Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Romney’s unknown unknowns

    Romney’s unknown unknowns

    I’ve posted about “unknown unknowns” before, as it is a structure I use in class to discuss how to build a case.  At a press conference about Iraq Donald Rumsfeld famously said:

    “[T]here are known knowns; there are things we know we know.  We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know.  But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don’t know we don’t know.”

    Reacting to Nancy Pelosi’s threat to release as yet unknown information about Newt, Jennifer Rubin uses the “unknown unknown” template to argue:

    But this is one of the central dangers posed by Gingrich’s candidacy: Lots of people who worked on congressional committees, at special interest groups and for him in one capacity or another have plenty of details about what he has done over the years. It is the unknown unknowns, as Donald Rumsfeld put it, that are the most dangerous.

    Rubin is confused.  She is not complaining about Newt’s unknown unknowns, but about his known unknowns.  We know what we do not know.  In fact, Rubin rattles off a list of known unknowns about Newt, such as how much he got paid by which clients, etc.

    Precisely because we know what we do not know about Newt, he is less dangerous as a candidate.  Will the facts, if revealed, that he did “X” in 1996 which was known by Pelosi and others but never part of any public ethics charges really make a difference?  Will the facts, if revealed, that one of Newt’s think tanks made “Y” dollars from some client really create a sea change in public opinion?  Even as to the “personal baggage,” we know it will be made an issue; and if there is more to the baggage than we know, it still is a worry we know about.  Newt’s problems are not unknown unknowns, by any stretch of the imagination.

    An unknown unknown is something beyond our current comprehension, something that would hit us so out of the blue that we would be left to wondering how we could not have imagined such a thing about the candidate.  It would destroy a campaign in an instant, and if revealed after the nomination would hand Barack Obama the election on a silver platter.

    The greatest threat of a destructive unknown unknown comes not from the known-to-be imperfect candidate, but from the seemingly perfect candidate.

    And here is where the risk is with Romney.  What is it that we are not even capable of imagining about him or his past which in an instant could destroy his candidacy?

    Well, you might argue, we know everything about him, he’s been in a presidential campaign before, he has no known skeletons in the closet.  And looking at his persona, it is hard to imagine something terribly wrong aside from known past policies.

    That might be true, but if we are talking about true unknown unknowns, shouldn’t we be worrying about what was in the state records Romney and his assistants tried to destroy when he left office in Massachusetts, Romney staff spent nearly $100,000 to hide records:

    When Romney left the governorship of Massachusetts, 11 of his aides bought the hard drives of their state-issued computers to keep for themselves. Also before he left office, the governor’s staff had emails and other electronic
    communications by Romney’s administration wiped from state servers, state officials say.

    Those actions erased much of the internal documentation of Romney’s four-year tenure as governor, which ended in January 2007. Precisely what information was erased is unclear….

    Romney’s spokesmen emphasize that he followed the law and precedent in deleting the emails, installing new computers in the governor’s office and buying up hard drives.

    However, Theresa Dolan, former director of administration for the governor’s office, told Reuters that Romney’s efforts to control or wipe out records from his governorship were unprecedented.

    Dolan said that in her 23 years as an aide to successive governors “no one had ever inquired about, or expressed the desire” to purchase their computer hard drives before Romney’s tenure.

    The cleanup of records by Romney’s staff before his term ended included spending $205,000 for a three-year lease on new computers for the governor’s office, according to official documents and state officials.

    In signing the lease, Romney aides broke an earlier three-year lease that provided the same number of computers for about half the cost – $108,000. Lease documents obtained by Reuters under the state’s freedom of information law
    indicate that the broken lease still had 18 months to run.

    What was in those records that was so important to erase?  I can’t imagine.

    But we will find out, at the worst possible moment.  Gov. Deval Patrick, Obama’s best buddy, will make sure of it.


    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.


    pyromancer76 | December 6, 2011 at 11:04 am

    Excellent concern. I am concerned about Romney on many levels, especially that he is a “conservative”-sounding statist, a new-fangled “socialist” in my book, emphasizing “efficiency”.

    @JayDick | December 6, 2011 at 10:22 am
    “The parties’ political outlooks are so different now and you really don’t have hardly any conservative Democrats or liberal Republicans. If you vote Democrat, you are voting for a liberal government, no matter the views of the specific candidate.”

