opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Susan Estrich
25 Nov 2015
God Bless America

With images of the carnage in Paris and the shuttering of Brussels flashing on every screen, it is hard to … Read More.

20 Nov 2015
Can We Talk About a Frozen Embryo?

I'm more than a little reluctant to write this column. Whatever I write will be interpreted through another lens:… Read More.

18 Nov 2015
Ben and Bernie's World

In the wake of the horrors in Paris, it only made sense to change the focus of Saturday night's Democratic … Read More.

Mitt Romney: Conservative Extremist?


One of the first things I teach my undergraduate students is how to listen to the campaign talking heads and figure out what the poll said. That is, the poll that led to the strategy that led to the talking points that you're hearing from the various campaign talking heads almost in unison. This week, for example: Mitt Romney, conservative extremist.

Catch it. Axelrod (David, super-strategist). Cutter (Stephanie, deputy campaign manager). Biden (Joe), even. Romney is "extreme" on tax policy, foreign policy, immigration policy. You can catch the word "extreme" in all the comments.

I haven't seen these polls, but I've seen enough to know what they're saying: Swing voters aren't into extremes. That's why they're swing voters. They are basically, for want of a better term, moderate.

So what do you do when you're running against a candidate who, coming off of the primaries, isn't very well known? Easy. Fill in the blanks before he can. Convince swing voters that he is precisely what they don't want: an extremist.

Been there.

Back in 1988, the last time a Massachusetts governor was nominated for president, most Americans actually thought he was a moderate, which was why he was running ahead of then-Vice President Bush in the polls. Unlike Romney, he had a "good war" in the primaries. He ended up beating candidates who were somewhat (Dick Gephardt) and very much (Rev. Jesse Jackson) more liberal than he was. So the Bush team smartly moved, very quickly, to paint him as a capital-L liberal. And it worked. Big time.

Twenty-four years later, I'm sure the polls are telling the Obama folks that the easiest guy for them to beat is a capital-E extreme capital-C conservative. So off they go.

There's just one difference.

Michael Dukakis was, and is, a liberal. Proudly. Painting him as one was both easy and authentic. It worked because it was true.

Romney is a much tougher sell as an extreme conservative.

Can we talk? Extreme conservatives don't get elected in Massachusetts.

Liberals and lobsters. If Romney were an extreme conservative, he would have locked up the Republican nomination in February, not April.

National Public Radio did a story this past week about the new Obama "extreme conservative" offensive. They were focused on Ohio, which is as good a place to focus as any. They interviewed both Republicans and Democrats. And here's the striking thing: None of the folks they interviewed thought Romney was an extreme conservative. The conservatives, as a matter of fact, weren't quite convinced that he was conservative enough. Seriously, what kind of extreme conservative would have successfully promoted "RomneyCare" and generally supported gay rights and women's rights?

The only problem with a good strategy is that it might not actually fit the guy you're running against.

Can I see Romney as a hopeless opportunist? Sure. All things to all people. A liberal in Massachusetts. A conservative in New Hampshire. Hard core in March, moderate in August. As they used to say in Massachusetts, he wasn't pro-choice or anti-choice; he was multiple-choice. Multiple-choice Mitt. That works. The only problem is that people think all politicians are opportunists. Being an extreme conservative is much worse — or, from the Obama perspective, much better.

Can I see Romney as a hopelessly out-of-touch rich guy, the boy from Bain, the man with the Cadillacs and the horses and the offshore investments and the friends who own (and don't just root for) NASCAR teams? That works. Lower taxes for money you don't earn? Sure. Bailouts for Wall Street but not for Detroit? Sure.

Only problem is, everybody who runs for president is rich by the time they do. And people don't hate rich people nearly as much as they do extremists.

Here's the thing about presidential politics: At the end of the day, it has to ring true. Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich certainly would have been easier for Obama to beat, because their views really are more extreme. Romney is a hard pill for many conservatives to swallow precisely because he is less conservative than they'd like.

Sometime between now and November, the president's team is going to have to focus on the opponent they've got, instead of the one they would have preferred.

To find out more about Susan Estrich and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at



5 Comments | Post Comment
In a nutshell, the boy barack's campaign against Romney is a premeditated tissue of lies and distortion. No surprise here. The boy's whole personal history, his political history, prior campaigns for State and Federal office and his entire presidency thus far has been one long lie and deception, conceived by, run by and executed by hand picked liars and deceivers [including Estrich] just like the boy.
Comment: #1
Posted by: joseph wright
Wed May 2, 2012 2:54 PM
That's the kind of analysis that makes editorials worth reading. I've always found your material to be thought provoking, even when I profoundly disagree. in this case, no disagreement. Miss you on TV.
Comment: #2
Posted by: Michael Lane
Wed May 2, 2012 4:55 PM
"Sometime between now and November, the president's team is going to have to focus on the opponent they've got, instead of the one they would have preferred."

I'd be happy if they'd just stop campaigning against Bush and Cheney, who haven't been on the ballot since 2004.

Comment: #3
Posted by: Jeff Gunn
Wed May 2, 2012 10:10 PM
Who's the REAL extremist? Romney or Obama? No question about it, the Marxist wins out. When will Susan wake up?
Comment: #4
Posted by: Early
Thu May 3, 2012 5:09 AM
I recently studied a bit of the election of 1800. Campaigns are still built on lies and more lies. Nothing changes. An instructive analysis, Ms Estrich. Give us more like it during the campaign.
Comment: #5
Posted by: Motley Wisdom
Thu May 3, 2012 5:29 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right: comments policy
Susan Estrich
Nov. `15
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 1 2 3 4 5
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Marc Dion
Marc DionUpdated 30 Nov 2015
Jamie Stiehm
Jamie StiehmUpdated 27 Nov 2015
Patrick Buchanan
Pat BuchananUpdated 27 Nov 2015

29 Jan 2014 The State of Our Union

22 Jun 2007 Best Friends

11 Jun 2010 The Value of Experience