation.

Tags: , , ,

By eye | Comments (1)

Romney taxed New Hampshire

October 5, 2007 – 1:42 pm

There’s a fight over taxes between Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani. Yesterday, Romney accused Rudy of supporting a commuter tax.

But, as always seems to be the case for Romney, whose operating principle seems to be "what is good for me is not good for thee," Romney raised the commuter tax.

The Giuliani campaign put up all the details. I won’t bore you. Here is the bottom line: as governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney raised taxes on New Hampshire  voters. Why would New Hampshire voters trust him to not raise their taxes when he has already done it before?

Tags: , , ,

By eye | Comments (1)

Fred Thompson speaks to AFP

October 5, 2007 – 12:02 pm

The first thing I notice. He is the first candidate to come up with his wife. She walks away. And AFP messes up the music. But the crowd is attentive. I think that the people here want to believe in him and support him.

He just mislead the audience. He talked about his first time here as when he was in the Senate. Of course, he was a lobbyist here. And a staffer. That’s silly.

I am just hearing platitutdes.

That said, I like the stuff about corporate tax rates. That’s really important stuff.  But why 28%? What’s the principle?

Now he talks about mandatory spending. This is important. He is willing to talk about the real issues on this stuff. This is completely necessary for our country.

And the need to simplify the tax code. All true, but what’s the structure here? Why isn’t the corporate tax stuff combined with this?

Again, the crowd responded. I am in a side room watching on video. And people clapped at the end. For a guy down the hall. Interesting.

Tags: ,

By eye | Comments (3)

Huckabee at AFP

October 5, 2007 – 10:42 am

Mike Huckabee speaks at AFP.

He starts with populism. "Getting the economy moving for everyone." But then he switches to talking about the defects with the tax code. He is so interesting. This is anti-government populism.

"The average American is more afraid of an audit by the IRS than getting mugged."

He wants more transparency. Every single transaction.

Then he pivots to Hillary and healthcare. He talks about 75% of the costs going to chronic disease. 70% of the people needing exercise.

It is so interesting to hear the combination of anti-government populism and economic populism. Rhetorically, there is a way to make it work. It is pretty remarkable.

Tags: ,

By eye | Comments (1)

Rudy’s speech to Americans for Prosperity

October 5, 2007 – 9:48 am

The whole framing of this is interesting. Rudy is speaking in the middle of a nasty fight with Mitt Romney over their economic records.

Rudy starts by saying that he is a supply-sider and that he had made supply-side policies work That’s his theme of 23 tax cuts. He also borrowed McCain’s line from last night.

Rudy talks a long, long, long time about his record. Both substance and symbols. My favorite? Renaming welfare offices to "job centers."

He also attacks Hillary Clinton for her baby bond. I think it is worth pointing out that Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH) has proposed similar things. And Rep. Phil English (R-PA) and a Giuliani endorser, has endorsed a very similar idea.

Rudy meanders for a while. But then he gets to substance.

He wants to end the death tax.

He wants to index the AMT. (most want to kill it. That’s room for a difference)

A one-page tax form. (don’t we have that with the EZ? Complicated incomes have complicated taxes.)

New savings vehicles. (Good idea. Combine it with one that starts at birth with, perhaps, matching for poor kids, and you get a much cheaper baby bond… That’s a difference that we could offer that isn’t too different from Ramesh Ponnuru’s tax-break for families)

Then he comes to a riff on Europe again. He attacks Hillary care with a great line and Michael Moore.

All in all good substance. Funny. But it didn’t appeal that much to me.

Tags: , ,

By eye | Comments (0)