Political Animal
Blog
New York’s Jon Chait thinks that of all the devil’s bargains Mitt Romney had to negotiate in order to secure the presidential nomination of a party that doesn’t trust his conservatism, the “pander to supply-siders” reflected in his tax proposals could turn out to be the most damaging. Why? Because Mitt’s efforts to disguise the regressive distributional effect of his proposals pretty blatantly violate simple rules of arithmetic.
Team Romney, of course, is trying to dismiss the arithmetic lessons being handed out this week by the Tax Policy Center and the Obama campaign as “partisan,” deploying the ancient political trick of challenging the credibility of critics rather than the facts and logic they offer. But that’s where they may be fatally miscalculating, not just on Romney’s tax proposals but on the even broader front of the Ryan Budget that encompasses the heart of the GOP agenda. Maybe Team Mitt can throw sand in the eyes of MSM observers and swing voters with their efforts to obscure the details and ultimate impact of their proposals. But the problem is that the conservative activists who extracted all these policy commitments from Romney in the first place don’t want him to get away with lying, because they agree with the criticisms and are proud to embrace the values and priorities Romney’s being attacked over.
Is Romney’s tax plan regressive? Damn straight it is, conservatives think, and that’s a good thing since the current tax code’s progressivity is an immoral assault on the success of job-creators! Is the Ryan Budget just a modest effort to “reform” entitlements and restore sanity in federal spending, as the Romney campaign’s occasional references to it suggest, or instead, as critics claim, the first step in a crusade aimed at shredding the New Deal and Great Society safety net? Most red-blooded conservatives are strongly committed to the latter proposition, and they want Mitt to own up to it as well, because they quite frankly don’t trust him to stick to the spirit and letter of their agenda.
This central contradiction in Romney’s campaign explains better than anything else why every discussion of his policy platform is perilous for Mitt, and why his failed efforts to campaign on his biography are a big, big problem. Yes, he can continue to lie about his proposals and try to change the subject via attacks on Obama. But sooner or later, his own party base will demand the truth, if only to ensure that he will stay with the program once he is elected. And then the fundamental mendacity of his campaign will no longer be a partisan claim, but a stipulated fact.
Facebook
Twitter
stormskies on August 02, 2012 11:26 AM:
One of the sad and pathetic things we need to remember about the pathological lying of buffoon Romney is that his 'base' NEEDS TO BE LIED TOO BECAUSE THEY LIE TO THEMSELVES. So, of course, he needs to lie in order to feed the delusional lying of his 'base'.
Like a drug addict on meth needing and doing anything for more meth.
This is what the Repiglican party has become, and it is what buffoon Romney has become.
DAY on August 02, 2012 11:33 AM:
But, Sir! Half the Ammuricans don't pay any taxes at all! I know this to be true, because I saw it on the Fair and Balanced TeeVee show. And, Everybody Knows that you can't put something on TeeVee if it isn't true!
James E. Powell on August 02, 2012 11:36 AM:
Mitt’s efforts to disguise the regressive distributional effect of his proposals pretty blatantly violate simple rules of arithmetic.
So did George W. Bush's in 2000 and that fact did not hurt him with his base voters or independents.
All Romney has to say is 'lower taxes' and it kicks in the delusions that overwhelm rationality. The people who determine which candidate wins an election don't use much rationality. It's too much work!
Mimikatz on August 02, 2012 11:42 AM:
Obama has hit the right note in pointing out that Mitt's tax program would lower his taxes and raise yours. Enough people can understand that we can't cut taxes on the wealthy, increase defense spending and reduce the deficit. And they can see who will have to make up the difference--not the rich. Mitt's dissembling on his own taxes--he might not have paid any!--has fatally undermined his credibility. People would cut him slack if they liked him, but they don't. People not blinded by Obama hatred are not voting for him. Why should they? He doesn't care about them, or anyone but himself.
T2 on August 02, 2012 11:44 AM:
I have not seen any evidence that lying is frowned on by Republicans. It's more like a badge of honor, proof that their candidates are true to the creed.
kd bart on August 02, 2012 11:46 AM:
"So did George W. Bush's in 2000 and that fact did not hurt him with his base voters or independents."
That's because Fat Al Gore sighed on TeeVee and Americans are against sighing.
