If Newt Gingrich is the Republican nominee, he promises to hound Pres. Barack Obama until he agrees to appear with him at a series of Lincoln-Douglas-style three-hour debates. This is a cutting-edge Gingrich proposal — that he has been making since at least 1992.
Back then, he was challenging Boston mayor Ray Flynn to Lincoln-Douglas debates on urban issues. Gingrich’s obsession with the clash between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas in the 1858 Illinois Senate race isn’t new and interesting; it is a trope of his going back decades.
The “New Newt” surging in the Republican polls overlaps so significantly with the former version that the “Old Newt” should be suing for copyright infringement.
Advertisement
The New Newt talks of teaching a course as president; the Old Newt came to grief teaching a course as House speaker. The New Newt is outraging the Left by saying poor kids should work; the Old Newt provoked his opponents by saying more kids should be in orphanages. The New Newt’s presidential campaign has at times seemed a vast book tour; the Old Newt immediately got embroiled in a controversy over a multimillion-dollar book deal as speaker.
The New Newt says he’s 68 years old and therefore has mellowed and matured. He was 65 years and a few months old when he opposed TARP and then supported it. He was still just 67 years old when he criticized President Obama for not instituting a no-fly zone over Libya and then criticized him for doing it. He was on the cusp of 68 when he denounced Paul Ryan’s Medicare reform as “right-wing social engineering,” before contorting himself to explain it away.
We should all envy Newt Gingrich’s vitality that he has been capable of such youthful indiscretions in his mid to late 60s. The Gingrich story is less the tale of a slow evolution toward steadiness and wisdom than the fable of the scorpion and the frog. The scorpion stung the frog as it hitched a ride across the river because it couldn’t help itself. Newt is intellectually frenetic by nature. He’ll be 105 and wildly contradicting himself from one day to the next as he indulges his latest enthusiasms.
There’s something tremendously invigorating about this. They called Lincoln “old” when he was in his 30s, a testament to his gravity. Newt feels young even though he’s about as old as Ronald Reagan when he ran in 1980. If Franklin Roosevelt was like a bottle of champagne, according to Winston Churchill, Gingrich is like a snort of helium.
His volatility makes it impossible to make any statement about him as a general-election candidate with assurance. Will he enthuse the Republican base? Yes, right up to the moment he stops enthusing it with some jarring provocation. Will he beat President Obama in the debates? Yes, right up until he makes an ill-tempered comment that washes away all his impressive knowledge and brilliant formulations. Will he be the bipartisan healer, the partisan bomb-thrower, or the post-partisan big thinker? Yes, yes, and yes.
All that is predictable about Newt is that he is unpredictable, and, irresistibly, an election that should be about President Obama and his record will become about the heat and light generated by his electric performance. That’s the way it was as speaker, too. Eventually, he wore out his welcome in epic fashion. Benjamin Franklin said any houseguest, like a fish, stinks after three days. With the public and his colleagues, Gingrich became the houseguest who would never leave.
More than a decade after he was cashiered as speaker, he’s back on the basis of his superlative handling of the debates. He is better informed and has more philosophical depth than any of his rivals. Despite all his meanderings through the years, he knows how to win over a conservative audience as well as anyone. The debates have held out the alluring promise of a New Newt. But beware: The Old Newt lurks.
God help us all if this man wins the nomination.
In an election that is so critical for our country, this man being considered is stunning. Maritial infidelity, ethics charges, taking money from Freddie Mac and on and on. Let us all hope that wiser heads will prevail. If not the damage done to this party will take years to repair.
It appears that Rich, and a lot of other Democrats, are afraid of what Newt brings to the table. Yes he is smart and has some ideas that no-one has tried before. No I can't vote for him because he,like Obama, has never seen a big government solution that he didn't like.
He may win the nomination and I would vote for him then. For the primaries I will look to Ron Paul, or one of the small government candidates.
"The debates have held out the alluring promise of a New Newt. But beware: The Old Newt lurks."
I dislike both Newts. Newt don't seem grounded in a philosophy, but instead desires a courtship with adulation. His 'politics' go whatever direction the winds blow. Romney might have a skeleton (i.e. RomneyCare) in his closet, Newt has a crypt. To many items to list, google Newt and blunders and you can blow a few hours on the internet.
I'm as concerned as anyone with Newt's impulsiveness and some of his off-the-wall ideas. Concern #1 is his writing a forward for a book that proposes that the Constitution is outmoded. But advocating a Lincoln-Douglas type debate is no trope. Such a debate might get beyond the sound bites to real ideas. Maybe if we can see such a debate before the primaries we can see a better explanation/retraction of some of his bad ideas that are scaring many of us off.
