For Romney, it's now or never in Denver

There I was, sitting at the bar with my eyes glued to the TV in Chicago’s LaSalle Street Station, waiting for the departure of the Rock Island’s Rocky Mountain Rocket to take me to Des Moines. It was Sept. 26, 1960, the evening of the first-ever televised presidential debate, between Vice President Richard Nixon and Sen. John Kennedy.

The debate was focused on domestic issues, just as it will be this Wednesday evening. A new age in American political theatre was about to begin.

This would be my fourth attempt to predict correctly the outcome of a presidential election. The previous two had been easy as Ike demolished Adlai Stevenson in 1952 and 1956. But the race in 1960 was a completely different kettle of fish. President Eisenhower was seriously ill, and the nation’s economy was reeling from a succession of three recessions. The country appeared ready for change. But was it prepared to put its trust into the hands of such a young a man who had served only eight years in the Senate, and who was a Roman Catholic?

Nixon was the favorite, and following the two political conventions he had built a six-point lead in the polls over Kennedy. The question was whether the televised debates would enable him to cement that lead, or whether his rival could use the technological revolution that television had become to close the gap and seize the advantage.

We remember what happened. Kennedy was better prepared, more self assured and at ease with the media and the opportunity television offered. Nixon was exhausted, not feeling well, sweated profusely, had a five o’clock shadow and appeared angry. When that first debate was over, Nixon’s running mate, Henry Cabot Lodge, said, “That son of a b---- just lost the election.” Cabot Lodge was right.

By the time all four of the debates were concluded, Kennedy had taken the lead. But it was that first debate, the one on domestic issues, that proved to be the turning point in what turned out to be an election that was decided by a razor thin margin of 0.1 percent, a difference of about one vote per precinct nationally.

As I left the bar for the train in Chicago that night 52 years ago, the Shadow told me, “Kennedy wins.”

The debate Wednesday in Denver is just as crucial for Mitt Romney as it was for Kennedy in 1960. He’s the challenger and he’s behind in all the polls. Not only did he not get any bounce in the polls as a consequence of the Republican Convention, he and his campaign are reeling from an array of punishing, self-inflicted body blows.

Romney was forced far to the right in order to dispatch his opponents in the Republican primaries this past spring. He comes across on the campaign trail and on television as wooden and stiff. That personal style, coupled with his immense wealth, have created a gulf that has prevented him from connecting with average Americans. And the recent revelation of the tape that shows him disdainful of almost half of the electorate has been a disaster.

But amazingly, he still has a chance to win. For that to happen, Romney is going to have to win the Denver debate. And he’s got to win it decisively. The reason that he still has a chance is because the Obama administration can’t run on its record.

The economic recovery is anemic. The danger of another recession is real. If that were not the case, the Fed would not be throwing the kitchen sink at the economy with its latest and most aggressive round of quantitative easing. Unemployment is relentlessly persistent and there is no light at the end of the tunnel, Bill Clinton’s homilies to the contrary notwithstanding.

The most salient consequences of the president’s signature stimulus and health care reform laws have been the polarization of the American people and the concomitant rise of the tea party radicals. Furthermore, the administration showed nothing but fecklessness in refusing to deal with the debt and deficit crisis that will again take the nation to the edge of the fiscal cliff shortly after the November election.

Romney’s opening exists only because of Barack Obama’s failures over the past four years. Thus, the question is: How does Romney thread the eye of the needle in Denver?

Surprisingly, the answer is obvious. He’s got to be both hopeful and specific with respect to fixing America’s broken economy. He’s got to say it can be fixed and then specify how it can be fixed. Doing that is politically risky, and that’s why neither he nor Obama have done so thus far. But it’s a risk Romney now must take or face inevitable defeat.

But if he does it in a coherent way, it will instantly expose the difference between him and the president. He will have set forth a specific plan that encompasses job creation, economic growth, tax reform and energy independence. When the public contrasts such a plan with the fact that Obama has no real alternative, the dynamic of the race will pivot in Romney’s favor.

There’s no tomorrow, Mitt.

Please Visit;  Citizens Against Politics As Usual

Please Visit;  Mike Tower Political Opinions