It is my impression that Mitt Romney doesn’t do a whole lot of interviews. I don’t keep track, but I think I see Santorum and Gingrich talking to reporters a lot more than I see Romney talking to them. Maybe that’s because Romney doesn’t like giving interviews, or maybe it’s just because he’s not very good at it. It should be relatively easy to do an interview on Fox News, especially with softball artists like Megyn Kelly. Yet, it seems like every time he appears on Fox News, he creates news by being visibly uncomfortable.
When Mitt Romney sits down with a Fox News anchor, things can get hairy. That fact was on full display Wednesday when the candidate went on Megyn Kelly’s show for what ended up being several uncomfortable minutes of testy, sputtering responses to unusually combative questions. The worst moment for Romney came at the end, as he struggled to complete a stammering indictment of Obamacare before being cut off for a commercial break.
I think the most important component here is that Fox News is trying to help Romney reassure their viewers that he’ll be a reliably conservative president. So, they ask fairly direct questions aimed at Romney’s obvious weak points. In this case, he was tripped up by questions about his prior support for health care mandates and his lack of cultural affinity for the South. These aren’t easy questions to answer but they’re obvious questions that Romney should be able to anticipate. That he remains incapable of answering them and continues to act surprised and irritated to be confronted with them is really quite astonishing.
On the one hand, it really speaks to his lack of political skill. Is it lack of preparation? Is it bad advice? Does he refuse to listen to his handlers?
On the other hand, maybe there just aren’t any good ways to offer a completely contrived version of yourself to the public.
Either way, someone in Mitt Romney’s position really cannot afford to have a thin skin. The model for beating an incumbent president is to be sunny and optimistic and not to sweat the small stuff. Reagan and Clinton are the last two people to successfully unseat an incumbent president. They were not thin-skinned. And when someone went after their greatest weaknesses, they had a quick rejoinder ready. Remember when Reagan said this about Mondale during their second debate?
“I will not make age an issue of this campaign,” he said. “I am not going to exploit for political purposes my opponent’s youth and inexperience.”
Romney doesn’t seem to have that in him. It comes out “cheesy grits.”
When you’re busy lying, making up new lies that contradict old lies, and even lying to yourself to rationalize and justify what you’re doing, sooner or later things are going to break down.
But Jonathan Chait tells me that Mittens isn’t really a liar!! He just plays one on TV!!
yeah, because that makes sense.
It makes sense that Mittens isn’t a liar?
No it makes sense that you can lie constantly without actually being a liar.
How? At what point do the two converge?
unless we’re talking about little white lies, they always converge. Mitt Romney lies on teevee, ergo, he is a liar.
But I was under the impression that Chait is saying what Mittens is doing isn’t a big deal. And frankly, Chait is stupid for saying such.
And I was agreeing with you.
He certainly plays one on the tee vee machine. As for Boo’s obvious point,I have never, ever, ever seen Romney handle a remotely confrontational question well, even in a friendly setting like Fox. His instant response is to get pissy and tight. It really is utterly amazing that he is so very bad at this. The concept of this guy being on a debate stage with President Obama and not coming off utterly destroyed is not conceivable.
After his cheesy grits comment and references to all the sports team owners he knows, I’m starting to think Mitt Money is working for the Obama campaign. I’m not mentioning his deeply offensive the rain gear comment.
I have never, ever, ever seen Romney handle a remotely confrontational question well, even in a friendly setting like Fox.
Lack of practice. In the corporate world, you just call security and the offender is hustled from the building.
It is my impression that Mitt Romney doesn’t do a whole lot of interviews.
Someone should ask him what he’s done for the past 4 years? Once Cranky McSame lost, did he start studying and prepping for this race? Appears not. Also, despite her working for Faux Noise, Megyn Kelly is no better than #OWS, in Mittens’ eyes. When was the last time Mittens was interviewed by someone he thought was beneath him?
Not a big point, but it’s actually up to 7 1/2 years now that Romney’s been running full-time for president. (Even Republicans in Massachusetts will tell you that he was a part-time governor the second half of his term.)
if your ass can’t handle the likes of Megan Kelly…you are indeed weak.
the problem is that Willard has never been in a position where he didn’t expect someone to roll over for him.
he folds like a cheap suit when someone comes at him over his lies.
Where would he have learned the requisite line of patter?
Captains of industry don’t have to give interviews. There are entire squadrons and platoons of corporate communications specialists for that.
It’s only tawdry little people, or the desperately needy, like politicians, that have to talk to reporters one-on-one.
Mitt does the kind of talking that matters — to meetings. Sometimes board meetings, sometimes at-Davos-meetings. Ans to other important people.
This is what run-the-country-like-a-business means.
Yep. As a member of the business elite Mitt is used to people kowtowing to him, not challenging him. Awkward questions are referred to the PR department or avoided altogether. Having the right to set the agenda and ask the questions of others is a sign of high social/organisational status. Underlings speak when spoken to, or in support of the main man.
Strategic business management is about creating the frame for discourse, not arguing with others as an equal. Mitt can declaim his agenda. He cannot engage with people with another frame entirely. How can they not just acknowledge his obvious superiority and shut up?
If you grow up a member of the elite, you never have to justify yourself. You OWN people. You LIKE to fire them. You KNOW people who can get you want you want. Businesses are not democracies, and they’re not about the the employees who work in them at the owners bidding. A business owner doesn’t have to justify his decisions or have any particular expertise.
An owner rules as of right, and as people are just corporations, you can own people in the same way you own stock.
We the
PeopleHelp of the United States….I’ve been thinking along those same terms. I keep watching him reverting to his comfort zone whenever he’s cornered by levelling his listeners. He wants them to grasp that he is superior and their role is to be inferior. By blurting out that he knows NASCAR owners and they are his friends he’s subconsiously telling himself as well as the crowd that he’s the controller and they simply are not.
He also seems uncomfortable involving the crowds with their own stories of life and sharing from one meet n greet to the next what he’s learning.
I guess that’s it. He doesn’t seem willing or able to learn from the people.
Sure, but at least W. knew how to “connect” with people. It was 100% phony, sure. But at least plenty of people could halfheartedly believe it. No one believes it with Mittens.