Romney Hatred -- From Whence Does It Come?

[Brittain33]

My recollection of why Romney failed as governor of Massachusetts:

When he came into office, he chose symbolic battles on which to fight the legislature. Patronage issues that didn't amount to much money, but which could make him look good while seriously alienating the legislature. Bringing the MDC under control and rationalizing it. Some battles he won, others he won only in name (the MDC was renamed the DCR but didn't change much otherwise.) He insisted on holding the line on taxes, a position with which he had the support of the conservative leadership of the House, which resulted in cuts to state aid that led to property tax hikes at a local level. I can't think of any big policy initiatives he put into place.

Romney didn't work well with others. He has an executive mindset and no patience for political compromise and shenanigans. If he's right, he's right. If people won't work with him, he'll try to outflank them or embarrass them with his bully pulpit. His problem is, he tried to do this many times over small symbolic issues AND he came across as a fake jerk when he does it (e.g. fighting to name the Big Dig tunnel the Liberty tunnel instead of for Tip O'Neill, and then attacking legislators for hating veterans because they refused to go along with his name. Oh brother.) Eventually the two leaders of the legislature decided they had the numbers in their chambers to ignore Mitt altogether and work out budgets without his input. Romney also decided in '04 to ditch his promise to be a moderate and to run full-bore on social issues, whipping the House Republicans to oppose gay marriage and campaigning heavily on such issues. Exactly what you need not to do to succeed as a R in Massachusetts.

In 2004, he ran a slate of candidates for the legislature to try to bring Republicans back from their abysmal lows. Mostly he targeted suburban women Democratic legislators with affluent male Republicans. His original message, running against mega-unpopular and uber-hubristic House Speaker Tom Finneran, was undone when Finneran stepped down in September and deprived Romney of his best weapon. Instead, Romney's candidates were reduced to running cookie-cutter smear campaigns of the "your rep. voted to put pedophiles in schools" variety. Gross and unbelievable, they alienated voters. The Kerry/anti-Bush landslide in Mass. buried his candidates and Republicans actually lost ground in the legislature.

Romney decided that the state that rejected his superior leadership on all fronts obviously didn't deserve him, so he gave up governing in favor of telling "take my state, please" jokes to conservative audiences in South Carolina and Iowa and fighting a rearguard action on gay marriage and other issues that would endear him to Republican primary voters elsewhere.

[Brittain33]

There are many, many things that brittain33 has to offer factually about Romney's record as Governor that he has found to be negative and I have the same to offer in the positive direction. 

I can see that. I think he was on the side of the angels taking on Billy Bulger, but that his victory there may have had a high opportunity cost. I also think he was, to an extent, set up to fail by virtue of his limited powers in the state.

I think there is a learning curve for transition from big business to elected executive office, and that both Deval Patrick and Mitt Romney found it to be more challenging than expected when running up against Beacon Hill. With Mitt Romney, I would worry that he would bring impatience and a sense of entitlement that is successful in the private sector but ultimately self-defeating in government unless you have numbers on your side in the legislature. I could see him as a much more intelligent and better grounded Craig Benson or Mark Sanford (minus the infidelities). In that sense, he has much in common with Jon Corzine, of all people.

We can't fully judge his record in Massachusetts because his governorship was overshadowed by larger events. Most notably, it was overshadowed by his decision to run for President shortly after the '04 midterms.

I do feel that, as objectively as I can possibly say, he is not a good spin doctor. He doesn't connect with people and I find his mannerisms are both prissy and out-of-date. I believe, sincerely, he has problems relating to women as equals and this is something he has to struggle with in politics never having had to worry about it in the private sector or private life. I don't think it was coincidental that in the mid-terms, his targets were disproportionately female, or that he didn't find a place of value or respect for his Lt. Governor (not a problem for Weld or Patrick, IMO) who started out as an obvious token and who he did nothing for when she ran to succeed him, or that he behaved condescendingly to women in the '02 debates. I doubt this would ever rise to become a real issue, but it's something I've observed. Think Rick Lazio's backfire.

At heart, I believe he is driven by nothing more than his belief in his own abilities, a general technocratic ethos, and loosely-defined pro-business conservatism. His brand is Mitt and he will choose slogans to fit what he thinks will sell. The irony is, he is much like Barack Obama on this count. Obama's brand was his own brain and his story coupled with an allegiance to the Democratic Party. Mitt, sadly, can't inspire people to project their own conflicting wishes and hopes onto him the way Obama inspired millions to do.