…and I don’t mean that in a bad way. I’ve argued for some time that some of Romney’s core personality traits are his slow, deliberate, methodical, risk-averse pragmatism. His speech was basically that. Here are some quick, scattered reactions presented in no particular order:
- Romney spent the bulk of his acceptance speech making “shout-outs” to three specific groups: women, immigrants, and disaffected 2008 Obama voters. Not a bad strategy given that Romney is currently at a 40% polling disadvantage among Latinos and 10% disadvantage among women. Unfortunately for Romney, I don’t think that either of those groups will budge much in the next two months so long as Romney continues to support policies like “self-deportation”… and it remains to be seen how many disaffected Obama voters are disaffected enough to vote for a Republican (my educated guess: not many).
- There were three whole sentences on social issues toward the end. That pretty much mirrors what he wrote in his No Apology campaign book. Social conservatives beware: I don’t think Romney will be a culture warrior president.
- About the “personalizing” of the candidate effect: more details of Romney’s religion were covered earlier in the evening, but two hours before his address. Those who don’t know Mitt already weren’t watching C-SPAN at that point, so I’m curious to see if the Romney campaign will be promoting those Mormon speakers later in the campaign.
- On Clint Eastwood.
- “And let me make this very clear – unlike President Obama, I will not raise taxes on the middle class.” Sigh… Some independent analysis have concluded that Romney’s plan would do that very thing (raise taxes on middle class). And even though he didn’t have as many whoppers as his running mate the night before, there were many subtle inaccuracies. See here, here, and here for starters.
- Overall, I thought the speech was cautious, deliberate, and risk-averse. Just like Romney.