I’ve now been asked that question by a lot of conservatives. It’s not that I’m the go-to guy for that sort of question. Rather, one gets the sense that many “establishment” conservatives are asking everybody that question — in staff meetings, at the chiropodist, even at the McDonald’s drive-thru. (“I’ll have two happy meals, two chocolate milks, and — by the way — do you have any idea how to stop Newt?”)
Advertisement
The other night while having drinks with some prominent conservatives, I said I thought there was a significant chance that Gingrich will not only win the nomination but that he might be the next president. Going by their expressions, I might as well have said I had put a slow-acting poison in their cocktails.
Not surprising, then, that there are more knives out for Gingrich than in a Ginsu infomercial. For instance, former New Hampshire governor John Sununu has been nurturing a grievance against Gingrich since he was White House chief of staff in 1990. For two decades he’s been like Inigo Montoya in The Princess Bride. “Hello, my name is John Sununu. You destroyed my boss’s presidency, prepare to die.” Now, with everything at stake, he’s not holding back.
But Sununu’s barbs bounce off Gingrich, as has George Will’s more brutal rhetorical artillery fire. That’s because conventional weapons are useless against Newtzilla.
First, what are you going to say about the guy that people don’t already know? Just as it’s okay to speak openly about the fact that Darth Vader is Luke Skywalker’s father, Gingrich’s backstory provides no spoilers. Herman Cain was undone because people were still forming their first impressions of him. Everything bad about Gingrich — the flip-flops, the wives, the ego — is known. Once voters have convinced themselves they can overlook that stuff, it’s hard to change their minds simply by repeating it.
Moreover, conservative voters distrust the conservative establishment — variously defined — almost as much as they distrust the liberal establishment. (That’s why David Brooks, the notoriously moderate New York Times columnist, leveled the most vicious charge he could against Gingrich: He touted their similarities!)
Also, Gingrich benefits enormously by being the last obvious “not-Romney” candidate. Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, and Cain were all well to Gingrich’s right, and many voters assume that Gingrich is being attacked for the same reason that his not-Romney predecessors were.
These are times that demand sweeping change. The federal government consumed 5 percent of GDP in the 20s. It now consumes 25 percent. Even state and local government have tripled as a percentage of GDP in that period of time.
The result is not only that we're heading toward European style bankruptcy but that we've fundamentally weakened the institutions that made America great.
The family and religion are both much weaker as a direct result of government encouraged and even enforced secularization. There are far more children growing up without a father in the home. Drug abuse and addiction are worse. The pornification of our society is everywhere.
Meanwhile, millions of healthy adults are paid not to work. Instead, they party on the government nickle. Government employee unions have colluded with politicians to enrich themselves at the public trough. Crony capitalism has greatly weakened our economy.
And it doesn't matter whom we elect. Many ordinary conservatives actually thought there might be conservative reforms enacted when the second Bush administration received strong majorities in both houses. Instead, we got yet another government entitlement with Prescription Drug, and more worthless bureaucracy with No Child Left Behind.
It was more of the same after the Tea Party handed Republicans sweeping wins in the house. In return, they got an increase in the debt ceiling in return for phantom cuts in spending.
So, yes, many Americans want fundamental change. We want the government radically reduced. We want lots of lobbyists and bureaucrats to get real jobs like the rest of us. And Newt is the only person in our lifetimes who has led such change at the Federal level.
Is he perfect? No. But people are starting to believe that maybe, just maybe, he can reduce government spending and taxation significantly and permanently and save America from destruction.
Or, he is just as likely to create seven new Federal Departments and Agencies and spend another 100 billion dollars to enact his latest fad interests. Whatever they may be this month.
He's like the famous words of another recent ex-Speaker: "You'll have to wait until after you elect him to see what he's going to do."
The train wreck of it may be entertaining, but it would be a shame to put the country on such unsure footing.
If Newt wins it is almost a given that the Repubs will hold the house and take the Senate. You are more likely to see some slashing and burning than expansion of the Nanny state since Newt will not operate in a vacuum, and like him or not, he is not so blind to the times that he can't figure out that we have had enough. As to unsure footing, we are already there. Timid half-measures (Romney) will not suffice. We need bold leadership, and we need hardy conservatives in both houses to manage our way through. All things considered, I'd rather be occupied holding Newt back than trying to light a fire under moderate Mitt.
"Very anxious GOP voters" want, more than anything else, someone who can win. That means someone who can draw Independent and Conservative Democrat (to the extent there are any) votes. Blue Dog Democrats, with Obama on top of the ballot, just may be facing dual headwinds in 2012 ... External Link
I think you are correct, Jonah, in that to some extent the Newt vs Romney choice is equates to "the devil you know vs the the one you don't". I don't know how accurate that perception of either candidate is, but as I've heard it said many times, perception is reality.
I'm not particularly enthused with either candidate, but do agree with your formulation about a person preferring Newt depending on how scary they think the times are. I'm one of those who think things are scary enough to give Ron Paul a chance, but I see his electability as a low probability.
Romney I give a slightly better shot than Paul, but still with a low probability. I think as soon as voters see Romney and Obama in a debate, I think the electorate will have a hard time distinguishing between the two -- and then it gets back to that "the devil you know..." thing and Romney loses out.
