The Romney campaign likes to project an image of great confidence. It sees itself as an organization that doesn’t panic when things go wrong and doesn’t jump when critics, especially nervous Republicans, urge Romney to change direction.
But that doesn’t mean Team Romney ignores advice, and we are now seeing Romney tweak his campaign pitch in response to the concerns of several of those nervous Republicans.
The complaint in recent weeks, as Romney has remained in a tight race with Barack Obama and lingers slightly behind the president in some key states, is that Romney hasn’t presented voters with a concise, understandable plan to improve the economy.
“I think if he came up with something that people thought was a clear plan, one that would actually be executed, that would change this race,” a senior Republican strategist said in a recent interview.
Romney, these critics say, has spent a lot of time criticizing Obama and touting his own resume. All well and good, the critics say, but what is he proposing to make things better?
“It doesn’t require a different set of policies,” a well-known Romney supporter said in another interview. “I think that a much more positive message is there to be delivered.”
Talk like that has virtually consumed some Republican circles in recent days. But it was made more urgent at midweek by the arrival of a poll from Quinnipiac and The New York Times that seemed to suggest many swing state voters simply don’t believe the economy will improve, no matter who is elected president. For the moment, they’re giving the edge to Obama because they think he empathizes with their plight more than his Republican opponent. For Romney, the critical task is to convince those voters that things can get better, and that he can make it happen.
The GOP complaining left some Romney backers a little baffled. Of course he has a plan; what about that famous 59-point economic blueprint? And what about the proposals he laid out before the Republican primary in Michigan? The candidate has put forth lots of ideas, they say.
But critics, and probably some voters, wanted something more digestible — something between the oversimplicity of Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan and the overcomplexity of Romney’s 59-point dissertation.
So on Aug. 2, the campaign rolled out “Mitt Romney’s Plan for a Stronger Middle Class,” which boiled down nearly every domestic policy proposal Romney has made to just five points: energy independence, education, trade reform, deficit cutting and a plan to “champion small business.”
And on that same day, there was Romney, addressing supporters in Golden, Colo., in front of a giant banner that said ROMNEY PLAN. In his remarks, Romney criticized Obama; nothing wrong with that. But he laid out his larger purpose at the very beginning. “Today, I come to talk about making things better,” Romney said, laying out his plan. “If we do those five things, those simple five things ... you’re going to see this economy come roaring back.”
“This is the path to more jobs and more take-home pay and a brighter future for you and your kids,” Romney added. “And I know that because I’ve seen it.”
Romney was clear, sharp and focused. If he stays that way, he’ll likely quiet some of his GOP critics, at least for a while.
But not forever, because there’s something else about the Romney campaign that will likely keep Republicans nervous all the way until Election Day. Romney aides believe strongly that this race will play out like the 1980 campaign, in which President Jimmy Carter led Ronald Reagan for much of the race until Reagan broke through just before the election.
That would fill many Republicans with anxiety and prompt them to offer Romney frantic advice through much of the fall. For example, recently a senior Republican lawmaker noted the Romney campaign’s determination to stick to its long-term plan by asking: “Is it discipline, or is it stupidity?”
We won’t know the answer to that until November. But even as he sticks to his basic strategy, Romney is still working to craft an appeal that will touch those millions of discouraged voters who don’t believe things will improve. He appears to be making progress with plenty of advice from his own side.
• York is chief political correspondent for The Washington Examiner.





Comments (13)
Add commentBlah blah blah
Whatever. I plan to vote for him because he has nice hair.
(I wonder how much he pays for his haircuts?)
I plan to vote for him just
I plan to vote for him just to keep Obama out!
My plan
I'm checking out Gary Johnson the Libertarian.
He's got some nice hair, too.
AND some nice ideas...
Voters
It really doesn't matter who any of us in Alaska vote for. Alaska has most of the time gone Republican, and our 1 electoral won't make a difference anyway. I do think it is a shame that Republicans want a criminal in office.
3 votes
Alaska has 3 electoral votes. Not that that really makes a difference either, but accuracy is good. Reality is that the campaign will take place in nine states. Everything else is simply academic and ideological drivel.
billy
Stay home on election day...you vote means nothing!
for billy
My vote means something to me.
Fortunately for billb even
Fortunately for billb even stupid people's votes count. Perhaps he would like to enlighten the rest of us as to exactly what crime Romney has committed. But he can't, of course. All he has are Democrap talking points downloaded directly into his brain each morning.
I want to hear more on the
I want to hear more on the criminal in office; comment.
Political pundits are as numerous as Starbuck outlets.
I listen to Limbaugh, Beck, Laura, and Medford, among others, on the Right.
And Malloy, Hartman, Miller and Goldman, among others, on the Left.
I am not a fence straddler. Rather I want to know my neighbors on either side of the property line.
The most striking difference between the two oratory styles, in my view, is the level of civility. The Left, by far, takes the prize in profanity. By this I mean unedited profane cusswords one might think would garner the attention of the FCC.
The next striking difference is religion. The Right's (Conservatives) messages are resplendent with faith-based dogma supposedly written in stone by our Founding Fathers.
The Left (or Progressives today), on the other hand, take being secular to whole new levels.
Both are tethered to their core constituencies like the chandeliers aboard the Titanic.
Neither side are viewing outside the purview of their own box, however, otherwise they may see they are no longer the only long-distance runners in the race.
@ken - first off, I don't
@ken - first off, I don't know how you can stand more than 5 minutes of progressive radio - just saying. But where exactly do you find any progressive radio? I thought they were mostly extinct!!
Secondly, could the Conservative radio "faith-based dogma" you speak of be because of this -
From National Review on 7/12 -
78.4% - the percentage of Americans who identify themselves as Christian. The majority of Christians - 51.3 percent are Protestants. The next largest share are Catholics at 23.9 percent.
BTW, Medford = Medved, as in Michael Medved in Seattle
Soooo, if you're not a "fence straddler" which side are you on? It's ok to say you lean conservative - no one will "bite your head off" as Dr. Laura likes to say. Is that the Laura you refer to?
Calypso, I have no interest in how many Americans identify
themselves as Christians, Protestants, Muslims or any other cut of cloth, or place hyphens between allegiances.
I observe, and the one constant I have observed is the need for others to categorize. Once a person can be 'identified' he/she can either be admitted into the fold or dismissed.
I am pragmatic. I do not "lean" conservative or liberal because neither ideologies allow one to return to a standing position.
This has allowed me to take, in my own view, the best all sides have to offer and apply to my own self.
It has also allowed me a better view of how best to tend my own garden.
It's interesting and amusing
It's interesting and amusing how people consider Alaska to be irrelevant in national elections. In the 2000 presidential election Bush beat Gore in the electoral vote 271 to 268. Since the race was won by a three-vote margin, it could be claimed that Alaska was the lynchpin state. Had Gore carried Alaska, the Bush years would have never occurred.