Way back in March, I wrote an op-ed for the New York Daily News about Mitt Romney and the likelihood that his campaign would be damaged by cowardice. In context, this came right after Romney refused to criticize Rush Limbaugh for his attacks on Sandra Fluke.
In fact, I drew a parallel at the time -- in the 1988 race, following the Iran-Contra affair, then-Vice President George H.W. Bush was dogged by what was then called the "wimp factor." The perception at the time was that the Republican just wasn't tough enough for the job, and Romney's problem is similar, and arguably worse.
The observation is catching on. Business Week's Josh Green had an item this month on Romney's "wimp factor," and the cover story of the new issue of Newsweek, using a nearly identical headline from 1987, ponders Romney and "the wimp factor."
Newsweek's piece, written by the estimable Michael Tomasky, stresses that the one thing Romney "never does" is "man up, double down, take his lumps." It's this inherent weakness, Tomasky argues, that explains Romney's remarkable flip-flops on practically every issue under the sun -- the candidate lacks the courage to stick to his convictions.
Indeed, there's an unmistakable pattern that underscores Tomasky's thesis -- as we've discussed before, Romney's afraid to offend conservatives; he's afraid to push back against extremist rhetoric; he's afraid of the religious right; and he's afraid of Limbaugh.
In terms of campaign strategy, Romney's afraid to release his tax returns because he thinks Democrats might be mean to him, and he's also afraid to disclose his bundlers because he worries sunlight may scare his wealthy benefactors away.
On a purely substantive note, the GOP candidate is also clearly afraid take a firm position on key issues -- he'll give us some general platitudes on taxes, immigration, spending priorities, and international affairs, but if voters want specifics, they're expected to vote for him first and get details later.
Leadership requires some modicum of courage -- a character trait the Republican presidential hopeful appears to lack. Here's hoping the Newsweek cover sparks a larger conversation.
Leave a Comment:
Wow - four hours and still not a single troll comment out here. Could it be they know Mitt is a coward and can't find a way to spin it?
Much fear do I sense in the Mittster. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to... conservatism.
I totally agree that Mitt Romney multiple fears might be the reason why he is trying to "man-up" on this summer trip overseas. Nothing better than telling the British people how to run their Olympics Games and assuming that the English populace might fail to support the London Olympics before they even started; criticizing the company in charge of security for not having enough personnel (although this was supposed to be confidential information given to Romney by the MI6); "suggesting" Israel that the their capital needs to be moved to Jerusalem, and threatening the volatile Iran's government with war. As I expressed in another post, all this is just King Kong posturing, macho BS and a pissing competition with President Obama. But, you know something, Mitt, you already lost it because Obama won the hearts and minds of many people of the world by treating them with respect and listening to their opinions, before even becoming President.
I don't see it as a lack of courage on former Governor Romney's part. I think, instead, that he simply knows that a very large portion of the Republican party (including the Tea Party wing) wanted "anybody but Mitt" during the primaries, and now they view themselves as being "stuck" with him. The only way that these people can make themselves vote for the former Governor is to say that they're NOT voting for him; they're voting AGAINST President Obama.
Therefore, the former Governor can take both sides of most issues and concentrate on telling the chosen choir why President Obama is a "failed leader", because that's all that they want to hear, anyway.
To this audience, a lot of detailed plans for running the government means a lot of government, and a lot of government means a lot of taxes, so the less details the better.
or lack thereof.