Former speaker of the House Newt Gingrich is back in the saddle after falling off his horse at the starting line. At least according to one poll (Public Policy Polling), Gingrich is actually the GOP frontrunner.
Advertisement
Many say it’s simply Gingrich’s turn to be the not-Mitt contender, now that Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, and Herman Cain have had their chances.
But that’s not entirely fair. Gingrich has been relentlessly seducing GOP voters in the debates. Romney may have been winning on points and technicalities, but Gingrich has been consistently winning the crowds.
Moreover, he’s been deftly using the debates to develop a sales pitch to GOP voters. His Reaganesque refusal to attack fellow Republicans has been appreciated, as has his more mercenary determination to ridicule the media by pouncing on stupid — and sometimes not-so-stupid — questions from debate moderators.
But the core of his strategy has been to plant a question in the minds of Republican voters. The question he wants them to ask is, “Whom would you most like to see debate Barack Obama?”
In each debate, he keeps mentioning how he wants to challenge the president to as many Lincoln-Douglas-style debates as possible. And if the presidential baloney won’t march into the Gingrichian grinder? Well then, the grinder will come to the baloney. Gingrich vows to follow Obama on the stump, offering rapid response after every presidential utterance.
It’s a brilliant tactic. Watching Gingrich walk onto the debate stage, it’s like seeing a great beast returned to its natural habitat. They should play “Born Free” whenever he comes out from behind the curtain.
The tactic works because the unifying conviction among hard-core Republican voters is that Obama is both overrated and full of it, a man pretending to be presidential and intellectual rather than the real thing. (Ironically, Gingrich has long been the subject of similar criticisms, mostly from the left.) Gingrich’s promise to goad Obama into a fair fight is beyond tantalizing.
Talk to rank-and-file conservatives about such a matchup and they grow giddy, like nerds asked if they’d like to see a battle between Darth Vader and Gandalf the wizard. Ask them if they’d like to see an Obama versus Romney debate (the thrilla with vanilla!) and they shrug. Meanwhile, if you nominate Gingrich, you’ll get a ticket to the fight of the century.
Newt can't make good decisions in his Personal life or Political, being a Great thinker doesn't make you a good leader or a Wise one! Newt is 66 percent likely not to keep his word, his actions in his Personal life and his Political are proof alone that Newt WILL NOT do what he promises...
Wow, 66%, eh? Is that like 4 out of 5 dentists surveyed? Or Ivory Soap pure (99.44%)? Pure what, I always wondered. Regardless, my natural tendency to discount opinions bolstered by fabricated statistics with no verifiable support forces me to call BS on you.
Not that I am a big Newt fan. I just dislike your style of logic.
Also, I am a little leery of people who need to Capitalize Words such as Personal,Political, and Great. It makes me feel like I've been left out of an inside joke.
He better get out in front of this taking close to $2 million from Freddie Mac story, and quick. As far as debating Obama goes, have you pundits lost the videos of Obama's debates with McCain? Off prompter, this guy is no Abraham Lincoln. If John McCain goes toe to toe with you, you've got problems. Newt would absolutely swab the deck with Obama..
Yes yes yes, Newt is brilliant and would wipe the floor with God in a debate, never mind Barack Obama.
But he makes me nervous, and not just because of the baggage. He's always the smartest guy in the room, and he knows it. His ego appears commensurate. People with a grand view of themselves (Obama) are more likely to dismiss sound advice and go with their own gut.
How will the professorial, sometimes condescending Gingrich wear with the public over eight months or so if he's the nominee? I don't know. Do you? I'm not a Romney fan (although anyone not named Obama gets my vote), but he actually connects pretty well with people.
Lots of things to think about before the primaries.
Jeffrey Lord has an interesting column over at American Spectator about Newt comparing him to the way Winston Churchill was reviled, but was the one the Brits turned to when Hitler threatened the UK's existence before WWII. I thought it interesting that it would be Obama's just desserts if Churchill came roaring back to the White House after "The One" had tossed his bust away! External Link
I was thinking of someone else - not Churchill, not Reagan or Thatcher. Someone who made a comeback after being ousted. Someone whose intellect was always respected, but his temperament was not. Someone whose self-discipline was questioned. This person returned after more than a decade in the wilderness, too, and eventually built the most valuable company in the world. External Link
Gingrich is pandering to a crowd who think running for president is the ultimate "American Idol".
The idea that a significant number of voters predisposed to support Obama will vote Gingrich instead based on a series of debates is wishful thinking. It's also a pretty cynical admission that GOP ideas, in and of themselves, are not appealing to a critical mass of the population.
It's just more of the Christie-pining, "We just need a tough guy who'll kick Obama's butt" approach that plays well in the primaries but's a sure loser in the general.
The question all voters should be asking is what kind of a president Gingrich would make. And the answer seems pretty obvious.
Regarding that "pretty cynical admission that GOP ideas, in and of themselves, are not appealing to a critical mass of the population," those ideas must be trumpeted by the nominee in order to be part of the equation.
