Reflecting on Romney's Victory in Michigan's Primary

Although many liberals and progressives (and those who unwittingly do their business for them) are going to try to continue to extend the race for the Republican nomination, Mitt Romney's victory in Michigan should end this long and draining contest. From my hotel room in Cheboygan (I was up north this week visiting my grandparents) I managed to watch his victory speech after winning the primaries in Michigan and Arizona, and from that and his overall conduct in the campaign I think that we learned some important things about Mitt Romney from this victory.

First, when Mitt gives speeches and speaks with people he provides clear objectives and lays his views and policies clearly out, although sometimes in a way that lacks passion or in a way that is too complicated for your average voter to understand. Either when delivering prepared statements using a teleprompter as he did in his victory speech on Tuesday or when responding to question and answer periods with no preparation as I saw him do the week before at an event in Royal Oak, Mitt Romney is able to address a range of questions and issues in a manner that is more clear than either his GOP competitors (with the exception of Newt) or Barack Obama (who after four years as President still knows very little about how government really works or operates, understanding only power and rhetoric).

Second, I think we learned from the Michigan primary that Mitt will continue to keep his eye on the real goal of this election- defeating Barack Obama. While his rivals attack him in their speeches and statements (and may even win an occasional victory against him), he personally does not frequently engage in this sort of behavior and in his public speeches and at rallies he focuses almost entirely on comparing his resume and policy proposals with the results of the last four years of an Obama Presidency. He is focused in a very clear way at beating Obama, and in doing so he is still beating his opponents- one can only hope that voters recognize this and reward him with the nomination, because if he gets dragged into the gutter of negativity and attacking speeches like his opponents, that will take away from his appeal and damage the GOP in general.

Third, from Romney's schedule and the sheer volume of his actions we can get a taste of the kind of worker he would be in the White House. Right now our President is perhaps the laziest President we've had in many years, working few hours, taking many vacations, and frequently playing golf. The bulk of the 'work' that President Obama appears to do (from reports from his own people) is giving speeches and making comments on proposals and research that other people come to him with. Imagine a king sitting on a throne, making a pronouncement or favoring a chosen advisers advice, and you get a good picture of President Obama's 'hard' work in office. In comparison, Romney appears to be everywhere, crossing the nation to attend debates, go to a NASCAR race, make speeches all over Michigan, and somehow find time to spend with his family (I met his niece and she told me about the nice lunch and enjoyable lunch she had with her uncle last week when he was in town). Romney works long hours, shakes a lot of hands, patiently signs every sheet put in his face, and moves with strength and energy from place to place. My observations match what people have said about him during his time as Governor or saving the Salt Lake City Olympics or as CEO of Bain- that he is a hard worker and willing to put in the long hours doing real work as President to make our nation better governed.

Fourth, out of all of the candidates that I have heard speak and met, Mitt Romney refers the most to the principle of federalism. Federalism is one of our nation's founding principles and is not just a talking point to him- he truly thinks that people should have more ability to make decisions at the local level regarding their lives. This is one reason why I believe his defense of Romneycare and his attack on Obamacare- healthcare is an issue that was constitutionally left to the states and there is nothing constitutionally wrong with states deciding to tackle healthcare in whatever fashion they wish (although I personally don't like Romneycare). But Obamacare is different- there is nothing in our constitution regarding government control of our individual health choices or health insurance choices- in fact, because health insurance does not cross state lines it is not interstate commerce and even even liberals with a broad and utterly tortured interpretation of the commerce clause can not defend Obamacare on those grounds. Romney as President will spin off many national government functions to the states, and our nation learned a great lesson from the welfare reform debate in the 1990's- that liberals were utterly wrong on all the horrors that would be unleashed if states regained more local control and that conservatives were completely proven correct that more local control would lead to better policies and more people gainfully and happily employed. The success of the Welfare Reform Act in 1996 was not lost on Mitt Romney, and his belief in federalism shows through in his many speeches.

The last observation that I am going to offer after watching Romney campaign in Michigan and win is that he appears to be running a convention campaign that in resembles candidate campaigns in 2004, 2000, 1996, 1992, 1988, etc. By 'conventional campaign' I mean that he is targeting issues and speaking about them and developing policies to address them, and systematically going after Obama on a range of issues and policies. He isn't engaging in an Obama '08 campaign or a Santorum '12 campaign and relying on hope and change and rhetoric and tapping into the culture of an American people- rather he is playing a game of small ball and going to bunt and single his way to victory in the general election. As a government teacher I've watched almost all of the campaign commercials on Living Room candidate and put together units on campaigning and elections, and as a history teacher I've taught about the elections of the past, and Romney's campaign looks the most like these. Obama is going to go small ball in 2012, focusing on individual policies and small gains in a range of measurables to make his case for re-election- and this is going to be a winning strategy and much better than his 2008 hope-and-change and people-fainting and soaring-rhetoric strategy. To continue my baseball metaphor a little further, since we don't have a candidate who can smash rhetorical home runs (like Reagan) and just power to victory on the strength of an amazing resume (like Nixon), it is good to see that we have a Romney who is going to match Obama bunt for bunt, single for single, and engage him and win the election by battling on each specific issue and drawing clear contrasts in policy decisions.

As you can see, Romney's victory in Michigan showed me some important things, and I know that the media is going to try to spin it differently because they want to keep this thing going and bleed Romney dry of resources, but this government teacher saw some very positive signs out of Michigan and hopes that readers in other states will continue to vote for him and move him through these primaries and to victory.

Please read my endorsement of him from earlier this week for more of my thoughts on why Romney is the best candidate for the GOP in 2012.