The latest of several polls of Michigan Republicans released in the last few days confirms what the others reported: Rick Santorum is leading Mitt Romney in the state where the latter was born and raised. Though the Detroit News poll gives Santorum a four-point edge that was within the margin of error, the survey was one of five polls that all pointed to a Santorum victory in the Feb. 28 Michigan primary. That leaves Romney, who told reporters yesterday that a loss “just won’t happen,” scrambling for an issue with which to counter the rising conservative tide that has lifted Santorum from the second tier of the GOP race to the frontrunner position. His answer appeared to be an unlikely choice for Michigan but one that would, at least on this one point, allow him to outflank Santorum on the right: combating the influence of unions.
Romney came out swinging at organized labor yesterday, taking specific aim at the United Auto Workers. Channeling voter resentment at the role of unions in sending states into near-bankruptcy has been a familiar theme for the GOP around the nation as governors such as Wisconsin’s Scott Walker and New Jersey’s Chris Christie have rallied the GOP base on the issue. Picking up the anti-union banner is a way for Romney to connect with Tea Party voters. It also provides him with a way to bring up Santorum’s record of voting for big government spending packages. But given the outsize influence of union voters in Michigan, it’s an open question as to whether this tactic will help or hurt Romney, especially because Santorum is going all-out to emphasize his working class roots and sympathies.
Romney is gambling that the GOP voter base, even in Michigan, is more likely to view unions negatively. As the Detroit Free Press reported, he went out of his way to take a shot at the UAW in the union’s stronghold:
“I’ve taken on union bosses before and I’m happy to take them on again,” he told a crowd crammed into a furniture company facility. “I sure won’t give in to UAW.”
During his visit to Compatico, an office systems furniture maker in the Grand Rapids suburb of Kentwood, Romney said his record shows he has been “standing up for workers, not union bosses.”
The contrast between the two candidates’ backgrounds and approaches to the issue could not be clearer. Romney knows his one chance of heading off a tidal wave of conservative sentiment that could sweep Santorum to the nomination is by emphasizing the differences between his chief rival’s approach to big government and lack of interest in taking on unions. Santorum’s attempt to cast himself as the one Republican who cares about lower income Americans might be tailor-made for Michigan. Yet there may be more Republican votes to be won here by painting yourself as the enemy of a union movement closely aligned with President Obama than in posing as the friend of the working man.
Romney’s strengths as a Republican candidate have always been the belief in his greater electability and the divided conservative field. But, with his numbers declining in head-to-head matchups with Obama and with Santorum appearing to be his only viable rival for the nomination, both of these advantages are fading. Merely attacking Santorum won’t work–the Pennsylvanian is a lot more likeable than a candidate like Newt Gingrich whose personal and political baggage provided a more credible target for negative advertising. Romney must find an issue with which he can connect with conservatives. Though it goes against conventional wisdom to run against unions in Michigan, this tactic might be the smartest way for Romney to avoid a disastrous loss in his home state.
Ah yes, something else for a GOP candidate to be against. This time unions…in Michigan of all places! (In demonizing unions the GOP demonize working people who happen to be organized, not some "union boss" bogeyman.) n nIt seems like every GOP candidate is mining for the ideal amalgam of resentments and hatreds — mainly of other people — that will win him or her broad-based party support. Even Newt Gingrich, who has made positive proposals, styles himself as the anti-Romney. And here we have John Podhoretz appealing to GOP senators to unblock a judicial nomination whose main impediment seems to be — lame pretext discounted — that he was nominated by Obama. Speaking of senators, there's Mitch McConnell's now-infamous fatwa, that his caucus will peremptorily block any administration measure to ensure that Barack Obama is a one-term president. n nConservatives define themselves by what they are not. They are a black hole in the public discourse. Unless the GOP start identifying themselves loud and clear with affirmation and progress — of defining themselves by what they are FOR — "The Party of No" will continue to evolve from partisan epithet to public perception, with consequences at the polls. n
Well, when the Administration enacts one horrible piece of legislation after another, and keeps promissing to the do the same, being against that is pefectly valid. True, it does not sell well. If that is your point, I grant it. But anyone who knows better knows that being against bad legislation and doing little more than keeping the government in check is actually very good policy. Unfortunately, we have a population that reflexivly believes doing something is preferable to "doing nothing". Sill, but true.
Didn't mean to suggest that the party in opposition should not oppose. But it should oppose because it has a better idea. n nFrankly, doing something instead of nothing isn't a bad default for the human race, though I do agree that the default can lead to folly. But the job of conservatives should be to make us look before we leap, not to prevent us from leaping at all.
Actually, today's unions are "the union bosses" and not just people who are organized. it is clear that the power of public service unions is threatening the whole fabric of states and ultimately, the country at large. It is perfectly OK for Romney to cloak hinself in the mantle of combating the unions. He may lose (narrowly) michigan but will benfit immensely in other states. His stance is one that virtually all Republican governors have espoused because they are on the frontline. And Santorum actually voted agaisnt the right to work. That is a conservative position? nBTW- there is nothing wrong in being the party of NO- no to the destruction of the Constitution, no to the imposing of unbearable mandates, no the dismantling of our armed forces and nuclear arsenal….should I continue?
Unions increase the suffering of poor people. Their products and services cost more. Only the union members benefit. Everybody else pays the price.
Santorum is downright antibusiness with his vote against right to vote. Romney's history with unions in some of the companies he worked with at Bain will surely come up…Kennedy used it against him years ago. However, this election is about the battle between capitalism and free market principles and union/government heavy-handness….and the classic struggle between management and the unions. n nMichigan is a cross over state for voting and Daily Kos is encouraging democrats to cross over and vote for Santorum. I'm not hopeful that Romney will do well there as a result.
Union excesses ought to be a major solicitude for Republicans everywhere. The formation of unions is a buffer against higher employment. Additionally, it is an anathema to the meritocracy of the free market. When the union determines hiring practices, one's odds of gaining employment is often directly related to one's political relationship with the union rather than to the deserving.
Unions are just another cartel that hurts consumers. n nAs for the "black hole" … I'd point out that the Constitution itself defines Rights only as NEGATIVES, restrictions on the Government. The black hole in government size and scope should be bigger; it's been widened into $15 trillion of debt…..