Just days before the South Carolina primary, polls showed Mitt Romney leading Newt Gingrich. Then came the debates and the question about Gingrich’s private life, which brought a devastating response from the former speaker of the House — and a standing ovation from the audience.
Apparently the television audience felt the same way, judging by the huge turnaround in the support for Gingrich. The stunning victory in South Carolina brought Newt’s candidacy back to life.
Advertisement
But the message from South Carolina was about more than a reaction to how Gingrich dealt with a cheap-shot question from the media. Nor was it simply the Republican voters’ response to Newt’s mastery as a debater.
The more fundamental message is that the Republican primary voters do not want Mitt Romney, even if the Republican establishment does — and it is just a question of which particular conservative alternative the voters prefer.
The successive boomlets for Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, and Herman Cain showed the Republican voter’s constant search for somebody — anybody — as an alternative to Romney. The splintering of the conservative vote among numerous conservative candidates allowed Romney to be the “front-runner,” but he never ran far enough in front to get a majority.
Mitt Romney’s supposed “electability” — his acceptability to moderates and independents — has been his biggest selling point. Moreover, he is just the kind of candidate that the Republican establishment has preferred for years: a nice, bland, moderate who offends nobody.
This is the kind of candidate that is supposed to be the key to victory, no matter how many such candidates have gone down to defeat. If the bland and inoffensive moderate was in fact the key to victory, Dewey would have won a landslide victory over Truman in 1948, and John McCain would have beaten Barack Obama in 2008.
Whomever the Republicans choose as their candidate is going to have to run against both Barack Obama and the pro-Obama media. Newt Gingrich has shown that he can do that. Romney? Not so much. Mitt Romney’s fumbling when trying to answer the simple question of whether he would or would not release his income-tax records is the kind of indecisiveness that is not going to cut it in a nationally televised debate with President Obama.
Gingrich is not just a guy who is fast and feisty on his feet. He has a depth of understanding of what issues are crucial, experience in how to deal with them, and — almost equally important — experience in how to shoot down the petty, irrelevant, and “gotcha” distractions of the media.
Does Gingrich have negative qualities? More than most. Wild statements, alienation of colleagues, reckless gambits. His use of the rhetoric of the Left in attacking Bain Capital was a recent faux pas, though one that he quickly backed away from.
Newt Gingrich at the request of Al Gore sat on a couch with Nancy Pelosi to support Cap and Trade.
When Paul Ryan was fighting entitlement reform Newt Gingrich told millions of TV viewers that it was "Right Wing Social Engineering".
Based on these very recent actions I simply can't trust what Newt Gingrich would do if he were President. I don't trust his words, I go by what he does.
His leadership as Speaker of the House ended in disgrace. I believe him to be an unreliable leader.
And I'm sorry to say, as a woman, I find his behavior in his personal life very despicable the way he treated his two sick ex-wives. I really question his character.
Newt was right about Ryan's plan being "right wing engineering" in that Ryan's solution to reforming Social Security is to means test it. This could mean that the government will control who gets it and who doesn't. This would eventually translate into a program like our tax system where politicians use their power to reward voting constituents. Home owners will get zip from Social Security regardless of how many years they have "paid" into the system.
So true. Also most people don't realize that Newt is the only one who doesn't want to means test social security. Means testing is a terrible idea. It incentivizes people to be less productive. It's already done with Medicare and it is not applied to "millionaires and billionaires". It kicks in for singles with income over $85k and married at $170k. These people get to pay Medicare taxes on their income and get double charged (or more) for their premiums because they still work. With these penalties who will want to work ?
We need to win the White House first. Let us, whilst we are using metaphors, keep our eye on the ball before the entire ballpark disappears in the dust along with us and our progeny.
For once I have to disagree with Mr. Sowell. Newt has already shown he's a terrible leader when he was kicked out of the Speakership by his own party. The man hasn't shown that he's changed any. His feigned anger in response to the question about "open marriage" was just that, fake, and a cynical ploy to distract people from the real issue. Liberal media bias is real and I'm glad to see Newt and others calling it out. However, that was a perfectly legit question and Newt never gave an answer, instead bloviating and obfuscating with the best of them. His bouncing around between left-wing and right-wing positions we've already seen and if Mr. Sowell really thinks people will come around to Newt, who's shown so far that he's equally good at alienating the Right and the Left, then I have to call that looking through rose-tinted glasses. People may be uneasy about Romney, but I find the more you learn about the guy the more you realize he governed conservatively in Massachusetts, the easier it is to support him. If not Romney, then at least Santorum. Newt is a time bomb waiting to explode and make the whole party look bad.
“For once I have to disagree with Mr. Sowell. Newt has already shown he's a terrible leader when he was kicked out of the Speakership by his own party.“
Yes, and replaced by the namby-pamby RINO Denny Hastert. A person can be known by the enemies he makes.
Mr. Sowell gets it; the rest not so much. The conservative base is fed up not being able to 'select' their choice of candidate rather the accept the 'selection' by the establishment, and the rest. This is how Romeny came about anyway; after 5+yrs running for president, his poll numbers are either stuck where they were in 2008, or have fallen.
