The South Carolina primary ended the Thursday before the voting, at around 8:05 p.m. That’s when Newt Gingrich stopped berating CNN’s John King for asking him about his ex-wife Marianne’s allegation that he wanted an “open marriage.” Newt’s reply was a virtuoso display of bluff and indignation.
He angrily dismissed Marianne’s account as false, even though the balance of evidence suggests it’s true. Whether he explicitly told Marianne he wanted an open marriage or not, he had operationally pried open their marriage through years of unfaithfulness. He summoned dubious evidence in his defense, saying all their mutual friends knew Marianne’s charge was untrue, although there could have been no witnesses to a private conversation. But his outraged forcefulness carried the day. At the end of a debate he must have known he had decisively won, he congratulated King on his fine moderating — as if his volcanic outburst had been for show.
Advertisement
Only one other politician in America could have played the victim card so expertly when confronted by the story of a wronged woman. Only one other politician would have thrown out so many obfuscating “facts,” or turned his lavish anger on and off so quickly. Only one other politician would have dared hope to turn such an embarrassing imbroglio to his advantage. If he was watching the debate somewhere, Bill Clinton must have chuckled in admiration and thought, “Well played, my friend. Well played.”
Newt is the Republican Clinton — shameless, needy, hopelessly egotistical. The two former adversaries and tentative partners have largely the same set of faults and talents. They are self-indulgent, prone to disregard rules inconvenient to them, and consumed by ambition. They are glib, knowledgeable, and imaginative. They are baby boomers who hadn’t fully grown up even when they occupied two of the most powerful offices in the land.
Steven Gillon, author of The Pact, a book about the Gingrich-Clinton interplay in the 1990s, was struck by their “unique personal chemistry, which traced back to their childhoods.” Both were raised by distant or abusive stepfathers and surrounded by strong women. Both were drawn to politics and wanted to serve, in Newt’s case on a vast, civilizational scale. Both were allegedly sleeping around on the campaign trail before they had won anything.
Yet their personalities are different. Growing up in an alcoholic household, Gillon notes, Clinton was a natural conciliator. Gingrich was given to defiance. Clinton was gregarious, a people-pleaser. Gingrich was bookish, a lecturer at heart. Clinton made his way in politics in the unfriendly territory of Arkansas; he had to dodge and weave and seduce. Gingrich climbed through the ranks of the House Republican conference; he stood out as a partisan provocateur.
And so he remains today. He utterly lacks the Clinton soft touch. No one will ever consider him a lovable rogue. Quin Hillyer of the American Spectator says he’s the “Bill Clinton of the Right with half the charm and twice the abrasiveness.” Republican voters lit up by his debate performances believe he’s the most electable candidate, even though the three recent national polls show him with a favorable rating in the 20s. Presidents dip that low after they lose a war or before they get impeached. Newt Gingrich starts out there.
Could he turn it around with smashing debate performances against President Barack Obama in the fall? Doubtful. In a presidential debate, a candidate’s bearing matters. Al Gore may have beaten George W. Bush on points in their first debate in 2000, but he audibly sighed. That small indicator of an arrogant impatience sank him. If Gingrich shows the slightest bombast or ill temper, if he hectors or gives off a sense of intellectual superiority — in short, if he conducts himself in a typical Gingrichian manner — he will lose the debates in a rout even if he bests President Obama on the merits.
It’s another reason why wily old Bill Clinton has to be pulling for his Republican alter ego.
Finally the scales are starting to fall from some eyes. He reminds me of Clinton in so many ways it's scary. Our response to him is supposed to be like the democrats was to Clinton. Sorry, there's a reason I'm not one of them. It's named Clinton.
All of Clinton's odious qualities minus the charm. Lying, amoral, serial adulterers, the two of them. Tomorrow Grindgrinch will be telling his moronic supporters "I never inhaled". Cordially, Bill
I don't think it is about winning, Gingrich supporters are not thinking that far ahead. It is about the catharsis they will feel on that first debate night when (they think) Gingrich will make a few comments about Kenyan anti-colonialism and Saul Alinsky, that they heard on the Glenn Beck show, to Obama's face. It won't convince anyone that isn't already voting for Obama, but it sure would feel good.
I say they think in parentheses because I'm not so sure without primary opponents Gingrich won't be back to his sitting on the loveseat with Nancy phase again. And I'm not sure he's sure either.
