This is sad. Newt doubles down on his mostly outrageous claims about Romney and Bain. But he couches it in the highly legitimate and important context of whether Mitt can defend his record, and explain what he was doing, financially, in closing many of those companies, because he will be pushed on the issue in the fall.

Normal.dotm

0

0

1

113

647

National Review

5

1

794

12.0

0

false

18 pt

18 pt

0

0

false

false

false

/* Style Definitions */

table.MsoNormalTable

{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;

mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;

mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;

mso-style-noshow:yes;

mso-style-parent:””;

mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;

mso-para-margin:0in;

mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;

mso-pagination:widow-orphan;

font-size:12.0pt;

font-family:”Times New Roman”;

mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;

mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;

mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”;

mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;

mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;

mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}

And then Mitt proves Newt right, by responding with a short version of his resume. Never addresses the core accusation — which he should be able to respond to on the merits.

The problem — Romney is a man of action. He is articulate enough for that. But he is not articulate or analytical enough to make the larger, more abstract, and critical point.

Ditto with his current response to Jerry Seib.  He is dodging the question. He needs to defend it directly.