Wednesday Morning Quarterbacking
Giuliani and Romney win, going away….On the economy and trade, taxes and optimism, Romney has the edge, but he miffed the Iran question….The talk of lawyers - probably a fumbled reference to when and if the War Powers Act applies, but you couldn’t really tell - was not his finest hour, but also not the huge deal that some want to make it out to be….
Fred Thompson is just flat. Period. And the perpetual frown isn’t going to win anything.
[O]ne thing that surprises me is that anybody would consider Romney’s performance “impressive.” I thought it was a disaster. In the midst of the fight with Giuliani, Romney said that this isn’t about taxes and spending where they both agree, but about the line-item veto. Huh? Why would Romney concede 99% of the argument to Giuliani - the part that voters will actually care about - and focus on the consititutionality of the line-item veto?….
Then, of course, there was the gaffe of the night, in which Romney said if he were considering an attack on Iran, he’d first consult lawyers. That was damaging on several levels. It reinforces the image of him as calculating and artificial, since it seemed like that was his way of avoiding the question. Also, Romney has a lot of ground to make up on the national security issue with McCain and Giuliani, and this just makes him look weaker and less decisive (as well as ignorant of the powers of the office he’s seeking).
So, I thought Romney was the big, big, loser.
Writing as somebody who was unable to live-blog this shindig, but is not unadept at reading tea leaves, I’d say our man Mitt was the debating equivalent of Tony Romo in Buffalo the other night, minus the nine points in the final twenty seconds.
What, you may be asking, did the Rudyans have to say about Fred? Actually, they were surprisingly generous - or perhaps simply less defensive and more genuinely confident than Commodore Hewitt:
Fred got better as the night went on, and came off as likeable. Also, when he passed the Canadian prime minister pop quiz with flying colors it showed the audience that he isn’t some big blundering oaf that some in the media have been portraying him as. Also, Fred’s “I thought I was going to be the best actor on stage” line was a nice comeback to Romney’s awkward and unfunny prepared joke.
Doesn’t exactly sound like “flat” and “frowning” to me.
It’s hard for anybody not securely nestled in Romney’s mitt (a baseball reference, I assure you) to conclude that the ex-Massachusetts governor has not had a good week. He launches a major economic policy broadside at Rudy in prelude to last night’s confab and then runs away from it? What, then, was the point? That doesn’t inspire confidence about what is supposed to be a guy who’s always prepared, in command of the facts, etc. And the “I’ll consult my lawyers” blurt to the “How would you handle an imminent Iranian attack?” question is, indeed, a disastrous answer because it appears so freudian of Romney’s real thought processes, and it is so reminiscent of another Massachusetts politician who ran for president just three short years ago. Or have you forgotten national security having to pass “a global test”?
Team Rudy hasn’t, and the Romneyites are conceding what a huge verbal turd their guy dropped yesterday. “Lawyer’s test for national security” is going to stick to Romney like a barnacle for the next three months. Time will tell whether it erodes his Iowa and New Hampshire leads, but at this point it sure looks like the only direction the Mittster can go in the early states is downward.
For me, it certainly settles some issues in my mind. Suffice it to say that Romney is coming across to me more and more like Giuliani - a moderate trying desperately to put himself over as a conservative.
I’ll let the process of elimination - and, perhaps sooner than later, my sidebar - fill in the unspoken blank.
UPDATE: Brother Meringoff concurs with Double-H on the “lawyer’s test” gaffe, and thought Rudy went over overall.
