Romney’s Plan Of Attack On Perry
The Romney campaign may be finally starting to pay attention to Rick Perry.
As the national, and state-level, polls have shown Rick Perry rushing to the top of the field, I’ve noted that Mitt Romney’s strategy of staying above the race, largely ignoring his opponents, and concentrating mostly on running against the President isn’t going to work for much longer, and that at some point he’d have to take on Perry. In today’s Washington Post Marc Thiessen unveils part of that strategy, as revealed by aides to the Romney campaign:
If Perry fails to implode and continues to surge in the polls, Romney eventually will have to go on the attack — an assault his advisers say will commence “at a time of our choosing.” Romney strategists are quick to note that in his book, “Fed Up!,” Perry writes that “By any measure, Social Security is a failure” and calls the program “something we have been forced to accept for more than 70 years now” that was created “at the expense of respect for the Constitution and limited government.”
Look at what happened to Paul Ryan when he proposed a plan to save Medicare, they say. Romney’s campaign will argue that Perry is against the very idea of Social Security and Medicare, and that he will use Perry’s book to scare seniors in early-primary states with large retiree populations, such as Florida and South Carolina.
The Romney campaign also plans to use immigration to drive a wedge between Perry and his conservative base, by highlighting Perry’s opposition to a border fence and legislation he signed in 2001 allowing the children of illegal immigrants to attend Texas colleges and universities at in-state tuition. Without mentioning Perry by name, Romney pointed out at a town hall here in Dover that he vetoed similar legislation as governor of Massachusetts, declaring, “If you say, guess what, if you come here illegally, your kids will get [in-state tuition], that draws more people here illegally.” Romney strategists believe the immigration issue will be devastating for Perry with Tea Party Republicans across the country — and especially in important primary states like Arizona.
Team Romney intends to undermine Perry’s appeal on the right by painting him as the anti-government candidate who has spent most of his life in government — first as a state legislator, then as agriculture secretary, lieutenant governor and governor. They will tar Perry as an old-style Texas, pay-to-play, career politician whose state is worse off now than when he first took office. They will contrast Perry’s quarter-century in government with Romney’s 25 years creating jobs in the private sector. Romney hinted at this line of attack at a town hall meeting in Keene last week, declaring, “I won’t just have been somebody who watched jobs be created, I actually created jobs.. . . I spent four years in government. I joke that I didn’t inhale.”
Perry will have answers for these and other charges, and attacks of his own planned for Romney. But Romney’si team believes that Republicans want, above all, a nominee who can beat President Obama — and points to a recent Mason-Dixon poll in Florida that shows Romney defeating Obama handily if the election were held today, while Perry is in a statistical dead-heat with Obama. (Other polls show Perry well ahead of Obama in Florida.)
The Romney campaign will argue that Perry repels independents and can’t win in key swing states such as Florida, Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan — while Romney can
It’s kind of an odd strategy when you look at it. In some ways, they’d be attacking Perry from the right by pointing to his record and comments on immigration, which is far closer to George W. Bush’s than Arizona Governor Jan Brewer’s. and his willingness to consider things such as amnesty for illegal immigrants. The attacks on Perry’s long service in government and the crony capitalism that has characterized his ten years as Governor of Texas also come from the Tea Party/conservative point of view. At the same time they’re attacking Perry on those grounds, though, they’d also be pointing out that he’s too conservative when it comes to Social Security and Medicare. Electorally, it makes complete sense in states like Florida, not to mention Northeastern and Mid-Western states like New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. As Allahpundit notes, however, it also has the potential to have a serious impact on the General Election regardless of who the nominee is:
If Romney goes this route, he’ll be well positioned for the general election if he’s the nominee — but if Perry’s the nominee, this could weaken him significantly. The Democrats will play Mediscare games against either of them regardless, but if Romney beats them to the punch by using that accusation against Perry, it immunizes him from the charge to some extent once he faces Obama. The first time Debbie Wasserman-Schultz screams that Mitt wants to eliminate Social Security, he’s got a ready answer — not only doesn’t he want to do that, but he won his party’s nomination against a guy who (allegedly) did by calling him out on it. If Perry beats Romney for the nomination, though, then the DNC has a golden attack line handed to them: “Rick Perry is so radical on Medicare that he even scares other Republicans,” punctuated by a shot of Romney attacking Perry on those grounds at one of the debates. It would be devastating. Even if Perry tries to explain it away, the fact that he’d be on the defensive on this issue of all issues would be trouble.
