Mitt Romney attacked Newt Gingrich at a campaign rally in Florida yesterday, and he did an adequate job, but there are a few kinks to work out:
“We’re not choosing a talk show host,” Romney said, alluding to his rival’s strong debate performances that helped shift momentum in his favor in South Carolina. “We’re choosing the person who should be leader of the free world.”
Really? “A talk show host”? I don’t know about you, but when I hear that phrase, I think of, well, Oprah. Doesn’t everyone on the planet think of Oprah? Is that really the analogy that conveys the essential Newtness of Newt? C’mon, Mitt — at least make us think about Jerry Springer guests, or the interviewees on pro wrestling broadcasts. Tell the crowd we’re electing a president, not electing a Trash-Talker-in-Chief. Tell ’em if we were electing a Trash-Talker-in Chief, hell, you’d vote for Gingrich. Just keeopp saying “Trash-Talker-in-Chief.” Not “talk show host.” A surprising number of Americans would like Oprah as president.
He went on to list what he described as the qualities of a leader: integrity, sobriety, judgment, thoughtfulness, reliability and high ethical standards.
President Romney will help little old ladies cross the street!
…”At the end of four years as speaker of the House, it was proven that he was a failed leader,” Romney said.
And you were governor for, um, how long, Mitt? Four years?
“He had to resign in disgrace. I don’t know whether you knew that…. His fellow Republicans — 88% of his Republicans — voted to reprimand Speaker Gingrich. He has not had a record of successful leadership.”
Well, Republicans hate government, so being forced to resign from Congress might come off as kind of a good thing, no? I’m not sure this part of the attack connects.
But Romney sought to tie the 1990s ethics investigation to Gingrich’s recent work as an advisor to mortgage giants Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. “He talks about great, bold movements and ideas — well what’s he been doing for 15 years? He’s been working as a lobbyist … and selling influence around Washington.”
No, no, no, Mitt. You’re there, but you’re still using too many words. Don’t say, “He’s been working as a lobbyist … and selling influence around Washington.” Say, “He’s been a Washington lobbyist.” Washington lobbyist. Washington lobbyist. Washington lobbyist. Never say it any other way.
Gingrich has insisted that he never worked as a lobbyist. But to cheers in Ormond Beach, Romney demanded a public review of Gingrich’s “work product” as an advisor to Freddie Mac.
“Work product”? Seriously? Mitt, are you attacking a rival or filling out a form from HR?
“Because Freddie Mac figures in very prominently to the fact that people in Florida have seen home values go down. It’s time to turn that around.”
No! Not “figures very prominently”! Every Fox viewers knows that Freddie and Fannie are 100% responsible for the meltdown! They’re the alpha and omega! There is no other culprit! (Oh, except Barney Frank. And Jimmy Carter. And ACORN. But don’t say any of that! Keep it simple, stupid!)
Now, this, I think, works, if you’re trying to win over wingnuts who are still angry at Jane Fonda (and, Mitt, you are):
At one point during his outdoor rally at a building supply company, Romney was interrupted by protesters chanting, “We are the people.” He quickly dismissed them.
“No, actually, these are the people,” Romney shouted back. “These are the people; you’re the interrupters. We believe in the Constitution. We believe in the right to speech. And you believe in interrupting. Take a hike.”
Romney’s supporters drowned them out by chanting “U-S-A.” …
“I love these guys, by the way, who don’t like America and our free-enterprise system, and they have something else in mind,” he said. “Take a look at Cuba; take a look at North Korea; take a look at the former Soviet Union. Our system works. What they’re fighting for does not work. I believe in America.”
Although Romney’s determination to shout down anyone who ever tries to interrupt him reminds me of this:
Hey, Mitt: If it comes off as “Shut up, hippie,” you’re golden. If it comes off as “whiny third grade pedant demanding that the teacher make everyone hew strictly to the rules,” well, the voters are going to give you a wedgie.
(X-posted at No More Mister Nice Blog.)
Good analysis and rant.
Thanks….
Conservatives think of a certain radio talk show. Gingrich’s bombast, overconfidence and elocution do actually remind me of Limbaugh.
Yes, but in that case, would right-wingers consider it an insult? I imagine a lot of them would love it if Limbaiugh ran for president
I have yet to be convinced that Romney and his team fully grasp the mindset of the people they’re pandering to.
It’s almost like Mitt doesn’t realize that the GOP has turned DC into Thunderdome. And now he’s running against the man who’s most responsible for it.
It just might happen that Mitt will get Gored, and the Tea Party revolt will go national and turn Newt into Christine O’Donnell, Sharron Angle, and Joe Miller rolled up into one.
Newt is flawed, but he’s not as flawed as Sharron Angle. And he can cover for his flaws better than Miller or O’Donelll could.
I agree, Boo. I only meant to suggest that Gingrich could be the vehicle for the Tea Party to deliver the same fuck-you to the national GOP that the TP delivered to the state parties via their Senate candidates.
It depends on how Fox News rolls for the general election. If the GOP closes ranks around Newt, the media power they exert can put Obama in the same position as Gore. It also depends on whether Mitt persuades the 1% to support Gingrich as a useful tool or avoid him as a loose cannon.
Real GOP party unity plus mega-funded media raises Democratic negatives, shifts blame through dishonest propaganda, and we see the results we saw in 2010. Independents swing to the GOP enough and GOP partisans are super-energized.
As I remarked before, Obama’s biggest weakness is Eric Holder’s and Lanny Breur’s connection to the law firm that opined that MERS was legal, especially if the DOJ agreement with the mortgage bankers amounts to a slap on the hand. Forget all the civil liberties and foreign policy issues that progressives have with Obama. This issue will have traction with the public once it gets out. And in a supercharged, superfunded, superPAC’ed campaign environment, it will get out.
Romney is just a terrible politician. Weird, and wooden.
“Work product.” Heh.
I don’t see how Romney loses, but on the other hand, who’d want to have an alcoholic drink made from yeast-fermented malt with him?