HUNTER BAKER Newt Gingrich has surged and fallen back, surged and fallen back. Each time, he has managed to stage a sharp assault on the pole position, with moments of political bravado on the debate stage. There is little question that GOP voters have their own form of PTSD over George W. Bush’s inability (or unwillingness) to defend himself and his policies during his two terms. Newt Gingrich, despite his many flaws, speaks to that bad memory. With his sharp rejoinders, he effectively says, “I won’t sit on my hands after someone smacks me in the mouth.”
Advertisement
But in our ultra-fast news cycle, those moments come and go. Gingrich can’t pull out grand slams at will. And when he falls short, his temporarily intense coalition falls apart. In addition, the debate opportunities are about to dry up. Gingrich futures are trending down rapidly.
Mitt Romney has benefited from the traditional GOP tendency to go with the establishment. Despite silly and needless missteps on matters such as releasing his taxes and carrying the albatross of Romneycare about his neck, the former governor of Massachusetts has clear technocratic (though not so much ideological) appeal on economic issues and feels like the candidate most likely to keep the focus of the general election on the incumbent and his record. What Republicans need to avoid most is allowing the focus to shift from President Obama. Republicans seem to instinctively rally reluctantly around Romney as the best of a flawed field. The inevitability factor is kicking in, but it would be better for Romney to have to fight longer so as to fully air out his vulnerabilities and sharpen his message and defenses.
Rick Santorum has not been able to translate his Iowa win into enough support to seriously pressure Gingrich into dropping out. Though he is a more attractive candidate than Gingrich in many ways, he has not been able to move beyond a series of respectable showings. Santorum’s failure to challenge Gingrich makes the evangelical head honchos look like less than influential shepherds of their flocks.
— Hunter Baker is the author of The End of Secularismand associate professor of political science at Union University.
I cannot even continue to read this - you guys refuse to get it! We, the base, demand Newt slap the snot out of Obama! We, the base, are Enraged and demand the man who can articulate that rage. We, the base, will not have another Ford, Dole, or Bush who cannot defend us from the Total War of the Left. We demand Newt - NOW!
Dave, I guess I missed the election in which you were declared base spokesperson, but you can have your Newt, now. Pretty soon he won't have much to do except return to his old job shilling for Freddie Mac and "interviewing" for the next wife. Cordially, Bill
"We, the base, demand Newt slap the snot out of Obama!' "Cannot defend us..."
I just can't understand the inability of Newt Gingrich supporters to use simple logic. They claim Romney is weak, and couldn't beat Obama. Gingrich cannot beat Romney, yet somehow Gingrich can beat Obama and Romney can't? Can you hear yourselves?
Gingrich beat the moderators in the SC debates. He didn't beat Mitt Romney. Romney beat Newt Gingrich in the FL debates. He didn't debate the moderators. Romney will defeat Obama. Newt doesn't have the skills, debate or otherwise to organize against him.
You need to face reality. Money Power vs People Power? All his money comes from 2 people!
I almost wonder if you are joking. Do you realize this is an election for President of the United States, not a wrestling match? Rage isn't going to cut it with the general population. Nor is a willingness to pander to the emotions of a certain segment of the electorate a qualification to run the country and get it back on course.
I do not demand, but I request you find a punching bag, let it all out, then take a deep breath, have a seat, crack open a beer and ponder the fact that actual slapping and that kind of stuff is NOT a part of this process. Bellowing and screaming is not what will get the swing voters to wake up, realize they've been had and do a 180. Getting someone to that point is not about hitting them over the head. You have to let them think they are pretty smart to finally figure it out.
I like Kathryn's analysis the best. Newt Gingrich has done the party a disservice with his low-ball attacks. I always suspected he would and I would like him to drop out, because he doesn't need to do any more damage. The fact that he is resorting to such despicable tactics in the primary does not bode well for how he would do in the general election. He has some accomplishments under his belt, and he has some great ideas. I can understand why someone would support him. Unfortunately, his negatives outweigh his positives and I would much rather see a Santorum v. Romney race (oh, Ron Paul too). He has shown himself to be petulant, arrogant, and willing to resort to whatever cheap tactics he thinks will help him win. I just saw a banner ad on this site asking you to donate to "defeat obamneycare". Look, say what you want about Mitt Romney but he's no Obama and the man clearly would work to repeal Obamacare. You don't have to support Mitt but at least keep the criticisms real.
Romney won the votes in FL ... with tons of money and a good showing in two consecutive debates (where he just was not himself). In the first one had the audience was silenced; don't recall the rules on the second one.
But the post-FL speeches give the true tale.
Romney was uninspiring. He has no vision for the nation. Only wants to add POTUS to his resume.
Gingrich made a great speech. Inspiring. Truly planning of taking the fight to Obama and fundamentally transforming Washington. Attaching both party establishments; one for leading us to the precipice, the other for simply managing the decline. And he had just been beat by a barrage of attacks. Newt won't play it cool again.
Newt should be our nominee. Yes, he is tainted in personal matters ... but he is a true leader in the political realm ... and I believe we are electing a President here.
Different strokes, etc. I disagree with you 100% - on every point you made.
As for the post-election speeches: Romney was gracious to his competitors (not so Mr. Moon Shot) and then focused on the man I hope we can agree needs to be retired. Mr. Gingrich boldly went through an ad hoc list of things that don't add up to a program, while dramatically appropriating the words of the signers of the Declaration of Independence - words acknowledging that their very lives were on the line for what they did. Grandiosity doesn't begin to describe the effort.