It’s nearly inevitable that Democrats will make entitlements an issue in 2012. The mostly negative public reaction to the Ryan Plan, which seemed to be replicated in the few Special Elections that took place in the spring, along with polling during the debt ceiling debate that showed the public strongly opposed to cuts in Medicare and Social Security.In 2010, Republicans won control of the House based, at least in some part, due to the fact that they garnered a majority of the Over 65 and 45-64 demographic groups, both of whom are natural constituencies for a political strategy based on Medicare and SSI. If Perry is the nominee, Democrats are inevitably going to attack him for his past statements, but if Romney has already softened him up on this issue it’s going to make the job much easier for them. More broadly, though, I’ve got to wonder how effective going after Perry over Social Security and Medicare in the GOP primary would be for Romney. Surely, there are independent voters in Florida and the Mid-West who might be sympathetic to the argument, but I don’t see it playing well with the GOP base.
In the end, Romney’s best argument against Perry would seem to be electability. Contrary to what some Republicans seem to think, it is by no means certain that Barack Obama will lose in 2012, even if the state of the economy is as perilous as some predict. Putting the right candidate, who can appeal not just to the GOP base and the Tea Party but also to independents, on the ballot will be crucial for the GOP, and there are real questions about a Perry’s ability to beat Obama in a head-to-head race. In the head-to-head polls that have been conducted so far, Romney consistently performs better against the President than Perry does. While part of that may be due to name recognition and voter unfamiliarity with Perry himself, it’s no doubt something the Romney camp will point to as a reason why their candidate is better.
The question is whether that’s a message the GOP wants to hear this cycle. In a lot of ways, this election more than any other in recent memory seems like one where Republican voters aren’t likely to settle for the guy who can win rather than the guy they want to win. Whether that will work out for them in November 2012 is another question.
I expect Perry to spend a lot of time explaining what he really meant when he wrote his book. He will also hope that not many people read it. His handlers also appear to have their hands full. His talk first, think second approach will not serve him well in a general election.
Steve
Romney has his sights set on being President and does not want to settle for just the GOP nominee for President. If he can’t win it all, he would rather just get it over with in the primaries. As such, calling Perry out on his extreme positions is smart. He may well lose the GOP base, and the nomination, but they don’t elect Presidents (any more than the DEM base does). The middle does.
And they like the Tea-Party less and less.
I love the quote about them mean Dems running “Mediscare” ads against Perry. He’s said that Medicare is unconstitutional while the entire Republican House voted to eliminate the program. And if Democrats dare to mention these indisputable facts, they’re guilty of trying to scare seniors.
@WR: It’s unfair to scare people with the truth!
Romney’s plan:
1. Avoid head to head competition with Perry for as long as possible
2. Lose said competition rather badly
3. Watch remaining support evaporate
4. Become political commentator
If Romney’s best argument is “electability” then Perry will have the nomination wrapped up by March, perhaps even by February.
– How many Northeasterners have been elected president since 1960?
– How many Northeastern Republicans have been elected president since 1944?
– How many Mormons have been elected president in history?
That said, it’ll be quite interesting to see whether Team Romney truly is willing to tear apart Perry on issues that will help Obama get reelected. Romney hardly appears to be that ruthless. Also, given that the Washington Post is a division of the Democrat Party I can’t help but wonder if that article was made up by the author as part of a media/Democrat strategy to try to preempt Perry’s candidacy. Time will tell.
@Ron Beasley:
So, what is the ‘truth?’ Is medicare and SS sustainable throughout the ages? Are they fully funded because people’s government mandated investments in their old age have been set aside from our general funding?
Somehow it seems to me that the left is the one distorting and frightening seniors, in that they don’t want them to look at the reality of the numbers. Or, worse yet, the left just wants to remind seniors that “you still have your’s,” and don’t worry your head about those who are currently paying for yours, and will probably not have their’s when they reach a fixed retirement age.
