Romney should play kingmaker, not candidate

I like Mitt Romney. I think he's a decent human being who happens to be a terrible politician.

I was reading the Washington Post's excellent reporting (really, Robert Costa owns the Right, and no other reporter is in the same league, much less ballpark) on Romney, and I was struck by the closing.

Another GOP bundler received a phone message from Romney on Monday in which he said, “What you saw in the paper is true.” Romney added that he was giving “some consideration” to running again “for a lot of reasons.” Among the factors he cited: “I have a strong sense of duty.”

One could certainly have said that Romney's decision to run in 2012 was borne out of a sense of duty. The 2012 Republican field was the weakest of my lifetime. The only two good candidates on paper--Tim Pawlenty and Rick Perry--crashed and burned in devastating fashion. And a handful of viable Republicans with relevant experience--guys like John Thune, Mitch Daniels, and Bobby Jindal--opted out of running entirely. That left a field of also-rans. That field, without Mitt Romney, could have produced a true disaster for the party. Romney could have argued that he was needed.

But that is most clearly not the case for 2016, when Republicans have at least seven or eight particularly strong candidates. Two in particular stand out.

- Marco Rubio, the junior senator from Florida, is a wonderful speaker and has a great backstory. He has also engaged with domestic policy issues moreso than most senators, embracing the ideas of thoughtful "reform conservatives" like Yuval Levin and Ramesh Ponnuru. On paper, Rubio is a star.
- Scott Walker, the second-term governor from Wisconsin, is a less compelling speaker than Rubio, but his stylistic contrast from Obama--a move, let's say, from sizzle to steak--could be exactly what the country wants in 2016. Walker has gone through the "fire" three times, winning in Wisconsin while taking on the entrenched teacher's union and a robust, powerful Democratic machine. Walker is basically The Man, when it comes to getting things done on the right.

The truth is that both Rubio and Walker would be impressive nominees. I have my own biases towards governors, so for now, I would support Walker over Rubio. But they are far stronger candidates than Romney.

Meanwhile, Romney's negatives remain substantial. He has had two bites at the apple and lost both times. His unfavorable ratings exceed his favorable ratings. He doesn't speak conservatism as a first language, so he often ties himself into a pretzel while making conservative arguments. His major policy accomplishment as governor was the health care plan that Republicans are desperate to destroy. He is largely distrusted by the base. He'll be 69 years old in 2017, throwing away an obvious opportunity to showcase youth and vigor against Hillary Clinton, who has been in national politics for what feels like forever.

In 2012, Romney may well have been the indispensable man for the party. But in 2016, he is clearly not.

Romney and his supporters may argue that only his network and his resources can defeat Jeb Bush and then Hillary Clinton. This may be true. This, however, neglects the role that Romney himself can play: he can throw his support, immediately, to one of Rubio or Walker. An endorsement from party heavyweight Mitt Romney would make a huge difference. It would legitimate a so-called "second tier" candidate. It would help direct some of Romney's donors. Moreover, Romney is rich. He could use his own considerable personal wealth to fund a SuperPAC on their behalf.

If Romney really feels a sense of duty to the party and country, he should pick one of these two candidates to back. He could easily win a spot as Secretary of the Treasury, or Secretary of Commerce, or domestic policy chief, or any other high-profile position. It's not president, but if his goal is actually to win, it's a much better option. But it doesn't seem like that's his goal.

One More Thing on Chris Christie

I've been saying for almost a year that I think Christie is a longshot at best for the nomination; in fact, I've used "doomed" as my word of choice, and I still believe that. Two prominent commentators--Nate Silver and Larry Sabato--have offered related thoughts. Yet both have focused on the Christie/Cowboys thing as a negative, to some extent at least. Sabato writes,

Christie’s over-the-top performance in Jerry Jones’ box last weekend, with his bear-hugging of Jones and his jumping up and down while squealing like a schoolgirl, infuriated and disgusted millions (our considered estimate). Still, it would be probably unwise, though somewhat just, to take out the nation’s massive dislike of the Dallas Cowboys on Christie. Yet Christie’s demonstrated aversion to Detroit, and his snubbing of New Jersey-area home teams, may earn him the voters’ rebuke in the Lions’ Michigan, the Giants’ and Jets’ New York, and the Eagles’ Pennsylvania.