    I do wish the term “liberal” was not so ill-used. “Conservative” Democrats might have been called “liberals” at one time — when they were not statists. Liberalism is about freedom, transparency, accountability. Most Conservatives are about preserving our Constitutional liberties. For quite some time the Democratic Party has been about little else than authoritarianism run by political-academic-media elites with corporate types toadying to them for favors, i.e., funding or too-big-to-fail status. Bureaucrats, especially, rule the day. This is not and never has been “liberal” or “liberalism”. They do not deserve the virtue of the term. It belongs to American exceptionalism.

      Awing1 in reply to pyromancer76. | December 6, 2011 at 12:12 pm

      While I don’t share your concern about Romney, I absolutely agree that the term “liberalism” needs to be taken back. It is a great ideal to aim for, and explaining to people what liberalism used to be, Adam Smith’s liberalism, and comparing it to what Democrats try to claim it to be, might be a good way to expose their manipulation of reality and even our lexicon.

      Darkstar58 in reply to pyromancer76. | December 6, 2011 at 1:22 pm

      “Liberal” merely means a vast and open interpretation, where one is willing to discard the norm. So when it is refereed to in the sense of “Government Power”, you get the first Government Liberal, Alexander Hamilton.

      Government Liberalism is about “implied powers” for the “general welfare”, as Hamilton put it. That is the Liberalism most people refer to when complaining about Democrats. And where Democrat (or Democracy) means a living set of rules determined by the people, Liberal Democrat ends up going hand in hand when attempting to work around our Republics Constitution and the Liberties it Grants. (see, Democrat and Democracy are probably the words most misused – especially by those calling themselves Democrats)

      “Liberal”, holding such a vast definition, has also unfortunately been attached to many aspects where “Libertarian” really should have been – and that is where things go awry. It isn’t “Liberal” to say Government should be held accountable, its our “Liberty”. It isn’t “Liberal” to say a man should be able to do as he pleases with his money, its our “Liberty”.

      “Freedom, transparency, accountability” (as you put it) has, and always will be, the Libertarian (Mans Liberties) and Conservative (Constitutional Liberties) platform; as this is what the Constitution was always about – protecting our Freedom from a Federal Government who must be transparent and held accountable to the people. The Founders knew very well that a Government with power will make that power absolute unless held in check; hence our being given a “Constitution of negative rights rights” (like our current president considers it).

      One who wants to change the rules through “implied powers” for the “general welfare” are being “Liberal” with the constitution and ignoring the “Liberties” granted to us.

    Any American who values their freedom and doesn’t vote Republican, or doesn’t vote at all because *their* candidate didn’t make it to the finish line, or would vote for a third party candidate in the 2012 elections, might as well make up a last will and testament and *say goodbye*. How many of us are enthusiastic about not finding George Washington personified in the available Republican candidates? That’s not the point! Let’s do everything we can to find the best of what’s available and get behind that candidate as though everything dear to us depended on it without regard to whatever *dirt* is found. Then we can send Conservatives through the mid-term elections to continue building a base. It took many decades of bad government to get to the edge of this cliff, and we all should consider winning back our freedoms in whatever way possible and continue to give this effort everything we have until the job is done. Never give in ….. and Never give up!

    ABC reports:

    “Leader Pelosi was clearly referring to the extensive amount of information that is in the public record, including the comprehensive committee report with which the public may not be fully aware,” Hammill wrote in a statement.

    This clearly was a mistake by Nancy Pelosi to give Newt a “fair game” waiver to joist with the Democrat Leader in the House, thus giving his campaign a “national” flavor.

    Henry Hawkins | December 6, 2011 at 12:01 pm

    Gingrich holds the trump card anyway – the IRS investigation conducted a year after the ethics investigation completely exonerated him.

      Awing1 in reply to Henry Hawkins. | December 6, 2011 at 12:30 pm

      It didn’t actually “completely exonerate” him, as some of the accusations against him related to house rules that the IRS wouldn’t have investigated, because violating house rules generally isn’t a matter of law (as far as I know, correct me if I’m wrong because I can’t find concrete answers on this).

      That being said, that Newt’s organization underwent IRS scrutiny and came out the other side clean is still quite amazing. My taxes are pretty simple, and I’m sure I’ve still done something wrong at one point or another. So your point is well taken.

    GrumpyOne | December 6, 2011 at 12:03 pm

    I think that it would be difficult at best to eclipse any current negative information on Gingrich. The problem will be the dredging up all the old stuff and how it is presented.

    The interesting take, has a good low key assessment of what it might be like in a civilized environment. We all know that would never be the case with democrats and the MSM on the attack.

    Still, the writer mentions a couple of things that I have previously pointed out and that is Gingrich’s inflated ego, weaving and dodging etc.

    A short but good read for anyone who’s interested…

    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend