It’s Iowa minus one month, and barring yet another resurrection, or something of similar improbability, it’s Mitt Romney versus Newt Gingrich. In a match race, here’s the scorecard:
Romney has managed to weather the debates unscathed. However, the brittleness he showed when confronted with the kind of informed follow-up questions that Bret Baier tossed his way Tuesday on Fox’s Special Report — the kind of scrutiny one doesn’t get in multiplayer debates — suggests that Romney may become increasingly vulnerable as the field narrows.
Advertisement
Moreover, Romney has profited from the temporary rise and spontaneous combustion of Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, and Herman Cain. It required no exertion on Romney’s part.
Enter Gingrich, the current vessel for anti-Romney forces — and likely the final one. Gingrich’s obvious weakness is a history of flip-flops, zigzags, and mind changes even more extensive than Romney’s — on climate change, the health-care mandate, cap-and-trade, Libya, the Ryan Medicare plan, etc.
The list is long. But what distinguishes Gingrich from Romney — and mitigates these heresies in the eyes of conservatives — is that he authored a historic conservative triumph: the 1994 Republican takeover of the House after 40 years of Democratic control.
Which means that Gingrich’s apostasies are seen as deviations from his conservative core — while Romney’s flip-flops are seen as deviations from . . . nothing. Romney has no signature achievement, legislation, or manifesto that identifies him as a core conservative.
So what is he? A center-right, classic northeastern Republican who, over time, has adopted a specific, quite bold, thoroughly conservative platform. His entitlement reform, for example, is more courageous than that of any candidate, including Barack Obama. Nevertheless, the party base, ostentatiously pursuing serial suitors-of-the-month, considers him ideologically unreliable. Hence the current ardor for Gingrich.
Gingrich has his own vulnerabilities. The first is often overlooked because it is characterological rather than ideological: his own unreliability. Gingrich has a self-regard so immense that it rivals Obama’s — but, unlike Obama’s, is untamed by self-discipline.
Take that ad Gingrich did with Nancy Pelosi on global warming advocating urgent government action. He laughs it off today with “that is probably the dumbest single thing I’ve done in recent years. It is inexplicable.”
This will not do. He was obviously thinking something. What was it? Thinking of himself as a grand world-historical figure, attuned to the latest intellectual trend (preferably one with a tinge of futurism and science, like global warming), demonstrating his own incomparable depth and farsightedness. Made even more profound and fundamental — his favorite adjectives — if done in collaboration with a Nancy Pelosi, Patrick Kennedy, or even Al Sharpton, offering yet more evidence of transcendent, trans-partisan uniqueness.
Overall, good analysis of our problem. Two quibbles: a). (regarding Gingrich's ego) "...but unlike Obama's, is untamed by self-discipline". Huh? Obama's ego is untamed, unbounded, unprecedented, nonpareil.
b). So who is the better choice? No answer was given, and I suppose that is because Krauthammer hasn't decided. Fair enough, but we are to the point that the cognoscenti and intellectual leaders of the party need to get us "the candidate". If it's "none of the above", then why can't a Thomas Sowell or Paul Ryan or Bobby Jindal be pressed into service? Why doesn't the party "groom" its candidates?
If Obama wins again, History will record that Paul Ryan was the man whom History called to be the 'Winston Churchill of his time', but who, alas, declined to take the call.
Thus, traditional Americans are doing the best they can with what is available. The only question is "who can most likely beat Obama?". Nothing else at this point matters one whit.
My personal opinion is that the Republican candidate cannot win the election without decisively outclassing Obama in the debates. I'm much more confident in Newt's ability to do that. For this reason I hope Newt is the nominee (of the candidates who are available).
Arguably, no one worked harder to fight the passage of Obamacare than Paul Ryan and his staff.
Anyone who saw the February 2010 Blair House Health Care Summit will remember, with bittersweet glee, Ryan decimating Obama. Obama's eyelids actually began fluttering madly when Ryan enumerated the reasons that Obamacare would bankrupt America.
Ryan's forthright glance and informed, clear mind contrasted sharply with Obama. Obama the Punahou slacker was never more pitifully exposed. It was obvious that Obama FEARS Ryan.
