The Mitt Show

Sat down like a good amateur pundit and watched most of the festivities from Tampa last night. A few comments:

• Maybe I'm a cynic, but some of the background stuff about Mitt Romney verged on hagiography. That's part of the deal with a campaign, but it seemed a little too thick to me. What will be interesting is to see if the Democrats and their flying monkeys in the media decide to "fact-check" some of the claims that were made about Romney's past, especially the personal anecdotes. It almost seemed like the Romney campaign is daring them to do so.
• I don't know if Mitt Romney will be president. After watching Marco Rubio last night, I think it's a good bet that Rubio will one day be standing at a similar platform, accepting the GOP nomination. It may not be for a while, but he'll get a chance. He's an impressive fellow.
• I'd never realized that Clint Eastwood was a performance artist before yesterday. I understand that Eastwood and Bob Newhart are good friends. I hope so, because Eastwood pretty much was doing a Bob Newhart bit last night. Some of the stuff he said was hilarious and he probably took more good shots at Obama/Biden than anyone who appeared this week. The early spin I've seen on is that Eastwood's appearance was somehow "sad" or "rambling." I'm guessing that the rambling approach was purposeful. If the meme persists, watch for Eastwood to reappear at a campaign event at some point and deliver a more standard address, though.
• Using the Olympians was a smart move, given Romney's biography. Getting Mike Eruzione was a masterstroke. If you are old enough to remember the Miracle on Ice and the role Eruzione played on that team, you'll know why. If you don't, stop by my house sometime, because there are times it seems like "Miracle" is on 24/7 around here. And if you didn't pick up on it, I'd also point out that having Eruzione on stage was another subtle way of making the 2012/1980 comparison. 
• As for Romney's speech, it was good, but not great. I don't know that it had to be great, but it would have helped him a little more if it had been. I'm not sure Romney can give a great speech, though. Oratory is a tough art; we remember great speeches because they are rare. Obama is probably in the White House today because of the speech he made in 2004 on behalf of John Kerry -- he certainly wouldn't have emerged based on the strength of his legislative resume. 
• The larger subtext of last night was making the comparison between the Man of Words (Obama) and the Man of Action (Romney). I think that, all in all, that effort was successful. What I wonder about is this; was anyone really paying attention? It's much more difficult to get a mass audience now than it was when Ronald Reagan was making his pitch some 32 years ago. Obama gets his chance to respond next week. What will be interesting to watch is this; will anyone tune in to that extravaganza?