The Obama reelection campaign’s impressive turnout and get-out-the-vote strategy took the president’s Republican opponents by surprise. But it appears to also be teaching Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan an incomplete, if not totally wrong, lesson about their loss to President Obama. Earlier this week, Ryan told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that “urban” turnout was key for the president, and dismissed the notion that the GOP ticket’s vision for the country was rejected by voters.
And then yesterday, on a conference call with donors and supporters, Romney expanded on that argument. He said the president offered “gifts” to minority voters, and named Obamacare and immigration as important parts of that. The New York Times reports:
“In each case, they were very generous in what they gave to those groups,” Mr. Romney said, contrasting Mr. Obama’s strategy to his own of “talking about big issues for the whole country: military strategy, foreign policy, a strong economy, creating jobs and so forth.”…
“You can imagine for somebody making $25,000 or $30,000 or $35,000 a year, being told you’re now going to get free health care, particularly if you don’t have it, getting free health care worth, what, $10,000 per family, in perpetuity — I mean, this is huge,” Mr. Romney said. “Likewise with Hispanic voters, free health care was a big plus. But in addition with regards to Hispanic voters, the amnesty for children of illegals, the so-called Dream Act kids, was a huge plus for that voting group.”
Romney is not wrong in suggesting that demographic groups preferred what they heard from Obama to what they heard from Romney, but he is wrong in his characterization of it. First of all, there are many reasons Obama won reelection, not least of which is that he apparently had a 52 percent approval rating on Election Day.
Second, the obvious objection to Romney’s comments is that his own version of the health care reform plan served as a model for Obama’s. Did Romney think he was giving away free “gifts” to minorities and young voters when he designed the plan? Or did he think he was serving the people who elected him by solving a quality-of-life issue for the entire state of Massachusetts? In politics, it’s easy to impugn the motives of your opponent, but it’s fair to say that Obama targeted what he and many Americans saw as an economic hardship and a great injustice, especially to the poor. Romney may or may not agree with that, but I doubt he would take well to someone characterizing his signature achievement in office as crude politicking or vote buying.
And that gets to the larger problem with these comments. A very large portion of this country sees our immigration laws and those in favor of even stricter measures as a moral failure on the part of a country of immigrants. Hispanics don’t see “amnesty”–a path to citizenship–as a “gift” in exchange for their vote. It isn’t candy; it’s the difference between opportunities for their children and their families being torn apart.
Republicans don’t have to agree with liberal solutions to the problems facing the country. But they certainly should not ridicule the need for reform at many levels of government–indeed, they should embrace it, for much in our federal government needs reform. And making broad statements about jobs isn’t enough. To wit, the Romney message to Hispanics was that he will create jobs here but he wants them to “self-deport,” thus making those jobs unavailable to them anyway. In such a case, why on earth should they care what his jobs plan is?
Obama offered specifics, and Romney offered principles. But conservative principles should lead to conservative solutions–specifics, in other words. Romney doesn’t seem to have understood this. But he should take a look around his party. Republican governors like Scott Walker, Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal, Rick Snyder, Rick Perry, and others offered voters the combination of conservative principles and conservative policy proposals. It is a winning combination, even in blue New Jersey. And it can be a winning combination nationally as well. That’s the lesson Romney should have learned on Election Day.
One of your worst posts, Seth. n nFree health care is a gift. Free anything is a gift (sort of the meaning of gift, no?) Romney was 100% right. The fact that he did the same in MA as governor–even if it makes Romney a hypocrite–doesn't make it any less a gift when done by Obama. It was a gift, a bribe, pure and simple. n nIt is sophistry to call it a "solution". Let's call every give away to voters a "solution" and be done with it. The auto bailout was a solution. The Dream Act executive order was a solution. Everything is a solution!
Free healthcare was available before Obama took office, and all of us paid for it. Under ObamneyCare, compelling everyone to buy health insurance (yes, some of it subsidized) eases the burden on the taxpayer and saves countless it-can't-happen-to-me citizens from penury when they're struck by illness or accident.
Obama did win with a big urban vote turnout (among other things). Do you not like the word urban (hence the scare quotes)? What would you prefer to call it, the places with tall buildings vote? n nYou're right, a lot of people see amnesty and "free" health care as rights. Apparently, Seth agrees with them. But if you vote for someone simply because you think he will give you "free" things, that's exchanging your vote for, well, Gifts. Gifts the giver doesn't even pay for itself. n nIf this is what people want, rather than a strong economy that will create economic opportunity for all, it's hard to see how the GOP can compete with the Reagan philosophy. The "gifts" mentality is a total rejection of Reaganism.
47% n nMaybe the candidate was showing his psychic ability? n nIt is the percentage of the vote that Mitt Romney got in the national election. n n@leliorisen n
It rounds up to 48%! Didn't know there were that many rich, old white men.
