Romney's Time to Step Up

· Tuesday, January 24, 2012

WASHINGTON -- An Illinois lawyer who had a way with words once characterized a particular argument as weaker than soup made from the shadow of a pigeon that died of starvation. The argument for Mitt Romney benefiting from South Carolina's voting is almost as weak as Lincoln's soup, but here it is:

In the physics of politics, actions generate reactions. Granted, Newt Gingrich carried 43 of the state's 46 counties, and at least six of the seven congressional districts, now leads in delegates, and his colorful personal life did not prevent him from decisively beating Romney among the women of a culturally conservative state. But Sunday morning, from coast to coast, Republican candidates for Congress, governorships and other offices awakened to a sobering thought: They could be running next autumn with Gingrich -- whose current approval rating nationally in a Jan. 12-14 Fox News and Opinion Dynamics poll was 27 percent favorable, 56 percent unfavorable -- atop the ticket. They have nothing to fear so much as an absence of fear about this. With Gingrich defining the GOP brand, the Republicans' dream -- unified government: a trifecta of holding the House, winning the Senate and the White House -- might become three strikes and they are out.

Just 11 days after finishing fourth in New Hampshire, Gingrich's pugnacity in two debates enraptured South Carolinians, especially when he waxed indignant about the supposition that the risk-taking in his personal life -- e.g., having an affair during an indignation festival against Bill Clinton -- is pertinent to his fitness for the presidency. Gingrich encourages Republican voters to believe he should be nominated because he would do best in the (at most) three debates with Barack Obama. So, because Gingrich might sparkle during four and a half hours of debates, he should be given four years of control of nuclear weapons? Odd.

When the Republican nomination contest commenced, two assumptions were that Romney's strength would be his private-sector resume, and that his principal problems would be his religion and his authorship of Massachusetts' health care mandate. The mandate, however, has receded as an issue since Romney noted that Gingrich was for a mandate before he was against it. And many "values voters" who consider Mormonism somehow suspect seem to regard it as not very important, no more important than Gingrich's serial monogamy, and less important than Romney's largest problem, which is, remarkably, his resume.

The first presidential candidate from the economy's now deeply unpopular financial sector, Romney is suffering because this sector's arcane practices and instruments seem to many people, as indecipherable things often do, sinister. His tax returns perhaps testify to no more than sophisticated exploitation of the baroque tax code's opportunities for -- even encouragement of -- tactics to minimize liabilities. This, however, may exacerbate the impression many Republicans seem to have of his slipperiness. And this attribute is related to the suspicion that there is something synthetic about him. This may be unfair, but so is life.

Life has been good to Romney, who now must quickly demonstrate authenticity, even if he needs to synthesize it. Actually, he does not need to. He speaks well, which is to say with infectious passion, about the dangers of the other party's dependency agenda and the entitlement mentality it cultivates. But if Romney says even one more time "I believe in America" -- a bromide worthy of Tom ("Your future is still ahead of you") Dewey -- voters may decide he is a human Oakland, that (as Gertrude Stein said of the city) there is no there there.

Some Romney aides have complacently expected enthusiasm for him to be a consequence rather than a cause of his victories. But there is too much space between his victories: The last ones before New Hampshire this month were 47 months ago, in some Feb. 5, 2008, primaries and caucuses.

Actually, losing in South Carolina could be a partial blessing if it banishes from his campaign and from Republican voters' minds the dispiriting, eat-your-spinach idea that electability is the best reason for nominating him.

Gingrich thinks South Carolina has catapulted him toward irresistible victory. There remain, however, 53 more delegate-selection processes -- in 47 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and some possessions. Busy as an intellectual beaver having big ideas by the bushel, Gingrich has neglected some mundane matters, such as getting on the Virginia and Missouri ballots.

Should Prometheus have to sweat such tiresome details? Yes, because the nominating process in this complex continental nation usefully foreshadows the challenges of governing such a nation.

(c) 2012, Washington Post Writers Group


Third-party content does not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Patriot Post.


Comments

BNgranny

Agree. While I would love to see Newt debate "O" once, I really don't want his "idea a minute" approach to governing. I think his win in SC was due in large part to the spanking he gave the msm. Not to his proposals for governing.

Mitt really does need to get some life into his campaign. Show some conviction about what he believes is the best course for the country. Stop apologizing and explain free enterprise, capitalism, and American exeptionalism. He's not going to win the candidacy campaigning for the "independents" before he gets the "base." And the base isn't with him yet.

Posted January 24, 2012 at 10:55:29 AM


JTG

The only question is who will govern as a conservative and peel back the liberal layers of deceit and dependency? My vote goes to the man who can persuade me, be it Romney or Gingrich or a late entry.

Posted January 24, 2012 at 11:08:03 AM


Richard Ryan

Will`s piece is about as palatable as a plate of spinach. As usual there is absolutely nothing meaningful in his mumbo-jumbo. Actually what is totally important is who can beat Obama. On that issue we might as well be running Mr.Bean if we choose to run Romney.

Richard Ryan

Lamar,Missouri - Birthplace of Harry S Truman

Posted January 24, 2012 at 12:59:35 PM


Jeremy

It's Mr Will's column that has "no there there."

I'm no fan of Gingrich, but if someone can't come up with any better rationale for Romney than whatever it is that Will is trying to say in this column, Romney is in deep, deep trouble.

Posted January 25, 2012 at 1:29:35 AM


Tex Horn

I'm with Richard Ryan on this one: "...we might as well be running Mr. Bean if we choose Romney."

Now that I think about it, Mr. Bean may make a better candidate than either Romney or Newt, though I will vote for either before I'll vote for the socialist.

Posted January 25, 2012 at 12:55:33 PM


TAE

Sorry, Richard and Tex, Mr. Bean doesn't qualify to run, as he's a British citizen.

While I don't much care personally for any of the candidates still in the race, whoever winds up as the nominee is the one I'll vote for.

Posted January 25, 2012 at 3:25:05 PM


Yordanos

. I totally agree. Indeed when you chase down those tsories from the provided links you find excerpts , out of context sound bites , half truths, or just flat out opinion pieces from the likes of Coulter. etc. False witness and distortion indeed.One of the links is to a Buzzfeed video in 1988 about George HW Bush campaign and how Newt felt that Bush needed his own vision, not the vision of Reagan 80, or 84 . He said if Bush runs on a continuation of Reagan he would lose because people will vote for what might be good change, and instead he needed to define his administration from his own views and not Reagans. Of course Drudge has spun that into Gingrich Bashing Reagan circa 1988 . Ridiculous.

Posted March 29, 2012 at 6:36:36 PM


Post a Comment

Please keep comments civil and brief. Obscene, profane, abusive and off-topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked.

(required, displayed)
(required, not displayed)
Facebook Twitter YouTube RSS Connect with The Patriot Post






Our Mission

To Support and Defend -- Read The Patriot Post -- It's Right. It's Free. -- www.patriotpost.us

"The Patriot's mission is to advocate for Essential Liberty, the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and to promote free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values. Our objective is to provide Patriots across our nation with a touchstone of First Principles through brief, informative and entertaining analyses of relevant news, policy and opinion from reputable research, advocacy and media organizations, so they may better support and defend those Principles, and enlist others to join our ranks." —Mark Alexander, Publisher


The Patriot Post is not sustained by any political, special interest or parent organization, and we accept no advertising. Our mission and operations are funded entirely by the voluntary financial support of Patriots like you!

Support The 2012 Patriot Fund