@David Limbaugh...You and your brother seem to argue that Mitt Romney is not necessarily the most electable. However, both of you also thought that Christine O'Donnell was perfectly electable in the state of Delaware. Your judgement is very questionable.
David Limbaugh is in a bit of a dilemma. His brother Rush declared emphatically last June that Mitt Romney could say "Bye-bye nomination" and that his candidacy for it was "over", due to Romney making the heretical statement that climate change was real and man-made.
Now, it is becoming quite apparent that Romney will be the Nominee and the "power and influence" of Rush, as well as his "clairvoyence", are to be shown as weak as wet cardboard. And he will be put in difficult situation on his radio show, does he (A) suddenly and quite blatantly start to backpedal on his attacks on Romney (still going on as of yesterday) and thus show himself beaten or (B) continue said attacks and start to find himself branded 'traitor" by his own Party.
As a definite non-Rush "fan", I'm sure I won't be alone in celebrating Romney becoming the Nominee if only for Rush Limbaugh being put in that position.
It is a pity, History Buff, that you cherry-pick statements of Rush from June a year ago, and forget how everybody else said back in 2011 how dead Newt was, he had no chance, etc. You confuse prediction with analysis. The analysis was dead-on then, and it is dead-on now, in that if Romney continues to waffle on the issue of man-made climate change, he has no ability to credibly attack Obama's overregulation of the economy, and loses ground in the polls as a result.
Rush has not committed to any one candidate, and if you listen carefully to his programs (something that I doubt most seriously, which is why your criticisms of him are WAY off bsae), he has also said a number of favorable things about Romney, and criticized Newt harshly for the Bain Capital attacks on Romney. As I have noted to many of my friends, even though I am opposed to Romney on a number of different grounds, I will openly endorse and vote for Romney in the general election, even though I'm supporting Newt in the primaries, if Romney wins the nomination. Because the main goal remains clear: we cannot afford or abide by four more years with Barack the Usurper as POTUS.
I wonder if you would have enough class to do the same thing if in fact Newt somehow pulls out the nomination. I wonder.
Google it yourself "Rush Limbaugh Romney bye bye nomination".
As for Newt winning it, if that were possible, another celebration...because it would mean the President winning 40 states, if on the women's vote alone. You seem to be under the false impression the GOP Nomination scenarios are not "win-win" for the Democrats, no matter what.
Agree completely. I, too, am no longer a fan of Rush Limbaugh, and think he has lost much of his persuasive powers among so called "conservatives". His constant drumbeat for Sarah Palin, Newt, etc, is boring and simply out of touch with many in the Republican Party. It's almost as if he feels more comfortable supporting a candidate like himself who has never taken his marriage vows seriously and is always looking for a younger model. Herman Cain can also be included in this bunch. I think this is why many of us who do believe that character counts are amazed that Rush Limbaugh tosses it out the window after leading the charge against Bill Clinton for his indiscretions. It is sickening to hear him thinking up every excuse not to support Romney.
Newt's best asset is his ability to explain complex thngs so that even simple people like me can understand them. His worst and most destructable part is his thin skin. He has always been that way.
I recall when he left the Speakership he said on camera that words hurt. Of all the people in poilitics Newt ought to know that about himself and not allow himself to get ensnared by his need to counter every unfavorable thing his opponants say about him. But he doesn't and that makes him vulnerable and, in this case, one of the casualties of war - political war. It makes Newt easy to beat.
maybe very perceptive that Romney is more in personality technocrat than ideological. a doer instead of a deep thinker? a utilitarian with a pragmatic approach to complicated issues?
Like any victory for Romney, Florida puts us one step closer to making Obamacare permanent. He cannot make a substantive argument against it because he signed and continues to "be proud of" a plan that shares Obamacare's most fundamental flaws. It is time for all opponents of Obamacare to wake up and realize that defeating Romney is a critical step in the process of repealing Obamacare.
Eric, Given the choices available, it seems to me that defeating Romney is a critical first step in reelecting President Obama, and then what of your chances of repealing Obamacare? Cordially, Bill
I see Romney as the candidate least likely to beat Obama if he is nominated. Taking Obamacare off the table gives up what should be one of our strongest advantages, and he really adds nothing to the ticket. He has a tin ear, no ability to connect to people, and doesn't seem to have much of an agenda. He's McCain or Dole with a cheesier smile and no compelling life story. He'll also have grave problems mobilizing Republicans to vote for him - note that the states he's won have seen unexpectedly low turnout. Newt has some serious drawbacks, but at least he'd make a compelling conservative argument against Obama's policies. I think we have at least a reasonable shot with him. Santorum would be the best since he doesn't have Romneycare or Newt's marital history. He's also won elections running as a conservative in a blue state, in contrast with Newt running in conservative Georgia, and Mitt running as a RINO in Mass.
Also, winning the White House doesn't repeal Obamacare unless the new President is willing to really make that a priority. If Romney wins, it will have been by dodging or obfuscating the issue, which will give him very little mandate on the issue. Plus I doubt he's really that interested in repeal. I expect he'd sign a repeal if it reached his desk, but I don't see him doing the "heavy lifting" that will be needed to get it done. Gingrich or Santorum would.