What a brain-dead post, my God! Of course GOVERNOR Romney understood so-called RomneyCare as a free gift likely to appeal to any deadbeat with his hand out solely because it was "free." Not that it actually was free, only an imbecile could believe that. The difference is that in Massachusetts the entire electorate was inclined toward serious sapheaded-ness when it came to providing "free" healthcare, both the deadbeats and those picking up the tab. It's going to bankrupt that awful place, where I lived seven dreary years, and that's jake by me, but Massachusetts taxes are the responsibility of Massachusettsians, and they are more than welcome to go broke paying them. They are also encouraged to pat themselves on the back all the way to the poorhouse if it's any consolation to them. n nAt the national level, the situation is entirely different. A lot of us think (a) health insurance is NOT a right, because that would mean perfect strangers have a "right" to one's time and/or money, which is patently ridiculous; (b) there already exists something called Medicaid intended for, but alas not consistently given to, truly indigent families; and (c) as study after study comparing the indigent on Medicaid with the indigent who for one reason or another are not (and there are millions of such people) has shown beyond quibble, there is NO significant correlation between programs like government-financed health care and the health of the population served by it. None at all. Good health, it turns out, does not seem to depend much on health insurance. So what is all the bawling about anyway? n nTo speak of "injustice" when one is talking about creating a new entitlement on top of the $250 billion per year spent year in and year out for decades now, spent very, very inefficiently, I should add, on Medicaid, is the cheapest of cheap sentiment. What is the injustice inflicted exactly? Who, what strawman, is being unjust? What phantom is having what ectoplasmic right infringed? I confess I cannot fathom a syllable of it. n nFor those good and sufficient reasons I personally prefer NOT to be forced to pay for another's doctor bills if there is any other alternative, of which there are plenty. My private charity is quite another thing, and is MY business; but a government bureaucracy is incapable of charity, only flesh-and-blood human beings can exercise it. Otherwise it's just robbing Peter to pay Paul. n nMr. Mandel also writes: n n"Hispanics don’t see 'amnesty'–a path to citizenship–as a 'gift' in exchange for their vote. It isn’t candy; it’s the difference between opportunities for their children and their families being torn apart." n nThat needs some slight editing: n nHispanics DO, and DID in the recent election season, see “amnesty”–as exactly a gift, a payoff, a bribe, whatever, in exchange for their vote. It isn’t candy, true enough, but it is hysterically funny to characterize being held accountable for obeying the law as "the difference between opportunities for their children and their families being torn apart." n nMuch better, I think. I also adore the muscular manhandling of English on display in "amnesty—a path to citizenship—" Ta da! Slap that on a bunch of brochures and stack 'em in the Post Office. But really, THAT'S what amnesty means? A path to citizenship???? Are you freaking kidding me? It really does take the cake. But attention, breaking news: Amnesty means not having to face the consequence of breaking a law that you did in fact break repeatedly for years and years on end. THAT is what amnesty means. You can look it up.
Besides the spirits, defeat really has brought everything down. Now, we have a Commentary writer trying to find another reason to criticize Romney's campaign, but this time taking a page from the left and pretending that something real–as in "gifts"–is not real, but a swear-word of the right. Boy, we're in more trouble than we thought if this is going to be the quality of the dialogue among conservatives that is needed.
wow- I agree with aroundthetrack- must be heaven on earth! Seth's column is a disgrace to commentary. This is the kind of writing you find in The Nation or Huffington Post- and should never appear in Commentary! Does John Podhoretz agree with this drivel?
Well said!
Contentions showing some capacity for independent thought – it's a miracle! An honest post. Well done, Seth. Don't listen to these trolls.
Is there an internal competition at Commentary lately, to see who can post the most inane drivel possible, to put the clowns at the NYT and WaPo to shame. At this point Seth is in the lead , but the competition has been fierce lately . What's up Commentary? We would subscribe to The New Republic, if wanted this kind of meshugenah "analysis" !
I guess this post in this place serves to prove the election is not the only disappointing thing in America. If Obama moved to the moon tomorrow nothing would change. We are still thick with the people who voted for him and the thoughtful, understanding commentators who are kindly and patiently willing to explain all of these mysteries surrounding this utterly baffling election to the stunned and stupid rest of us. Enlightenment shared is such a beautiful thing to behold. Thank you, and all of your ilk, Seth.
Randy: I guess this post in this place serves to prove the election is not the only disappointing thing in America. If Obama moved to the moon tomorrow nothing would change. We are still thick with the people who voted for him and the thoughtful, understanding commentators who are kindly and patiently willing to explain all of these mysteries surrounding this utterly baffling election to the stunned and stupid rest of us. Enlightenment shared is such a beautiful thing to behold. Thank you, and all of your ilk, Seth.
Does anyone read your blog?