Whether the matchup between Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney is the final bout on the GOP primary card is impossible to know. The whole season has been more like professional wrestling than boxing, with weird characters sporting implausible hair appearing out of nowhere to talk smack and explain why they are the greatest in the world. (I’m looking at you in particular, Mr. Trump.)
Still, let’s assume for the moment that it’s a Gingrich-Romney contest.
Advertisement
It’s quite a matchup. Romney has been brutalized for having too little personality, Gingrich for having way, way too much. Romney looks like the picture that comes with the frame. Gingrich looks like he should be ensconced in royal velvet as he gestures at you with a half-eaten turkey leg in one hand and a sloshing goblet of wine in the other. Romney seems terrified of fully committing to any idea. Gingrich speaks as if he just text-messaged with God.
Gingrich would have everyone believe he is the winner of the anti-Romney mantle not merely by default but by hard-won effort and a well-deserved reputation for conservative steadfastness. Many in the media, meanwhile, think that since Gingrich is taking the slot once held by Palin, Bachmann, Cain, and Perry, he is a conservative of similar stripe. And many liberals think that since they hate him so much, he must be really right-wing. (They made the same mistake with Richard Nixon and George W. Bush, both of whom were far less ideologically conservative than their press clippings indicated.)
The reality is more complicated. For starters, it’s not altogether clear that Gingrich is that far to the right of Romney.
Gingrich’s record — political and rhetorical — is so vast and diverse, there’s plenty of evidence to build almost any narrative you want. He’s said some of the most bombastic right-wing things of any mainstream Republican in our lifetimes, but he’s also reached across the aisle more frequently than far-more-liberal Republicans would ever dare.
As House speaker, he cut a deal with President Clinton on the budget. He infamously joined forces with Nancy Pelosi on climate change, with the NAACP on prison reform, and with Al Sharpton on education. He was one of the few movement conservatives to vocally back George W. Bush’s expansion of Medicare, and he continues to support ethanol subsidies with a straight face. And, of course, last April he tore into Paul Ryan’s budget proposal as “right-wing social engineering,” immolating himself in the process.
Gingrich has since retracted and modified his stance on the Ryan plan. And he’s called his pairing with Pelosi one of the stupidest things he’s ever done.
Still, those who dismiss Gingrich as hopelessly unelectable in the general election should at least keep in mind that Gingrich’s apostasies will make it harder to tar him as a cookie-cutter “right-wing extremist.”
It is a little funny hearing people say they will no longer be supporting Cain and going to Gingrich if the allegations that were made against Cain turn out to be true.
If I had to bet, I would bet Newt is going to dip again. I like Newt, but he has a lot of baggage and people are going to be reminded of it.
Also I don't know if Newt has ever said it on camera, but I remember seeing him in person in 2005 or 2006 a little after Romney passed his healthcare law Newt saying that he really liked what Romney did and that it could be a model that the nation could look to. He was listing it some other things. I think at the time someone had asked him about his joint press conference with Hillary on healthcare External Link and he started talking about healthcare solutions and one he listed was Romneycare.
The last line in your comment hit me +/-. No one should be federally mandated to buy health insurance, However, posting an (interest accumulating) bond dedicated to personal healthcare costs is not a bad idea. A parallel is:
Without some level of personal responsibility, I should be looking for a subsidy check to neutralize the increase costs in my food and energy bills.
Instead, i have to eat differently, eliminate road trips, and basically change the way I do things. In healthcare, I no longer get mammograms, go to the gyn, and navigate longer than usual illnesses using the NIH medplus website and relatives' experiences as input.
I would rather go to a doctor, get antibiotics for systemic support, and wouldn't mind a chest x-ray to r/o pneumonia--but that's not going to happen. I'm hardly alone in this decision tree. That's just the way things are right now. And I am voting for Gingrich as nominee.
The U.S. needs someone who is immune to the 'slings and arrows of people whining becasue 'we can't have it all and not pay for it. .
Newt is "The Round Mound with Profound Sounds". He is a Constitutional Conservative with a pragmatism that is sound. Romney would be a credible Democratic party candidate, as would Huntsman.
One of the things that has convinced me to lean toward Romney, despite his defects, is the article Mr. Goldberg wrote a few months ago explaining why Gingrich was unfit to be the GOP nominee because of his political and personal baggage (alas, I can't find a link). Another was a similar article by John Podhoretz, focusing more on Newt's personality, that came out around the same time.
Female Independent voters won't vote for him, given his past personal history.
He's been so controversial and made so many conflicting statements on working with Dems and global warming and the Ryan plan that the Dems will have an endless stream of material for their attack ads and debating talking-points.
Obama won in 2008 because he appeared to be calm and even soothing in a troubled time. And he'll use that to great effect again, if his challenger is Gingrich with his reputation for erratic partisanship.
The voters are looking for a "return to normalcy," after 10 years of war and a deep recession. Gingrich's personality doesn't imply that.
I agree with your post save for your take on "return to normalcy". I tend to believe that, after previously unimaginable spending of the current administration, even Newt will seem "normal". Plus he does have the last balanced budget in his pocket. But you are absolutly correct that he has been all over the map since then. I must admit, I would really love to see Newt treat Obama like Maria Bartiromo in a head to head debate. Obama beat a guy who campaigned and debated against him while treating relevant subjects as "off limits". Newt would not be so gracious. All that said, I still have to agree with you. Albeit reluctantly.
Mr Newt is the classic RINO, as the term is so often thrown about in these replies in referring to Gov Romney. But, since Mr. Gingrich has apologized for his past "bad" behavior, all is right with the conservative voters. Sure he is a good debater, but all his liberal sins WILL be brought to the front if he is the candidate and it will hurt our chances of beating Obama in 2012. Newt has more political baggage than was loaded on the ship for my last cruise. He is a Wa insider, a lobbist and a career politician. He has way too many personal issues that for me indicates a moral hazard. His leadersip qualifications are not very good and he is just telling the voters what they want to hear now, just as he has for the last 10 years. And the conservatives are labeling Romney a RINO and a flip-flopper? Gingrich is running for personal gain, an egotistical, self-serving and cookie-cutter career politician.
Gingrich is an inside the beltway leach, a man of low character that sees himself as the star of every scene. If that were not enough, he's no conservative. No thanks!
Newt being given a "pass" for his past "RINOisms" and if nominated would be able to both be more "pragmatic" (i.e. less dogmatically rightwing) and still keep the Base from thinking he was a "sell-out" more than Romney would if he got the nomination and then moved Center.
They're the same, would campaign the same in the Fall of '12, and would govern the same if elected. Newt simply would have a longer "honeymoon" with the Right than Romney would as President, as he cut deals with the Democrats or drifted back to his previous support of the reality of climate change (Pelosi on the couch) or his previous support of individual health care mandates.
Who offered a plausible revenue increase plan in the super duper committee - the GOP, supposedly in thrall to Grover. Who nixed the idea because the WH cannot afford to have a narrative other than soak the rich - every dem on the committee.
The GOP provided a path - the dems refused to compromise. That is how it will play out - already the polls are too 50/50ish on this one. They will move to the right over time. Poorly played by the dems.
Its tough when you stand for nothing except your own raw power. Gets you in to trouble when you have a curve ball thrown your way.
Follow
