Last fall, people in Washington told me, “Get over it, Melissa. Newt’s not going to be the nominee.” Later, in New York City over Thanksgiving, I was told, “Get over it, Melissa. It’s going to be Romney. There’s still so much stuff out there on Newt that’s just waiting to drop.”
Well, here we are in the thick of the race, and I’m still not over it.
Many years ago, I spent a frustrating morning trying to ice skate when it hit me: I wasn’t trying to ice skate; I was trying not to fall. I submit that the Republican establishment is repeating my mistake. They are trying not to fall by endorsing — or at least accepting — the supposed safe bet. It is reminiscent of an encounter I had with some editorial types during another presidential-primary season.
Advertisement
I was in New York with my husband, John, a former editor and current editor-at-large of National Review. He had arranged to meet some friends from the Wall Street Journal for lunch. At the eleventh hour, John had a conflict, and I went in his place. As the meal developed into an election-strategy discussion, one distinguished woman writer declared firmly that obviously the most qualified person to carry the Republican banner into the election was John McCain. She said it was a pity that the Republican rhubarbs in the sticks would not be bright enough to choose him.
“Wow!” I thought, “Mr. Campaign Finance Reform? Our nominee?” I remember being truly stunned that she thought so highly of McCain. Well, she and the Republican establishment got their wish, and we rhubarbs in the sticks got the shaft.
I have been told that Romney is the inevitable nominee, that he is the only one who can beat Obama, and that polls back up both of these propositions. My frustration with such talk is that it is about where the needle points at present. It ignores the issue of who can move the needle.
For conservatives who have served on Republican committees at the county and state levels, have gone door to door for local candidates, and can remember when here in the South we couldn’t even field a candidate for most races, Newt is The Man. Back in the early Nineties he had, dare I say, a “grandiose” idea that we could be a majority party when most Republicans in the House were quite content with the leadership of the nice Mr. Robert Michel, minority leader. For that, I personally am forever indebted to Newt.
Right now, we are in a perilous state of affairs. We have a president who has put the kibosh on the Keystone pipeline at a time when Russia has just announced a new pipeline to provide energy to Western Europe, thereby increasing its influence in the region. China is building up its military while ours is shrinking. Our European partners’ defense spending is in even worse shape, with the U.K. and France having actually discussed a “time-share” arrangement for an aircraft carrier. To say nothing of the problems we face regarding Iran and Venezuela.
Now, Newt is a great debater. He has not failed to deliver in any debate I have seen. More important to me, however, is that as president he’ll hit the ground running on Day One. He is firmly grounded in the kind of knowledge someone acquires by spending the better part of 30 years studying and advocating various public policies. More than that, though, he possesses the contextual knowledge — the historian’s perspective — that enables someone to stand back and draw on past events to understand current crises. And that gives him a larger philosophical understanding of our past, present, and future role in world affairs. He’s not wandering in the dark; he knows where he wants this country to go and — just as important — where he doesn’t.
Miss Melissa,
Sanity at last. A big kiss (no impropriety intended) for the straight talk. I will now credit the NRO with having the courage to let you post this essay, when recently it has fallen flat by alienating many of their conservative supporters. Well done.
Great piece, couldn't agree more. The ethics charges were trumped up by Leftists angered by Newt's treatment of Tip O'Neill, and of course that crooked skunk Jim Wright. Newt is clearly our best option, Romney hasn't proved to me he recognizes the threat posed by the Left, nor does he ever properly address them as the Left. Newt calls them out for exactly what they are, Alinsky radicals. Newt's my guy, shame I can't vote for him here in Virginia..
Thank you. This is exactly what I am feeling about Newt's candidacy. He is a bulldog (well, he also looks a little like one), and we need a no-holds-barred fighter in this race.
You can add to those scorned by their party, only to make a comeback, my fav, Winston Churchill.
Amen, Melissa! For all of Newt's flaws (and they are legion), he seems the only candidate who might conceivably be up to the garganuan tasks confronting the next president. These tasks consist first and foremost in being able to conceive a new set of possible solutions to our problems. Romney (for all his personal virtues, whatever they may be) seems incapable of originality or boldness at a time when that is the most necessary quality in a leader.
As a middle-aged man who first voted Republican in 1994 because of Newt's CWA, let me say this: If, when confronted with a radical president whose biggest achievement is forcing government healthcare upon the nation, the best the GOP can do is to run a Mssachusetts moderate who ran to the left of Teddy in 1994 and then engineered Romneycare, I truly do not know what possible use there is for the Republican party any longer. It's rationale as an opposition party has ceased to exist. Too bad that its party leaders would rather the party die than lose their influence in Washington.
Man, am I ever confused. First I read on Drudge that Newt constantly dissed Reagan. Next I read the conservative Emmett Tyrell vehemently warn us against nominating Gingrich. And now this article tells me the opposite! Makes me glad I'm in a state that's not going to be a determiner of the outcome. But on the downside, I'm in Obama's broke Illinois.
