(
)
On Oct. 3, I raised a question here that reflected President Obama’s strong momentum and Mitt Romney’s apparent readiness to accept defeat.
“Are you a good loser, Mitt?” I wrote.
I have my answer. I’ve gotten it so many times in the last 17 days that I am now convinced of it.
The answer is no, Mitt Romney is not a good loser. He is instead determined to be the next president of the United States.
And I am starting to believe he will be.
The New & Improved Mitt took the stage in the first debate, which came on the day of my question. The timing is important, because the day marked what, in hindsight, was the low point of the Romney campaign.
He was drifting, not fighting, and seemed oddly content with a race sliding away, as though the nomination was victory enough. Obama, on the other hand, gave every indication he wanted to keep the job, no matter what it took. His re-election had a growing sense of inevitability.
Then came that first debate, where Romney’s brilliant performance and Obama’s snooze flipped the script. But it is now clear Romney’s sudden zest wasn’t a one-off. He has continued to gain support after the second debate, an illustration of the power and depth of the change to his approach.
Some polls show him leading nationally by as much as 6 points, and the Electoral College map is moving in his direction. Romney still needs more states in his column and there is plenty of time for the race to swing back to Obama.
But there is no denying that we have witnessed a man rising beyond what seemed his ability to meet a challenge. If Romney were an athlete, we would be asking whether he’s on steroids.
That’s how good he’s been. Partially, he moved the needle by putting meat on the bones of his tax-reform plan and linking it to economic growth and jobs. Obama responded by calling him a liar — not very presidential — and failed to match him with a second-term agenda that would give undecided voters a rationale for backing him.
The change in Romney is reflected in his appearance and demeanor. He looks to be standing straighter, yet not as stiffly. His gestures are firm, his language crisp and sure. He projects a level of conviction that, to my eyes, is new.
The new Mitt showed up at the Al Smith dinner Thursday night. His delivery of the biting jokes, some at his own expense, was direct and his timing was shockingly good. His bearing, instead of merely business-patrician, was elegant and leader-like. You could say it was presidential.
That’s part of the change — he is acting as if he is going to be president. It’s more than simply trying on a new coat. I believe he fully intends to own it.
The effect on the 1,600 New Yorkers jammed into the Waldorf-Astoria ballroom was powerful. The ovation he received after his 10-minute speech was far stronger than when he began. It was a killer performance before a hard-to-please crowd.
Obama followed and, while he was good, seemed duller by comparison. He spoke a minute less than Romney, a sharp break from their debates! In the charitable spirit of the evening, both men were movingly gracious to each other and their host, Timothy Cardinal Dolan. But it was Romney who used the occasion to pass another test on another stage.
He still faces a long, winding road to the White House, and doing well in tomorrow night’s final debate is essential. But because of his newfound determination, Romney controls his own destiny. The race is his to win.
A crushing fiscal ‘barbell’
In next year’s mayoral race, hot-button issues are certain to include crime, taxes and schools. But a sleeper concern is taking shape, and it may well be the overriding issue that links all others.
It’s the “barbell effect,” meaning that increasing numbers of New Yorkers are either well off or poor, with fewer and fewer people in between.
Many new jobs in the city are service positions related to the boom of tourism and offer modest pay. Any job is important and welcome, but even some business leaders are concerned that a shrinking middle class means a shrinking tax base — and less money for services. Meanwhile, the demand for services grows in a poorer population.
One result is a problem of affordability, with many family incomes falling as workers take or trade down for lower-paying jobs. And with unemployment still near 10 percent, more people are on the cusp of poverty in a city that is ever more expensive.
There is no single solution, but City Hall can help by finding ways to reduce the burden it imposes. Every tax and fee slapped on businesses to help the poor gets passed along to everybody, including the poor.
Whether it’s the sales tax or property taxes, consumers end up paying, and that makes New York less affordable to more people.
Something’s gotta give.
Examining the duplicity
A friend and alum of the Bronx HS of Science writes:
“I almost choked on my green tea the other morning when I read The New York Times’ editorial applauding the NAACP’s lawsuit over the entrance exam for Bronx Science, Stuyvesant and the other exclusive public high schools in the city. The Times agrees that the test unfairly excludes too many ‘minority’ children from these schools.
“Yet Science and Stuyvesant have huge percentages of Asian students and children of recent immigrants from Eastern Europe — minorities in the city, many relatively poor with parents who barely speak English.
“So what the Times means by ‘minority’ is African-American and Hispanic students. I guess that makes all other minorities . . . majorities.
“The Times also argues that the entrance test doesn’t predict academic success by the kids who pass it. In fact, in my day and still, Science and Stuyvesant (cheaters notwithstanding) are celebrated for their students’ SAT scores, awards and admission to top colleges.
“The whole thing is disingenuous nonsense.”
Amen.
Spending on ‘free’ speech
There they go again. A City Council press release says members will “organize volunteers to become trained as clinic escorts” at “reproductive health centers” targeted by pro-life protesters. Speaker Christine Quinn claims that “offensive rhetoric and disturbing protests have become increasingly divisive and intrusive.”
“Offensive rhetoric?” In plain English, the free speech it doesn’t like is spurring the council to rush in with a heavy government hand.
If pro-life protesters want council sympathy, they should set up camp in a public park and commit politically correct crimes. That’s what Occupy Wall Street did, and most council members defended the group’s right to trash whole blocks.
Eyebrow raiser
Twice in recent days, Gov. Cuomo linked his support for a legislative pay raise to whether lawmakers approve his agenda.
His offer could do the trick. As prosecutors frequently have proven, nothing moves Albany faster than a bribe.