http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...725706.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop#printMode
By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL
Columnist's name
In the classic 1968 film "Once Upon a Time in the West," a villainous Henry Fonda shoots one of his lackeys, in part for the sin of wearing both a belt and suspenders. How do you trust a man, muses Fonda, who "can't even trust his own pants?"
Mitt Romney is slipping in the polls because, when it comes to his own policies, he is once again wearing a belt, suspenders, and even some elasticized waistbands. The bold Romney who picked Paul Ryan as a catalyst to run on ideas has been ousted by the return of the careful Romney who wants this race to be about Barack Obama. And America is unwilling to trust a man who seems unwilling to trust his own agenda.
The re-emergence of the well-belted Romney began at the GOP convention, where he delivered a speech that had been pared away to nothing but a fleeting reference to his policies. It was on vivid display, too, in Mr. Romney's Sunday appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press," in which he managed to use 30 minutes of prime time to talk mainly of flotsam, as well as (news flash!) how bad Mr. Obama had made the economy.
As for how he would create "more jobs" and "higher income," Mr. Romney wasn't saying. His references to his "tax policy" served mainly to explain what it doesn't do. He vowed to replace ObamaCare with his "own plan"—which is? He explained he had "big policy differences" with the president on Afghanistan. Those differences are "important." So important that he moved to the next question.
Credit for this fog goes to that inner circle of Romney advisers who never liked the Ryan pick and have reasserted their will over a candidate who is naturally cautious. In the la-la land where adviser Stuart Stevens presides, Mr. Romney wins by never saying a single thing, ever, that might rock a single boat, ever. Just keep the focus on Mr. Obama. After all, no president has ever won with an economy like this.
One problem: Mr. Obama is winning. The August unemployment numbers are horrid; the president increases his national lead. Labor-force participation hits a 31-year low; Mr. Obama moves up in swing states. Prices spike; the president takes Michigan out of contention. No doubt Part 39 of the Romney attack on Mr. Obama's welfare policies will propel the Republican to a blazing lead. Though, failing that, Mr. Romney might consider that the pure referendum strategy is a bust.
Voters know that things are rotten; the GOP needn't spend $100 million telling them so. What they don't know is how we got here. (Was it Bush's fault? So says Mr. Obama, while Mr. Romney says nothing.) And they don't know how Mr. Romney proposes to fix it.
Well, that's not entirely true. They are getting an idea of Romney policies—courtesy of the president. Mr. Obama may himself have no ideas, but he is an expert on the Republican's plans. Mr. Romney will raise middle-class taxes. Mr. Romney will take away health care. Mr. Romney will strip seniors of programs. In the absence of Mr. Romney explaining his reforms—and how they work—why not believe the president?
The tragedy is that Mr. Romney isn't a blank; he has a hearty reform agenda. Yet his decision to go "safe"—to be Crouching Romney, Hidden Mitt—keeps him from harnessing the American hunger for political change.
One painful example: Mr. Romney's NBC interview was remarkable for his deliberate avoidance of the (apparently scary?) term "tax reform." Yet if there is one thing that Americans agree epitomizes failed government, it is the tax code.
Rather than defensively protesting that his "tax policy" won't hurt the middle class, would it be so dangerous for Mr. Romney to explain that he's proposing a grand tax overhaul? Instead of talking blandly of "loopholes," to spell out the special-interest tax breaks (mortgage-interest deductions for yachts, Hollywood tax boondoggles, renewable-energy credits) that he'd cut to make the code fairer to average Americans? To explain, finally, that it is by getting rid of these handouts that he can lower rates for everybody, which frees up dollars for investment and the jobs he promises? Say it, Mr. Romney: Tax reform, tax reform, tax reform. Say it because it is true and good.
Americans respond well to A-B-C explanations of valuable reform. (Here is what is wrong. Here is my policy to fix it. Here is how it works, with three examples. Here is the good that comes of it.) Were Mr. Romney to apply this formula to health care, entitlements, food stamps and college loans, he'd be winning.
The press embarrassed itself this week by flaying Mr. Romney's criticism of the State Department while giving a pass to the policies of a president who, after announcing the death of four diplomats, flew to a campaign event in Las Vegas. The press doesn't care. Its goal was to let Mr. Romney know what's in store for him should he consider mounting more than a mediocre campaign. If he gets spooked by that, he's done.
America isn't going to trust a candidate who doesn't trust his own pants. Unhitch, Mr. Romney, and earn the votes.
In 1948, Tom Dewey had a lock on the presidency. Everybody agreed it was a 100% sure lock so he ran a campaign that made no waves. So few waves that the electorate didn't even know he was there. Harry Truman went from town to town making speeches from the back of a railroad car. They sure knew 'Give'm Hell Harry" was there. He won.
