Who is Mitt Romney's worst enemy?

Mitt Romney (left) in Nevada. Photo: February 2012 Mitt Romney can be clumsy over the concerns of the middle class, which he says is his focus

The Republican rodeo and we - camp followers from the media - have trekked from the snowy mountains of New Hampshire to the beaches of Florida, from the smallest of small towns on Iowa's flat plains to the refined elegance of Charleston in South Carolina.

But the view from early February, after the result from Nevada, looks exactly like the outlook on New Year's day, when my travels began. In a sense, nothing has changed since last summer.

All along, most people have thought Mitt Romney would probably end up as the man taking on Barack Obama in November.

It is now even more probable. I expect there will be more hiccups like the South Carolina result, and I wouldn't rule out another Newt revival. But few would bet their house against Mitt making it.

Given the numbers of self-declared Tea Party supporters who voted for him in Florida, Republican fears that come the autumn right wingers will simply sit on their hands and not vote seem fanciful. That is not the problem.

This strange ultra democratic exercise in internal democracy will leave its mark.

The way that Mitt and Newt have torn chunks out of each other leaves not only scars but wounds that can fester and weaken.

Gingrich's attacks on Romney's wealth and they way he earnt it, will be used again and again in Democratic ads.

It is powerful not because the gravitates of the former speaker will carry weight with undecided voters. It is that the nature of Gingrich's charges chime exactly with the image of Romney that the Democrats will push: out of touch, elitist, too rich to understand ordinary Americans.

But, unfortunately for the Republicans, Newt is not the only one reinforcing the stereotype.

Romney himself does a pretty good job of it. Indeed he has a remarkable capacity to underline the charges against him.

The latest blunder was when he told ANN that he "was not concerned about the very poor". Yes, that is taken out of context. He's not concerned with the very poor because there is a safety net.

It was part of a sentence when he also said he wasn't concerned about the very rich. His point was that he was focused on the more than 90% in the middle.

Fair enough. But politicians have to be canny enough to avoid such pitfalls.

Romney is not Herman Cain. He is not unseasoned, he doesn't say stupid things because he has never really thought much about them. I suspect he really saw no problem suggesting that he didn't care about the poor.

Just as he saw no problem betting $10,000 in an imaginary wager. Or saying he liked firing people. Or that he was unemployed.

For such an experienced politician with a reputation for caution, he can be unusually clumsy and cloth-eared over the concerns of the middle class which he says is his focus.

The White House will exploit that to the full.

Mark Mardell Article written by Mark Mardell Mark Mardell Presenter, The World This Weekend

Could Greece prompt wholesale change in Europe?

The triumph of Syriza in Greece could lead to renewed tensions - and widespread political change - across Europe, says Mark Mardell.

Read full article

More on This Story

US Presidential Election 2012

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external Internet sites


This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
  • rate this

    Comment number 338.

    chryses @337

    Even with 400ch 'excuse', a shame

    Must try harder, NOT 'against foetus', for mutual understanding

    To clear the decks, for survival & real action, millennia perhaps

    Meanwhile, if 'male debt' & 'rich debt' not straightway seen, & 'highest arbitration' SO resented, & 'the freedom to reject' of SPECIFIC 'value' HERE, WHAT 'the coercion' of federal TOLL abolition?


  • rate this

    Comment number 337.

    All for All (323),

    "disagree"? ..."

    Yes, we do.

    "... Moral stance: share 'costs' of 'benefit' in reproduction ..."

    Ethical stance: The value of the freedom of rejecting the proposed coercion of the People by the Federal Government is greater than the potential benefits of the proposed entitlement program.

  • rate this

    Comment number 336.

    Mitt's Mormonism will influence his presidency, should it happen, in complex ways. I understand that becoming the country's leader would enhance his ascension in the Mormon hierarchy in ways I certainly do not fully comprehend. For example, he would anticipate inhabiting a seriously big planet after he dies. So he would rule the country in directions to help all Mormons make money and gain power.

  • rate this

    Comment number 335.

    mscracker @331

    Trying to be difficult to disagree with, sorry in 400ch difficult trying for common ground

    NOT to belittle OUR dilemmas, including 'foetus v woman' & 'abortion v murder'

    BUT to appeal for humane balance, suggested to be 'not in isolation'

    IF 'our best' can lead, to Equality, Trust, Security: LESS 'call' for 'impossible' individual decisions

    Still need for humane balance in Law

  • rate this

    Comment number 334.

    mscracker @327
    Madison quote

    Strong words, but carefully chosen…

    Neither church nor state to "usurp" power of The People?

    "Guard against (unholy) alliance", church AND state OVER The People?

    Govt to defend "public order" AND for "each sect" its LEGAL RIGHTS, the rights approved by The People?

    WHO then ARE 'The People'?

    The Equal People, or the Slaves of Mammon?


Comments 5 of 338



Copyright © 2015 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.