The nature of this peculiar primary season — the reason it seems at odds with both the 2009–2010 political narrative and the seriousness of the times — was determined by Mitt Romney. Even if you don’t mind Romneycare, or the abortion flip-flop, or any of the rest, there’s a more basic problem: He’s not a natural campaigner, and on the stump he instinctively recoils from any personal connection with the voters. So, in compensation, he’s bought himself a bunch of A-list advisers and a lavish campaign. He is, as he likes to say, the only candidate with experience in the private sector. So he knows better than to throw his money away, right? But that’s just what he’s doing, in big ways and small.
Small: It’s a good idea to get that telegenic gal (daughter-in-law?) to stand behind him during the concession speech, but one of those expensive consultants ought to tell her not to look so bored and glassy-eyed as the stiff guy grinds through the same-old-same-old for the umpteenth time. To those watching on TV last night, she looked like we felt.
Big: Why is the stump speech so awful? “I believe in an America where millions of Americans believe in an America that’s the America millions of Americans believe in. That’s the America I love.” Mitt paid some guy to write this insipid pap. And he paid others to approve it. Not only is it bland and generic, it’s lethal to him in a way that it wouldn’t be to Gingrich or Perry or Bachmann or Paul because it plays to his caricature — as a synthetic, stage-managed hollow man of no fixed beliefs. And, when Ron Paul’s going on about “fiat money” and Newt’s brimming with specifics on everything (he was great on the pipeline last night), Mitt’s generalities are awfully condescending: The finely calibrated inoffensiveness is kind of offensive.
And what’s with the wind up? The “shining city on the hill”? That’s another guy’s line — a guy with whom you have had hitherto little connection other than your public repudiation of him back in the Nineties. Can’t any of his highly paid honchos write him a campaign slogan that’s his own and doesn’t sound in his mouth so cheesily anodyne, as if some guy ran a focus-group and this phrase came up with the lowest negatives?
And where, among all the dough he’s handing out, is the rapid-response team? Newt’s “spontaneous” indignation at John King was carefully crafted by Gingrich himself. By contrast, Mitt has a ton of consultants, and not one of them thought he needed a credible answer on Bain or taxes? For a guy running as a chief exec applying proven private-sector solutions, his campaign looks awfully like an unreformable government bureaucracy: big, bloated, overstaffed, burning money, slow to react, and all but impossible to change.
Mitt’s strategy for 2012 as for 2008 was to sit on his lead and run out the clock: Four years ago, that strategy died in New Hampshire; this time round it died one state later. Congratulations! Years ago, I was chit-chatting with Arthur Laurents, the writer of West Side Story and The Way We Were and much else, about some show that was in trouble on the road that he’d been called in to “fix.” “The trouble with a bad show,” he sighed, “is that you can make it better but you can never make it good.” The Romney candidacy is better than it was four years ago, but it’s not clear that it’s good. Mitt needs to get good real fast: A real speech, real plan, real responses, and real fire in the belly. Does he have it in him?
To boil it down in even more simple terms, Mitt needs to ditch the mantra of being the eventual candidate because he can swing moderates and independents while thumbing his nose at the base. I'll take the evil I know in Newt over the evil I know is coming with Mitt.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf you know the evil that is coming from Newt you gotta tell me, because my concern is you cannot actually predict it. He is after all, a lifetime cheater that plays into my Christian forgiveness belief for political gain, and a DC politican since the 70's and lobbyist that is trying to sell me that he is a DC outsider, or the anti-establishment candidate. I like his debating craftiness, but I don't buy what he is selling. He can be a great lobbyist, or advisor but I would rather see a principled man like Santorum or proven private sector leader like Romney.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRon White said, "You can't fix stupid". In Mitt's case, you can't fix a lack of passion.
Sure he'd like to be President, even fancies he might be kinda good at it. However, it requires "fire in the belly", getting worked up about something, delivering stemwinders, connecting with the people and often expressing righteous indignation about something.
Nah, better to just stand here with a pursed lip smile and say some nice things about "America" and how Obama means well, but doggonit he's not been doing all that super a job. Can I get an appluase? [crickets]
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat if it's not "a caricature"?
You certainly drop enough breadcrumbs on the trail to suggest it is not.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOnce again Mark Steyn cuts through the fog of the campaign and nails it. Well said.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt might be well said, but late enough for Steyn, in this one instance and uncharacteristically, not to be called brave for finally saying it. In the recent past, he was awfully busy jumping on the Newt-bashing bandwagon, and I say that as somebody who fully appreciates Steyn's general brilliance. Today is the one day that criticizing Romney, while fully warranted by Romney's performance, seems slightly, if not purely opportunistic.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt is possible to dissect Romney's poor performance without "flip-flopping" on the need to bash Newt.
