Stick a Fork in 'Em. They're Done

Michael Barone offers here a perceptive analysis of Mitt Romney's "front-runner" standing in the polls.  Barone knows what is easy to see: give people a lit of ten possible candidates for the Republican nomination, and the best known ones will get 14-16%.  Interestingly, last night, Mike Huckabee -- another one of the sixteen percenters -- did what I figured and hoped he would do: he dropped out.

The pregnant question is where Huckabee's social conservative supporters now turn.
I think that if their issues are to play a role in the 2012 Republican campaign, Rick Santorum's poll ratings must rise now.  If that doesn't happen, Mitch Daniels' truce is probably already in effect.

I figure The Huck for the next Paul Harvey.  Page Two.

Last week, the WSJ hit Romney on the meaning of his actions on the Massachusetts Health Care plan now known as RomneyCare:  The way the plan came together proves that Mitt believes that five, or fifty-five, or five hundred thirty-five smart guys in a room or two in Washington can run health care.  If he believes that will work for one sixth of the economy he probably believes it would work fine for the remaining five sixths.  I invite you to review Hayek's Road to Serfdom if you need a detailed analysis of why it won't work and how it will it will fail.

Newt Gingrich believes in the smart guy approach, too.  When I made this comparison to a group of savvy political friends last Thursday one of them added that there was a difference between Newt and Mitt: Newt would like to be the only smart guy in the room. 

Dana Milbank -- I know you never thought I'd quote him, but hear me out -- here gives a near-pitch-perfect description of Mitt's reaffirmation of his support of RomneyCare in Michigan last week.  His two-heads metaphor is hilarious -- though the reference to a tragic malformed birth in China is unfortunate -- but Romney's performance at this crucial event is completely consistent with Sherry's and my personal observation.  Four years ago, we were with a group of a hundred or so conservative donors, leaders, and political junkies to whom Romney spoke.  He later put out a press release on his policy pronouncements there, so I don't feel too bad about telling you... The Rest of the Story.  Here is a slightly edited version of my description of his performance written in early April of 2007:

Romney gave a Baine-consultant, cringe-inducing PowerPoint presentation that reminded me of AlGore.  He counts French-style -- one-two-three starting with his thumb -- and was more interested in leaving us with his resume than an understanding of his principles. 

He also took questions.  The third one was from a well known libertarian asking about the meaning of habeas corpus for Guantanamo.  Romney first answered by saying he hadn't yet developed his position on that and needed to work with his staff on one.  When the questioner pressed the issue on follow-up, Romney virtually ran off the stage, leaving me with a microphone in my hand and my free-trade question unasked.  Most of the people I spoke to were not too favorably impressed.

"He looks like Warren Beatty," I said at dinner that night.  "From ' Shampoo'," someone else said.

After his PowerPoint presentation at Michigan, others are going to begin to see him that way.

I think he's toast.  I sure hope so.

Newt appeared at that same conference, and, in the same message, I wrote:

Newt was..., well, Newt.  He was stimulating and hilarious.  He wasn't pushing programs, but rather, his plan to capture the entire 50,000 elected seats throughout this fair land to be released on September 11 this year [in 2007, remember?  You remember the plan, right?  I forget.].  I went hoping he'd seem Presidential, i.e., more grounded and less flighty, but he's still spinning off ideas like sparks from tool steel against a grinding wheel.  In private conversations with me after Newt's speech, heroically conservative members of Congress confirmed that was the Newt they knew, whom, they said would make "a terrible leader."

After this week's announcement that Newt's in, how seriously should he be taken?  Ethanol Man?  Professor Cornpone?  You can't be serious!  His political ADHD has him professing three contradictory ideas each day, one before breakfast, another after lunch, and the third between cocktails and dinner.  Good thing he doesn't have two heads, they'd be spinning out contradictory ideas at the same time.

Why should you care what I think, though.  In that same message I wrote of our first encounter with Mark Sanford:

But Mark Sanford -- then governor of South Carolina -- was sensational.  Those self-same Heroes of Congress said he was their last best hope.  When he finished his speech, and prepared to take questions, Sherry said, in a low voice to me, "Where have they been keeping him?"  And then there were no questions.  So I raised my hand, and when the microphone arrived, said "I'm relaying my wife's question," and did so.  Cracked the house up.

That was a year or two before he took up hiking the Appalachian trail.

There were other big name Presidential candidates there -- Sam Brownback of Kansas, Jim Gilmore of Virginia -- who soon faded and have since disappeared with grace from the national scene.  It's not too much to hope that Mitt Romney will do the same.

For what it's worth, like The Huck and The Hiker, I hope that one day you'll be able to say about The Newt and The Mitt, "Stick a fork in 'em.  They're done."

Not that I'm Paul Harvey. Good... day!