Newt's Gambit?
While Romney’s response to the Gingrich attack video may improve with time and repetition, it is likely to remain uncompelling and strangely exsanguinated.
This opens the door to a tactical manoeuver Gingrich could unleash at Monday’s debate that would steal a march on Romney and be a game-changer.
It is this:
At the opportune moment, Gingrich should say:
Look, over the last few days, we have discovered that Mitt Romney, should he become the Republican nominee, is completely incapable of effectively responding to the kind of attack that is going to be coming at him like a locomotive from the Obama campaign. The video from Gingrich PAC is mild compared to what they will do, and when they do, it will be funded not with a million dollars but with a hundred million, or two hundred, or more.
Believe me, there is a response to that video. It’s just that he’s not capable of believably delivering it because he is, at heart, a Massachusetts liberal who thinks president Obama is a nice guy who’s in over his head, rather than a committed Alinkskyite waging full-scale war on the capitalist system, the free market and the kind of traditional American individualism that has been the bedrock of America’s greatness since day one.
What should Mitt be saying in response to the Gingrich PAC video? He should be saying this:
And then Gingrich should launch into the kind of full-throated, pedal-to-the-medal defense of robust free market capitalism that Troy Senik provided the other day on Ricochet in his magnificent post titled Rcalibrating Romney's Rhetoric
That’s right: Gingrich himself should provide the response to his own attack video. And he should do it with the eloquence and affecting passion that were the things that, for a while at least, propelled him to the top.
In so doing, he could characterize the video as an electioneering ploy designed to reveal Romney’s fecklessness (and thereby distance himself from its dishonest substance and repellent nastiness). Remarkably, there are probably a lot of folks who would actually buy into such a preposterous pirouette. In the end, the weakness of Romney’s response to the Gingrich video would be highlighted by juxtaposition with the strength of Gingrich’s own, and Gingrich would be trampolined to the top again.
Now, whether this would be a good thing or a bad thing is a different issue.
[Extra credit to anyone who can accurately count the number of mixed metaphors in this post. Warning: It’s a big number.]
- Comment (39)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Sep '10
Re: Newt's Gambit?
Unfortunately for Romney he had no thoughts of running for public office when he went to Bain. If he had he would not have made that choice. He can say some of the companies they took over failed and that that is the nature of private equity, but explaining how he and Bain reaped 100% or more profit on these companies is another matter. Bain was playing a game in which they won no matter if the companies and workers profited or lost. While it was legal and may in the long run have been good for productivity selling it to voters as a good and fair thing is certainly beyond Romney and may also be beyond Newt. All Newt has to do is name one of these ventures in which the companies, creditors and workers lost and Bain made 100% profit and ask Romney to explain why it qualifies him to be president. I agree that Newt should also give a robust defense of capitalism, but watching Romney squirm would be great entertainment.
Oct '11
Re: Newt's Gambit?
Henry Scanlon
Gingrich himself should provide the response to his own attack video.
[Extra credit to anyone who can accurately count the number of mixed metaphors in this post. Warning: It’s a big number.]
Observations:
1) Pivoting from folly to truth is unheard of in the political world. It might make for a good two-brow TV show (or Ricochet post).
2) You put the the wrong mushrooms in your breakfast omelet.
3) While entertaining, such a maneuver would expose Gingrich as a calculating manipulator of no firm or instinctive principles at all. I thought that was the objection to Romney.
Forty-two.
May '10
Re: Newt's Gambit?
I like your creativity, Henry, but here's another metaphor: Your scenario would be like Gingrich falling on his face, getting up, and saying, "I meant to do that."
Romney will defend Bain just fine. His campaign was caught off guard and unprepared (no ads, no testimonials, etc.), because it never occurred to them that "vulture capitalism" attacks would be mounted this soon, by Republicans. (I'll return with a link. Here you are.)
Gingrich knows full well he stepped in it with this "own goal". (Couldn't leave without a mixed metaphor, too.)
Edited on January 14, 2012 at 5:48pmMay '10
Re: Newt's Gambit?
Your scenario would also make Newt a flip-flop-flip-flop-flip-flop-flipper on this Bain stuff. Flip-flop-flip-flop-flip-flopper is bad enough.
Oct '10
Re: Newt's Gambit?
Agreed. But if this were the case, Gingrich would be even more insidiously diabolical and manipulative than I ever imagined. And that's frightening.
Sep '10
Re: Newt's Gambit?
Key sentence from Troy's post :"And I find it telling that that concept is foreign to my opponents."
Romney himself apparently doesn't understand this either, that's a big problem.
I happened upon Real (bad) Time with Bill Maher last night. He ripped on every Republican in a most Maheristic fashion.
He had a panel consisting of two hardcore Democrats, Debbie Wasserman-Shultz, Rob Reiner and for balance the pathetic David Frum, self-loathing Republican.
Romney the frontrunner got hit with most of the attacks, all on this topic, (besides his plastic hair and Mormonism)
BUT. There is a real problem with certain types of capitalists. Mark Levin calls them corporatists, and we all know the type. (Romney exhibits many traits of a corporatist) In fact many, many corporatists are Democrats (and the rest seem to be lite-Republicans)
These execs are only pursuing advantage in whatever way they can, and given the government now has it's tentacles into everything, they will always appease and rent seek.
