Mitt Romney’s brand of football

By David Gergen, CNN Senior Political Analyst, 3/8/2012

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/07/opinion/gergen-romney-grind/index.html

(CNN) – Some footnotes to Super Tuesday after a night that never ended:

For years, Buckeye teams methodically ground out victories with an offense affectionately called “three yards and a cloud of dust.” Few long passes or acrobatics — just keep slogging and adding a few more points on the board.

In politics, it is now Romney who has embraced the Woody Hayes offense. Time and again, he wins when he has to — New Hampshire, Florida, Michigan, Ohio — but he never does it with decisive flair. Each victory is achieved methodically and tactically, relying on a superior organization and lots of money. As he said after Michigan, he doesn’t win by a lot but he wins by enough.

And so, he comes out of Super Tuesday continuing his long march toward the nomination. It isn’t pretty, but he has won more states and more delegates than the rest of the field combined. While one can still imagine him losing, it is difficult to see any one of his rivals winning.

It has been clear all along that he has trouble connecting with most folks. Some politicians are naturals (think Bill Clinton). Romney is among the “un-naturals” — people who have scored successes in fields like business but can’t easily transfer those skills into politics (think Lee Iacocca).

But there are a host of other factors bedeviling him, too. One of the most powerful is that the GOP is no longer his father’s party. Moderate conservatives seeking the party’s nomination now face purity tests that force them to move far right or stay off the field. It is not clear whether a Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Jerry Ford or George H.W. Bush could be nominated by today’s Republicans. Even Ronald Reagan would be heavily attacked over his California record on taxes and abortion.

Throw in the fact that Romney is Mormon and one can see why the hills are steep for him.

Then, too, the rules have changed for the race. As Elaine Kamarck of the Kennedy School points out in the Wall Street Journal today, GOP leaders intentionally made this a long, long race: By this time four years ago, 80% of the GOP delegates had been selected versus 13% this year. (Will that decision go down as one of the worst?)

Ironically, the way the Supreme Court opened the door to Super PACs has first bitten the Republicans, not the Democrats. Would Newt Gingrich still be in the race without Sheldon Adelson? Rick Santorum without Foster Friess? One wonders if billionaires will soon treat politicians like race horses — choose a promising one, train him up and finance his run for the roses.

On Super Tuesday, Romney also had some bad luck. For reasons that are not entirely clear, major metropolitan areas in Ohio where Romney was strong — Cincinnati and Cleveland are key examples — tallied their votes very late in the evening while rural areas where Santorum was strong sent their results in early.

As a result, millions of Americans went to bed thinking that Santorum had probably won Ohio. Just as importantly, with Santorum ahead, the media narrative during prime time focused to a considerable degree on Romney’s weaknesses as a candidate. Only after midnight when Romney pulled ahead in Ohio did the story line change. (Point of pride for CNNers — CNN got there first with Romney’s victory because it had reporters on the ground like Dana Bash.) Think how different interpretations would have been last night had Ohio’s big cities reported early.

In a parallel way, the order of voting nationwide has helped Santorum and Gingrich. Think how much more powerful Romney would seem if New York and California had voted early on in the primary process.

The first term Republican threw himself into the Ohio fight and deserves enormous credit for the 20-point win Romney racked up in Hamilton County, home to Cincinnati.

Portman is not well-known yet around the country but he commands widespread respect within Republican circles as a highly capable and promising leader. A former Congressman from Cincinnati, he was tapped by President George W. Bush to serve as both his trade representative and budget director.

If nominated, Romney may well need Portman on the ticket to win Ohio, a crucial state. But then again, he may need Sen. Marco Rubio on the ticket to wrap up Florida and enhance his appeal to Hispanics and others. Maybe he will want two running mates.

Three times in recent weeks, Obama has intervened — giving a rousing talk to the UAW on the day of the Michigan primary, calling Sandra Fluke during the Rush Limbaugh controversy, and holding a rare press conference on Super Tuesday.

While partisans differ on how effective Obama was (I thought on balance, Obama helped himself), it is clear that the president will be a nimble opponent for any Republican. For Mitt Romney, coming out of Ohio, it is also clear that he may need more than three yards and a cloud of dust to beat Obama. If he grinds his way to the nomination, Romney will be moving up from college ball to the NFL.

6 Responses to Mitt Romney’s brand of football

  1. stan chaz says:

    President Romney? ….nah…”that’s not the language that I would have used”

  2. MCrawford says:

    Yes, it may come down to Ohio in the General. It may even come down to swinging those ares which McCain did not win in 2008. No accident that Voinovich (NE Ohio), Turner (Dayton) & Portman (Cinci) are leading the charge for the campaign in OH. Additionally, Portman deserves the attention he is getting as a VP option.

  3. Aye Siss says:

    Romney doesn’t even know who he is. He is a chameleon. His spots are constantly changing. Or perhaps the metaphor that his campaign manager elicited, Mr. Etch-A-Sketch, is better. So is that the candidate that is going up against President Obama?

  4. Lonnie Brooks says:

    An proven leader with a real successes who believes in American business
    vs.
    A good talker with expensive failures who believes in big government.
    Pretty easy to figure out who to vote for.

  5. Aye Siss says:

    We got the big government from the past president. The current one is trying to limit the government with NO help from the other half of the political spectrum. I would never want the fox[ Romney] in the hen house [the US Treasury]. One can only imagine the havoc that kind of license will bring.

  6. Anthony Ibhahe says:

    Hi David,

    Your commentary today titled “Is White House overselling impact of bin Laden’s death?” is very biased, short sighted and dishonest.

    Gergen, for all your political credential and experience, you can be incredibly naive pretending to be the voice of wisdom.
    The Obama administration is the first to admit that national security is far from finished and an ongoing work in progress. I guess you have very short memory like the rest of the Americans who voted for GOP to retake the House of Rep, that President Obama’s administration appropriately downplayed the killing of Bin Laden when it first happened.

    But this is an election year and this is politics! Get real, Mr Gergen. Don’t be dumb. Do you expect President Obama not to hold up one of the many successes he’s had since he came to office? Of course he’s going to hold it up as one of his many successes in office, lest Americans once again forget. They have short memories. Remember how this country was in 2007? You probably forgot due to short memory or self denials. President Obama right to put this front center, esp when Republicans were calling him weak on national security.

    If the attempt had failed, you can bet you and your republican friends (including Lou Dobbs) and all of his enemies in the GOP would be making it a key campaign issue, like they did with President Jimmy Carter.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>