Be sure you read the detailed response of our own Kyle Hampton below

There's been a bit of discussion comparing Mitt Romney to Phil Gramm. Most recently Steve Kornacki in the New York observer tries his hand at it.

In an excellent response, poster HeavyM at Race42008 makes these excellent rebuttals:

Why Mitt Romney Isn’t Phil Gramm - The Conclusive Decision

1. Phil Gramm raised $19 million total for his entire campaign, in an era where there were no limits on campaign donations. Indeed, much of that ($4.1 million) was raised in one night by hitting up huge corporate donors. In contrast, Mitt Romney has raised $21 million in just three months, and people were limited to a maximum contribution of $2,300 - meaning Romney has a much larger and much more grass roots base of support.

2. Phil Gramm’s campaign was well known and well maligned for its deficits in the areas of structure and intellect. In contrast, Romney’s campaign thrives on those very two areas.

3. Phil Gramm often trailed his opponents by 30-40 points in the polls, and sometimes nearly 50 points. In contrast, Romney is polling within 15 points nationally according to Rasmussen, is within 3-17 in Iowa according to who you ask, and is within 6-7 or tied for the lead in New Hampshire according to different polls.

4. Phil Gramm constantly misspoke about the abortion issue during his campaign, a la Rudy Giuliani, saying that although he was pro-life, he wouldn’t make that a part of his campaign, earning the ire of socons everywhere. He even hired pro-choice staffers. In contrast, Mitt openly talks about abortion and his pro-life conversion and recognizes its importance in the race.

5. Phil Gramm ran as a fiscal conservative, but was maligned by his opponents, the Democrats, and the media for bringing home huge amounts of pork for his homestate of Texas (as well as his own actual bragging about how much he was bringing in for TX). In contrast, Mitt Romney is running as a fiscal conservative who governed fiscally in Massachusetts and is known as a waste-eliminator.

6. Phil Gramm suffered several scandals coming to light during the campaign, including his “unknowingly” funding a porn production to the tune of $7,500 and being involved in some very shady quid pro quo Savings and Loans deals. In contrast, Mitt Romney is known as the squeaky clean candidate in this race - the worst dirt anyone has on him is that he once donated $250 to a Democrat in a primary campaign.

7. Phil Gramm was known as harsh and cutthroat during his Senate tenure and on the campaign trail, and was known to berate his staff and his aids. In contrast, Mitt Romney is personable, charismatic, and likable, and definitely not known as mean by any stretch.

8. Let’s be honest, here… Phil Gramm was kind of an ugly dude. Mitt Romney, on the other hand, well… it’s the hair, baby.

That should put this issue to rest permanently.

We couldn't say it any better!

Labels: Phil Gramm

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