Romney's baaack, and with vengeance

22 September 2004

There's a "be careful what you wish for" aspect to the recent exploits of Gov. Mitt Romney. Mocked for his many absences from the state, he has returned with a vengeance, vowing to go all-out to defeat Democratic state reps and senators in November. Democrats, understandably, are cringing. Maybe he should have stayed away.

Many others are cringing as well. Mitt's a new kind of Massachusetts Republican: harsh, partisan and aggressive. We remember Bill Weld, Paul Cellucci and Jane Swift with affectionate nostalgia. Romney, on the other hand, looks more and more like, well, a Tom Delay - a take-no-prisoners kind of fellow who would just as soon kick sand in your face as build castles together.

True, Romney has been elsewhere for the last few months. He went to Lake Winnipesaukee for vacation. He wrote a book (immodestly titled "Turnaround: Crisis, Leadership and the Olympic Games") and went on tour to promote it. He took a trip to Athens to inspect the Olympics (just in case the Greeks had a crisis that might require some leadership). He spent a week at the Republican National Convention in New York, making a big speech and dropping in at various state delegation parties.

The governor's globetrotting ways prompted lots of jokes (one group distributed fliers with Romney's face on a milk carton and the question, "Have you seen me?"). The Democratic Party accused the governory is being "disengaged." The argument, I suppose, was that Romney wasn't focused on Massachusetts and that his personal ambitions were interfering with the vital affairs of the commonwealth.

Actually, I thought it a good summer. With Romney gone and the Legislature off, the state seemed to coast along just fine. And let's face it: It isn't Romney's national ambitions or his shilling for a presidential candidate that bothers so many. We have a long tradition of pols looking elsewhere - Mike Dukakis, Paul Tsongas, Ted Kennedy and, of course, John Kerry come instantly to mind. And if Romney were out on the hustings boosting Kerry's candidacy, the Democrats would all be thrilled.

The problem, really, isn't one of ethics or attention to the job. It's that Romney's a Republican in a Democratic state and he's aggressively supporting an incumbent president against a hometown guy.

The problem, in other words, is political. A recent Boston Globe poll suggested as much, with Romney's favorable rating falling from 61 percent in the spring to 54 percent today. That's not much of a drop, and it's hardly a surprise - is there any other state that has such a great animus against George W. Bush? Still, the governor's political team couldn't let it stand.

So Romney returned, vowing to wage war on Democratic incumbents. This has been a long-standing plan and, with 134 contested races (a 14-year high) and a promise to spend millions, it has put Democrats on edge. The talking points are familiar: rolling back the state income tax rate, pushing for structural reforms and beating up on the Democratic establishment, which means taking on Senate President Robert Travaglini and House Speaker Thomas Finneran.

In truth, I'm not sure Democratic incumbents should worry too much. Many have noted that the GOP candidates aren't, as a group, particularly strong, and Romney almost seems to be conceding in advance when he says it would be "a victory" to pick up even one seat. Still, facing a challenger is never a pleasant experience. Moreover, it is yet another sign that Romney is far different from the Republicans to which Massachusetts is accustomed.

To a degree, most of those who follow state politics keep trying to put Romney into the Weld box, thinking him another version of that genial governor's centrist politician. But Romney is the opposite. Despite campaigning against State House leaders, Weld worked effectively with them. That comity, legislators say, is now gone. There is little communication and little compromise. On both sides, politics have turned acrimonious.

All of which makes for some uncomfortable times. Yet as uncomfortable as it may be, Romney may be on to something. The old model - of GOP acquiescence to the Democratic hegemony - kept state Republicans on the sidelines, trading off real power for minor influence. Romney, plainly, is no longer willing to do that. Whether it's for reasons of national ambition, personal belief or mere tactics, he's adopted a new model, the confrontational approach so effectively used by national Republicans. He doesn't want compromises; he wants wins. And whether it's campaigning for Bush or governing the state day-to-day, the only way he wins is when Democrats lose.

Ah, for the days when the state's political leaders would sit down, hash out problems and make things happen. As long as Romney is governor, I suspect, those days won't be returning.