Mitt Romney's do-no-harm campaign strategy

By Richard K. Barry

Nope. Not gonna say a word.

Jonathan Martin and Alexander Burns had a piece over the weekend at Politico in which they point out that Mitt Romney's campaign strategy is to say as little as possible about what he would do as president. Romney's campaign wants to make the election about the economy and Obama's leadership and reasons anything they say about what a President Romney would do will focus attention on the former Massachusetts governor and away from the current president. Martin and Burns note that Romney has been very candid on this point:

"The media kept saying to Chris, 'Come on, give us the details, give us the details,'" Romney has said about New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie's 2009 gubernatorial race. "We want to hang you with them."

It's a lesson the former Massachusetts governor said he took from his first, painful foray into electoral politics in 1994.

"One of the things I found in a short campaign against Ted Kennedy was that when I said, for instance, that I wanted to eliminate the Department of Education, that was used to suggest I don't care about education," Romney told the Weekly Standard this spring.

Thus on immigration Romney only says he would replace Obama's plan with a long-term solution. On balancing the budget, he won't tell us how he'll do it, where the cuts will come. On foreign policy and Afghanistan he offers only platitudes about not apologizing for America and being tough on our enemies, even if he's not sure who those enemies are.

As the story points out, however, Romney is quick to hold Obama to a different standard as evidenced by his spokesperson Andrea Saul who has said, “President Obama has had three and a half years to get this economy moving and put us on a path to a balanced budget, tackle long-term immigration reform and strengthen our military. But all we have seen is broken promises and a lack of leadership with no plans to make things better in the future."

In the short term, the strategy may work, but in the longer run I suspect Romney will have trouble. The Face The Nation interview with Bob Schieffer is a case in point. It was absolutely cringe-making as Romney side-stepped direct question after question about whether or not he would repeal Obama's actions on immigration reform.

And criticizing Obama for not having a plan, particularly when Obama's plans have been continually thwarted by Congress, is only going to remind people that Romney has no plan.

Sadly, a slicker performer might be able to get away with offering few specifics, but Mitt Romney is anything but a slick performer. On top of that, news coverage is so extensive in our 24-hour news cycle that failing to answer questions in interview after interview will start to look even more absurd than it does now. It won't take much for a savvy creative team to string together numerous instances in which Romney fails to address what he would do in office. I can't wait to see that series of ads. And just think of what Jon Stewart would do with it.

It's a question, though. Can you run for the presidency in 2012 by criticizing the record of the incumbent and his supposed failure to articulate a plan while offering virtually no specifics of your own? That's obviously Romney's plan. I only hope my belief it won't work is based on more than wishful thinking.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)