JR on August 02, 2012 11:48 AM:
I'd only add that Romney's efforts to manipulate the media have most likely hit a wall. Gorka can tell MSM to adore his posterior all he wants, but the natives are restless. If Romney doesn't start taking - and at least attempt to answer - questions, he may soon face a media backlash, just at the time he wants them most on his side.
c u n d gulag on August 02, 2012 11:58 AM:
Wow, Ed,
That's a very interesting, astute, analysis.
I hadn't thought of that.
That the Conservatives, used to listening to their own echo chamber, think the whole country is austerity crazy, and demanding the Ryan/Romney plan - when in fact, when it's explained to most people, they can't believe an American political party would run on cutting taxes for the wealthy, while at the same time, raising taxes on the other 95% of the people.
And they're so dang, dog-gone proud of the Ryan plan, that they'll be pissed-off if Mitt doesn't trumpet it to the high heavens.
After all, people are clamoring for it!
What they don't realized, it the people in their own echo chamber, who are doing the clamoring!
I don't think, if Mitt has to start pushing this as hard as the people behind him want him to, will cotton to the idea - and more voters than not, will run away from the Republicans.
Oh, I can hardly wait for the debates!
A someone said earlier, let's hope Obama doesn't take sighing lessons for them from Al Gore.
Obama doesn't seem like much of a sigher or eye-roller.
He's more of a note taker, and then straight-shooter - usually with deadly accuracy.
Interesting...
Anonymous on August 02, 2012 12:05 PM:
"But sooner or later, his own party base will demand the truth, if only to ensure that he will stay with the program once he is elected."
I think his base is expecting to be able to control him through the threat of a primary opponent in 2016. Can anyone doubt that the tbaggers would primary Romney if he doesn't toe the line?
As one who has dinner with several members of his "base" every evening, I don't think his "base" is very interested in learning anything more about what Romney will do as Pres. They all hate him more than they did McCain (but less, of course, than Obama) and distrust him thoroughly. And they don't see any benefit in rehashing Romney's perfidy or peaking inside his plans for the economy. They want to get him in office and then make him their bitch. Which, if the, imo, unlikely happens and O loses, I'm certain they will be successful at.
jjm on August 02, 2012 12:24 PM:
To c u n d gulag: "Oh, I can hardly wait for the debates!
Don't you suspect that Romney might weasel out of them, somehow? Get a sore throat?
And back to the topic of his horrendous views on culture from this last weekend: I have a question. Has there ever been a presidential candidate about whom the cultural tastes have been so unknown? So Ann says he likes Downton Abbey. What else? Classical music, art? theater? film? ... is TV the highest this middlebrow can manage?
Jackson on August 02, 2012 12:50 PM:
"Don't you suspect that Romney might weasel out of them, somehow? Get a sore throat?"
Or have Karl Rove shove a microphone down his shirt and whisper sweet nothings to Romney's backbone?
"And back to the topic of his horrendous views on culture from this last weekend: I have a question. Has there ever been a presidential candidate about whom the cultural tastes have been so unknown? So Ann says he likes Downton Abbey. What else? Classical music, art? theater? film? ... is TV the highest this middlebrow can manage?"
Ah, but you left out the fact that Monsieur Mittens talks French. Fries, anyone?
boatboy_srq on August 02, 2012 1:24 PM:
"And back to the topic of his horrendous views on culture from this last weekend: I have a question. Has there ever been a presidential candidate about whom the cultural tastes have been so unknown? So Ann says he likes Downton Abbey. What else? Classical music, art? theater? film? ... is TV the highest this middlebrow can manage?"
Frankly I'm surprised Ann didn't mention the box set of Upstairs, Downstairs Mitt pulls out from time to time when he needs reminding how to treat the nation -er, staff.
Multiple Position Mitt is reminding me more and more of William McCordle from Gosford Park.
Anonymous on August 02, 2012 1:58 PM:
C U N D gulag, this is a cut and paste from my crazy, right-wing bro-in-law (does everyone have one, these days?):
"Obama is perfectly happy to allow the "Bush Tax Cuts" to continue on the Poor (who don't pay any tax at all) and the so called middle class (who don't pay much tax either) but wants to bring the cuts to a halt for the so called one percent (of which he and his cronies in Hollywood and Chicago are a part) so they can support spending that will continue to climb and out pace any so called increase in tax revenues as a result."