Sabato is being tongue-in-cheek here, but there's a kernel of truth to it, I think, at least from his perspective, if I'm reading it right. Silver is more serious, writing,

So, what to make of something like Christie having been spotted in a luxury box in Arlington, Texas, on Sunday, where he joined Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones ­­to watch the Cowboys’ 24-20 comeback win over the Detroit Lions? (Unlike certain politicians, Christie doesn’t seem to have mastered the art of rooting for a team from a swing state.) It seemed like a silly controversy until it was revealed that a company co-owned by the Cowboys was recently awarded a contract by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. 

Whether there’s actual impropriety or just the appearance of it, it was a dumb place for Christie to be seen if he’s contemplating a presidential bid. A presidential campaign is a long and mostly dull thing, and reporters chase down the serious and silly stories alike.

I have my own issues with Christie and the Cowboys, as I've written. But in terms of his chances at the nomination, I think that it doesn't hurt him, and might actually help him, marginally.

Although he is considered a frontrunner, Christie is best thought of as a longshot candidate. Frontrunners can sustain risk-averse strategies; in fact, they may well be the optimal ones. But longshot candidates have to do things that are risky. Christie's best argument at this stage may be something like "refreshing, radical authenticity." It is unlikely to resonate, but that does not mean that it is completely impossible. The governor of New Jersey rooting openly and loudly for the hated Dallas Cowboys could be taken as a sign of that authenticity. Jumping around like an idiot after the Cowboys clinched the win? Definitely authentic. What politician does that, ever?

To win the nomination, at a minimum, Christie needs a bunch of New Hampshireities to say, "Man, Christie's the guy I'd like to have a beer with!" Christie's not going to get votes via issue fidelity, or being the most conservative electable candidate in the very deep field. But he might get there by the sheer force of his personality, if it resonates.

Again, this is a low-likelihood play; Christie is severely disadvantaged by a bunch of things, at this point. But considering his position as a candidate, it is his best chance.

Christie should be himself.

On Chris Christie, the Dallas Cowboys, and Two Americas

As I watched the depressing end to a football game between the Lions and the Cowboys, I saw something that frustrated me more, from the perspective of an American, rather than as a bitter supporter of the New York Giants.

(photo from SBNation.com)

That's Chris Christie, the governor of the state of New Jersey, palling around with the very wealthy owner of the Dallas Cowboys, Jerry Jones, in the owner's suite at AT&T Stadium in Arlington, Texas. Christie claims to be a lifelong Cowboys fan, and I believe him when he says that. I also believe that his enjoyment of the game is genuine, and his jumping in on the hug was entirely normal. (Sports do this to people who really care about them. We jump up, hug, scream, and sometimes even cry, when exciting things happen. To mock someone for that is not really fair.)

So I have no qualms with Christie getting emotional about the Cowboys, or the Mets, or the Rangers, or whatever other sports teams he cares about. And if he wants to share his feelings about sports with us, I have no problem with that, either. (Frankly, I like Christie as a political figure, even if I am very unlikely to vote for him in the Republican primary in 2016. I think he's basically as good a governor as New Jersey will get, and the track record of governors of the state of New Jersey in my lifetime basically bears that out.)

What does bother me, though, is Christie in that owner's suite. (He even went to the locker room after the game.) If Chris Christie were just a regular old attorney in the state of New Jersey pulling in $175,000 a year, there is zero chance that he would ever be in that booth. As governor, though, he has access to situations that he would not be able to get in another line of work.

One of my major objections to politicians these days is that they often take liberties and receive perks that ordinary people cannot even imagine. I see three different categories where this happens, but they are closely related.

1. Politicians hobnob with celebrities, athletes, and other so-called very important people.

Christie is particularly guilty of this, in my judgment. But he's not alone. President Obama is friends with Jay-Z. John Boehner once offered Billy Joel a cigarette. Half of the Democratic Party has spent time with Bruce Springsteen (as has Christie, post-Sandy).

I know that this is the expectation these days, as athletes who win championships visit the White House as a matter of course. But I am asking for us to use a more modest standard. Presidents and politicians can have social lives, but why must they be with famous musicians and actors?