He has already had two so-called Lincoln-Douglas debates before the primaries, and they have delivered only more of the usual. Sadly, there is no way for Newt's bad ideas to be explained away, because he will generate new ones. It's who he is.
Exactly. I guess it's because many Republicans aren't able to wrap their minds as to how dirty and mean girlie type liberals fight with words. And, it works. See Paul Begala and Mike Axelrod for details.
Gingrich will give it right back to all of them. I'm afraid Romney will nervously laugh and shy away, which unfortunately is the very worst way to react to their chick fighting methods...
Thank you for this timely article. It is my awareness of the "Old Newt" that makes me reel back in horror at the love affair going on in the conservative base with Newt Gingrich. Gingrich is such a flip-flopper that he makes Mitt Romney look consistent -- despite the fact that Romney himself is known for changing positions.
Because I don't have cable, I haven't watched the debates, although I am a bit of a political junky, and consider myself strongly conservative. I do remember Gingrich during his tenure as Speaker as a strong conservative, but since he left office, he's taken a strong turn to the left. He has repented of that leftward straying just in time for the Republican primaries. He has every reason in the world to try to convince the base that he's come back to the fold. For that reason, I find his change of heart a change of convenience.
But the other reason why I am mortified to see his recent surge is the very thing Lowry referred to above as "the guest who would never leave."
We need a candidate who can appeal to the independent voter and the more conservative Democrats. I cannot imagine that these voters would not hold his past against him. He was hated by so many of the rank and file when he left office in disgrace. I do not believe he could possibly win a general election because of that.
I am not happy with the developments the debates have brought us, with the two candidates with the most views in common with the Affordable Care Act leading the pack as front runners. These were the two candidates that I thought were the worst possibilities. I can live with a Romney candidacy, though it isn't what I really wanted. But a Gingrich candidacy is one that I feel sure will give us four more years with Barack Obama. This nation cannot afford that.
The old or new Newt is better than what the Tea Party was trying to force us to "drink" -- Herman Cain't. At least Newt knows the difference between the Constitution and Declaration of Independence and unlike the Democrat incumbent has actually read a book and written one too.
For Romney to win the general election he's actually got to win the Republican primary. If he can't do that he's unelectable.
As for Obama unless we hand him and Reid the election (as we did in 2006 and 2008 with the conservative crack-up) he and his Democrat Senate are history.
All that is predictable about Newt is that he is unpredictable, and, irresistibly, an election that should be about President Obama and his record will become about the heat and light generated by his electric performance.
I don't know why so many on our side are so hellbent on giving a lifeline to Obama by nominating Newt. Do they not remember this guy in the 90? The most unpopular politician of the decade. Kicked out of leadership by his own party. Do I have an unusually long memory or do a lot of people have amnesia? Sometimes I feel like an elephant in a sea of goldfish.
You might also want to remember that Newt was the stirring backbencher in the House who swept the Republican establishment aside and led the GOP to take a majority in the House for the first time in 40 years. A majority that they held for 12 years.
It would be asking a lot of Newt to behave himself as president. "Maybe I will and maybe I won't" could be his response, per Rich. But he is more than capable of making this election about Obama, and he has apparently shown that in the debates (which I make a point of not watching).
Whoever the Republican candidate is, the media will try to make it, as will the Obama campaign, about him. What you need is someone who can fight back and who knows how to throw a punch. That's why Newt is out front right now, because he can do that.
I don't think most voters knew who Newt Gingrich was in November of 1994, maybe they heard something about the contract with America, but they didn't have his name on the ballot to choose from. And he was a liability in 96 and 98, everywhere there were TV ads with congressmen's faces morphing into Gingrich.
Newt certainly knows how to throw a punch or two, but I'm not sure some of them are very effective outside of the Conservative base (like calling Obama a Kenyan anti-colonialist), and he is an easy target where Romney would be more elusive. And I think Romney has run some pretty effective ads against Obama.
Right, but he was mainly a liability because, like any other Republican or conservative (Reagan, for instance) who successfully disturbs the Left's hegemony over something, in this case the House, Newt was unsparingly demonized by the media.
His own missteps were no help, but they were not necessarily required, and they were amplified relentlessly. It really comes down to there being two kinds of Republicans (both and all of whom will be relentlessly attacked by the Left, which controls the media), those who do not fight back, like the hapless George Bush, and those who do, like Gingrich. At least Newt knows what the stakes are.
In the end, I'm just saying that there is a reason he is rising when that possibility was thought absurd. It's because he has reminded voters that he can fight and that he has won big in the past. My preferred candidate, Santorum, was targeted and destroyed in Pennsylvania in '06, I think, because he was so obviously a next generation conservative star. Gingrich was right down there with Santorum in the bottom of the pack just a few months ago, another of the also rans.
