Steve Kornacki, an organizer for Unity08 (a group that advocates a bipartisan Presidential ticket in 2008) rehashes the same hit material on Mitt Romney that we’ve all heard before:

“But Mr. Romney’s political and financial positioning at this early stage actually invites a parallel to Phil Gramm and his lavishly funded—and epically catastrophic—quest for the G.O.P. nomination in 1996.”

“And it’s only a matter of time before Mr. Romney, who is blessed with a more agreeable personality than Mr. Gramm, sees his early appeal to conservative donors
undercut by YouTube”

“But in this era of viral video, how can Mr. Romney claim the “conservative’s conservative” mantle when he’s left such a vivid, meandering trail?”

You know, same old stuff. But the line that stood out to me was earlier in the piece:

“There is reason to believe that Mr. Obama’s exalted standing could be of the lasting variety, since his financial support indicates an enviable mix of grass-roots fervor and professional muscle.

But Mr. Romney’s view from the top may be very short-lived indeed.”

Somehow this is Kornacki’s astute analysis: Obama’s numbers mean something while Romney’s don’t. Then comes the tie in with Phil Gramm. There is no explanation as to why Romney’s numbers are meaningless besides the strained attempt to parallel the Gramm campaign. I mean no disrespect to Senator Obama, who in fact does have very enviable numbers both on the total amount raised and the number of donors. However, the attempt to paint Romney as a Gramm reincarnate is misguided to say the least. Did they both have successful fundraising? Yes. Are they both conservative? Yes. But the same comparison could be made to a number of candidates, past and present. Thus, if these were the only two criteria to compare one unfavorably to Phil Gramm, then Kornacki has unnaturally narrowed the field. Kornacki also glosses over the differences between Romney and Gramm, even the ones exposed in his own piece:

“Mr. Gramm, who was fond of noting that he’d flunked the third, seventh, and ninth grades…”

Does this sound like Romney? Or maybe this is Romney:

“The reasons were myriad: over-inflated expectations, strategic miscalculations, prolonged blundering on a politically sensitive topic in New Hampshire, and an obscene “burn rate” of campaign cash with no discernible benefits in return.”

None of these descriptors that Kornacki uses to describe Gramm match Romney. Indeed, in reading the article, it becomes painfully apparent that Kornacki is projecting. He wants Romney to be Gramm and so tries to parallel Gramm’s failed presidential bid. But wanting it to be so does not make it so. If Kornacki were more honest with himself he might see more parallels between a current candidate for president that raised the most cash, is a second term senator, faces inflated expectation, prolonged blundering on the most politically sensitive topic of the day (Iraq), and panders to the senator’s base: Hillary Clinton.

Labels: fundraising, New York Observer, Phil Gramm, Steve Kornacki