Romney is ill suited to the modern Presidency, yes. But I would suggest that the modern "imperial" Presidency is something that needs to be reformed into something more akin to what the founders had in mind...quite explicitly, an executive. Ron Paul is ideologically driven on this point but his arguments have some merit. I see Romney as temperamentally suited to a Presidential role more in conformity with the letter and spirit of the Constitution.
Is Romney a "vulture" capitalist and so what if he was? Consider also that an efficient and ruthless pursuit of the nation's business would benefit all. To argue that someone with proven business acumen (in managing for-profits, non-profits and governments) cannot serve the institution he is currently hired (even sworn) to manage makes no historical sense. When Leo Durocher was traded from his beloved Dodgers to manage their archrival Giants, did he not embrace his new calling and go on to even greater accomplishments for his new bosses? When Thomas a Beckett warned Henry not to make him Archbishop of Canterbury, should Henry not have grasped that he had recruited the most competent man in his kingdom for the other "team"?
Romney is a decent man and, in his Dudley DoRight fashion, would give the job his considerable best. Unfortunately, if he can't handle a seriously flawed candidate like Newt, he doesn't stand a chance against Obama.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe need a President with good character who can get the job done, not a flawed slobbering camera hog like Newt Gingrich.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAs I read your comment, I thought I wrote it! That is exactly how I feel, so there are at least two of us. The elite Republicans and Republican commentators, including Steyn, have been ruthlessly trashing Newt since November. It must really be tough to learn that no one much cares about what you write or say. Newt is the water for our dried sponge! Finally, someone has the guts to espouse conservative principles unapologetically. First time since Reagan. I am certain the guy in the White House is not at all pleased with Newt's rise, because he knows Newt will skewer him in the debates and on the campaign trail.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMark has always been down on Newt and for good reason. He's mercurial, as much a flip-flopper as Mitt, with negatives the size of that boulder embedded in the hull of the Costa Concordia. To top it off, he simply doesn't look presidential - in an age when, sadly, good optics are not optional.
We all admire his feistiness - fine, run him for chief Feistmeister because he CANNOT BEAT OBAMA, people. Period. All TV-addled America will need is a few side by side shots of young, slim, Barack flashing his million dollar smile next to old, dour Pillsbury doughboy Newt pontificating for the results to start pouring in to vote him off the island.
It's amazing that so many sincere conservatives insist that we can't run another RINO like McCain, yet what's Newt if not another RINO like McCain? Old and pudgy, Washington insider, Big-thinker, Big-solution, Big-government. He talks a good game now but why should we trust his talk? Ask his ex-wives.
Obama would steamroll Newt. It would be a good show, to be sure, with Newt going down in explosive style. But he would go down. And we can't afford another four years of the Changer-in-Chief. Run Romney, along with a boatload of Teapartiers for Congress to hold him to the straight and narrow. Then pray. It's the only hope for America.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell said. I'd only add in respect to electing loads of Tea Partiers in Congress, that as Newt got crushed by Obama, which he absolutely would, he might drag down GOP Congressional candidates to the point of losing the majority in the House, besides failing to take the Senate. It *can* get worse that just allowing Obama to get re-elected. This seems to be neglected by those who feel Obama won't beaten anyway so might as well nominate Newt just to see him go out with a bang.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSometimes the fog of war..., I mean the campaign is a (female dog). Tell Mittens to stop worrying about his perfectly coiffed hair getting mussed a bit. With 8.5% unemployment and gas prices approaching $4.00/gallon, a little outrage won't offend anyone.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseUnemployment and gas prices don't actually affect him.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGas should be at least $4 a gallon; it's still the cheapest on the planet aside from kelptocracies like Venezuela. You guys are going to have to get over your addiction to cheap energy sooner or later, unless you're happy being a nation of fat suburban doofuses buying cheap crap from China and rolling around in special-ed-bus-sized SUVs.
What happened to the USA that flew to the moon over 40 years ago!?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat America had gas at 40 cents a gallon. It could afford the Apollo missions because it wasn't sending vast sums of money to Middle Eastern kleptocracies that want to blow it up.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYes. Exactly.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell stated Mr. Steyn but are you prepared for Old Fan's rebuttal?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe cynicism in this article is appalling. We've put up with so much empty rhetoric from slick politicians like Barack Obama, we don't know what it looks like when a sincerely intelligent and principled man comes along. My fear is that we'll never know and we'll settle for an arrogant blow-hard like Newt.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWait!... Did you just refer to Romney as principled?!?!? *rolls eyes* *face-palm*
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo, Gingrich is the lifetime principled guy.....
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse(I can't even keep a straight face while I'm type that!)