I have to respectfully disagree. Newt has a long of strong points, but while he's good on ideas he hasn't proven himself a great leader. Plus, I'm not so sure about Newt being able to sell people on conservatism despite these two friends of the author. My understanding is Newt's favorability has NEVER been higher than 43% and given the knock-down beat-up fight that's coming with Obama, I doubt it will get higher because only Republicans respond well to cantankerous. Much of the rest of the nation is not as fired up and angry as we are. Newt definitely deserves a spot as some kind of cabinet secretary or some other post where he could put his good ideas to good use and his bad ideas can rest in peace. However, he wouldn't be a good president. His rank hypocrisy is also a problem. Excorciating Bill Clinton for his affair while he's in the middle of one? Classy. Saying he's anti-big government and then lobbying, influence peddling, whatever you want to call it, also classy. Meanwhile, Romney has been the only one defending capitalism while Newt has been . . . oh yeah, sounding exactly like a Democrat. But he's supposed to be the standard-bearer of conservatism who will get the country turned around? Yeah right, he'll switch to left-wing rhetoric as soon as it is convenient, which he HAS ALREADY BEEN DOING DURING THIS CAMPAIGN!!!
Mitt has been "defending capitalism"?? Mitt is the Godfather of Obamacare.
Just one of the many reasons why this '08 Romney check writer will never, ever support him over Newt.
Don't believe the left and the GOP's talking points. His problem with Clinton was lying in a federal court case while under oath- a felony. As for 'lobbying' if you research his work there, he made it explicitly clear that his activities could not later be misconstrued as 'lobbying' in any way- just to avoid this very type of smear that once you start playing 'telephone' with, begins to stick. He peddled no one, lobbied no one, and what kind of influence would he have had anyway?
He is a much stronger conservative than Romney. Read the article again...
Newt is the best choice for conservatism and leadership among the Republicans, evidenced through disdain for him by the Establishment Republicans (your actual "switch to left-wing rhetoric" speakers).
Ms. O'Sullivan, Newt will not be the Nominee...because the RNC doesn't want him to be the Nominee, and they control the Party, not a bunch of people who want a "fighter" (and are willing to over look crazy ideas like a "Moon Base as the 51st State" or the fact that Gingrich will permanently destroy the GOP's capacity to ever talk about "defending traditional marriage" again).
Why would Newt destroy the ability of the GOP to talk about traditional marriage?
Getting a divorce is fairly common. Reasons vary.
Interestingly, Newt became a Catholic and married his current girl. In order for that to occur, he would have had to have had annulments. From an orthodox Catholic perspective, that means the Church views him as never being married in the first place -- he was just shacking up and living in sin, but not married.
Are TWO divorces, both based on adulterous affairs while married, "fairly common"?
Newt as Nominee, the next time some Republican starts talking about gay marriage "destroying traditional marriage", their opponent merely asks "Did you endorse Newt Gingrich for President?" And watch the flop sweat.
It's a moot point. Newt Gingrich WILL NOT be the Republican Nominee for President; the RNC doesn't want it. And when that happens, his supporters will, 99% or so, get behind the guy who was selected years ago as the next Nominee, Mr. Romney.
Your argument regarding gay marriage makes no sense, and would not cause conservatives to sweat at all.
Marriage is a contract to have sex and raise a family if one is so blessed to have kids. Marriage lasts until the death of one of the partners. If a person is not responsible in his duties toward the marriage contract and breaks the marriage, then he is not a responsible person and also selfish --- this assumes, of course, that he had a clear understanding of what marriage is and its intended purpose when the contract was initiated.
So, the worst case you could argue is that supporting Newt is tolerating irresponsible, selfish behavior that brings an end to a marriage. It does not imply a lack of support for marriage, and in no way could justify gay marriage.
Of course, as I stated above, for Catholics, Newt has only been married once - his current wife. His prior encounters were sinful, shacking up arrangements and could never be accepted as valid.
Let's remember that Newt was married at the age of 19 to one of his teachers -- a 26-year old teacher. I think there's some naivete involved there. He cheated and for some unknown reason after six years with wife no. 2, they lived apart for 6 years. So there were problems there. He seems to have settled down with wife no. 3 and has for about 15 years. He's admitted he's made mistakes in this area and hasn't repeated them for a long time. I, being imperfect myself, will forgive him.
I fear that the GOP establishment, in picking Romney, is repeating their failed McCain, Bush, Dole "moderate" picks. And Romney's Massachusetts healthcare pretty much makes Obama's Federal heathcare a moot issue, especially because Romney constantly defends MA healthcare. Romney is only beginning to show that he even thinks he needs to fight -- why, was he told that this nomination was his months ago? What's up with that, I thought WE THE PEOPLE, were supposed to pick the nominee.
If conservatism is going to survive, we need to pick a conservative candidate. Newt isn't perfect but he does have a good conservative record. Those 90's bogus ethics charges look to me like the GOP establishment trying to hang onto something that's not quite conservative or the first "palinization". We just didn't know what we were seeing -- now we do..
Excellent points, that I don't see highlighted by any of those that claim to be "impartial" when evaluating candidates.
And, now we know that the Establishment attack dump on Newt was a hack job - stuff we would expect from the Liberal side of the fence (e.g. CBS News) - edited video and audio. Wow.
If Romney wins the nomination, the "base" will go from unexcited to hostile. How could he possible win the general election with that?
That is such a whitewashed portrait of the lying, hypocritical serial philanderer. The worst of it was his going after Clinton while carrying on an affair with his staffer. And I suppose you haven't heard about his being serviced in a parked car while his children played nearby? You can offer up a pretty view of Gingrich's past all you like, but that view will not prevail. Better to stick with your forgiveness point, although how forgiveness entails electing someone to leader of the free world escapes me.
You are completely missing it. Romney is a proven loser. The RNC are proven losers - whoever thought McCain was worth the waste of energy. A fighter is needed, not someone who bows to his liberal peers.
