The GOP has been told all along the story that Mitt Romney is more electable than any other candidate, Republican or Democrat.
It’s a story that I never really understood, except if one would promote Mitt as the type of non-ideological, banking-oriented technocrat that Europe’s embracing who raises taxes and spending in the name of deficit control.
Sure, Mitt’s a good family man apparently, and the GOP always has a soft spot for the Horatio Alger story that Mitt claims to represent. Taken together the cumulative is supposed to add up to unbeatable at the polls, especially when compared to Obama’s anti-American resume, presidency and campaign.
But in the last two weeks, Newt Gingrich has shown at least two of the Romney storylines to be myths- at least as to electability. And Newt accomplished this not with his double digit win in South Carolina, but with his attack on Romney’s experience at Bain Capital, combined with Mitt’s notable ideological flaws. .
While the GOP establishment has been busy denouncing Newt as promoting “class warfare” by his attacks on Mitt and Bain, they’ve missed the bigger picture issue that rank and file GOP voters have responded to: Mitt Romney’s experience doesn’t make him the anti-Obama. Rather, Mitt’s Wall Street past, combined with his record as governor of Massachusetts, represent the alliance between government and business that has led to runaway spending no matter which side has been in power.
Sure, Washington is to blame for most of the mess, but Wall Street has been complicit too. Behind every Solyndra loan was a commercial bank- in Solyndra’s case the Federal Financing Bank- that benefited from the risk free- for them- loans. Behind the financing of every budget deficit are more fees for Wall Street.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? They operated as a giant Ways and Means committee for Wall Street to off-load America’s housing risk on to the government. To be sure, Wall Street was just maximizing profits, as it’s supposed to. But is Romney the guy who’s going to shut down the Combine between business and government?
This from Scott Rasmussen: