Last week, I did a fair amount of writing about the candidates, and especially about Newt. He’s now front and center. On Friday, for example, I had a column in which I said, “I wonder whether Newt’s ‘personal’ record will hurt him, electorally.” “Personal” is just a euphemism, of course. “When you think about it, betrayal and divorce are as American as apple pie.”

I elaborated in a blogpost, here.

So, between Newt and Mitt, who’s the weirder? From what I understand, Romney neither smokes nor drinks, and I doubt he screws around. Many, many people think such a man is a veritable freak.

Several commentators have remarked that Romney seems to have gone through the Sixties untouched — untouched by the “new” America, that is. Some say, “What a loser, what a square.” Others say, “Great!”

Early in the George W. Bush years, I heard a very smart and plugged-in conservative say something about the conservatives of her acquaintance: What they most disliked about the president was that he didn’t drink. This upset them, as if Bush’s non-drinking was a kind of betrayal, an abandonment of social solidarity.

“Never trust a man who won’t have a drink with you.” How many times have you heard that? There ought to be a competing maxim: “Never trust a man who won’t trust a man who won’t have a drink with him.”

During the Monica Lewinsky scandal, I was talking to a veteran journalist about the relationship between the press and President Clinton. Boy, had the wagons circled. He recalled a sign borne aloft at the 1992 Democratic convention in New York: “Adulterers for Clinton.” There was something significant in that, thought my friend.

It is simply true that a great many people — very much including conservatives — are more comfortable with the Newt-Clinton type than with the Romney type. (Ever heard the expression “Vote Right, live Left”? It is a credo for many.) What the numbers are, I don’t know, and I don’t think Gallup could find them out either.

In a democracy, a national election is, in part, a test of who the nation is.

‐You recall the song about Chicago, and all the amazing things that went on there? “I had the time, the time of my life. / I saw a man who danced with his wife . . .”

‐In America, Mormons are still an exotic strain. Those who, if it feels good, do it? Mainstream City.

‐I’m reminded of an old joke — please forgive me: Have you heard the Norfolk cheer? “We don’t smoke, we don’t drink — Nor-folk!”

‐I keep reading that Romney is complacent, or was complacent: a “complacent frontrunner.” This strikes me as untrue, because Romney has been campaigning his butt off, night and day, for many months, pressing the case for his candidacy. I think what people mean, when they say “complacent,” is — he doesn’t emote, doesn’t beat his breast, doesn’t melt down. He is, for the most part, polite. He has an even temperament. He doesn’t make his campaign a personal melodrama.

Therefore: “complacent.”

What I think is that each candidate should be himself — his essential, straightforward self — whatever that may be. And then the people take their choice, as at an ice-cream parlor. (Some nights, it’s true, you want fudge ripple, and other nights you want raspberry swirl.) (Fred Sanford wanted just plain ripple.)

‐Conservatives still say, “Oh, Mitch. Oh, Christie. Oh, Ryan. Oh, Jeb. Oh, Haley. Oh, whoever. Where are you?”

In my opinion, the candidates who aren’t in the race are attractive in large part because they’re not in. They have not been bloodied. They have not been picked over. They have not had their problems exposed. (Everyone has problems.)

They’re not in the arena — presidentially, that is. They have the luxury of sitting in the stands, where we can all coo over them.

Our Mike Potemra, who worked in the Senate before coming to National Review, likes to say something like this: When Howard Baker was the majority leader, all the righties said, “If only we could get rid of this mild, compromising moderate and get a tiger like Bob Dole.” Then when Dole was the majority leader, they said, “If only we could have a true conservative like Trent Lott.” And then . . .

Just think how much better Rick Perry would look right now if he had never entered! “Why is the three-term governor of Texas, that phenomenally successful state, sitting on the sidelines?!”

What if Pawlenty had never run? “Why the hell isn’t Pawlenty in this?!”

I also think there would be cries of, “Hey, why not Mitt? Why shouldn’t he run for president, with his varied experience, easygoing personality, and keen mind? He’s a natural leader. Does he really need to make another hundred million? Where’s his public spirit?”

Etc., etc.

Think of the guy who itches to date a girl and, when he finally does, is looking over her shoulder two seconds later . . .

‐I hope you have the just-published issue of NR, or will have it soon. My contribution — hardly the most important thing in there — is a shortish essay called “Speaking in Tongues: Candidates, Americans, and their foreign languages.”

Huntsman liked to show off his Chinese. Romney is stigmatized for speaking French. The speaking of Spanish is kind of cool. The subject of Americans and their relationship to foreign languages is an interesting one. I address the main points and explore a few byways.

I must say that, given my background, I’m more impressed by the speaking of an Oriental language — can we still say that? — than I am by the speaking of a Romance language. I’m Euro-oriented rather than Orient-oriented. (More than Euro-oriented, I am Western Europe-oriented.)

Some years ago, I was in a cab with my colleague Jason Steorts, and he conversed in Chinese with the cabbie. The two were just jabbering, as though in Shanghai. I could not have been more impressed if Jason had run a four-minute mile. To him, it was nothing.

‐In the NR dated January 23, I had a piece called “Prima Donna Assoluta.” It reported an interview with Angela Gheorghiu, the notorious, glamorous, lavishly talented soprano from Romania. Sat with her for an hour or so at the Champagne Bar in the Plaza Hotel. The things I endure in order to find out things for my readers!

A piece of work, Gheorghiu — just about the piece-of-workiest person you’ll ever meet. As we talked, I thought, “It’s as though she’s playing Angela Gheorghiu for me.” Do you know what I mean? She was theatrical, controversial, catty, charming, coquettish, discerning, frank — a dream of an interviewee. A perfect interviewee.

I may put some extras — some dribs and drabs — from the interview on the Net. But check out the piece if you can, because Gheorghiu does not fail to entertain, ever.

‐A quick thought about the fall election — but a thought that requires the telling of a story first. In 2004, Donald Runnicles made a pledge: If President Bush were reelected, he, Runnicles, would leave the country.

Who was Runnicles? A Scottish conductor, then working in San Francisco and New York. And why was he intent on leaving if Bush won? The conductor was quite clear, quite specific.

The election in 2000 might have been a fluke, a forgivable mistake by the American people. But if they elected Bush again, that would mean they really liked him — which would be intolerable, in the conductor’s eyes.

Well, Bush did win, of course, and, no — Runnicles didn’t leave. They never do, do they? They just huff.

I was thinking: If Obama is reelected in November, that will mean that most Americans truly approve of what he’s doing. In 2008, he ran a quite moderate campaign, sometimes sounding like Dick Lugar or someone. But now the people have seen him in action. They’ve seen the kind of government and society he wants.

Will they hire him again, with their eyes wide open? That might say something fundamental (to borrow one of Newt’s words).

‐Throw a little music review at you? This was published in CityArts. It treats a concert of the New York Philharmonic, conducted by Alan Gilbert, with Jean-Yves Thibaudet, piano soloist.

‐Speaking of the New York Philharmonic: On Friday night, I saw Chelsea Clinton there, with her husband. No Secret Service, no nothing. Just plain folks. Chelsea struck me as much more attractive than typical pictures suggest. The friend with me thought so too, so there you go: a consensus.

‐When I said “No Secret Service,” I probably should have said no visible Secret Service.

‐Kind of a shame that the initials of that agency are SS.

‐A little language? A foreign friend, who speaks better English than most of us native speakers, wrote me, “Cher ami: Should it be ‘equally as nice’ or ‘equally nice’? The latter sounds much better to me, and yet the former appears rather more common.” I answered, “You are RIGHT. ‘Equally as nice’ is disgusting — but very common.”

He e-mailed back, “What about ‘THE both of us’? Please tell me that is wrong, too.” I said, “No, that is an idiom. Perfectly acceptable, in the right circumstances.”

I’m not sure he was entirely pleased. He had some logical objections.

Oh, English! What’re you gonna do? (Such a great language.)

‐In Impromptus the other day, I said something about people who apologize to “those who took offense.” I’m not crazy about this kind of apology, most of the time.

A reader writes, “That kind of apology reminds me of something my dad told me: If someone starts a sentence with ‘Don’t take this the wrong way . . .,’ kick him in the groin right then.’”

‐I understand there’s going to be another GOP debate on Monday night. Not sure I can watch and scribble. Will be on the road, working in the Land of Enchantment — Santa Fe, specifically. I hear it’s like Ann Arbor, with more sand and turquoise.

Anyway, if I don’t watch and write, the earth will keep spinning around the sun, and there will be one less column — or do you like “one fewer column” better? — littering the Internet. Thanks for joining me today, dear hearts, and catch you soon.

#JAYBOOK#