Newt Gingrich suggested that Romney serve Chick-fil-a at the Republican convention (reported in Newsmax here).
I certainly think that the Romney campaign would be smart to serve Chick-fil-A at the convention for one occasion. I think that would send a pretty clear signal to people without having done very much except to make it happen.
Now, there's the first read of this, which is, I think, what Newsmax has in mind: that Romney, who's seen as having missed an opportunity to show his cultural conservative bona fides with the chicken sandwich issue, can make clear that he stands with opponents of gay marriage with a small token. But I have a bit more of a less optimistic reading of what Newt communicated with this. I think he's asking for Romney to make the move only to show just how weak Romney is on cultural issues important to conservatives. (Does anyone remember the "who's a real conservative?" issue in the Republican Primaries?) And if Romney doesn't make the move, then even worse for him. Gingrich was clear in the primaries that he didn't see Romney as a real conservative, and this suggestion here has ambiguous import on that issue. Here's another way to put my second point: Gingrich, with the second sentence, is implicating that Romney hasn't been clear on the issue. That's enough for social conservatives.
2 thoughts on “You ain’t just (dog)whistling Dixie”
I hope Gingrich doesn't have any illusions about Romney helping to retire his campaign debt.
Yeah, whatever cooperation they can muster is always ambiguous. Gingrich may be trying out being a lobbyist for big chicken now.
Comments are closed.