MItt Romney: focused on his message and calm under fire
Perhaps the one quality which gives Mitt Romney the most significant advantage over his challengers for the Republican nomination is his ability to stay on message and avoid taking the bait of liberal journalists and pundits. Look at how he reacted to former Clinton advisor George Stephanopolous’s question on contraception at the ABC/Yahoo!/WMUR New Hampshire debate:
George, this is an unusual topic that you’re raising. States have a right to ban contraception? I can’t imagine a state banning contraception. I can’t imagine the circumstances where a state would want to do so, and if I were a governor of a state or…
. . . or a — or a legislature of a state — I would totally and completely oppose any effort to ban contraception. So you’re asking — given the fact that there’s no state that wants to do so, and I don’t know of any candidate that wants to do so, you’re asking could it constitutionally be done?
Romney goes on to call the moderator’s question “kind of a silly thing”. He doesn’t delve into the benefits (or lack thereof) of contraception. That’s not a president’s business.
“While GOP rivals Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich,” Byron York reports, “have gotten sidetracked by contraception, Sandra Fluke, and other media obsessions of the moment, Romney has stuck close to his message on the economy and government spending.” The former Massachusetts governor makes clear his focus is ”more jobs, less debt, and smaller government.”
He’s not just disciplined on policy issues, he’s also disciplined in his emotions. He remains calm under fire–as CBS News’s Rebecca Kaplan reported last month:
Republican presidential front-runner Mitt Romney on Friday deftly put down an aggressive attack by a few hostile members of a town hall audience, who challenged him repeatedly on issues ranging from his overseas investments to his support for hydrofracking.
It was a rare bit of rhetorical chaos at a Romney event, which are typically as subdued as the candidate tends to be. But the former Massachusetts governor defended himself in a calm and concise manner, winning thunderous applause from the audience of about 300 people at several points.
Emphasis added. H/t: Jennifer Rubin. He’s going to need that calm should he win the Republican nomination. Those aggressive attacks are only going to increase–and not just from Democrats and their ideological allies.
18 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Press conference was a slam dunk and shrewdly timed. Proud to have obama as commander in chief.
Comment by Cinesnatch — March 6, 2012 @ 3:59 pm - March 6, 2012
Apparently, you have an ignorant and uninformed commentor on this page.
Comment by phillyguy — March 6, 2012 @ 4:02 pm - March 6, 2012
Give me a break. Honestly, Daniel. Romney crumbled under the cordial questioning of Brett Baier.
This guy currently has had a 10:1 money advantage, a 1000-to one advertising advantage and virtually no hostile media challenges. All that ends if he gets the nomination.
In every serious media assault in his life he has exhibited only weird, awkward and flailing defensiveness. The Left will eat him and his little preppy cadre alive.
Comment by rrpjr — March 6, 2012 @ 4:13 pm - March 6, 2012
Geez Dan, get a room already. You’re starting to sound like Andrew Sullivan’s Obama Mancrush.
Comment by V the K — March 6, 2012 @ 4:31 pm - March 6, 2012
On a paulbot blog, I asked this question today,
“I’m going to risk asking a serious question. If, Ron Paul, were to be elected president, do his supporters expect that the democrats will suddenly become bipartisan and not block a president Paul’s economic policies being enacted?”
I got one answer,
“No, but Ron Paul can veto every piece of shit legislation they try to force down Americans throats.”
I have to wonder if any candidate has thought out what they will do if the Congress remains as is, or even worse, a few more democrat seats stronger. Will we just have four more years of nothing getting accomplished?
Comment by Richard Bell — March 6, 2012 @ 4:49 pm - March 6, 2012
Between snatch and Dan here, I’m beginning to understand why this site can’t get it’s tucchus any more exposure than it has at present.
One of the owners can’t come to grips with the political realty, and a few others in the comment section are as equally obtuse as Barry’s worldview once the mirror/teleprompter/Axelrod are removed from their fields of vision.
Comment by My Sharia Moor — March 6, 2012 @ 4:52 pm - March 6, 2012
My Sharia Moor, maybe Dan or Bruce could get Rush Limbaugh to call him a ‘slut.’ That’s an excellent ticket for immediate fame, acclaim, and adulation.
Comment by V the K — March 6, 2012 @ 4:59 pm - March 6, 2012
Buy a Ken doll & name him Mitt; they are almost the same thing. Romney is just life-size version.
Comment by Sebastian Shaw — March 6, 2012 @ 6:02 pm - March 6, 2012
Look, guys, I’m not enthusiastic about Mitt, not even yet behind him, but am trying to remind myself (and our readers) about his strengths. And I really believe Santorum would hurt the party — and badly.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — March 6, 2012 @ 6:28 pm - March 6, 2012
That would be a great campaign slogan: “Romney 2012: Maybe he won’t suck.”
Comment by V the K — March 6, 2012 @ 6:31 pm - March 6, 2012
Problem is, V, it’d be all their slogans. (“Gingrich 2012: Maybe he Won’t Suck.” “Santorum 2012: Maybe he Won’t Suck.” “Paul 2012: Maybe, just maybe, he’ll Defend America from Terrorism.”)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 6, 2012 @ 7:00 pm - March 6, 2012
So, in this election, we’re voting for probable suck over known gigantic horrific suck.
Comment by V the K — March 6, 2012 @ 7:14 pm - March 6, 2012
I think they’re called trolls.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 6, 2012 @ 7:21 pm - March 6, 2012
Sadly, yes. (to coin an expression)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 6, 2012 @ 7:21 pm - March 6, 2012
“I think they’re called trolls.” ILC. No. They are on here all the time. I think they are being paid by someone =- maybe DNC?
Comment by John R — March 6, 2012 @ 7:54 pm - March 6, 2012
I’m personally VERY enthusiastic about Romney, for several reasons that I think are very good, but that’s not what this comment is really about.
Even if any nominee from the GOP sucked a bit…they would still suck less than Obama.
….well as long as it wasn’t Santorum.
Comment by meredithancret — March 7, 2012 @ 12:29 am - March 7, 2012
[...] praise yesterday of Mitt Romney’s poise under fire, one of our readers suggested I had a man-crush on the GOP frontrunner. Now, to be sure, I have a more favorable opinion of the former [...]
Pingback by GayPatriot » Does Romneycare makes Romney a “weak” frontrunner? — March 7, 2012 @ 1:00 pm - March 7, 2012
[...] the way Mitt keeps his poise as he faces a hostile question: Another example of how calm the former Massachusetts governor is under fire, a quality which will serve him well should he become the Republican nominee and face an ever more [...]
Pingback by GayPatriot » Getting stuff from the government won’t necessarily help you find happiness — March 20, 2012 @ 6:09 pm - March 20, 2012