@jan: Thanks for taking us all through the looking glass again. It’s amazing how willing you are to state the exact opposite of the truth as if it is reality. For instance:
” Or, worse yet, the left just wants to remind seniors that “you still have your’s,” and don’t worry your head about those who are currently paying for yours, and will probably not have their’s when they reach a fixed retirement age.”
This is EXACTLY the argument used to sell the Paul Ryan plan — that it doesn’t affect anyone who is over 55 right now. It’s the only argument used to justify wiping out the program and replacing it with a voucher program that cannot work. In fact, I’d bet that you have used this very arguement on this site, since parroting Republican spin is what you do.
I guess you might as well feel good about stepping through the mirror, though. It’s not like you can look in one…
Each side tries to scare seniors, but after “death panels” the bottom has been reached and there’s no going any lower. Two years ago the right accused the left of wanting to kill grandma, it will be a long time before either side drops this one.
@Dan
“Death panels” may be an ominous term to use, especially since this country has such a fear of death. However, if a panel of people are chosen to determine who gets a lifesaving treatment, surgery etc. over who does not, which is ultimately what Obamacare will result in, how is this term so off the mark?
I guess it could be called “Life determining panels.” But, wouldn’t that be just a sugar coating in labeling a government entity whose job it is to choose and issue treatments that could save a life, versus withholding treatments, shortening lives, from those considered too old or undeserving.
This is rationed care, plain and simple. And, it will be coming to this country should Obamacare stand.
@jan:
Good lord, how many times does it need to be repeated that there is already rationing going on and it’s done by Insurance companies, companies with a hell of a lot more incentive to figure out how to save money and beat people out of service to feed the bottom line than the government ?At least the government is only incompetent, it does not have to return profits
(though that might just be a Randian’s wet dream, a for profit government).
The complete denial that “rationing” is already occurring is maddening.
And, honestly it lends your comments and air of nonsense to them, as I (only speaking for myself) can’t imagine trying to have an effective discussion with you because of your political blinders.
Uh, Jan? In case you have not noticed, we already have rationed care. It is rationed to those who have the money to pay for it.
As to death panels, those have already been brought into existence… By the Republican led legislature and Republican Gov. of Arizona.
@jan: I’m not sure if you’ve ever practiced medicine, it sounds like you have not, but the business model of Blue Cross is to ration care. Every adjuster runs his or her own little death panel, and is given bonuses on the amount of treatment grandma gets denied.
Much of this denial doesn’t even have anything to do with medical need or a cost/benefit analysis, just a missed letter or a wrong date is excuse enough to say no until the patient is too far gone and that adjuster gets a very good annual review. This is why the average American doctor now spends around $80,000 a year in administrative costs (and passes it on to you), while our French counterparts sometimes don’t even need secretaries. This is also why doctors all over the country are deserting their private practices for systems like the VA and Kaiser, which just a couple of decades ago were considered the backwater of medicine.
Medicare is the provider of the most expensive end of life treatment, mostly because it rations much less than the private sector. If Medicare is unsustainable, as Republicans remind us ad nauseam, the lack of rationed care is the main culprit.
Ummm, yeah. So any way it boils down to this: what the base sees:
Northern liberal versus Texan evangelical
Slick hair versus authenticity
Muted criticism versus ballsy challenge
Mormon versus guy who rejects evolution
You tell me who you’d bet on.
Oh, also, I’m not sure Obama is so weak he’s going to lose to the guy doing a terrible (but hilarious) George W impression, especially when Stupid Sarah appears on stage hugging him and giving a thumbs up come next summer.
Of all people, David Frum brings up an interesting point: How Rick Perry Got Rich (http://www.frumforum.com/how-rick-perry-got-rich)
Without explicitly saying so, Frum gives the answer: influence trafficking.
Romney’s campaign would be well inspired to have one of its affiliated Pacs dig some dirt in that direction.
““Death panels” may be an ominous term to use, especially since this country has such a fear of death. However, if a panel of people are chosen to determine who gets a lifesaving treatment, surgery etc. over who does not, which is ultimately what Obamacare will result in, how is this term so off the mark?”