Unlike many of his congressional peers, Paul Ryan is neither too lazy nor too cowardly to answer the call of history. However, he is far better informed about America's economic situation than most, and about his family situation than most.
There are three possible reasons he "declined to take the call". The first is that no one else would be a better husband to his wife or father to his children than he. Unlike countless more egotistical congressmen, Paul Ryan, his career in ascendance, has chosen a route that will allow him more time with his family. That's usually the sour grapes excuse given by congressmen who are forced to choose between retirement and certain defeat in an election.
The second reason is that no one else would be a better chairman of the House Budget Committee, and that he can do the most good for America in this position.
The third reason is that, perhaps, "the call" came too late. I'm no history buff, but can anyone recall a powerful government anywhere, at any time that successfully reversed course from the brink of ruin by a venal leadership, a corrupt system of government, and rampant entitlement and moral decay? Has any empire ever cured itself of its own social gangrene?
With a few, brief, interruptions America has been moving almost inexorably, since FDR at *least*, towards this denouement.
Representative Ryan has worked harder for America than many. We must respect and, especially, trust his judgement.
Pythagoras: "Rest satisfied with doing well, and leave others to talk of you as they please."
RE: "So who is the better choice? No answer was given, and I suppose that is because Krauthammer hasn't decided."
Oh, I think it's pretty obvious which answer Krauthammer wants by the way he framed his rhetoric. ; > )
"Two ideologically problematic finalists: One is a man of center-right temperament who has of late adopted a conservative agenda. The other, more conservative by nature, is possessed of an unbounded need for grand display that has already led him to unconservative places even he is at a loss to explain, and that as president would leave him in constant search of the out-of-box experience — the confoundedly brilliant Nixon-to-China flipperoo regarding his fancy of the day, be it health care, taxes, energy, foreign policy, whatever."
Of course, Romney isn't "center-right." Center-right implies an actual moderate conservative which he isn't.
Further, Krauthammer opines that Ryan and Christie -- neither of them social conservatives -- would have been better candidates -- which reveals that he'd naturally support a Romney candidacy anyway.
He then closes with an ill-formed set of questions that he deems have obvious answers: "Who is more likely to prevent that second term? And who, if elected, is less likely to unpleasantly surprise?"
Of course, Mitty Romney won't "surprise" any conservative by behaving as a liberal -- so that's not an apt or helpful question at all! It's clearly a question weighted towards warning ominously about Gingrich's "surprises" since we know enough about Romney to not be surprised if *he* acts like a liberal once elected.
No, I think all in all, Krauthammer is transparently obvious about which "answers" to his questions he prefers.
What is this infatuation with Chris Christie who regularly embraces leftist and even Islamic BS? The guy is unelectable anywhere outside of the leftwing northeast.
I just cannot bring myself to support Gingrich. Can't do it. And even if I could somehow get past all the beefs I have with him, he's just not capable of beating BO. I hope Republicans understand this. Romney is far from perfect, but he is the only GOP candidate who can unseat BO.
One can only hope that no one will get to the Convention with the requisite number of votes locked-up, and an another alternative, perhaps from Mr. K's list, will emerge. The truth is that the current Republican field of candidates is terrible and has been shown to be terrible--both substantively and as electable material. NR and many others have done no one a favor by praising it.
None of the rhetoric in the Nancy-Newt commercial indicated the Newt believed in man made global warming. How do we know what was unsaid was that Nancy agreed the subject needed more study and that unltimately the conclusion might be that the earth is warmer because it is in the warm end of its 100,000 year cycle around the sun? Newt made no statement about carbon trading or anything else.
Dr. K: Unfortunately, there will never be a "perfect" candidate. As I believe you have pointed out, Ronald Reagan came with his own baggage many moons ago. While you are much more of an expert than I am with these things, I am somewhat surprised you have already narrowed the horserace down to two before the first straws or votes are cast. All one has to do is look at the last go-round.
