Losing campaign manager announces formula to beat Trump

Stuart Stevens, who didn't run a particularly good campaign for Mitt Romney, thinks he knows how to defeat Trump in the primaries.

First, you attack Trump as a lousy businessman. Uh,,, no. That's a bunch of boring details and back-and-forth. Being a good businessman didn't win anything for Romney, and Trump isn't winning on it either. Being a successful, rich celebrity inflates The Donald's ego, but isn't at all essential to his campaign or his appeal. So Stuart Stevens has this wrong.

Second, you attack Trump for not telling the truth. Ok, but this only works if Trump is clearly a bigger liar than the person making the charge. Trump can call Cruz the biggest liar because Cruz sent out nasty mail in Iowa, his campaign tweeted misleading information about Carson, he attacked Rubio about immigration while lying about his own vulnerability, his website had a doctored photo falsely showing Rubio shaking Obama's hand... and that was only in the last five minutes. So Cruz can't make that accusation about Trump. Maybe Rubio can attack Cruz that way, but only if he's been more honest and stays more honest.

Third, show that Trump doesn't have the temperament to be president. First, you have to make sure voters are paying attention, so you point it out at a debate. Then you insult Trump and get him really angry. Then the voters see that Trump isn't presidential material.

There are some problems with this strategy. You have to get Trump angry without being a total asshole. Possibly, since he's been forewarned, Trump won't take the bait, and he stays even-tempered. Then your argument will backfire. And finally, even if he gets angry and says some obnoxious stuff, how will that be different from 'Mexican rapists' and the other incredibly offensive things he's said that have actually raised his popularity? This might work with a candidate whose selling point isn't being obnoxious. I don't know that it'll work with Trump.

The last suggestions from Stevens are a jumble, which is ironic because you're supposed to accuse Trump of having a jumble of policies, including some leftist ones. (Very funny if GOP candidates would go after one another for having fake health care policies, or tax policies, or budget policies, or foreign policies.)

Finally, you attack Trump with the idea that he can't restore America's pride because he's a potty mouth. There's no way he'll bring dignity to the White House.

Yes, I'm sure so many Americans are so straight-laced that they can never vote for someone like that. I suspect Stevens hasn't listened to rap, or radio, or TV, or teenagers, or 10-year-olds, or anyone younger than 50. I can promise him that we don't talk like Mormons.

Image: wittybitches.com

Extras. It was so much fun writing this as yet another GOP debate took place. Some of the best and/or strangest lines: (Three sources--Bernstein, Mother Jones, and my sweetie's twitter feed.)

• Rubio (I think/not sure) tells people to google 'Trump Polish Workers."
• Trump is now just randomly insulting Cruz for not having any friends.
• "I don't believe anything Telemundo says" is actually not how you win Hispanic votes Donald.
• Cruz refuses to say whether he'd trust Donald Trump to appoint conservative justices. 
• The Fruit Salad of Their Life
• Health care is an issue Trump clearly doesn't know anything about. Like pretty much every issue.
• Trump now hares off on a spiel about Cruz attacking his sister. He wants an apology. Cruz isn't buying.
• Bash: "Getting rid of state lines will solve all our health insurance problems?" Trump: You betcha.
• Trump wisely attacks Kasich to keep Rubio & Cruz off his back for another minute.
• "I'm relaxed. You're the basket case."
• Closed captioning just gave up. [CC: Unintelligible yelling]

And that's where the funny bits slowed down and I lost interest (except for the last two in the list). However, it seems like Trump got creamed. I can hardly wait for the next set of polls and/or primary results.

Rubio scores with rhetoric and (gasp) truth

I'm very impressed with part of Rubio's performance in the recent debate. He took down criticism of a local paper, the debate moderators, and Jeb Bush, and he did it very well and cleanly.

This was perhaps the most talked-about moment in the debate. Rubio was able to turn the tables on Jeb Bush after Bush attacked him. It's worth looking at how Rubio did this.(Video here, transcript here.)

The moderator referred to recent criticism that Rubio is skipping a lot votes in the Senate while he's campaigning. Rubio handled this so deftly that it should be a blueprint for others. He said:

"in 2004, John Kerry ran for president missing close to 60 to 70 percent of his votes. I don't recall the Sun -- in fact, the Sun-Sentinel endorsed him. In 2008, Barack Obama missed 60 or 70 percent of his votes, and the same newspaper endorsed him again."