The ACA specifically forbids rationing, one of the things that needs to change if it is to control costs. Medicare needs to able to ration the same way that Blue Cross rations. By price and by effectiveness. At present, if two therapies have the same benefit, but one costs twice as much (think prostate cancer), Medicare has to pay for both kinds of treatments. private insurance does not.
Besides, death panels was mostly used in reference to end of life counseling, at least initially. That is now out of the ACA thx to the GOP. As I have to take care of a lot of patients in their terminal stage, I will continue to see many patients getting unnecessary care, what amounts to torture for many of these people. I am probably too close to this issue, but I consider it one of the sleaziest things I have ever seen done in politics. Garnering a few more votes but consigning more of our elderly to medical purgatory.
Steve
@jan:
You are obviously as poorly informed or willfully ignorant as the clowns that spread the “death panel” fallacy.
The board would evaluate what courses of treatment are successful and which are not – there are all kinds of treatments that cost a lot of money but aren’t effective – they’re looking for the best practice to provide the best results. They would play no role in determining who does and doesn’t get care – that’s the role of the insurance company. so if you want to spew the “death panel” hooey – direct it at the insurance companies – they’re the ones making the decisions on what treatment they’ll pay for and what they won’t.
@Tsar Nicholas:
This is fun.
When is the last time the Republicans picked someone born in the South, and their candidate then actually got elected as President? That would be Eisenhower. And the only Republican to have been born in the South and been elected President during the last century.
How many Republicans born in the South have been elected President?
Each one of these candidates has something to worry about: Romney has RomneyCare and Perry has La Raza and his book Fed Up. Perry said that social security is unconstitutional. Needless to say, that will be an issue with or without Romney. In truth both candidates for each other to become better candidates and deal with their vulnerabilities more effectively. It might actually help Perry if it allows him the opportunity to devise an effective response to that line of attack.
But I think Perry screwed up with that book. He could have said that social security is grown to big and bloated. He could have said that without reform it will collapse. Those things are true, but by attacking the constitutionality of the programs he makes it more difficult for him to convince people he wants to save the programs.
@WR:
Actually the House voted to reform medicare so that it will remain solvent. The Democrats chose to do nothing and just let medicare hit the wall and collapse.
@Terrye: Sorry, honey, that’s a flat out lie. They kept the name of the program and ditched everything else about it. Either someone has been seriously misinforming you, or you’re spreading Republican lies. Either way, everybody knows the truth.
It would be a lot easier to respect you if you would stand up and honestly declare you bellieve Medicare should end, instead of hoping to fool people with your obvious lies.
@Terrye:
Actually the House voted to reform medicare so that it will
remain solventnot exist anymore.FTFY
@Tsar Nicholas:
”
– How many Northeasterners have been elected president since 1960?
– How many Northeastern Republicans have been elected president since 1944?
– How many Mormons have been elected president in history?
”
Before November 2008
– How many biracial candidates were ever elected?
– How many Hawaiian born and Illinois residents were ever elected?
– How many Northern Democrats were elected since 1960?
etc, etc, etc ….
@Terrye: They voted to end Medicare and enact a voucher plan that wouldn’t increase with the rate of inflation and that no private insurance company would accept once they successfully repeal the ACA and prohibition based on pre-existing conditions is once again the norm.
I can name my dog “Kitty” but that doesn’t make her a cat.
Exactly! Language written into the original ACA would have provided free end-of-life counseling so that individuals could make and put in writing decisions most of us don’t want to consider such as power-of-attorney, do not resuscitate orders, whether or not you want to be kept alive via feeding tubes, etc. I believe it was Jan’s hero, La Diva Palin, who jumped on this issue and, through her usual web of lies and misrepresentation, warped the issue into death panels enabled to decide who lives and who dies.
As for Romney, if he ever wants to be president, this is his year to run and he needs to do whatever he can to clear Perry out of the way. I think he’s going to have to go after Perry on his stands on Medicare, Social Security and the like so he can get seniors in his corner, all the while pointing out those Perry’s policies that contradict Tea Party ideology. It’s a tightrope act, but it’s the only way Romney gets the nomination. I’m pretty dubious that he’ll succeed. He may have the fire in his belly but he’s just too much the corporate man to do something so brazen.
