I’m hearing from various folks on other GOP campaigns who aren’t impressed with the excerpts of Romney’s speech out this morning. I ask them what they would recommend he say. It’s not quite crickets chirping, but few folks see a guaranteed home-run argument that could be the theme of this speech….
Other, er, “preactions”: Erick is cynical. Michael Graham says it’s better than talking about illegal workers taking care of Romney’s lawn: “As a former GOP consultant who believes Mitt Romney talking about Mormonism is about as politically productive as John Edwards talking about hair-care products, it turns out there’s something even worse he could be talking about: illegal immigration.”
Bob Novak says it’s a panic move spurred by Huckabee’s rise, and suggests some Romney crew are distancing themselves from the move:
These advisers still think it’s a bad idea, recommending that any speech should have been preceded by Romney winning in Iowa, New Hampshire or both. They think Romney is overreacting to the surge of Huckabee, who probably tops out at 25 percent in Iowa. They believe Huckabee’s support is pro-Evangelical rather than anti-Mormon, boosted by his support of “fair tax” reform to eliminate the federal income tax (countermanding his high tax record in Arkansas).
In a similar vein to my post below, but without any allusions to Jar-Jar Binks, Tom Bevan also sees an expectations gap: “It appears, then, that there is a bit of an expectation gap regarding Romney’s speech: the press – and presumably Republican base voters as well – are expecting one thing, and Romney is set to deliver something else.”