Peter Lawler is right that Romney’s speech yesterday was vacuous, but no doubt it was that way on purpose. It was a bit wittier and more coherent than his speech the night of the Iowa Caucuses even though it was just a string of “hurrah free market, boo big government, ain’t the economy lousy, I love America, elect me clichés.” Peter also takes Romney to task for being inauthentic. I dunno. Maybe being obtuse, smarmy and opportunistic is the authentic Romney approach to public affairs. I do wonder what a truly unleashed, authentic, keeping-it-real Romney would have to say. I think it might go a little something like this:
You’re stuck with me and you deserve it. You know why you’re stuck with me? Because I’m the best combination of brains, preparation, and organizational skill you’ve got in the Republican race. Who else have you got? There was that Bachmann for a second. Remember when she tried to link the HPV vaccine to mental retardation? Or how about the time when she promised that she would balance next year’s budget (at over a trillion dollars of projected deficit) without tax increases or entitlement cuts, and while maintaining our counterinsurgency efforts? Am I the only one around here who can do arithmetic?
Then there is Santorum. He’ll never be the nominee and you should be glad. He isn’t smart enough. In a debate, I could spot him the obvious truth, match it with a spectacularly obvious lie and still beat him. Check out the debate last Sunday. He went after me for not running for reelection as governor of Massachusetts. I came back talking about how he is a provincial lifetime politician who lacks the imagination and real world experience to understand why a true citizen like me would choose to leave elected office for the private sector. Everyone on Earth knew I was full of it, but I still left him sputtering like a chump. And it would only get worse in the general election. When I talk rings around Santorum in the debates, the story is that I’m just smarter (which is true.) If Santorum became the nominee, Obama would tear him apart in the debates. The story would then be that Obama won because he is right about everything and you and Santorum are wrong about everything. When I beat Santorum, I’m doing you a favor.
Now Newt Gingrich is something different. He is probably as smart as me, and just as good a talker (in some ways better.) When we get into it, the guy with truth on his side usually wins the clash. When he tried to deny that he had been for a health care mandate, I nailed him to the wall. When Santorum whiffed on attacking me for not running for reelection, Gingrich got me good with his “pious baloney” line. So Newt is in the same place as me in the brains department, but he isn’t better than me anywhere. He sure isn’t more principled than I am. We were both for health insurance mandates and cap-and-trade. He is just as phony as I am. The difference is that I’m better organized and more emotionally stable. I ran the Olympics. He couldn’t get his name on the Virginia ballot. I cynically switched my opinion on abortion, but that was a carefully considered step to become a viable national candidate. And it worked. How many times has Gingrich changed his mind about whether he should attack me on Bain Capital? He isn’t doing himself any good. He isn’t doing the party any good. He is just throwing tantrums. I don’t throw tantrums. I do what I need to do to win.
And Perry. When I decided to run for President, I changed my mind on some national issues. But I studied the issues. Maybe I don’t have firm convictions, but I could give you both sides of every question. Perry can’t even give you his own side. How do you run for President without studying what your own positions are? How is your defense about your state’s high rate of uninsured that the Department of Health and Human Services ate your Medicaid waiver? Being President is a real job. How do you decide to run without making yourself well informed about national issues?
And speaking of not well informed. If you supported Herman Cain, with his idiotic 9-9-9 plan, his “I’m a pizza leader so I don’t have to know anything” approach to foreign policy, his “I’m pro-life but it’s none of the government’s business if you want an abortion” comments and his “who are you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes” approach to his sex scandals, then get off my back. You already supported a dumber fraud than me. At least I’m actually running for President and not to sell books.
Look this isn’t really about me. You and I both know that, when it comes to these issues, I don’t have any strong opinions. If I thought being for a federal insurance mandate and keeping abortion legal would get me to the White House, then I would be for those things. I know I’m not a great speaker, but I’m a lot better than most of my opponents and I’m much more reliable than the one Republican who is as smart as me. So I’m electable. And hey, I’ll probably be better for you than Obama. Unlike him, I won’t push to move the country to the left. If you had elected me President in 2008, I wouldn’t have pushed for Obamacare. I promise you this: if you elect me, I won’t adopt any left-wing policies out of conviction. I’ll only adopt them if I decide they are in my political interest. On balance, that probably means fewer left-wing policies than you would get from the Democrats. But no promises (or a at least no promises you can count on - heh, heh.) So you’re stuck with me. Don’t blame me. We are all part of a party that has millions and millions of members. If I’m the best our party can summon to oppose Obama (and apparently I am), what does that say about you?
What? Too cynical?