By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL
Columnist's name
In the classic 1968 film "Once Upon a Time in the West," a villainous Henry Fonda shoots one of his lackeys, in part for the sin of wearing both a belt and suspenders. How do you trust a man, muses Fonda, who "can't even trust his own pants?"
Mitt Romney is slipping in the polls because, when it comes to his own policies, he is once again wearing a belt, suspenders, and even some elasticized waistbands. The bold Romney who picked Paul Ryan as a catalyst to run on ideas has been ousted by the return of the careful Romney who wants this race to be about Barack Obama. And America is unwilling to trust a man who seems unwilling to trust his own agenda.
The re-emergence of the well-belted Romney began at the GOP convention, where he delivered a speech that had been pared away to nothing but a fleeting reference to his policies. It was on vivid display, too, in Mr. Romney's Sunday appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press," in which he managed to use 30 minutes of prime time to talk mainly of flotsam, as well as (news flash!) how bad Mr. Obama had made the economy.
As for how he would create "more jobs" and "higher income," Mr. Romney wasn't saying. His references to his "tax policy" served mainly to explain what it doesn't do. He vowed to replace ObamaCare with his "own plan"—which is? He explained he had "big policy differences" with the president on Afghanistan. Those differences are "important." So important that he moved to the next question.
Credit for this fog goes to that inner circle of Romney advisers who never liked the Ryan pick and have reasserted their will over a candidate who is naturally cautious. In the la-la land where adviser Stuart Stevens presides, Mr. Romney wins by never saying a single thing, ever, that might rock a single boat, ever. Just keep the focus on Mr. Obama. After all, no president has ever won with an economy like this.
One problem: Mr. Obama is winning. The August unemployment numbers are horrid; the president increases his national lead. Labor-force participation hits a 31-year low; Mr. Obama moves up in swing states. Prices spike; the president takes Michigan out of contention. No doubt Part 39 of the Romney attack on Mr. Obama's welfare policies will propel the Republican to a blazing lead. Though, failing that, Mr. Romney might consider that the pure referendum strategy is a bust.
Voters know that things are rotten; the GOP needn't spend $100 million telling them so. What they don't know is how we got here. (Was it Bush's fault? So says Mr. Obama, while Mr. Romney says nothing.) And they don't know how Mr. Romney proposes to fix it.
Well, that's not entirely true. They are getting an idea of Romney policies—courtesy of the president. Mr. Obama may himself have no ideas, but he is an expert on the Republican's plans. Mr. Romney will raise middle-class taxes. Mr. Romney will take away health care. Mr. Romney will strip seniors of programs. In the absence of Mr. Romney explaining his reforms—and how they work—why not believe the president?
The tragedy is that Mr. Romney isn't a blank; he has a hearty reform agenda. Yet his decision to go "safe"—to be Crouching Romney, Hidden Mitt—keeps him from harnessing the American hunger for political change.
One painful example: Mr. Romney's NBC interview was remarkable for his deliberate avoidance of the (apparently scary?) term "tax reform." Yet if there is one thing that Americans agree epitomizes failed government, it is the tax code.
Rather than defensively protesting that his "tax policy" won't hurt the middle class, would it be so dangerous for Mr. Romney to explain that he's proposing a grand tax overhaul? Instead of talking blandly of "loopholes," to spell out the special-interest tax breaks (mortgage-interest deductions for yachts, Hollywood tax boondoggles, renewable-energy credits) that he'd cut to make the code fairer to average Americans? To explain, finally, that it is by getting rid of these handouts that he can lower rates for everybody, which frees up dollars for investment and the jobs he promises? Say it, Mr. Romney: Tax reform, tax reform, tax reform. Say it because it is true and good.
Americans respond well to A-B-C explanations of valuable reform. (Here is what is wrong. Here is my policy to fix it. Here is how it works, with three examples. Here is the good that comes of it.) Were Mr. Romney to apply this formula to health care, entitlements, food stamps and college loans, he'd be winning.
The press embarrassed itself this week by flaying Mr. Romney's criticism of the State Department while giving a pass to the policies of a president who, after announcing the death of four diplomats, flew to a campaign event in Las Vegas. The press doesn't care. Its goal was to let Mr. Romney know what's in store for him should he consider mounting more than a mediocre campaign. If he gets spooked by that, he's done.
America isn't going to trust a candidate who doesn't trust his own pants. Unhitch, Mr. Romney, and earn the votes.
In 1948, Tom Dewey had a lock on the presidency. Everybody agreed it was a 100% sure lock so he ran a campaign that made no waves. So few waves that the electorate didn't even know he was there. Harry Truman went from town to town making speeches from the back of a railroad car. They sure knew 'Give'm Hell Harry" was there. He won.