So I have to say that the idea that Republicans want taxes to go up on Middle and lower income people while they go down for the rich has been absolutely internalized by the GOP base. So Ed may be onto something.
But if winning the argument hinges on Dems getting the correct message out to the nation, I'm not banking on us winning it.
DisgustedWithItAll on August 02, 2012 3:06 PM:
"And then the fundamental mendacity of his campaign will no longer be a partisan claim, but a stipulated fact."
It's already a fact. Just not a known one.
DisgustedWithItAll on August 02, 2012 3:14 PM:
@jjm 12:24 pm:
I suspect Romney will lie straight-faced to the nation on even the most trivial most well-known facts.
Example: "It is not true that the Earth revolves around the Sun. That is just a hoax the climate scientists want us to believe."
Or something similarly ridiculous when it comes to his economic plan, and that the Useful Mitt-iots can use as talking points at the "water coolers" in their life.
left reach gal on August 02, 2012 3:37 PM:
Even a casual conversation at the local VFW reveals that people have come to see Mitt as a pandering tax evader outsourcing etch a sketch shaker with no chops for foreign policy.
c u n d gulag on August 02, 2012 4:32 PM:
Anon,
Luckily, my bro-in-law's pretty Liberal.
But then, he's from the former USSR, so, to the right, he's a Godless Communist, and so am I for being not only related to him, but a flaming Liberal myself.
Oh, and btw - I speak Russian fluently, so I'm doubly doomed! :-)
Doug on August 02, 2012 10:38 PM:
I've mentioned this very thing before in other posts. Romney will HAVE to campaign on the Ryan budget because it will almost certainly be one of the Republican platform planks. Romney's "base", distrusting him as they do, will ensure that!
Frankly, I can't see the Ryan budget being sold to the voters of this country even only as a "guide". As I've also said before, it's going to be very interesting watching the MSM as it does its' best to either not mention anything in the Ryan budget at all, ("fair and balanced", dontcha know?) or else try to downplay that piece of Randian fantasy as merely a "guide" to what Republicans would do if elected.
Silence is the Romney campaign's ONLY hope...
yellowdog on August 02, 2012 10:59 PM:
Standard tactic when you don't want your candidate bothered with pesky policy questions?
Keep him/her away from uncommitted voters, open forums, journalists who ask follow-up questions, and direct questioning from opponents in debates. This is how softballer Katie Couric rated as a tough interview for Palin. Mitt wants friendly questions only.
Problem for Mitt, though, is that he often fumbles even soft questions from supporters--mainly because he is not a 'movement conservative' and lacks the gut-level animus of most of his fellow party-members. His answers do not satisfy them emotionally. Meanwhile, his robotic personality, secretiveness and inconsistency make soft questions from less ardent supporters equally tough--and equally emotionally unsatisfying.
Even so - it is possible for awkward, unlikable people to rise to high public office. Consider Richard Nixon and Dick Cheney, for example. Nobody liked Nixon really, but he got them to vote for him.
Nixon was much better on offense. Romney may be as well. It is hard to tell. Romney looks very weak and apologetic every time he walks something back, every time he has to clarify his remarks and his position, every time he tries to explain what he really believes and intends to do.
He may look weak when he meets Obama face to face--to the hard-right that has taken over the party, I mean. The hard right so hates Obama that they want to see their candidate launch a direct assault against him, in debates especially. They want to see Romney put Obama back in his place. They want the emotional satisfaction of seeing Obama confronted and humbled. (Consider why people were voting for Newt... they wanted to see him in action, taking Obama to task. It's the same reason people on the right responded to Palin. She was good on offense and emotion--certainly not policy substance.)
Can Mitt deliver the goods for them? It's an emotional connection they want. They want to feel that the world is as it should be. They want to feel it is in order and makes sense and is not falling away. They want a defender, a champion, a bulldog, a restorer. They do not want an intellectual policy debate. They do not want equivocation or gray or nuance or fair play or lots of facts. They want someone who flatters every false belief they have.
Perhaps the core question - Will Romney -really- own what the GOP has become? Will he be its great leader and advocate? Or will he try to hedge? Will he try to soften it? Will he deny that its policies are what they really are? Will he deny the reality of the Ryan budget or will he champion it? (For example, will Romney criticize Obama for cutting Medicare, as he has already, or will he embrace Ryan's dismantling of Medicare?)
In turn - Can Obama make people see the GOP for what it really is?