I saw Romney's "concession" speech this Saturday night. It was not graciious. Rick Santorum, by contrast, gave a gracious concession speech. For example, Yahoo "News' tonight is featureing a headline saying taht Romney "rips" into Gingrich, without using hisname. Unusual for Yahoo "news", and the mainstream media "sources" it uses for its "featured" stories, I thought this headline was accurate (my borther in Nashville did ot see the Romney speech as that bad as far as ripping into Gingrich, although he aagrees it was not a god speech, but the speech realy did set the wrong tone just after you have had your BUTT KICKED.
Santorum did much better, giving Gingrich gracous credit for such a strong victory. No, Romney did not have to say that the South Carolina results mean that Gingrich is the better candidate, or veven that Gingrich ran a fair campaign. Howecver, I believe it was ESSENTIL for Romney to give Gingrich credit bor winning a strong victory. Romney did not do that. It amde him apear PETULANT (See McClintock", I think it was, where John Wayne jumped on his daughter for using this owrd as to her mother--the difference being that the word is ACCURATE to describve Romney's speech tonight. The speech also made Ronney appear somewhat of a WHINER (admittedly somewhat of a synonym for "petulant") .
I say this as a person who AGREES with the Romney assertion that Gingrich made a bad mistake to criticize theoperation of Bain capital, which was basically an Obaa-type assault on "caitalbimm". My brother says that he even heard Gingrich say_I heard things almost as bad--that there was no rason Bain could not have made 60 millin,, instead of f130 million, on a deal No, the numbers are aribrary, on both Gingrich's part and mine, and Gingrich may not have used these particular numbers. The point is that the GOVERNMENT (or yuou, I or Gingrich) has NO BUSINESS telling a private business how much money that business can make in private transactioins, just as the government, you, I and Newt Gingrich have NO BUINESS saying that Albert Pujols shoudl not receive 254 MIKKON dollars for PLAYING BASEASEBALL for the California Angels (over ten years). Could not Albert Pujols be satisfied with 100 million, so that FANS may not have to pay so much for ticket prices? Since I am a lifelong Stu. Louis Cardinal fan, I have MORWE reasn to be unhappy with Pujols' "greed" than with Mitt Romney, but I have no problem with him earning what he can (although I can question whetehr he might have been HAPIER staing where he was, but that is HIS decison and NONE OF MY BUSINESS--even if he were to run for office).
Problem (reason this made Romney look like a WHINER); This is NOT the reason that Romney lost, or that Gingrich won. Gingrich acctually showed PASSION, and an ability to think on his fett and realat to people, with his debate performances. Even Charles Kruathammmerf--an establishment guy--said taht Gingrich's answer to Juan Williams EXPLAINED the conservative positin on dependecy and work better than Romney is CAPABLE of doing. This is essentially the old cliche' that Gingrich made new: "Give a person a fish,and you give that person a mel; teach that person to fish, and you feeed taht person FOR A LIFETIME. Meanwhile, while Gingrich is makng conservative points in ways that people understand, and standing up to the media guys, Romney is prattling on about how he RESENTS being attacked for being "successful". It just does nto work, for Romney. Bain capital did NOT hurt Mitt Roney. Romney's REACTION to being asked about his tax returns, taxes, and--yes--the money he made DID HURT ROMNEY. This blog told you so, and this blog was right.
And that is why Romney's REACTION to this DEFEAT is SO BAD. Hs reaction is to GO AFTER NEWT GINGRICH. Yes, this is a little like Gingrich's reaction after Romney (I know, the "independent" SuperPAC) KILLED Gingrich i Iowa with negative ads. But Gingrich did NOT gain any traction in New Hamshire, and his attmept to retaliate in kid agaisnt Romney DID OT WORK. What was different in Soouth Carolina? Romney SHOT HIMSELF IN THE FOOT (as Gingrich did, to somee degree, in Iowa), and Gingrich showed an ability to COMMUNICATE conservative IDEAS in the two DEBATES in South Carolina (includng the ability to turn disgraceful, "old news" questons around on an evil media). Romney is simply WRONG to assume that it was the BAIN CAPITAL attacks on Romney that hurt him. If Romney--whether it arises because he is so "rich", or because of someting else--comes across as "out-of-touch with ordinary peooople, and unable to effectively communicate, then that is BAD for the GOP (if Romney is the nominee).
No. I stand behind what I say above. Romney was UNGRACIOUS, and took entirely the wrong tone in his "concession" speech. And the media is WRONG, as well as Romney, to say that PERSONAL ATTACKS by Romney on Gingrich can "rehabilitate" Romney. If Gingirch has the wrong reaction to attacks, and does a "Roney", it is posssilbe attacks may "wrok" (in a sense). But they CANNOT make up for a lack IN ROMNEY of an ability to communicate with ordinary people on a larege scale. If Gingrich handles the attacks even moderately well, they wil HURT ROMNEY (maybe destoy his candidacy). That almost happened to GINGRICH in New Hampsire, wher he finished FOURTH (way behind Ron Paul). Romney has learned the WRONG LESSON. Even if he somehow, with the help of Gingrich, tears down Gingrich, Romney will hurt himself. Romney is now raising the question of whether HE can win against Obama--a question this blog raised a number of times in the past few weeks.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checkng (bad eyesight).