Then Jeb Bush piled on, saying he was criticizing him as a constituent. This is how Rubio answered him:

"...you're modeling your campaign after John McCain... You know how many votes John McCain missed when he was carrying out that furious comeback that you're now modeling after? ...I don't remember you ever complaining about John McCain's vote record. The only reason why you're doing it now is because we're running for the same position, and someone has convinced you that attacking me is going to help you."

How Rubio turned the tables

First, Rubio didn't deny that he was missing votes, He didn't get defensive about why it was OK for him to be missing votes. Instead, he pointed out the important issues facing the country, implying (correctly) that's where the focus should be, not on a tiny non-issue of a senator missing non-important votes:

"For the first time in 35 years, we have more businesses closing than starting. We have a world that's out of control and has grown dangerous and a president that is weakening our military and making our foreign policy unstable and unreliable in the eyes of our allies."

He also didn't get whiny, with his focus on the unfairness of it all. His focus was on the argument being made, and how weak it was.

Rubio pointed out the same newspaper that complained about him endorsed both Kerry and Obama for president, even though both missed many more votes than Rubio did. The clear implication is that 'missing votes' was a smokescreen, showing the complaint was likely a partisan attack, not a major point of principle. Well done!

When Jeb Bush piled on, Rubio was clearly ready. "Someone has convinced you that attacking me is going to help you" is a very raw truth, and it definitely rings true. Bush is not politically very different from Rubio, so his attacks aren't going to be on major issues, but on minor kinks that he'll need to exaggerate in an attempt to gain an advantage.

Don't sweat the small stuff

The truth is that missing Senate votes isn't generally a huge issue for the few senators who are campaigning. However, it's used as an attack because it shows that the candidate isn't PERFECT. Well, duh, we know that. Candidates get into trouble by pretending they are perfect. Rubio definitely avoided this pitfall. Other candidates would be wise to study and learn that technique.

So what is the blueprint for handling attacks? If it's a nothingburger complaint, as this one was, point out how shallow it is, and how hypocritical your opponent is for making such an attack. Of course, this means that you have to live by that standard. I hope Rubio does, as I would hope that all candidates would.

Note that this strategy doesn't help with the big attacks on big issues. That's so different that it has to be a different post.

 Image: freehqphotos.com

A new conservative tax plan

In a week where the big news was Netanyahu applauded (must click!) as the most popular person in Congress, it's important to notice a new tax plan from Marco Rubio and Mike Lee. This plan (already in version 2.0) is supposed to represent new thinking among Republicans, specifically the group called 'reformicons.'

Reformicons like conservative principles, but they also realize that the working class has gotten a raw deal in our economy in the last 15+ years and struggle so much more than the upper classes. This reform-minded minority within the GOP also see some social spending as a worthy safety net that really is needed.

So what do these compassionate reformicons put into their spanking new tax proposal? I got an interesting lesson in media bias when I looked into this. According to Jonathan Chait (a liberal), the plan is a give-away to the wealthy, who'll get an extra $40K on average from the plan, or maybe more if their income is mostly capital gains and dividends, which wouldn't be taxed at all. In Chait's description, this doesn't sound like a tax plan with any reform elements at all.

What do some conservatives say? Chait helpfully links to reformicon pundits. Yuval Levin at the National Review hails the plan as "pro-growth," a must-have descriptor among Republicans. They use that moniker without irony, as though they forgot how Bush's 'pro-growth' tax cuts worked out.

I didn't notice, until James Pethokoukis pointed it out, that the top tax rate in the Lee-Rubio proposal is 35%, down a moderate amount from the current 40%. It's not the usual 28% or 25%. That is significant. However, it's less of a change in conservative tax policy than it looks. That rate will affect the poor millionaires who earn their money as paychecks from even wealthier folks and corporations. The wealthiest will still receive some major bonuses from this proposal--not least the end of capital gains taxes and inheritance taxes.

Oh, and the decline in revenues, it's only $2.4 trillion over the next ten years. No, maybe $4 trillion, according to Pethokoukis. Well, just add that on to the national debt, like all our governments (conservative or liberal) do. Excuse me if I don't stand up and cheer, but a less-bad GOP tax proposal is not enough to cheer about.

Image: paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com

Christie is a big target

One day after his reelection by a 60-38% margin, lots of conservatives are sniping at Christie. Christie isn't a doctrinaire conservative, much less a Tea Party patriot who lives and dies by principle. But the targeting is surprisingly aggressive.

