I pretty much agree with most of Dave's analysis there, with the exception of course of the last sentence. (And part of the last paragraph; whether or not American's want a "welfare state" depends entirely on how you define it; polls consistently indicate they want an "entitlement state")
I particularly agree with a couple of things:
First, when a Major Question is looming and he has many days to prepare an answer, he usually fails to come up with a satisfying one.
That is absolutely spot on. He did it with the Bain Capital strawman, and he's done it now again with his tax returns. In both cases there were good answers to give, (Romney has done absolutely nothing illegal or unethical) and Romney failed to give them.
Now he's made this tax thing even
worse by deciding to do exactly what he said he wouldn't do; make releases piecemeal that so that it becomes a long running drip, drip, drip, issue...he's announced that he's going to release his 2010 returns and a "projection" for his 2011 taxes this Tuesday, which is probably the worst possible timing for him....
He virtually guarantees that the last week of the campaign before the critical Florida primary will be largely dominated by the media tearing his tax returns apart; how low a rate he paid, how many foreign investments he has (though he paid US taxes on those investments) how much he gives to the Mormon Church, etc., etc., etc...
And then, to make matters even worse, he will have to
answer any questions the press asks about the returns, and given his record on that to date, that is almost certain to be a painful display to watch....
He had an array of options before him, and he managed to select the absolute worst one possible.
it is as obvious as can be that the President and the entire MSM are going to be campaigning on Envy of the "One Percenters." Mitt is a One Percenter
That is absolutely 100% correct, and if I were advising Obama, it is the strategy I would recommend if Romney is the nominee. If you listen to what is coming from Team Obama and the DNC from David Axelrod and Debbie Wassermann-Schultz on down, it quite clear that the main campaign message is going to be:
"You can't vote for Mitt Romney because he's a rich guy and you don't like rich guys"
Never mind that the man made his money completely by following the rules; The Obama forces are going to try to capitalize on the public mood that resents successful people; the message will be: "If you don't like bankers, you don't like Wall Street, you don't like rich people, you can express your dislike by voting against Mitt Romney because he embodies all these things"
It's cynical, it's demagogic, and essentially it's unfair, but that's politics in The Big Leagues; they know they can't run on their record, they realize that if the election is a referendum on Obama's performance that they're sunk, so they need to get folks motivated to vote
against the GOP nominee. It's their only path to victory.
The initial Obama game plan was to try and use GWB's re-election strategy as the template, and run against "Romney the flip flopper". But the Obama folks are nothing if not nimble, and when they saw the way this envy strategy could work as a wedge for them, and then also saw Romney's tone-deaf ineptitude at dealing with anything related to his wealth, (his latest boneheaded comment was when he referred to the $364,000 he made in speakers fees last year as "not much money"
) they switched gears.
As I said, if I were advising them, this is the strategy I would embrace if Romney is the nominee. It's their best shot. As I never tire of pointing out, politics ain't bean bag.
Now, here' the even
bigger and more fundamental problem that all of this creates for Romney. (Yes, believe it or not, there's an even worse problem here for Mitt) What is the key element, the fundamental factor that has been the basis for Romney's support, and rationale for his nomination?
It's not a trick question, the answer is "electability"...
And Romney's chronic inability to effectively handle (indeed, every time he says something he seems to make it worse) what I will call " the top hat and monocle factor" does
severe damage to his credibility on the "electability" claim; and if he loses that, then his candidacy for the nomination will rapidly collapse.
Now of course, none of this does anything to enhance the electability of Newt Gingrich, who, given the high level of negatives he has, and the persona he projects, I remain convinced is virtually unelectable under nearly any scenario one can rationally imagine. (I suppose if unemployment goes north of 10% or there's another major terrorist attack in the US, he might have a slender chance)
So for Republicans like myself, who are interested in nominating a candidate who might actually be able to win the election, suffice it to say these are not the happiest of times...
And given how highly vulnerable Obama would be to even a half way decent campaign, this situation is doubly depressing...
My understanding is that if Mitt loses Florida, there will be a
enormous amount of pressure to either get another candidate into the race (possibly Jeb Bush) or to get him to bow out in order to give Santorum a clean shot at Gingrich (Gingrich is viewed by many in the party establishment the same way I see him; vitually unelectable. Santorum would have a better chance, and frankly if Romney doesn't act together quickly on the Top Hat and Monocle stuff, Santorum will emerge as more electable than Mitt)