These encounters privilege both the celebrities and the politicians. We would be better off if we stopped offering our tacit approval. 

2. In traveling on campaigns and for fundraisers, security standards result in massive inconveniences for ordinary folks.

Joe Biden's vice presidential motorcade closed the Lincoln Tunnel, New Jersey Turnpike, and Interstate-280 for a fundraiser for Jon Corzine in 2009. In Portland, OR, Biden's campaigning--and some basic planning errors--resulted in the near-total shutdown of the all-important TriMet light rail system.

We see this with lesser VIPs, with teams getting disruptive state police motorcades between hotels and stadiums.

Security concerns are what they are. But there is a line between prudence and disruption. Frankly, "security at any cost!" is not a realistic standard. Hiding in plain sight, in a nondescript car on a highway with an armed guard or two, covers most potential security risks. If a low probability thing like a fatal car accident--or even a planned assault--happens, that is an incredible tragedy. But the country will survive it, and has survived worse. No single politician--besides maybe the president--is so indispensable that citizens should accept massive dislocation so that said politician can get to a fundraiser. The single parent who gets stuck in traffic and has to pay an extra hour to the babysitter does not deserve that. Nor, for that matter, does the person who simply wants to get home to watch Jeopardy, or Monday Night Football, or The Big Bang Theory.

3. As much as we try to avoid it, we see the well-connected avoid prosecution, even in cases where the law is clear.

There was a minor story on the Right a couple of years ago, when David Gregory, then-host of Meet the Press, exhibited a high-capacity gun magazine on his program. Possessing the magazine was illegal in the District of Columbia, where the show was taped. Pretty clear violation, no? Not exactly:

NBC’s David Gregory is off the hook for showing a high-capacity gun magazine on “Meet the Press” and will not be prosecuted, D.C.’s attorney general announced on Friday. 

D.C. attorney general Irvin Nathan on Friday said he would decline to prosecute in the case involving the Sunday show host and any NBC staffers. In a letter to NBC’s attorney Lee Levine, Nathan wrote that after reviewing the matter, his office “has determined to exercise its prosecutorial discretion to decline to bring criminal charges against Mr. Gregory, who has no criminal record, or any other NBC employee based on the events associated” with the broadcast.

The Right blasted the hypocrisy and demanded Gregory's prosecution. If we take a step back, though, it seems pretty clear that Gregory was not violating the spirit of the law, and that the clemency he was shown was a good thing, in terms of justice.

Meanwhile, Shaneen Allen, a law-abiding gun owner from Pennsylvania, acknowledged having a gun in her car during a routine traffic stop in New Jersey. Possessing the gun, unfortunately, violated NJ's gun control laws. After a threatened prison term, a public outcry, and almost a full year in legal limbo, the charges were dropped. But it wasn't like with Gregory, who immediately got the benefit of the doubt from the justice system. Gregory is part of the elite, and Allen is not.

We see this all the time with well-connected people. Drug offenders who are politicians (or related to politicians) get clemency, or suspended sentences, or rehab. Minorities get jail time.

As commentator Sean Davis wrote, in the aftermath of the Eric Garner grand jury decision:

John Edwards was right: there are Two Americas. There’s an America where people who kill for no legitimate reason are held to account, and there’s an America where homicide isn’t really a big deal as long as you play for the right team. 

Unfortunately Eric Garner was a victim in the second America, where some homicides are apparently less equal than others.

In the case of Garner, the police officer gained the benefits of being in the right America. Politicians are in that America. The well-connected in general--and politicians in particular--exploit their status to gain personal benefits that are not available to ordinary people. It is one thing when a rich person spends their money to gain great benefit; it is quite another when a politician gains the trappings of wealth simply because of their elected position.

We cannot stop all of these incidents. But we should be vociferously critical when politicians use their political positions for their own benefit, rather than for the benefit of their constituents. We elect politicians as leaders, but they are ultimately servants in our republic. Ideally, at the end of their terms, they'd quietly return to their farms. We are the bosses. We're not electing them to hang out with the Dallas Cowboys.

If Chris Christie wants to watch the Cowboys, he should do it at home with his family, or with friends, or in a bar, or by himself, just like the rest of us. I fully support him in that. He can jump around and hug whomever he wants. But if he wants to go to the game, he should buy a ticket.