Tea Party Critique

Here's a line that you can say about any politician (just substitute a name): "Christie is only out for Christie." Christie isn't a strict GOP partisan, so that makes him "self-serving." Do the people who criticize Christie for that also criticize Ted Cruz or Jim DeMint for behaving the same way--not supporting all their fellow Republicans? No, I don't think they are tarred the same way.

Yet I'm pretty sure this is the inside meme about Christie among the Tea Party. It leaked nationally when Rand Paul said Christie was all "gimme, gimme, gimme" over Sandy disaster aid. Now I'm seeing it again in the comments sections of conservative sites.

This idea that Christie is a self-promoting politician is a convenient ad hominem attack that allows people to dismiss him. There will always be plenty of evidence to support this charge. I don't know how whether the charge will resonate with others--Christie seemed to have put his state first when Sandy hit rather than toeing the party line. Ironically, the same incident is used as evidence that he puts himself first. Good luck finding the objective truth in that argument.

Meanwhile, Marco Rubio is reminding his party not to get too excited about Christie: "...some of these races don't apply to future races." So Rubio demonstrates again that's he's the biggest weasel lining up for the 2016 presidential primary. (Or is that just a different flavor of ad hominem attack that's hard to refute.)

GOP Establishment View

Establishment Republicans, often denoted as GOPe, aren't trumpeting Christie as much as the Tea Party is trying to tear him down. Michael Barone sees lessons for both the GOP and Dems in these elections. Provocation, especially on social issues, leads to losses. Dems can't count on the minority vote because Christie won 51% of Hispanics in New Jersey.

One of the HotAir writers wants the readers to see that Christie has a winning formula. However, the commenters mostly push back. Rich Lowry of National Review (quasi-establishment) sees some potential in Christie, but also some problems:

"...he offers a different kind of politics that can potentially unlock the presidency after a period of national futility for his party...
What Clinton had that Christie evidently lacks is a well-thought-out approach to his party’s predicament ...
Christie’s potential is in matching that Everyman appeal with substance. He could set out to make himself a Republican by and for the middle class in a substantive and stylistic departure for the contemporary party. -- Rich Lowry writing in Politico

Who Can Win vs. I Don't Care

The huge difference is how these groups see Christie is that one group (GOPe) sees Christie as a presidential contender who will bring in a lot a votes and won't be just a marginal winner. They are concerned with the mechanics of putting together enough votes to resist the Dems' demographic advantage.

The Tea Party group doesn't talk about demographics at all. They don't worry whether they can carry enough swing states. They are so sure a Tea Party candidate will win that they don't question it at all. To me, that's amazing--that you could be so sure that you wouldn't consider the electability of your nominee. Of course they've been burned on electability before. McCain was the most electable in 2008, though really he had only a ghost of a chance. Maybe they should have gone for the most conservative candidate that year, which was ... Romney. They definitely got burned in 2012. The Tea Party is pledging not to get burned in 2016. Well, we'll see. I'm not convinced that the Tea Party is the majority in the GOP, but perhaps we'll find out in 2016.

I know it's still too early to predict the 2016 primary race, but everyone is talking about it. Funny, the 2008 election didn't start in 2005, but the 2016 election started quite early in 2013. I chalk that up to the cold war in the GOP, which is getting hotter all the time.

Christie looks like the best hope for the GOPe even if a midwestern governor like Mitch Daniels or Scott Walker jumps into the race. Daniels looks like an older establishment Republican (yawn) and Walker is nerdly and possesses less charisma than Jindal. The establishment likes to coalesce around a candidate early, but that may not happen because Christie isn't exactly the GOP mainstream. Yes, it is too early to say.

Image: ronpaulforums.com

Leader of the opposition

Ed Morrissey of HotAir writes a couple of interesting columns on who will be the de facto leader of the Republicans. He correctly points out that Boehner and McConnell will be too busy and too tainted with deal-making, so he offers these names:

1. Rand Paul
2. Bobby Jindal
3. Rick Perry
4. Marco Rubio
5. Chris Christie

These are mostly good picks in that they're likely to be visible leaders, if not the leader. (It makes me wonder who was the leader from 2009 to 2011 when the primaries started. Critics say it was Rush Limbaugh, and maybe it was. Luckily not anymore.)

Rand Paul is certainly going to be the leader of the small-government libertarian pack. He has stayed almost constantly true to those principles. However, the libertarians aren't the dominant force in the GOP, so he couldn't be the dominant leader. His small-military views just aren't popular with most of the GOP, and they can't overlook that.

