Mitt Romney: Naughty, Nice — or Both?

By Scott Galupo • August 8, 2012, 10:22 AM

With the party conventions almost upon us, I confess I still can’t figure out Mitt Romney. Throughout the primary season, he dispatched his rivals with remorseless efficiency. Probably my favorite moment came in the November debate in which Gov. Rick Perry couldn’t remember the name of one of the cabinet agencies he wanted to eliminate. Ever so cruelly, Romney suggested, “The EPA?”

Perry dug his own grave — and Mitt gleefully shoveled dirt on top of him.

It made perfect sense at the time: You don’t succeed in Mitt Romney’s line of business without the capability of being a remorseless bastard when you need to be.

Yet, time and again, Romney behaves like a goody-two-shoes teacher’s pet.

This business with Sen. Harry Reid and his “Mitt may have paid no taxes” gambit is a perfect example.

When Romney decided not to release any more than a year-and-change of returns, he and his staff must have anticipated there would be low-level chatter for weeks, months — possibly for the duration of the campaign. Team Romney calculated that it could endure such chatter, coming as it no doubt would from easily ignored muckrakers, bloggers, and partisan activists. What Team Romney did not anticipate — what virtually no one anticipated — is that such idle chatter would emanate from the U.S. Senate Majority Leader.

Yet instead of publicly calling Reid a disgraceful, rumormongering cowardly pitbull who is beneath contempt, Romney falls back on unwritten rules of decorum:

“I don’t really believe that he’s got any kind of a credible source,” Romney said. “I don’t know who gave him this line of reasoning, whether it came from the White House or the DNC or a staffer, but he ought to say where it came from, and then we can find out whether that person has any credibility. I know they don’t.”

He said Reid also has “lost a lot of credibility.”

Translation: “Hey, no fair!”

Again, I say, I can’t figure this dude out.

Posted in Election, Politics. Tagged Harry Reid, Mitt Romney.

14 Responses to Mitt Romney: Naughty, Nice — or Both?

Nathan says:

August 8, 2012 at 11:07 am

We all need to understand something. Based on his record as governor, MR is a liberal. He signed an assault weapons ban that he defended after Aurora. He has over the years been mostly pro-choice, pro abortion, call it what you will. “Romneycare” individual mandate and all no doubt made ACA easier to pass. Based on “record” he’s a liberal and when he governs like that, don’t be surprised.

On foreign policy he surrounds himself with hard core neocon imperialists who still want to go out and invade everyone despite two failed wars that they didn’t learn any lessons from. His virtual declaration of war on Iran while in Israel tells you most of what you need to know. His support for the Fifth Amendment destroying NDAA language makes it clear he’s not really all that much into protecting individual rights and you can expect more non judicial executions of Americans overseas and quite likely more indefinite detentions of Americans here along the lines of Padilla.

In others words, a re run of the last Bush/Cheney administration. If you’re one of those people with a picture of Bush and the caption “miss me now” or similar, you’re in luck. But for real conservatives, MR is going to be the disaster on every level Bush was.
Joe the Plutocrat says:

August 8, 2012 at 11:31 am

don’t wish to appear unfaithful to TAC, but some other “the American Liberal” type blog has posted a nasty screed about Romney courting investors for Bain Capital; with ties to Central American death squads in the early ’80′s. definitely falls into the “naughty” category in my opinion, but happy to see Mitt paralyed his 30 pieces of silver into a GOP nomination.
Sheldon says:

August 8, 2012 at 11:57 am

Man, have you got this one wrong. First, if Romney had said every word you recommended, he would have been no better off, and probably worse off. There’s no way to counter what would have been Reid’s response: “I was told what I was told by a credible source. If you want to prove what I heard isn’t true, the way to do it is simple: Release the returns.” The issue is a no-win one for Romney from the moment he decided not to release the returns.

