Well, the tallies
are in to see which of Newt-Romney would win one for the Gipper in South Carolina, and the state which gave America
Nullification has nullified the GOP insider choice for presidential candidate by choosing Newt. (She turned me
into a newt!-A newt? -I got better...) Already the post-mortem
is begun, and much ink (and not a few tears) will be spilled over why Romney, the safe and sensible candidate, was so roundly beaten. Romney had the cash, the organization, the backing of the Republican Guard, the media kudos, and the hair. How could he lose to the wild and wooly Gingrich?
Romney is the Establishment candidate
Romney is the Establishment candidate; picked by the Party insiders as their guy. He was the victim of the machine in 2008, a machine that decided that John McCain's turn had come, and doubtless they promised him his shot in 2012. It's now Romney's turn, and the Establishment has eagerly promoted him. He has lots of money. He has a strong, well-oiled organization (and equally strong, well oiled hair). What he doesn't have is a message. He can't say "I'm Mitt Romney and I want to be President because I want to accomplish x,y, and z. He wants to be President because, well, he wants to be President.
Romney is a man whose principles flap in the breeze. If America as a nation suddenly favored castration to produce a choir of eunuchs he would doubtlessly find compelling reasons to snip. In that regard he is much like Gingrich, who likewise flaps in the breeze on issues. The main difference is that Gingrich at least TALKS a good game. And Gingrich has a record in national politics that Romney cannot match. And Gingrich doesn't resemble a Ken doll...
But Romney has flipped on policy, and his flips appear calculated. When he was involved in state politics in Massachusetts he was pro-choice, pro-amnesty, pro-government healthcare. Now that he's vying for the GOP nomination he has "repented" of his views. Strangely convenient. Now, a man may well change his mind - especially a guy who started as a liberal and grew out of it - but the timing of his change of heart is dubious.
Romney is also just plain boring. His hair is perfect, his clothes just so. His moves are calculated. He lacks passion. Does that sound familiar? It should; it describes the current resident in the White House to a T. The public does not want another Obama; cool, cerebral, scripted, passionless. The public does not want a marionette, a puppet, slick and designed. They do not want Max Talking Headroom, an artificial personality. They want a real live-action man.
Romney is too much like Obama himself. Both men resemble the '60's Supermarionation puppets
Romney is too much like Obama himself. Both men resemble the '60's
Supermarionation puppets that were so popular back then. (Supermarionation was just a fancy form of marionette capable of more lifelike motion than the traditional versions, but they were still just dangling on a string. They couldn't move through doorways, or offer any facial expressions.) Watching an Obama -or Romney - speech is like watching a segment of
Thunderbirds without the explosions and less action, and certainly with less plot. You can't really think of either man as actually human, as live action. Both are obviously creations of political consultants and marketing. We always wonder who exactly is holding the strings, and when those strings will become visible. We wonder who it is we are really dealing seeing.
America is crying for a real man, a human being, someone who is what he appears.
Gingrich, at least, is that. He has faults - many of them. He tends to let his mouth run away with him, and his brain outrun his good sense (just think of him arguing against Global Warming with Nancy Pelosi.) He, like Bill Clinton, can at least be shown to have a past, checkered and raw. Obama has no past, is a man whose history seems to have started with his entry into politics. Romney has more of a history, but it is so dull as to be questionable, a colorless mass. Gingrich has passion about whatever he discusses. He may play the fool now and again, but at least he is willing to put himself out there. There is great appeal to the public in that.
And he's willing to roll up his sleeves and fight. Conservatives have been dying to find someone who will do that. There hasn't been anyone since Reagan willing to fight for our beliefs, fight for our honor and our cause. The prevailing pattern has been to enter into polite, cerebral discourse, to attempt to persuade with soft words and general appeal. Rush Limbaugh's success in radio stems from his willingness to fight the Left, as does the success of every conservative radio host, yet the political world holds the opposite view, that the key to success is to speak softly and carry a tiny twig. For eight years we had to defend George W. Bush (a difficult proposition as Bush was a moderate and party insider) because Bush would not defend US. The bean-counters have convinced the GOP that people's views are immutable, and so the message has to be tailored to entice the independents, rather than to promote a strong belief and let the chips fall where they may. The GOP consultants do not understand the simple fact that people are drawn to conviction and that they can change their minds.
For a good historical example just look at the Gospels. Jesus did not operate on the coaxing premise but rather offered the view that "the Truth shall set you free" and commanded his disciples to "shake the dust of the town from your feet and move on" when they were not well-received. Jesus knew that the Truth is its own attraction, and that people come for it as surely as they come for free beer. And many of the people who come will stay, and will be enthusiastic. Those who come for free beer leave as soon as the keg runs dry. One of the things that amazed the First Century Jews was that Jesus spoke with authority and did not namby-pamby around. That was what the Scribes and Pharisees did. Ronald Reagan did not namby-pamby, but every one of his successors has done just that. Newt Gingrich, for all his faults (and they are legion) doesn't namby-pamby.
It's the reason why there was enthusiasm for Donald Trump, and why there is great zeal for Ron Paul among his supporters; these are real guys willing to stand up for their beliefs. You know they eat, drink, sleep, and put their pants on one leg at a time in the morning. It's quite difficult to imagine Mitt Romney in bed, or looking haggard in the morning, or on the toilet. There was a legend in ancient Egypt that the Pharaoh did not have to go to the toilet. One can't help but think that they were talking about Mitt Romney as well. And the famous observation by Teddy Roosevelt's daughter, Alice Roosevelt Longworth, of Governor Thomas E. Dewey as resembling the plastic figure on top of a wedding cake also comes to mind in describing Mitt Romney.
He just doesn't seem REAL! And you cannot imagine him getting excited, or grumpy, or angry. And a man who is without passion does not appear to be a man who cares about much of anything.
We're sick of it. We want someone who will rise against the system, fight the power, dig his heels into the flanks of Liberalism and scream "enough!" We want someone who will fight back. We have been on a long, agonizing road to socialism, a Fabian style creep. Eight years of George W. Bush just barely slowed the advance of the Left, as Bush refused to fight, believing he could reach a gentlemanly agreement. The superlative catastrophe that is the Obama presidency requires more than gentlemanliness. This is not, and has not been for a long, long time, a disagreement. It is a war. The Left has understood that fact, and they have accused us before the world, night and day, of every imaginable vile thing. And the Left prospered, as they leeched power from the GOP in Congress, then took the entire enchilada. They didn't do it by being gentlemen. They attacked, they sniped, they assaulted. They pounded us while Bush and the rest of the GOP establishment sat quietly. And the Democrats have bankrupted the country. We have every right to be angry, and anyone who isn't angry is either a fool or just doesn't care. A man like Romney who is measured and passionless comes across as not really holding any values. The public senses this - even the independents and moderates. Lack of passion equates with not caring.
This is the time for a warrior.
But the GOP does not understand war. They see this as the same old/same old, just another election year. They have their little fiefdom, and listen to their paid consultants who do not understand the psychology of the public but merely read polls. And many of the higher ups in the GOP don't care if we lose, as long as they can maintain their power in the Party. They do not understand nor care that the nation's survival is at stake.
So the Tea Party base in South Carolina roared. Gingrich is a terribly flawed candidate, but at least he has the stomach for a fight. Better a goofy, unstable, abrasive candidate who is at least alive than the GOP-created Supermarionation figure with all the safe answers.
We've already had one Obama; we don't need another.
(Thanks to Jack Kemp for some great suggestions with this article.)