Santorum is still there. But Newt has made a comeback and we're talking about him as the potential nominee. Why? Because, apparently, he lapped the other candidates in the debates. He forced people to take him seriously again.
That is not to be so easily dismissed, when it comes to this election.
Excellent post (and thread). No name calling or tantrums, just clear analysis and facts.
Newt’s “old” baggage should not be an issue. He rallied conservatives and took back the House. Once Speaker, he was vilified by a Clinton-friendly media. All progress was Clinton’s, all problems were Newt and the Republicans. (Recall that it is known as the “Republican shutdown of government” not Clinton’s shutdown.) This is a new era of media. Sure the MSM will be against him, but they will attack anyone who becomes the nominee. That is a given. Give me the guy who has ideas, experience, and is a fighter. I think people will overlook any Clinton-era transgressions.
I read Newt’s book Lessons Learned The Hard Way. It was not a great book, but he outlined where he made mistakes and how he got beaten politically by Clinton. I believe he is smart enough to learn from past mistakes, and I think those lessons will serve him well. They have already served him well as he has climbed back into the race. And he hasn’t become the front runner solely because he has skill as a debater. He is in front because a) his message resonates, b) he is the most knowledgeable person on the stage, c) he has stayed focused on Obama and d) he has shown a little bit of an SOB streak and has fought back at the media.
I think people will overlook any Clinton-era transgressions.
Half of the conservatives aren't overlooking his Clinton-era transgressions. How will it be with the rest of the country? Besides, he is a transgression machine, an energizer bunny of transgressions.
Sorry, you seem stuck on this "establishment" divisive aspect. Newt Gingrich is the ultimate Icon for Beltway Insiders. His sitting on a couch with Nancy Pelosi in 2008 at the request of Al Gore to peddle Global Warming, is vivid proof he is no Reagan.
Newt no longer disturbs the left at all. Much like Buchanan, they mostly use Newt Gingrich to push a cheep stereotype of their opposition. Then the other time Newt spends undermining conservatives in the MSM for his own purpose. Just like he did with debasing Rep. Ryan. Or even the other day when he offered such anti-Capitalist nonsense, sounding exactly like Obama.
Newt is dreadful, and will lose any National Election.
So which one of Reagan’s tax increases don’t count? Should Reagan’s amnesty be forgiven? How about Reagan signing to legalize abortion as California governor?
We all have shortcomings, and we all make mistakes. It is easy to point out only the flaws as I just did about Reagan, the greatest conservative president of our generation.
It is especially easy when you generate as many ideas as Newt does. They don’t all work, and when they go wrong and in front of a camera, it can be unseemly.
Give the choice of tactics, give me Rommel (Newt) over Montgomery (Romney). But if Romney wins, I will be there when the polls open to vote for him.
You can point to Reagan's flaws all you like, but no one confuses Newt with Reagan. It just doesn't work. Your opponents don't have to explain away each Reagan flaw or enumerate Newt's many, many more flaws. They simply have to size up Newt and see that he is in no way a Reagan.
First off, I was no fan of Gingrich's commercial with San Fran Nan at the behest of Man-Bear-Pig, as I have contended that AGW was an enormous scam from the very beginnning. But I have to ask this: Why does every critic of that event mention "sitting on a couch?" Some even refer to it as a "loveseat." If he and Pelosi had been standing, or riding Stairmasters, or perhaps hanging from their knees on monkey bars, would it have been more forgivable? What do you people have against couches?
He made the demonization of himself easy. John Boehner, love him or hate him, Obama and the Dems are not able to run against him like they did with Newt at this time in Newt's speakership in 1995 going into 1996.
I agree Bush needed to be a lot more aggressive at repudiating some of the lies, by actually doing something other than ignore them. But I'm sure other candidates remember the Bush years and learned from that, plus it is possible to overcorrect. So I am not sure I buy your dichotomy.
Certainly the base hates the mainstream media. I am sure they like Gingrich taking it to them. Also he can debate (being able to talk helps) , he speaks the language of the Conservative base fluently (even though he diverges from their views in many ways when it comes to policy), and there are other reasons they have coalesced around him, but it is largely because the realistic alternative is Mitt Romney. I think their aversion to Romney has gotten to the point where it is irrational, and they are actually choosing someone who is worse than Romney by many of their own standards that they would have set before Newt's rise.
As for Santorum, he lost by 18%. He should run for president after he proves he can still win Pennsylvania, which I doubt he still can, even though he keeps saying it over and over.
Follow
