How to tell Mitt Romney is no 'wimp'? Take that, Harry Reid.

Mitt Romney says Senate majority leader Harry Reid should 'put up or shut up' in response to Reid's accusations that he didn't pay taxes for 10 years. Will lines like that help him win over voters?

|
Charles Dharapak/AP
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney speaks to reporters as he boards his charter plane in Centennial, Colo., Thursday en route to Aspen, Colo.

Suddenly, Mitt Romney is talking tough.

In a radio interview with Sean Hannity on Thursday, Mr. Romney was asked about Senate majority leader Harry Reid’s allegations that an unnamed Bain Capital investor had told him that Mr. Romney had not paid any taxes for 10 years.

Romney’s response: Senator Reid should “put up or shut up.”

Yes, the famously straight-laced GOP nominee – who, in what we’re sure is a massive coincidence, was recently labeled a “wimp” on the cover of Newsweek – is now using lines reminiscent of a Clint Eastwood movie.

At least he didn’t say “shove it” or “kiss my [posterior]” (that was just his press aide).

Still, it made us squirm a little.

Not because Romney’s choice of words violated any sort of political decorum. These days, politicians routinely use far saltier language than that, and often the public seems to like it. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s blunt retorts – such as calling an opponent "an arrogant S.O.B." or telling coastal residents resisting a hurricane evacuation to “get the hell off the beach” – are widely seen as part of his appeal. Vice President Joe Biden famously dropped an f-bomb (albeit when he thought he couldn’t be heard) at the signing ceremony for the president’s health-care reform bill.

Romney’s not even the first politician to use “put up or shut up.” In late 2010, Sen. Mark Warner (D) of Virginia used the phrase on the Senate floor, talking about the need to address the debt crisis (though he added “excuse the language”). And former British Prime Minister John Major may be forever associated with the phrase, which he uttered at a press conference in 1995, daring opponents from his own party to try to topple him.

It’s just that it seemed, well, out of character for Romney.  

Tellingly, Romney didn’t deliver the line with anything even approaching genuine outrage. Listening to the tone of his voice, he could have been talking about his lawn furniture. Or the weather. Right before he said it, he emitted the same nervous chuckle that he makes whenever an interviewer brings up a topic he doesn’t like (a laugh that James Lipton, host of "Inside the Actor’s Studio," called “inert” and “mirthless.”)

It’s too bad, because this was a moment when Romney could have shown some real emotion. Reid has come under fire for making his accusation – which he first offered up in an interview with the Huffington Post – based on information from a sole source that he refused to name. In the same interview, Reid even acknowledged he was “not certain” it was true.

Even “Daily Show” host Jon Stewart – generally not a big Romney defender – called it a cheap shot: “You’re the Senate majority leader! You can’t just run to the Sideboob Gazette with ridiculous speculations about what may or may not be in Mitt Romney’s taxes!”

But instead of scripted rejoinders, what voters really need to hear from Romney is some sort of heartfelt response. It doesn't have to be snappy; it just has to be honest.

It’s telling that, at a point in the race when he most needs to let the public know who he really is, Romney seems to be doing the opposite. Instead of finding his voice, Romney keeps borrowing someone else’s.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to How to tell Mitt Romney is no 'wimp'? Take that, Harry Reid.
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/Decoder/2012/0803/How-to-tell-Mitt-Romney-is-no-wimp-Take-that-Harry-Reid
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe