When I read Mitt Romney’s characterization of Newt Gingrich as “zany,” I had a thought similar to Carter’s. The word was no accident.

I think the $10,000 bet Romney proposed to Rick Perry was a gaffe, but “zany” was the product of pre-mediated analysis and head-scratching over how to highlight the notion that Gingrich has a crazy side. It wouldn’t be like Romney and it wouldn’t be very smart for him to say that a lot of people think that Newt is nuts, wacky or delusional.  The campaign had to come up with just the right word to prompt the media and others to talk about whether Newt is playing with a full deck or whether he is sufficiently reliable, earnest and thoughtful enough to be president. 

 Webster’s description of “zany” is:

1: A subordinate clown or acrobat in old comedies who mimics ludicrously the tricks of the principal

2: A slavish follower

3: One who acts the buffoon to amuse others

 None of these definitions really hit the bull’s-eye, but perhaps that’s the point.  The word is vague enough so it is not considered insulting, mean-spirited or personally degrading. 

Romney will probably be asked about the word tonight in the Fox News debate. He knows it’s coming. And he knows there is going to be a reference from the moderator, or one of his opponents, to the clumsy $10,000 wager he offered Perry in the last debate.  He will be ready. 

 It will be hard to repeat the word “zany” to Gingrich’s face without Gingrich being able to deftly manage a response, since he is an artful speaker and he also knows the word is coming.  But if Romney wins the election, and the word sticks to Gingrich, there will be chapters written in the 2012 campaign books that give great weight to the “genius” of deploying the word “zany.” 

 That may sound zany, but that’s how campaign legends are made.