Most of us out here in the hinterlands are sitting back and watching things unfold. I, for one, am not ready to annoint either of these men just yet. In the end, you may well be spot on. Until we get there, many of us are enjoying our popcorn and watching.
"My own view is that Republicans would have been better served by the candidacies of Mitch Daniels, Paul Ryan, or Chris Christie."
Leaving Christie off, I agree, though Christie would certainly attract the independents. I'd add Jim DeMint to that list, too.
Since conservatives can reasonably expect to be "unpleasantly surprised" by either Newt or Mitt, it probably does come down to a gut feeling about each candidates "electability".
But there is also a legitimate concern about how Romney would fare in a debate with The One. Charles starts his piece describing Romney's apparent problem with being directly confronted, yet he ignores that as a liability in a one-on-one debate with O. If he fails there, is he then electable?
It's tough on conservatives having always to settle, but the cliff we're headed for makes this time all the worse. We had better hope for a boatload of Marco Rubios to ride the GOP winner's coattails into Congress. Either way, the Tea Party cannot aford to cease being vigilant and active.
"We had better hope for a boatload of Marco Rubios."
That would be funny if it didn't make me sick.
We have had far too many boatloads of Rubios. How do you think Miami came to look like a Third World Country controlled by Cubans? There are places in FL where you can't get a job unless you speak Spanish.
We also have the equivalent of boatloads of Mexicans in CA, soon it will be majority Mestizos.
Personally and partisanly, I'd want Newt as the GOP Nom (easier to beat than Romney), and would feel more comfortable with him if he became President...why?
Because his ego and "big ideas" lends itself to both compromise and/or failure of conservative ideology. Once in office, he'd revert back to "Newt on th couch with Pelosi" Newt both to get things done and also (more importantly to him) to write himself into the history books as a "great leader who got things done."
Mitt Romney is the more electable candidate for the fall of 2012, but if elected, would be watching his Right flank the entire first term, afraid of moving "too far to the Center" as President and losing his Base. Mitt's more likely to nominate Scalia judges to buy him "street cred" with the Hard Right....Newt would want some "deep thinker" and probably end up with an Anthony Kennedy instead of a rabid ideologue..
As a Democratic-leaning voter, I'd want the GOP Nominee to be Newt.
"As a Democratic-leaning voter, I'd want the GOP Nominee to be Newt."
Two Observations:
1) So, if the Pittsburgh Steelers coach wants the Dallas Cowboys to use 'Quarterback A' instead of 'Quarterback B', who does that suggest that Pittsburgh is more afraid of? And, you're suggesting that Pittsburgh preference should be persuasive to the Dallas coaches?
2) Fool you once, shame on Obama. Fool you twice, shame on you ... If, after 3 years of the Obama disaster and anti-American rule, you're STILL leaning toward a Democratic vote, why in the world would any thinking person consider any part of your opinion?
Exactly. Make a comment or write a column supporting Romney and you are accused of "being in the tank for Romney." Nobody loves the guy. He's just the best of the sorry lot we have running. Regarding Newt vs Romney, some of us remember how easy if was for Clinton to get the best of him. Newt was great at getting us across the finish line in '94. He was terrible at being Speaker. He will lose to Obama. And as president he would be no more conservative than Romney, because he is so full of himself and his ideas.
Excellent summary of the condition that conservatives find themselves in today. If obama is re-elected the damage will be irreversable and will eventually be fatal to this Republic. So the issue really boils down to who is more electable---Romney or Newt?
After watching the various pitches by the candidates, I realized I need to apply a simple test: I should only consider candidates who have actually governed as conservatives, i.e. actually worked to pass conservative laws. People can talk a good talk otherwise, but how do we know what they will really do-- it takes a lot of guts to actually propose and vote for laws that break the standard mold. By this measure, Mitt is out-- he governed as a liberal. Cain is also out, and so is Ron Paul, who is a libertarian. So is Trump if he runs. That leaves Gingrich, Santorum, Bachman, and Perry. All have made compromises, but at least we know they can really stand up for some things some times. But how can we vote for a candidate who has never passed a single conservative law in his life? There is no evidence that Mitt has fought hard on principle, ever.
Follow