Gingrich I could actually see beating Obama or losing in spectacular fashion. He's a definite wild card.
It's tough to call since we're still about a year out and a lot can happen between now and then. In fact, I think it was at about this point in the last Presidential election cycle when the Dow hit its high and started to decline toward that disastrous Autumn of 2008.
Thank you Jonah. The hate the conservative establishment has been piling onto Newt has been baffling and a little bit scary. Able to embrace Bachman, Perry, and Cain as their potential candidates - despite their obvious shortcomings - the reaction to Newt's ascendence has been a bit like the dog who growls and snaps if you get too near his dish; it's over the top and it's out of character. And is fear for their gravy train the real reason for the reaction? There doesn't seem to be any coherent charge against him - no specific incident or trait is referenced by the critics - and that also causes uneasiness. People I like and respect apparently deeply dislike someone I also like and respect, but they haven't communicated the reason.
This is exactly why Newt is Newtzilla. I'm sticking with Perry until the end because I think he has the best ideas. But if I must get behind Newt in the general, this is exactly what I will tell myself, that perhaps crazy Newt's hour has come.
It just gives me the willies to think we may end up with another four years with BHO in the White House. Similarly, when I flip through my "I remember Newt as Speaker" mental rolodex, the awe and shock of his tenure also gives me pause when I consider him at the top of the Republican ticket. I will never vote for a Democrat above the local level, but boy-howdy, I'd sure like some intellectual and moral confidence in the man who will be the face and voice of our party for the next few years.
Poor Jonah, now let's wait for the Newties to start yelling "you're in the bag" for Romney. Yes, let's all get behing the CRAZY Newt. True he has fed off the establishment for 40 years, but that's OK. We all know that he has no morals, but we forgive him, cause now he has a smart beautiful wife and at 68, musical beds is behind him. Yes, he talks the good game, he has had 40 years to perfect it. Sensible? Seems the voters have no sense, so Newt seems like the best choice. Sorry, Jonah, but they only hear what Newt is now feeding them. Don't listen to anything thing you hear unless it somes from Newt..
I'm sorry, but Gingrich is anti-establishment like I'm Mother Teresa. The man is a life-long political operative and former Speaker of the House.
More importantly, over and over again, Gingrich has turned to authoritarian schemes to support his policies. He's a supporter of the ruinous war on drugs -- when he was Speaker he proposed the death penalty for drug smugglers.
He's no believer in the ninth or tenth amendments. He's demonstrated again and again that he's no friend to small government conservatives and individualists.
The Republican party lost me back in 1992 because it didn't offer me a small-government conservative option. Offering me a choice between the big government Democrat and the big government Republican is an unacceptable choice.
I don't identify myself primarily as a Republican, I identify myself as a conservative, and a small government conservative at that. With a dose of Libertarian thrown in.
You want to lose the tea party, the small government conservatives? Go ahead, push a primary choice between Romney and Gingrich on us -- two different flavors of big government so-called conservatives.
Republicans and the so-called conservative media (e.g. NRO) are eating their own instead of focusing their efforts on removing Obama. Can you possibly understand what four more years of this POTUS would mean to the country (and the world)? Can you possibly comprehend how much this nation has changed in the last three years, and how polarized it has become? Obama is relying on the Republicans self-destructing, and, based on comments and articles on NRO, he is correct in his assumption. You may not like Gingrich, but he is capable and far more intelligent than the other contenders. He will not be afraid to tackle an incumbent that will run the most negative campaign in this country. Obama has declared war on this nation, and the challenger will need a strategy for a fierce battle.
When a man is standing in front of a castle with a pitch-fork, good luck trying to convince him of anything, including the inadequacy of his farm tool for what lies await on the other side of the walls.
He tipped you off to the fact that he's a former member in good standing of the Buchanan Brigade.
That was your clue to keep movin'.
You'll notice -- if they write more than a few sentences -- that most of the Paul Bearers are former Brigade pfc's.
" In order to stop him, you need to explain to very anxious GOP voters that the times don’t require him."
Oddly enough, Mark Steyn, the quintessential the-times-require-it guy, doesn't support Newt. The reason must be that he just doesn't trust him as a conservative.
I don't trust Newt or Romney, sadly Pence decided to run for Governor and not President.
There is so much material to pour through, here's an old video of Newt (1988), he's saying voters don't want more of Reagan but are always looking to the future...ah, no, not me, I'd take Reagan any day. The reason why we are in this mess is we never go back and review our past, how about starting with the role of government - protect our rights, enforce the rule of law and stick to the enumerated powers in the Constitution, we cannot flip the switch and undo all of the damage at once but we must start somewhere and certainly not grow government.
There is much more out there that will surface, I don't trust him. I want a President who will shrink government and I don't see Newt or Romney doing that, not being in an early voting state, I have to sit on the sidelines and wait. External Link
With the millions of Americans who must be qualified and capable to become President of the United States of America, we get a bunch of fools for candidates. None of them has any really concrete proposals about how to fix anything. God Have Mercy on Us!!!!
I don't support Newt, but if he's the nominee I'll vote for him. Same thing for Romney, I don't like him, but I'll vote for him vs Obama. Right now I would vote for a ham sandwich vs Obama. Just a side note to Johnniebgoode, 25% is a lot more than 0%.
Trust me, I'm an accountant.
Follow