Edited on January 14, 2012 at 6:32pmDec '10
Re: Newt's Gambit?
For a guy with no dog in the hunt currently I'm all for it. Let's see if Gingrich can pull off the "preposterous pirouette" or not. Let's see if Romney can dance to that tune as he's clearly been unable to simply keep a straight course with a bit of side wide.
Mixed metaphors are like breakfast cereal: an endless variety. I think we can add bad analogies to this list now, too.
Dec '10
Re: Newt's Gambit?
Franco:
These execs are only pursuing advantage in whatever way they can, and given the government now has it's tentacles into everything, they will always appease and rent seek. · Jan 14 at 9:32am
And that is why D.C. must have it's tinker toys taken away. Kevin Williamson explained it in one of my favorite articles:
With the level of regulation and interference created in Washington there can be no free market or capitalism to defend in the first place.
Aug '10
Re: Newt's Gambit?
I saw some line on Drudge that Newt had asked Mitt to help with some corrections to the film. Without bothering to link, I filed it away, as the mere fact of the film's existence led me to abandon his cause. We have you instead of Newt. By the way, do you have an account at Zales ? If anything it served to educate some people in capitalism as it was before it became bundling sub primes. When they start lining those people for the faux documentaries to come (Ken burns channels Michael Moore) they will look like everyone's neighbors that are presently out of work. Romney will respond with his own infomercial, is Marlin Perkins still alive ?
Edited on January 14, 2012 at 11:09pmApr '11
Re: Newt's Gambit?
Franco:
BUT. There is a real problem with certain types of capitalists. Mark Levin calls them corporatists, and we all know the type. (Romney exhibits many traits of a corporatist) In fact many, many corporatists are Democrats (and the rest seem to be lite-Republicans)
Many? I've heard the argument that Romneycare is corporatist. Can you name another corporatist trait? Not one linked to corporatism by your disdain for both, but one that a supporter of corporatism would recognize as such?
Aug '10
Re: Newt's Gambit?
That idea is too clever by far, Newt would be pilloried for toying with voters' brains. That last thing Newt needs is to appear even MORE smug.
Dec '11
Re: Newt's Gambit?
I will admit that your idea is pretty clever. However I there are a couple of things I would like to point out. After he does this they(either his republican rivals or Obama) could use clips of Gingrich saying both things in favor of capitalism and against Bain. They would try to paint him and either a flip-flopper or insane. Also the choosing of the opportune moment is actually very, very difficult. Perhaps out of all of the non-Romney candidates only Gingrich might be able to pull it off(at a wrong moment the effect would be less than what would be desirable). Maybe the right time is if Romney goes a little bit to far to the left when defending his time at Bain.
I'm not apposed to this I wanted to state the risks.
Re: Newt's Gambit?
I love coming at folks from odd angles and sometimes inverted as you suggest. Throws them off their game. Nice thought.
But as others point out, it is risky. Not saying so risky it can't be done, but Newt would have to execute it perfectly to make it look like he isn't back-tracking.
Mar '11
Re: Newt's Gambit?
If Newt were attempt to spin like this, there is a very real possibility that he'd screw himself right into the ground.
There's a downside to that -- I'll get back to you when I think of what it might be.
Jan '11
Re: Newt's Gambit?
Henry recommends rhetorical jiu-jitsu for Newt - as opposed to consistency and truth-telling - for a very good reason: you shouldn't ask for the impossible. But if you want that in 2012, there's a small town Texas doctor who has exemplified those twin virtues for his entire public career, transmits his values exceedingly well to the next generation, and doesn't rent-seek.
Dec '10
Re: Newt's Gambit?
Newt has toasted himself (as in, he's done).
Re: Newt's Gambit?
Percival: If Newt were attempt to spin like this, there is a very real possibility that he'd screw himself right into the ground.
There's a downside to that -- I'll get back to you when I think of what it might be. · Jan 14 at 5:24pm
Ha! That's funny!
Re: Newt's Gambit?
Suffering a bit of a relapse of the flu, I arise from my sickbed to say this, and only this: "Strangely exsanguinated?" Henry, that is a thoroughly gorgeous phrase.
May '10
Re: Newt's Gambit?
I'm impressed, too. Does it mean the same thing as "freakin' bloodless?"
May '10
Re: Newt's Gambit?
Yes, BKelly14. Here's some interesting numbers in a Reuters/Ipsos poll: Romney's at 37 in SC; Santorum and Paul at 16; Newt at 12. Most telling: In a hypothetical Mitt v Newt matchup, Mitt wins going away, 62-30. So much for the theory that Newt's only obstacle is divided conservatives.
On the contrary, Newt's biggest obstacle is Newt: It appears SC conservatives in their wisdom have concluded that it's electoral boneheadedness for Republicans to set the table in the winter and spring with talk of "corporate vulturism" only to promote corporate tax cuts and deregulation in the summer and fall. Smart people.
In other news, Newt was booed at a forum of undecided SC Republicans for his Bain attacks. "They were really angry," said an attendee. Good.
If Newt really wants to stick it to Romney, he should drop out and endorse Santorum -- that is if Santorum even wants what may now be a poisonous endorsement.