Jimmy Carter gives Mitt Romney an unexpected boost

In an interview Wednesday, Jimmy Carter said he'd be 'comfortable' with a Romney presidency – and inadvertently highlighted a problem for President Obama: Many Democrats don't think Mitt Romney is scary.

Jeff Haynes/Reuters
Former president Jimmy Carter listens during the 12th World Summit of Nobel Peace Laureates in Chicago, Illinois, April 23, 2012. Carter on Wednesday offered up a notably charitable assessment of President Obama's chief opponent, Mitt Romney.

Former President Jimmy Carter hasn't been involved with electoral politics for some time now, so perhaps he didn't realize the significance of his remarks. 

Then again, maybe he'd finally had enough of Republicans saying over and over that "Obama is the worst president since Jimmy Carter" with Democrats essentially responding, "no, no, he's much better."  

Whatever the reason, Mr. Carter raised some eyebrows Wednesday by offering up a notably charitable assessment of President Obama's chief opponent, Mitt Romney.

Asked for his thoughts on a Romney presidency in an interview Wednesday with MSNBC, Carter said that while "he'd rather have a Democrat," he would be "comfortable" with Mr. Romney as president because, as he put it, "I think Romney has shown in the past – in his previous years as a moderate or progressive – that he was fairly competent as a governor and also running the Olympics." He also complimented Romney as "a good, solid family man."

We're sure (well, we think we're sure) that Carter meant all this as an above-the-partisan-fray commentary, befitting a former president. But it was not, shall we say, exactly on-message.

In fact, from the Obama campaign's perspective, Carter's remarks couldn't have been more poorly timed – since they came at a point when Democrats have been trying to move away from the "Mitt Romney is a flip-flopper" message in favor of a "Mitt Romney is waaaay to the right of most Americans" theme.

The reasons for this pivot are clear: While Romney's past moderate positions during his tenure as Massachusetts governor made for some rough going during the Republican primary battle, they're likely to be an asset in the general election, when candidates need to appeal to centrist swing voters. 

And the "flip-flopper" image – while it hurts Romney's overall likabability – could actually help inoculate him against charges that he's an extreme right-winger. If voters believe Romney's policy positions are formed out of political opportunism, rather than conviction, then it's not hard for them to believe that many of the stands he took during the primary fight weren't reflective of what he really believes.

Carter underscored this point exactly in the interview, saying Romney has "gone to the extreme right-wing positions on some very important issues in order to get the nomination." He then added: "What he'll do in the general election, what he'll do as president, I think, is different."

Ultimately, what made Carter's remarks so potentially damaging is that – like all good gaffes – they conveyed an essential truth. Many Democrats, throughout this campaign, have tended to view Romney as more "acceptable" than most of his GOP opponents. They don't particularly like him, but they don't find him truly scary. In fact, back when Texas Gov. Rick Perry first jumped into the race – and was leading in the polls – some Democrats openly talked about easing up on Romney, who seemed a far less frightening alternative to Mr. Perry, should the GOP eventually win the White House. (Of course, that's also how many Democrats felt about George W. Bush – who ran as a "compassionate conservative" – before he took office. And we all know how that turned out.)

The danger for Obama is that if Democrats aren't scared by Romney – and are feeling less enthused about Obama – they may not be motivated to turn out. 

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.