Only Romney seems as articulate and savvy as Gingrich, and he seems even less willing or able to offer a rigorous defense of conservative principles. Newt's not a stalwart Reaganite, but he's a fighter who doesn't always defer to the positions and pieties of the elite. That ought to count for something.
I'm not entirely sold on any candidate, and I agree that how a person would govern is crucially important, but I'm not sure ANY of the candidates truly grasp the dire situation we're in (see: Steyn), much less do any of them seem willing to articulate that and advance a truly adequate small-government set of solutions.
Lawrence: I am sure that I'll be called a kook on these supposed "conservative" pages, but I take issue with your statement, "I'm not sure ANY of the candidates truly grasp the dire situation we're in (see: Steyn), much less do any of them seem willing to articulate that and advance a truly adequate small-government set of solutions."
Uh, yeah there is. His name is Dr. Ron Paul and he's not only a sitting member of Congress, he's the ONLY small-government solutions candidate.
You should really study his ideas - without the cloud of big government Republican influence like NRO - and you just may find yourself impressed.
Paul would probably be more effective focusing on entitlements more than on the Fed, but I take your point. It's just that Dr. Ron Paul has a foreign-policy philosophy that would be catastrophic to this nation, at least as much as our fiscal issues. He would be a great Treasury Secretary but a terrible Commander in Chief, and so I tend not to account for him in my reckoning of the Republican candidates.
I appreciate your reply, but I disagree. For one thing, his foreign policy positions are grossly distorted by phony conservative sites like NRO. If you listen to him at length, and not in a 30 second debate sound bite, I believe you would change your position.
The fact is, whether you like it or not, if we don't take care of our fiscal problems now, you will have to live with his foreign policy ideas, only by force and not by choice.
He would be a wonderful CIC because he would do as he is directed by the Constitution and not rule like and oligarch. The only way for any truly conservative President to be successful is to veto any spending bill that comes to his desk from this sorry excuse for a Congress. Boehner has been derelict in his duties. So has Ryan, Cantor et. al. They have the power of the purse and do not choose to wield said power. The tea party people should be marching on Washington now.
Ditto. Paul's isolationist intransigence disqualifies from being commander in chief. He seems to think that anything that happens (or comes in illegally from) outside our borders is not our problem. That's too bad, because I agree with him about much of his domestic policy philosophy.
This is such a tired and worn out excuse for a position. He is as much an isolationist as you are a unicorn.
Free trade and free movement between nations does not an isolationist make. If you would learn his actual positions - on things like Iran and free trade - maybe you wouldn't perpetuate this fallacy of the so-called conservative pretenders.
Republicans can keep your McCain/Graham/Rubio/Santorum bomb the world into submission strategy all you want. The simple fact is we can no longer afford your foreign policy. Wrong answer.
I am sure you believe in Reagan's "Peace through Strength". Do you really believe in the peace part? Calling Dr. Paul an isolationist because he doesn't want to bomb the earth is hardly peace through strength.
I was sure to qualify my post with the fact that I believe in much of what Dr. Paul says.
I could reply in an equally-petulant tone to your condescending post, but I will only say that it's unfortunate that so many of Paul's supporters come across as having a holier-than-thou attitude. That certainly does not turn me on to Dr. Paul.
I know the Internet does not make for good communication, but your post really came across as that. Perhaps it's a generation thing, but I don't have time for that attitude.
Point taken and my humble apology. I am just so frustrated that the kook label is perpetuated by so called conservatives everywhere.
I always ask people that identify themselves as conservative and oppose RP's foreign policy positions, "what, exactly, are you trying to conserve?" Is it the idea of worldwide Manifest Destiny? Are they trying to conserve the federal government that spends way more than it takes in? What are they truly trying to conserve?
So, I am sorry to have come off as condescending. I don't think I am holier that anyone, but I do think that I have an idea of what conservatism, fidelity to the US Constitution and a republican form of government is. What most self-ascribed conservatives support is not the conservative positions at all. Sorry, but that is an undeniable fact.
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I will indeed keep an open mind about Dr. Paul, who is an excellent addition to our National conversation in so many ways.
"I'm not entirely sold on any candidate, and I agree that how a person would govern is crucially important, but I'm not sure ANY of the candidates truly grasp the dire situation we're in (see: Steyn), much less do any of them seem willing to articulate that and advance a truly adequate small-government set of solutions."
Me too - are any of them willing to say out loud how truly dangerous Obama and his minions are? And how long he has espoused his statist agenda and the creeps he hangs out with?
"Gingrich is pandering to a crowd who think running for president is the ultimate "American Idol"."
This statement is hilarious given the man who is currently in office and the Idol-esque fawning that occurred by the left and media in 2008.
Challenging the president to a series of debates (not the, "In 30 seconds, what would you do to fix the economy" debates but an actual, substanative debate) is a refreshing nod to our country's history. Vowing to make a quick response at each speech is precisely what Lincoln did to Douglass until they settled on the now famous format.
While Lincoln wasn't running for president at the time, I guess that makes him the ultimate Illinois Idol.
Follow
