Is Mitt Romney too nice to get elected? And, if he is elected, is he too nice to be an effective president? I, and I suspect many others, learned from Mrs. Romney’s speech at the Republican convention what kind of person Mr. Romney really is. He is a devoted family man, he is a man of faith, and he is a kind and compassionate man. We see this compassion exhibited in his pledge to repeal but replace ObamaCare. This, I believe, is true compassion and is not the same as the “compassionate conservatism” that G. W. Bush purported to be. Nice is who Mitt Romney is. The question I have is: “Is that level of nicety an asset or a liability in this all important election?”
Monty Pelerin’s article One Election Away from Tragedy at American Thinker makes the case that for the very first time the claim that is made about every election that it is “the most important in history” is not hyperbole.
The United States of America is at an inflection point where this election will determine whether we continue to veer off-course or return to a conventional path. The issue is whether we reinvent this country in ways that have failed everywhere else in both place and time, or return to the traditions that have made America the envy of the world.
Pelerin is also worried that Romney may be too nice.
Romney seems to be a good and decent man, one that you might admire as a competent and fair boss. He does not convey the same commitment and intensity as his opponent. His apparent competency would certainly be welcome, but it is hardly sufficient. Even some Soviet bureaucrats were competent in accomplishing unproductive tasks. Competency in pursuit of wrong goals can be a liability rather than an asset.
And this is why Pelerin is worried.
The bases of the two parties are not equal in intensity. Many opponents of the president believe this election to be like those of the past. There are Obama-detesters who have come to stronger positions generally via two routes — 1) the man is incompetent and made things worse; or, 2) he is out to destroy what was America. This anti-Obama feeling is stronger than it was four years ago, although does not come close to matching the core of Democrat dependency voters. These voters view each election in terms of life and death (or living well versus living). This intense core far outnumbers the Obama-detesters.
Another good read at American Thinker is “While Obama Fields Softballs, Romney Plays Smallball“.
I am not as pessimistic as Pelerin about Romney’s chances of winning in November. The poor economy, the persistently high unemployment, and the high cost of gasoline and food may be enough to turn the voters away from Obama. Romney would then win by default. We can all live with that; but is that enough? If Romney wins by default, he will not have a filibuster proof Senate and may not even have a majority in the Senate. I do agree with Pelerin that our country is at an inflection point. For a Romney administration to turn things around, Romney and the Republicans need to have a mandate from the American people. They need to win by a landslide. They are not going to accomplish that with their “small ball” approach to this campaign.
Frankly, dear readers, I do not understand why Team Romney is not going on the offensive. It is not rocket science. And, Lord knows they have a mountain of ammunition to use against Obama, The most inept President in our life time, if not ever. This humble observer believes that the Romney campaign needs to do two things. First, they need to attack, attack, and attack Obama by being specific about what Obama has done since taking office and what the horrible results have been. That should be easy, right? Secondly, and more importantly, Romney and his team must articulate in terms anyone can understand exactly what his plans are to turn this economy around. One point by one point he needs to explain the changes he wants to make and why each change will help make American businesses more competitive and how that will mean more jobs and more prosperity for all Americans.
I do not think that “nice” has to be a liability. I don’t doubt for a moment that Romney has had to make some very tough decisions in his life; in his career. Maybe he made those decisions and then gave the task of implementing them to his right-hand men. That’s okay. But, the federal government is not a corporation. He will not be a CEO. He will have to deal with the co-equal branches of government. He will need people around him who know how to work with the members of the House and the Senate. I believe that Mitt Romney is smart enough to know that. But, Mr. Romney, you need to win by a landslide! You need a mandate! GO FOR IT, MAN! GO FOR IT! No more small ball, please!
Well, now you know what I’m thinking. What are your thoughts?