How Mitt Suckered
Newt
By DICK MORRIS
Published on
The Hill.com
on January 31, 2012
For students of American politics, following the way the Romney
campaign played Newt Gingrich in Florida is a lesson to learn and to
keep. Romney's people must have realized that Newt does best when he is
positive. His bold ideas, clear vision, revolutionary insights and
extraordinary perspectives resonate with voters and win him millions of
supporters.
Romney, less compelling but more consistent, doesn't need stellar debate
performances or bold vision to win. The case for the former
Massachusetts governor is more circumstantial: He can reach out to
independents by virtue of his past apostasies on healthcare and
abortion. He looks, talks and acts like a president. His record of job
creation is exemplary.
But Newt needs the bold sally, the breathtaking moment of rhetorical
clarity, to prevail.
So Romney's people set out to mire Newt in negatives so he couldn't and
wouldn't get out the positive message he needed to project to prevail.
They tormented him with negative ads in Iowa. While the ads were
generally accurate -- the allegation about backing China's
forced-abortion policy aside -- they presented only one side of the
story and were stinging in their impact. Without funds, Gingrich
couldn't answer the negative ads. He fumed but watched, in impotence, as
his vote share fell away.
In Spanish bullfights, the picadors torment the bull by sticking darts
into his shoulders. Enraged, bleeding, frustrated and in pain, he lowers
his head, snorts, paws the ground and charges straight at the matador,
oblivious to the sword awaiting him behind the red cape. That's about
what Romney did to Gingrich in the January primaries.
Enter Sheldon Adelson, a Vegas billionaire who loves Newt. His affection
runs so deep that he gave Gingrich the funds to destroy himself. With
Adelson's reported contribution of $5 million-plus, Newt had the weapons
to fight back with his own negative ads. In a rage, he put them on TV
and devoted his time in the debates to throwing accusations. RomneyCare.
Abortion. Gay rights. The taxes Romney paid and the ones he advocated.
Massachusetts moderate. No, make that Massachusetts liberal. They
tripped off his tongue and his super-PAC put them on the air. Sheldon
paid the bill. But Newt paid the price.
No longer was he Newt the visionary, the leader, the intellect. He was a
Nixonian caricature of himself, wallowing in negatives, forsaking the
chance to explain himself and his ideas for the chance to jab with
attacks.
Newt needed to rebut. Newt needed to go positive. Newt did not need to
go negative. He should have used Adelson's funds to reply to Romney's
attacks and then to articulate his bold plans for his first day in
office. He did not need to exchange punches with Mitt.
As Newt lost his aura, Romney surged. At times, it seemed that Gingrich
was motivated more by fury -- like the Spanish bull -- than by ambition
or strategic sense. He had lost his cool, and all could see it.
In the end, his foray into negatives raised again the specter of Newt
the loose cannon, firing any negative that came to hand. Newt the
destroyer who shut down the government and handed Clinton the election
in 1996.
Romney pulled Newt off his game. Late on the Monday night before the
primary, we had a vision of what could have been. Newt went on the "The
Sean Hannity Show" and laid out a sweeping plan for his first month in
office. His obvious grasp of the legislative process and the potential
reach of executive action was vintage Gingrich. Where had he been all
campaign? Wallowing in negative campaigning, courtesy of Romney's
strategy in playing him.
Who's Your Pick for 2012? Vote Here Now
Subscribe to Dick's Newsletter
|