Terrye, a few nouns and verbs missing there (maybe an adverb or 2?) I honestly don’t know what you are trying to say. Please fill in the blanks. (lord knows, I am guilty of the same)
@OzarkHillbilly:
It’s rather hard to understand, but I think he means that them attacking each other will help them find ways to to deal with their own vulnerabilities.
I really don’t agree. I think it will be it great though, Obama won’t have to spend any money on making their weaknesses know until the general election, and it will most likely piss of a number of voters if their candidate won’t win. I bet we will start hearing about polls on independents and moderate Republicans (if there are any left) preferring Obama over Perry. And Perry voters voting for a third party candidate or staying home if Romney wins.
EVERY Health care system must be rationed at some level. Specially when the taxpayer is footing the bill. One has to be pretty whiny to say that you can´t ration care. Grow up.
@Jilli:
Sorry, you’re assuming things that aren’t even in place. All that is really known is that there will be an Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) who presumably will be looking at medical costs. But, their functions and path is not definitive, as is the time they will be functioning.
And, as with any bureaucracy, in it’s infancy, powers usually multiply over time, not diminish under central government planning. The costs of health care are already said to be underestimated. There also very well could be a physician shortage when Obamacare is finally implemented, as doctors are not flocking over to support expanded government care.
Consequently, a shortage of both funding and medical personnel could change the equation of health services dramatically, forcing these Boards to arbitrarily make life and death decisions concerning one’s health care. Just look at other countries with similar kinds of health care, and how sketchy and inadequate their care is. Sometimes people have to wait months just for diagnostics, let alone any kind of treatment!
Understand something, these are appointed bureaucrats we are talking about who are going to be in charge of coordinating treatment.
Well, actually the “death panels” already exist. They are the health insurance employees who are in charge of rescission, “… an insurance-industry procedure of retroactively canceling approved health-insurance policies obtained in the individual market after the policyholders get sick and file large medical claims.”
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/09/02/think-youve-got-health-insurance-better-double-check-and-be
If we have to choose between government officials coordinating our treatment and United Healthcare denying treatment because the executive bonus pool isn’t meeting its funding goals, I know how most of us will vote.
PJ,
” think it will be it great though, Obama won’t have to spend any money on making their weaknesses know until the general election, and it will most likely piss of a number of voters if their candidate won’t win.”
Since Obama is raising money for both the primary and the general election, and money raised for the primary has to be spent before the conventions, I expect that Obama will follow the example of Clinton in 1996 and spend the primary money in expected swing states (like my Pennsylvania, which holds its primary in Presidential years in mid-April) prior to their primaries. Much of it will be attacking the presumptive GOP nominee and will be substantially the same as general election spending. And like Dole in 1996, the presumptive Republican nominee will have spent most or all of their primary funds in winning the primary, leaving them unable to respond in kind.
@jan:
Can you explain how this is fundamentally different that the hired corporate bureaucrats who currently make many of these decisions inside of insurance companies?
(And we should remember that in both cases they will be working with Doctor’s recommendations.)
@jan: Shorter Jan: “Even though the IPAB is nothing like I say it is, the fact is that it’s part of government and government is evil, so it will probably turn into concentration camps for old sick people. So even though everything I say is a lie it’s really the truth because you can’t trust government, only right wing hacks who lie about government.”
The Death Panel meme was an absolute lie. The part I love the most about it was that that end-of-life-counseling provision originated from a Republican who was utterly befuddled when it was turned into “Death Panels!!” (Sen. Johnny Isakson of Georgia.)
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/08/is_the_government_going_to_eut.html
It’s also different from rationing. We already ration, albeit poorly. Every system rations. The question is how to ration. You can ration solely by ability to pay. I reject this. Another option is to ration based on a cost-benefit analysis: how much does the treatment cost vs. how effective is the treatment? If a treatment is reasonably cost-effective, it is covered. If not, it isn’t covered. Perhaps a middle ground is to pay % for certain treatments.
Also note: those with enough money can still purchase extra treatment (which means that we would still be rationing by ability to pay, but only partly on that basis). There is nothing preventing this.
And don’t forget the “substandard care in other countries” lie too. Various systems provide care that is equal to or superior to what Americans get. But our resident Right Wing talking points provider refers to care in those countries as “sketchy and inadequate.”