What is there not to understand?
Sure, you play to win and not lose, but you also play FAIRLY, which Gingrich did not do. Gingrich went against principles to win -- the worst possible character and way to win. You fight, but you fight fair.
I agree. The right policies to set the course and the knowledge and will to implement the corrections needed to turn this ship of state is all that matters.
Sure you play to win and not lose, but you also play FAIRLY, which Gingrich did not do. Gingrich actually went against conservative GOP principles, which is hypocritical and inexcusable.
Although it may be self-defeating, I'd rather go down shooting. Who know? You may win.
The repubs have a history of bland. Let's stop trying to be unoffensive. Put someone out there that isn't apologetic for who (s)he is, and let the chips fall where they may.
We don't know what's going to happen in the next 9 days, 9 weeks or 9 months. Too early to draw conclusions. Play the season. See who wins over the long haul.
I agree with Margaret! Romney is at best a moderate. I would expect him to at least listen to the conservative argument on most issues; but he does not inspire -- he is not a leader because he doesn't appear to have strong convictions. I don't think he would do well against Obama in the presidential debates not for lack of intellect, but rather because Obama knows how to manipulate people's emotions. On the other hand, I think it is hard to classify Gingrich as conservative or "progressive" given his past behavior. He is probably more knowledgeable than Obama, and certainly more experienced. In a debate, Gingrich would counter Obama's feel good rhetoric with strong knowlegeable responses, exposing the "man behind the curtain" and his nonsense. But Gingrich is probably repulsive to most Christians, and women especially. Voters would have to be strongly opposed to Obama to vote for Gingrich. Otherwise, they just might stay home come election night.
Thank you, Dr. Sowell, for another splendid article.
“Mitt Romney’s supposed “electability” — his acceptability to moderates and independents — has been his biggest selling point. Moreover, he is just the kind of candidate that the Republican establishment has preferred for years: a nice, bland, moderate who offends nobody.”
Standing ovation. It’s nice to hear someone speak so forthrightly (and I would say accurately) about this. I intend to do the same.
What I think is often true is that when people pine over the desire and necessity to attract “moderates,” what they really mean is “Don’t scare the ladies and the girly-men.” (By the way, I love the ladies such as Sarah Palin and Margaret Thatcher in politics, and think we need many more of them.) Of course, the David Brooks types don’t think of themselves as girly-men. But having implicitly caved to the assumptions of feminism — as every human being has the tendency to do — they see themselves as the normal.
Me, I see John Wayne and Ronald Reagan as normal and the John McCains and David Brookses (and the Mitt Romneys) of the world as the abnormal “men” who have sold out the masculine traits of forthrightness, courage, and frankness for the girlish traits of congeniality, get-alongness, and conflict avoidance (although…geez…that hardly describes Nancy Pelosi, but I’m talking “by and large” and understand that there are plenty of exceptions to every rule). These latter guys are painting in pale pastels, not bold, ballsy colors.
Newt scares the heck out of the girly-man Republican establishment because he’s not always sickeningly polite and obsequious as one is supposed to be, at least according to the “moderate” template. Instead, Newt has balls. Instead of thinking that the road to power is to offend absolutely no one, Newt shows that one needs to stand forthrightly for something.
We need more men — and women — to show such bold leadership from the right side of the political spectrum because all too many of us have watched the left through the years eat our lunch as the obsequious girly-man McCain types think the height of decency is to reach across the aisle to Teddy Kennedy and abandon their principles (assuming they have them) in order to go along to get along.
Enough. That attitude is bankrupt, both figuratively and literally if you look at our mounting debt. Newt is not perfect, but he is, as Sowell notes, the guy more likely to throw a touchdown pass.
"Me, I see John Wayne and Ronald Reagan as normal and the John McCains and David Brookses (and the Mitt Romneys) of the world as the abnormal “men” who have sold out the masculine traits of forthrightness, courage, and frankness for the girlish traits of congeniality, get-alongness, and conflict avoidance"
This is sheer Orwellianism. McCain was congenial? He sought to get along? He avoided conflicts? Just because he challenged the right as well as the left didn't mean he had a tepid or timid personality. Far from it: he pretty much alienated everyone eventually, which is part of why he lost. Call him what you will, but congenial and conflict-avoiding he was not.
And on the subject of McCain being a "girly man"... Incidentally, how much action did Wayne or Reagan see? Wayne in particular (Reagan at least served in uniform)? But then I suppose, masculininity is defined by how well you hold a(n unloaded) gun on a movie screen and talk tough, rather than how much pain and suffering you endure for your country.
I think the notion of the Republican Party = macho jumped the shark when McCain's convention speech, a tribute to stoicism, sacrifice, and patriotism got tepid applause and Palin's paeon to SUVs and soccer moms got a standing ovation.
There is no discernible distinction between the Right and the Left. Both, been around too long to be useful. They created the problem and now want to tell the people that they are the solution --just telling the people what they want to hear.
"When people figure out they can vote themselves money, the republic is dead" (Benjamin Franklin). The republic can only last for so long.
"People tend to act more in their own interest than in the interests of others" ( Thomas Sowell).
