How much can Romney help Rubio?

WaPo reports:

Sen. Marco Rubio has been cultivating a relationship with Mitt Romney and his intimates, landing some of the 2012 Republican nominee’s top advisers and donors and persistently courting others as he readies an expected 2016 presidential campaign.

In a crowded field of contenders, the imprimatur of Romney could help clear Rubio’s path into the top tier. Since Romney announced in January that he would not run for the White House again, he and Rubio have had at least two lengthy phone calls in which Romney encouraged and mentored the 43-year-old Florida senator about the political landscape, according to a Romney associate.

Rubio and Romney have built a warm and trusting rapport, in contrast to the frostiness that exists between Romney and the two current GOP front-runners, former Florida governor Jeb Bush and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker. When Romney said in January that it was time to turn to the “next generation of Republican leaders,” it was widely interpreted as a swipe at Bush and a boost to a fresher face, such as Rubio.

What's the evidence of frostiness toward Walker?

In one-on-one meetings and communications with members of Romney’s inner circle, Rubio has impressed them with what they see as his compelling personal story, his depth and positions on policies, and his respect for Romney and his legacy in the Republican Party.

I'm going to read between the lines and say that Romney, Bush, and Rubio are/were competing for the moderate position, and Walker's on a different track. But there is this:

Some Romney loyalists...  hold a grudge against Walker for sharply criticizing Romney in his 2013 book, “Unintimidated,” for doing “a lousy job” connecting with voters.

Doesn't Romney concede that? This made me want to check Walker's book to see what he actually said about Romney. Walker uses the word "lousy" twice, the first time about himself...

If my own wife didn’t see why we needed to change collective bargaining, how could I expect the voters of Wisconsin to see it? I was obviously doing a lousy job of explaining our reforms.

... and the second time speaking of Republicans as a group:

In 2012, Republicans did a lousy job of presenting a positive vision of free market solutions to our nation’s problems in a way that is relevant to people’s lives. The problem was not that Republicans ran on principles and failed; it was that Republicans failed to run on our principles.

But what exactly did Walker say about Romney? I'll tell you. All the quotes that follow are from Walker's book "Unintimidated." Romney, according to Walker, is "a decent and compassionate man," but he "allowed himself to be portrayed as a defender of the rich and powerful instead of a champion of the poor and vulnerable." Walker thinks that his experience in Wisconsin shows that "Americans want leadership":

And in times of crisis, they don’t care if it is Democratic leadership or Republican leadership— they will stand with those who offer bold ideas and have the courage to take on the tough issues.

But instead of offering a big, positive vision for the future, Romney was working to make the campaign a referendum on President Obama. His campaign was trying to model itself on the 1980 Reagan campaign, and the devastating question Reagan asked Americans at the end of his debate with President Carter, just days before the election: “Are you better off than you were four years ago?”

The problem was, the Romney team got the 1980 Reagan campaign all wrong. “Are you better off than you were four years ago?” was Reagan’s closing argument, not his entire argument. Reagan did not make the election simply a referendum on Jimmy Carter. He also explained why voters would be better off in four years’ time under his leadership. He put forward a positive, hopeful vision of a different future for America— an optimistic vision that attracted not only diehard Republicans but independents and “Reagan Democrats” as well. Reagan didn’t just say what he was against; he said what he was for....

Reagan did not dismiss 47 percent of the country as a bunch of moochers. Quite the opposite: At the Republican convention in Detroit he appealed to those who wanted nothing more than to get off government assistance and find work. He promised that “for those without skills, we’ll find a way to help them get skills. For those without job opportunities, we’ll stimulate new opportunities, particularly in the inner cities where they live. For those who have abandoned hope, we’ll restore hope and we’ll welcome them into a great national crusade to make America great again.”

“We have to move ahead,” Reagan said, “but we’re not going to leave anyone behind.”

That is the Reagan message Romney should have emulated....

Instead of scolding them, Romney should have championed them. Instead of saying he could “never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives,” Romney should have offered a bold vision for how he would help them become independent again through the dignity of work. Instead of trying to convince them that Barack Obama was responsible for their plight, he should have laid out a vision for how he would help improve their circumstances.

Ronald Reagan would never have said, “I’m not concerned about the very poor.” Romney later said his comments were taken out of context, but the context actually made them worse. Romney had gone on to say, “We have a very ample safety net, and we can talk about whether it needs to be strengthened or whether there are holes in it. But we have food stamps, we have Medicaid, we have housing vouchers, we have programs to help the poor.”

That was the wrong message for the 2.6 million Americans who had slipped beneath the poverty line in 2010–11, and the millions more who feared they were just a couple of paychecks away from falling under that line themselves. They were not looking for Mitt Romney to strengthen the safety net; they wanted to hear how he was going to help them escape the safety net. They were desperate to find good jobs, get off government assistance, and work their way out of poverty and up into the middle class. Romney never offered a hopeful and optimistic vision of how he would help them get there. Instead of consigning them to the permanent welfare state, he should have explained how he would help the poor not be poor anymore....

Walker gives us the text of an email he sent to Romney — to which Romney never responded — offering advice. Among other things, Romney needed to "show more passion." He should "Grab the mike and get out from behind a podium and talk directly to voters." Walker continues:

Romney should have used the success of Republican governors as a tool against President Obama. He could have said: If you want proof that Obama’s approach is failing while Republican ideas are succeeding, just look at the states. In states where our ideas are being tried, we see balanced budgets, jobs being created, and economies that are finally turning a corner.... Instead of using the success of Republican chief executives to show why we needed a Republican chief executive in the White House, he campaigned in Iowa, Ohio, Florida, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin (key swing states with Republican governors) by telling voters how bad things were. He was so focused on explaining why President Obama should be fired, but never explained why he should be hired.

If he had shown voters he had a bold, reform agenda and a positive, optimistic plan for America, it would have been appealing not only to Republicans but also Democrats and independents.... That’s what Reagan did but Romney failed to do. Just as the Romney campaign misread the reasons for the success of Reagan’s campaign, today many in Washington are misreading the reasons for the failure of the Romney campaign. They argue that the lesson of 2012 is that Romney tacked too far to the right, and that Republicans have to “moderate” their views if they want to appeal to a country that is increasingly moving center-left.

With all due respect, that’s just baloney. Our principles are not the problem. If our principles were the problem, then why are so many Republican governors winning elections by campaigning on those very principles?...

In 2012, Republicans did a lousy job of presenting a positive vision of free market solutions to our nation’s problems in a way that is relevant to people’s lives. The problem was not that Republicans ran on principles and failed; it was that Republicans failed to run on our principles.

What this material from "Unintimidated" shows is not so much that Walker was too mean to Romney — that he was "sharply criticizing" — but that Walker runs on the conservative track that Romney (like McCain) avoided. The Romney donors and supporters need somewhere to go for 2016, and Rubio might be their man. It's obvious that Walker is not.