Second, the idea that his decision not to release the returns would have been the subject of only “low-level chatter” is one of the colossal political misjudgments of the age. A super-rich patrician like Romney arguing for tax cuts for the top 1% would obviously be subjected to intense financial scrutiny by the Democrats at every level. And in fact his failure to release the returns plays DIRECTLY into the Democratic argument that Romney’s tax policies would be totally unfair. It was ridiculous to assume that he could get away with not releasing them, and in fact every day that he doesn’t release them becomes proof positive that he, and people like him, take advantage of every possible loophole, and that our tax policies are already unfair, and his would make them more so. No way Romney can make Harry Reid the issue.

Finally, your basic notion that Romney acts like “goody two shoes” is simply wrong on its face. To pick up an old phrase from another context, in this campaign every word Romney has uttered has been a lie, including “and” and “the.” The man is dishonorable and without any core values, except perhaps the enrichment of others of his class.
tbraton says:

August 8, 2012 at 12:40 pm

“Probably my favorite moment came in the November debate in which Gov. Rick Perry couldn’t remember the name of one of the cabinet agencies he wanted to eliminate. Ever so cruelly, Romney suggested, “The EPA?”

Perry dug his own grave — and Mitt gleefully shoveled dirt on top of him.”

I hope you realize that your interpretation of that incident runs contrary to virtually everyone else’s. Most commentators concluded that Romney was trying to be helpful to a competitor who was suffering an embarrassing memory lapse, an interpretation entirely consistent with most accounts of Romney’s actions as an adult.

“Yet instead of publicly calling Reid a disgraceful, rumormongering cowardly pitbull who is beneath contempt, Romney falls back on unwritten rules of decorum”

Well, Romney could have called Reid a “dirty liar” like RNC Chairman Reince Preibus, but that would not have helped his favorability ratings and isn’t that what your have surrugates for, to do the dirty work?
Scott Galupo says:

August 8, 2012 at 1:51 pm

tbraton,

I went round and round on this at the time… Anyone who thinks Romney was trying to help Perry is either crazy or deluded. The reason I know Romney was joking is simple: Everyone, including Perry, laughed.
MassManny says:

August 8, 2012 at 2:28 pm

The Romney Report at MassResistance will help you understand the man: http://www.massresistance.org/romney/
Aaron says:

August 8, 2012 at 2:38 pm

Let’s be honest here – Mitt Romney didn’t dominate the other candidates in the primary season through “remorseless efficiency.” I guess if we compare the race to “Whack-a-Mole”, he was ruthless in his efficiency at whacking the moles, but that says more about his competitors than it does about him.

Romney struggled as his party tried to find somebody to nominate instead of him. He prevailed not because his performance was good, but because their performances were atrocious. Even if he relishes his his small victories, any politician who struggles to close a contest that has narrowed to himself, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum has problems as a candidate.

The odd part of Romney’s statement on Reid is that he suggests that Reid’s source is real – that the person exists, but is not credible. He was better off when his lackeys were suggesting that Reid made the whole thing up. He does himself no favors by immersing himself directly in the controversy rather than treating it as beneath him. But that’s only a surprise if you thought he was a brilliant tactician in a tough primary contest, not the guy who fumbled his way to victory against a field of Lilliputians.
Scott Galupo says:

August 8, 2012 at 2:47 pm

Aaron,

I agree with perhaps 99% of what you’re saying here. However, I think I can add a small wrinkle to your argument that you’d be OK with: namely, Mitt Romney did a good, maybe even remorselessly efficient, job of dispatching his rivals, *given the weaknesses of his record and temperament.*

David Freddoso put it well during the primary: Romney’s overarching strategy was to persuade voters that “They’re all just as compromised as I am.”
tbraton says:

August 8, 2012 at 2:47 pm

“I went round and round on this at the time… Anyone who thinks Romney was trying to help Perry is either crazy or deluded.”

The same way you went round and round on the Iraq War, I am sure, and you certainly got that one right, didn’t you, Scott?

BTW here is the transcript of the “oops” part of the debate:

“PERRY: I will tell you, it is three agencies of government when I get there that are gone. Commerce, Education, and the — What’s the third one there? Let’s see.
(LAUGHTER)

PAUL: Five.

PERRY: Five. Okay. Commerce, Education, and the –

[UNKNOWN]: EPA?

PERRY: EPA. There you go.

Q: Seriously — is EPA one you are talking about?

PERRY: No, sir, no, sir. We are talking about the — agencies of government — EPA needs to be rebuilt.

Q: You can’t — you can’t name the third one?

PERRY: The third agency of government I would — I would do away with Education, the –

Q: Commerce.

PERRY: Commerce and, let’s see. I can’t. The third one, I can’t. Sorry. Oops.”

Four points: first, the laughter preceded Romney’s suggestion; second, Ron Paul preceded Romney by suggesting “five government agencies” (does that mean Paul was also being mean to his fellow Texan?); third, there is nothing in the suggestion of the EPA that makes it ridiculous since it is a favorite target of Republicans and even Perry initially agreed it was the EPA before backing off (had Romney said “FBI” I would agree with you); fourth, even Michelle Bachmann afterwards expressed how discomforting it was for the fellow debaters to witness Perry’s highly embarrassing gaffe. All in all, I have read numerous accounts of the debate that night and yours in the only one I have come across that remotely suggests Romney was trying to be anything but helpful to a competitor who had visibly fumbled on stage before an audience of millions.
Scott Galupo says:

August 8, 2012 at 3:31 pm

Yes, Perry initially agreed it was the EPA — in jest!

Check the tape: Mild laughter becomes uproarious laughter, and Perry waves off the “helpful suggestion.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GSmDsAET7I

Romney didn’t say “FBI,” because Perry hadn’t previously, and habitually, railed against the FBI.
Wesley says:

August 8, 2012 at 4:38 pm

With Harry Reid’s baseless accusation, Romney has no choice now but to release more of his tax returns. The Democrats, including Reid, have been hoping and betting that Romney won’t release more of his tax returns so as to keep it as a campaign issue. Romney’s refusal to release more tax returns had been a general election campaign issue for several weeks before Reid made his accusation, as well as an issue during the primaries. So with his accusation, Reid was betting that Romney won’t release more tax returns, since Romney hadn’t done so after weeks, even months, of people in both parties berating him to. Reid’s accusation makes him look petty, probably even to swing voters. But the accusation may still leave lingering doubts in the minds of swing voters about Romney’s trustworthiness. If Romney releases more of his tax returns which shows that he paid taxes every year, then this will show Reid to either be a liar or a rumormonger who is not to be trusted. But if Romney continues to refuse to release more of his tax returns, then that means one of two possibilities. The first one is that there really is something so politically damaging in his tax returns that Romney would rather withstand all of the chatter resulting from Reid’s accusation, even if much of the chatter is critical of Reid. The second possibility is that Romney is more afraid of looking weak to the Republican political, pundit, and donor class than not being trusted by the swing voters who he needs to get elected.
tbraton says:

August 8, 2012 at 6:24 pm

“Yes, Perry initially agreed it was the EPA — in jest!

Check the tape: Mild laughter becomes uproarious laughter, and Perry waves off the “helpful suggestion.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GSmDsAET7I”

Your interpretation of the laughter that greeted Perry’s fumbling is just as off-kilter as your interpretation of Romney’s motive in suggesting the “EPA.” I think the hilarious laughter,which started before Romney interjected with his suggested “EPA,” was directed at Perry alone and his utter inability to name the “three agencies” he would abolish as President. Since the “EPA” is an “agency” and not a “department,” the suggestion by Romney seems like a natural suggestion rather than a deliberate curveball. (I admit that, as I watched the debate, I couldn’t name the third “agency” Perry was searching for, and I consider myself very well informed when it comes to politics.) Perry himself, after embracing and then rejecting the EPA suggestion, did say that the EPA was an agency that needed to be rebuilt. It seems rather strange to interpret a suggestion that was in line with Perry’s views as somehow a Romney attempt to sabotage Perry rather an attempt to throw him a lifeline. I have not come up with any other commenter who has come up with your singular interpretation of the events of the “oops” debate, which should tell you something. Can you direct me to another blogger or commenter who shares your view of the November 9, 2011 debate?
Scott Galupo says:

August 9, 2012 at 6:44 am

tbraton,

I’m not aware of anyone besides Kathleen Parker who’s written about Romney’s intent. All I can tell you is this: Eliminating the Department of Energy has been a standard GOP talking point for 20 years. By that point, the candidates had debated I-don’t-know-how-many times. I suspect everyone on the stage knew it was Energy. Every reporter covering the debate knew it was Energy.