Bobby Jindal bucked a fair amount of the 2012 losing rhetoric, so it seemed that he was trying to make a name for himself as an intelligent reformer of the GOP. As a moderate, I like that, but I don't know if enough Republicans feel that way. Certainly the noisy ones don't. Nonetheless, he deserves to be on this list right now, but he could easily fall off by going too far or not far enough.

Rick Perry doesn't deserve to be on this list. He was a laughable candidate in 2011. Maybe the pain meds have worn off, but you can't fix stupid. He gives every indication of having been briefed on all of his opinions, rather than mulling them over and developing his own ideas. I think he's someone's marionette. If he can become a national leader, then I don't know anything about American politics.

Marco Rubio is certainly running for leader and running for president. However, Romney's campaign showed the weakness of choosing someone who is constantly running for office instead of being engaged in actual governing and problem-solving. Rubio is flash but no substance at this point. I don't think the GOP will go for a lightweight again.

Chris Christie has lately been reviled among many Republicans, so it's hard to imagine him rising above that to be a spokesman and leader of a large enough slice of the GOP. He's certainly got the verbal talent and a can-do record, but too many Republicans hate him right now, and that's not going to be easy to change.

Something missing from this list is the conservative-pragmatic governor archetype. I'm thinking Mitch Daniels, Scott Walker, John Kasich, and Rick Snyder. They've all dealt (cleaned up/reformed) at the state level with the kinds of problems the federal government faces--how to trim spending and reduce benefits for government workers without massive service cuts. Also important, they haven't tainted themselves with culture war rhetoric on abortion and contraception as Virginia governor Bob McDonnell has.

These governors are the solid, working leaders in each of their states, but who speaks for them nationally? If they did have a national champion, that would be a formidable leader. I'm going to be curious to see how this develops. The next few months will be worth watching.

 

Image: qctimes.com

Extra. Will we have new leaders in punditry? It's less important, but it would be such a relief.

Update 6/21/13. According to this column, Jindal has trotted out the typical GOP fallback position of bashing liberals. It looks like Jindal will put on any stance when it is expedient, including clear-eyed reformer. Too bad it was just an act.

Last outpost of sanity: Pat Robertson

Pat Robertson has stated on the 700 Club that the Earth isn't 6000 years old and that doctrine wasn't divinely inspired. He also said:

"If you fight revealed science, you're going to lose your children. I believe in telling them the way it was."

What, no more tying yourself in knots to argue for the "young Earth" and against evolution? I'm hoping this is the start of a major trend among evangelicals. I'll have to check back in a decade or two and see if the creation science wars are over.

Snide aside: Robertson should call Marco Rubio and tell him it's OK to say the earth is very old. However, Pat Robertson is still a false prophet, as are most other preachers according to the Google search auto-completion truth-o-meter.

Image: apostasywatch.com

Romney as a bipartisan?

This is what Romney is saying now in his stump speeches as he campaigns in Florida:

"[We] are going to have to do what we’ve done before, which is reach across the aisle. We have to build bridges to people in the other party. We have to recognize this is not a time in America for us to pull back, and to divide and to demonize. It’s a time in America for us to come together, to look for common ground, for places where we have agreement."

He also said this in the third and last debate:

"America’s going to come back, and for that we need a president who knows how to work across the aisle."

Hey, it sounds great. I'm all for bipartisanship. I even foolishly thought the super committee would work. But excuse me if I have some doubts about how strongly Romney supports bipartisanship. It didn't seem to be a talking point for him when he was running for the nomination. He also doesn't seem to be pushing the idea among his fellow Republicans. Marco Rubio says the Senate must be in GOP hands:

"Voters understand that electing Mitt Romney but allowing the Senate to remain in the hands of a Democratic majority means many of the things our country desperately needs aren’t going to happen." 

What are the chances that Romney and/or the other Republican leaders are going to work with the Dems if they don't need their votes to pass legislation? I don't actually want to find out. I'd prefer that divided power forced the two parties to work together, despite Romney's proclamations. After all, the last bipartisan era in this country was dead before the president was even inaugurated. Romney doesn't strike me as more capable of delivering on that illusive promise.

Image: newsrealblog.com

Extra. I found one Republican who did actually sound bipartisan--Charlie Bass of New Hampshire. I guess it'll just be him, Romney, and Ryan reaching across that aisle.