Your Research is Bad, and You Should Feel Bad!
January 17, 2012
The leaked McCain ‘08 book on Romney is a game changer in American politics. No, not because of its attacks; any of its useful information has already been replicated thrice-over by various Democratic campaigns and committees. Rather, the book stands testament to an important truth: Republican researchers are an embarrassment to the trade.
It all makes sense now. The Republican smear machine of lore, the fearsome Karl Rove, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, Koch Brothers and vast right wing conspiracy aren’t vicious, they’re just incompetent.
Then again maybe I could be wrong. It could be the biggest gaping vulnerability in Mitt Romney’s record is that his explanation for being pro-life is kind of lame.
Reading this exercise in paid incompetence is infuriating and almost physically painful so here is a brief list of its multiple failures:
Burying the lede. Here is, I kid you not, the very first attack Team McCain wanted everyone to know about Romney. If there is anything about Mitt Romney you should know, this should be it:
Romney says he changed his mind on abortion meeting with Harvard stem cell researcher – Romney claims the doctor said scientists “kill” embryos after 14 days, but doctor later said Romney “mischaracterized my position.”
That isn’t even an attack. Even to set up Romney as a flip-flopper on baby murder it’s a failure. Here, free advice (apologies to my fellow Democrats for snitching to Republicans on basic competence):
Romney changed his position on abortion
- Romney changed his mind based on a “mischaracterized” statement from a Harvard scientist.
- Romney previously supported abortion on demand.
You see how that lays out the basic theme, then explains why the attack is relevant to one’s target audience (in this case, Republican primary voters)?
This goes on. The top “economic” attack? “State spending increased at well over rate of inflation under Romney’s watch, estimated at 24% - more than $5 billion – over Romney’s final three years.” Are you kidding me? Jobs, taxes, job-killing taxes anyone?
Secondary sources as validators. “Romney raised state fees and taxes more than $700 million per year, according to independent experts.” “2006 report issued by quasi-public Massachusetts Technology Collaborative warned the state was losing its grip as leader in “innovation economy” and that tech job was alarmingly slow.” “Massachusetts’ corporate tax climate now ranks 47th in the nation, according to the Tax Foundation.” This is laziness. This is what I would expect from an impoverished campaign running its research operation off of interns and the spare time of press secretaries.
Romney either raised taxes by over $700 million, or he did not. This has nothing to do with “independent experts.” Your researchers ARE the “independent experts.” You hire them to, you know, find stuff.
Meaningless statements. “Romney has no foreign policy experience.” “Romney hedged on endorsing troop surge and has been criticized for not talking enough about Iraq.” “Romney left the state GOP weaker than when he took over as governor, with the party described as being ‘at its weakest point in years.’” These are not useful statements, the first one doubly so as it is a negative. What has Romney not done that is “foreign policy experience”? How did he hedge? These are questions with answers. Answers that would be helpful to your campaign. Answer them in the executive summary.
Really bad mistakes. “During June 2006 presidential debate, Romney incorrectly claimed weapons inspectors were not allowed to enter Iraq before the 2003 U.S. invasion.” This is how bad press releases happen. This is how lost news cycles happen. Your research is there for communications people to copy and paste. Yes they should probably eyeball it, but again, that’s not the job of communications. That’s research. At least look over the top attacks for these kinds of typos, because that’s what everyone actually reads.
Phone: (773) 800-9442 | Fax: (773) 326-0653 | Email 3rd Coast