Is it Santorum who is heard to say “Oh, my” after Perry collapsed into “Oops”?

They weren’t playing “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire” up there, tbraton. There are no lifelines.
tbraton says:

August 10, 2012 at 11:01 am

“I’m not aware of anyone besides Kathleen Parker who’s written about Romney’s intent. All I can tell you is this: Eliminating the Department of Energy has been a standard GOP talking point for 20 years. By that point, the candidates had debated I-don’t-know-how-many times. I suspect everyone on the stage knew it was Energy. Every reporter covering the debate knew it was Energy.”

I challenged you to name some other commenter who had advanced the same strained interpretation as you concerning Romney’s suggestion of the “EPA” to the fumbling Perry, and you only come up with Kathleen Parker, who did defend Romney’s action as being helpful. It seems you were trained at the Harry Reid school of logic. Can you name anybody who supports your interpretation of the “oops” debate. I have read many accounts of that debate, and you are the only one I have come across making your interpretation.

In the meantime, you can consider these sources reporting on that debate:
(1) from the Huffington Post:

“Perry received some assistance from Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), who suggested that he should actually eliminate five agencies. At another point, someone else helpfully suggested that perhaps Perry was talking about the Environmental Protection Agency. He said that agency wasn’t it, and ended with a simple, “Oops”: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/09/rick-perry-forgets-agencies_n_1085249.html

(2) from the Austin Statesman: ” About an hour and 15 minutes into Wednesday’s debate, held just outside Detroit, Perry said, “It’s three agencies of government when I get there that are gone. Commerce, Education and the, um, what’s the third one there?”

Perry looked to U.S. Rep. Ron Paul for help but didn’t get much. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, with whom Perry exchanged sharp blows in previous debates, tried to help Perry by suggesting that the third agency he would shut down was the Environmental Protection Agency.

Perry said that wasn’t it, and when a questioner followed up and again asked him to name the three agencies, he continued to struggle.

“I would do away with Education, the um Commerce, and let’s see, I can’t,” Perry said. “The third one I can’t. Sorry. Oops.” http://www.statesman.com/news/texas-politics/perry-stumbles-at-debate-cant-name-third-agency-1960076.html

You also make the point that the Energy Dept. has long been a political target of the GOP, but so has the EPA. Six months before the debate in question, 15 Republican Senators introduced a bill to abolish the EPA, so it clearly was on the current political agenda, as it had been for years. So Romney’s suggestion that the EPA was the “third agency” Perry was struggling to name does not appear in any way an attempt to throw Perry a heavy rock instead of a life preserver. It was a plausible suggestion.

I find your suggestion that there are only three federal “agencies” that have received the Republican stamp of approval for removal to be equally ludicrous. Two months after the “oops” debate, in another forum, Perry himself named three agencies he would abolish and substituted Interior for Education:
“Perry flubbed his three departments once again, NBC’s Carrie Dann reports. During a radio interview this morning, he was asked which federal departments he would shut down. Perry listed: “Three right off the bat: Commerce, Interior, and Energy are the three that you think of.” Problem: Those are NOT the three he had previously not been able to name. He swapped Interior for Education. He has not previously said he would eliminate Interior.”
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/01/13/403972/oops-he-did-it-again-perry-forgets-the-3-federal-agencies-he-wants-to-abolish/?mobile=nc BTW Ron Paul helpfully suggested “five agencies,” one of which is the Federal Reserve, before Romney suggested the EPA, so there is no sanctioned list of acceptable agencies (or departments) that Republicans want to abolish. What about the NEA (National Endowment for the Arts)? It is one of those agencies named by the GOPPlatform2012.com along with the EPA. http://www.gopplatform2012.com/regulary-reform/limited-government-and-the-abolishment-of-government-agencies