I say they think in parentheses because I'm not so sure without primary opponents Gingrich won't be back to his sitting on the loveseat with Nancy phase again. And I'm not sure he's sure either.
You're probably right. But it is nice to have someone stand up for at least some portion of the principles of conservatism. Who knows what's going to happen in 3 weeks or three months? Keep it rolling! Remember how badly everything worked out for Obama in the donks drawn out primary is 2008?
It. Is. Too. Early. To. Draw. Conclusions. (Full Stop)
You have hit the nail on its head Richard. While Newt may give us some catharsis and he really says some great things. The fact is he's completely unelectable and during this campaign and during his time as speaker he manages to alienate both the Right and the Left.
Lowry assumes Obama will not lose his temper or make a mistake in a debate. I believe that assumption is incorrect. Gingrich will challenge Obama, while Romney will not. If Newt is a reincarnation of Bill, then Mitt Romney is a reincarnation of George H. W. Bush. Great man to have on your team but not the leader on whom you rely to produce the vision for the team.
There are several problems with this over-reliance on Newt's debating skills.
1) We're only going to get 3 debates with Obama. Newt will probably demand more, and Obama will tell him to go jump in the lake. If you think the American people will rally to Newt's side, your dreaming.
2) Because there will only be three debates, they will not significantly change the course of the election.
3) Newt will be so far down in the polls by the time the debates roll around even if he zings Obama it won't be nearly enough to save him.
4) Obama is no dummie and will prepare long and hard for the debates. He will not allow himself to be set up and beat, and will have some zingers of his own which will sting Newt.
This, then, goes to the heart of the problem with the Republican primary process; it's over-reliance on debates. It's as if we're electing Chief Debater, not Chief Executive. It places a premium on debating skills, not governing skills. It's as if we think the president is going to debate Congress or foreign leaders. Yes some debates are good, but the current situation is out of control.
There has probably not been a cooler customer in the White House since Calvin Coolidge. If you think Obama's going to lose his temper because provoked by Gingrich then, to quote Silent Cal: "You lose."
It is not about the "debates" per se, but the ability to explain and defend conservative principles, which GWB nice family man he was, could not do. Romney fails to do it even when the election is on the line.
Yesterday's debate showed Romney has a pulse. Let's see if he can show people why they should support him and not because he is "not Gingrich".
Thank you Mr. Lowry, you make great points. I only hope enough people see this in time to avoid Gingrich being the nominee. Romney should spend more time touting his conservative credentials. I just read a book by David & Nancy French, I had no idea he had governed so conservatively. Of course, he was limited by the liberal population and liberal legislature (much as Obama has been hindered by the GOP), but he really stuck consistently to conservative positions. After learning this I have been much more comfortable supporting him, I wonder if others would as well?
I support Newt, but am aware of his flaws. I'm not at all against Romney, but I want him to earn it. Until Newt showed up he was basically sailing through, hardly being challenged, not forced to leave his comfort zone. Having to outdo Newt, and dealing with tough Newt challenges will make him a far better candidate than the easy path he was expecting.
The more delicous alternative is for Obama to win re-election and have a large Republican majority in the House and Senate. In so far as I am concerned Obama has suborned the Constitution of the United States far worse than Richard Nixon did.
Impeach him for high crimes and misomeaners. His oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States has been outrageously violated by blatent attempts by an executive suffuring from dillusions of grandure trying to circumvent the supreme law of the nation.. Diving right ot Kings? or Semper sic Tyrannius? It is none of Obamassia's business how much money someone makes. Who the H does he thing he is? The frog that blew himself up to the size of an ass. What arrogance! The capstone to justice delayed would be if Hill was the VEEP. That would be too rich for realization.
The Republicans are, in my opinion, likely to regain a majority in the Senate. Gridlock between the legislative and executive branches is preferable to a replay of the George W. Bush presidency, which I fear is what we would get with Romney. I could be wrong, but I'm not willing to take that chance.
"Obama has suborned the Constitution of the United States far worse than Richard Nixon did."
Nixon resigned when I was in Jr. High, so I actually remember his administration pretty clearly. At this point, I MISS him. Nixon was a weasel who knew what he was doing.
Obama, Sir, is no Richard Nixon.
Unfortunately, neither is Gingrich. We've had enough charisma. Couldn't we have a candidate who is competent even if nobody much likes him?
Follow
