When Gingrich got his surge, he needed to do three things as a predicate for everything else: avoid grandiosity (e.g., “I’m going to be the nominee,” comparing the Virginia ballot fiasco to Pearl Harbor); don’t seem erratic (e.g., going back and forth on whether your campaign is going to be positive or negative), and don’t get rattled (e.g., letting Romney bait you into hitting him on “bankrupting” companies, becoming obsessed with the ad campaign against you). Obviously, Gingrich is 0-3. It can’t be easy holding up under such a barrage and some of the charges in the ads haven’t been fair, but basically the ads have gotten out the word on Newt. In the Des Moines Register poll, he’s rated “the least consistent” of the candidates, ahead of even Romney.
I've noticed some vapid commentary elsewhere that speaks of the effectiveness of negative advertising as if it were unrelated to reality. True, there are many cheap shots, distortions, and out-of-context smears, and I'd like to see it somehow reined in a bit. But, obviously, negative advertising is most effective when aimed at a fat target. Newt has lived a life -- personally and politically -- that makes him just exactly that. And now he, who is innocent of how rough and tumble politics is played, is shocked and dismayed.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAll too true, but it doesn't add a whit to the one-sidedness of the attacks. Very weird that Rep. Paul would go after Newt and not touch Mitt.
Somehow, Mitt will have to survive them as well. It would certainly be better to do so now rather than in October.
As for Newt, if he can rise again, he's unlikely to see worse, just more sneering from the normal democrat party organs.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt's amazing to see these ignorant establishment Republicans and their sheepish followers attack Newt. If we want to make this election about Obama's record, we need someone with a strong record himself. Gingrich can claim 4.2% unemployment during his speakership, less than half of what Obama will be able to claim. balanced budgets vs. $1.5 trillion deficits. Romney was 47th in nation in job creation as Gov. People are sick of gridlock. Gingrich can rightly claim he overcame gridlock, working with a Democrat, to achieve real conservative reforms. And obviously he would do best in debates against Obama. Every other politician we have to trust to do the right thing in Washington, Gingrich already has proven he will do the right thing, and knows how to get those things accomplished.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSorry, Mr. Lowry, you are not credible on Gingrich. I am glad to see Santorum surge, as he was my first choice all along. But you have long ago made an emotional decision that you loathe Newt Gingrich and love Mitt Romney - and now are shopping around for rational reasons to justify the emotional decision you long ago made. You can try to play at "...on the one hand, on the other..." but you established some time ago that you are a partisan. Fine. You savaged Gingrich and helped neuter him. Declare victory and spare us the pretense that you look at him as an impartial observer. It's kind of oily.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMr. Lowry has been very tough on Mr. Romney, in fact overtly.
Newt Gingrich is a disaster, a fantasy image, romanticizing over a dreadful Beltway Insider.
Partisan?
We are all, (i can only hope) are for the sound Conservative Side which is empowered within the GOP - and can be greatly encouraged in 2012 by taking the House, the Senate, the Executive.
This fashionable nonsense is silly.
Newt Gingrich is to blame for his grafting 1.8 Million off of Fannie and Freddie. Newt Gingrich is to blame for his sitting on the couch with Nancy Pelosi at the request of Al Gore in 2008. Newt Gingrich is to blame for selling influence to lobby for the Prescription Drug plan.
Conservatives believe in personal responsibility. We determine Our Government, Our Political offering, just as Newt is ultimately responsible for his own life.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMaybe I've missed something of Rich's, but I've had to get a mop to clean up the drool from most pieces he's written about the Mitt. If he's written anything less than full-throated praise of Romney, I haven't seen it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou must've missed the hard-hitting piece where Mr. Lowry analyzes Gov. Romney's description of the individual mandate as 'fundamentally conservative", and where he explains how such an argument by Gov. Romney makes it harder to run against and repeal Obamacare in the coming year. My mistake. Mr. Lowry simply posts a link and asks another writer to do something with it.
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRE: "We are all, (i can only hope) are for the sound Conservative Side which is empowered within the GOP . . . "
I am in no way a part of any "we" that includes someone of Old Fan's repulsive and repeated rhetoric, values, or political philosophty.
Having observed Old Fan's comments over the past two months I am convinced that i will be opposed to pretty much anything that he is for, and am happy that my definition of conservative is radically opposed to his.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Mr. Lowry has been very tough on Mr. Romney, in fact overtly."
Really?
Seriously?!?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJeremiah>>you [Rich Lowry] have long ago made an emotional decision that you loathe Newt Gingrich and love Mitt Romney...
***
Old Fan has already given this ridiculous comment a well-deserved smack.
I jump in with no new information or insights. I jump in only to jump ~on~. You should be ashamed of yourself, Jeremiah, for posting such ignorant rubbish. Either you have not been reading what Lowry has been writing, you don't know how to read, or you hope other people have not actually read Lowry and you can convince them of a huge lie.
Rubbish like you have posted is just despicable. Favor who you favor and hate who you hate...nobody cares. Everyone is welcome to his own opinion.
But you are spreading a disgusting lie in your characterization of Lowry's stance. And what does that make you? Figure it out.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI am under the impression that Mr. Lowry is the editor of NR. If that is mistaken, I owe him an apology. If not, I stand by my comments.
I spent years as a newspaper editor and columnist. I am well aware of the technique of giving mild criticism to the guy you favor so as to establish your 'objectivity.' NRO, editorially, has clearly favored Romney. They have utterly savaged Gingrich in a way I have never seen a conservative savaged by a conservative publication before.
I am sure Mr. Lowry tells himself he chose Romney because Romney is the best candidate. That is fine. I have friends who have done the same and I do not begrudge them that choice. They are shocked when I tell them that if either Paul or Romney get the nomination I will skip over the presidential race and not vote. I will only vote for conservatives now. Much as NRO wants us to believe Romney is a conservative, one actually has to do a few conservative things in order to actually bear the mantle. Romney doesn't qualify.
I have many friends among establishment Republicans - and I don't begrudge them their choice. But I am not one of them. The editorial slant of NRO this year strikes me as going more establishment, while tolerating conservative voices such as Thomas Sowell and Andy McCarthy. It will remain a valuable publication. But it is unleashing the tethers which made it a premier conservative publication.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAmen, Jeremiah! One may make whatever choices one finds necessary. But let no one be confused. The term "conservative" can only be applied to those actually favoring limited government. By predating ObamaCare with RomneyCare and then foolishly doubling down on his error by proclaiming the individual mandate is "fundamentally a conservative principle", Romney has disqualified himself. He may win the nomination. NRO may call him a conservative. I will vote for House and Senate and pass on the Presidential vote. I will never again vote for the establishment...Dem or Repub. Find me a conservative!
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"I will only vote for conservatives now."
You mean conservatives like Santorum brazenly peddling Big Gov't Fed programs/spending, "Bridge to No-where" pork/earmarks & Arlen Spector over Pat Toomey--advocating a ban on "not how things are supposed to be" contraception while falsly claiming residency so that he can scam PA taxpayer's out of 73,000?
Or Stimulus addicted Rick Perry, a crony capitalist who has more than doubled his state's debt in ten years--ditto 27 billion deficit shortfalls, executive mandated HPV Perrycare,--replete with "Texas Miracle" 8.1% unemployment, enforced sanctuary cities, in-state-tuition, & would be globalyst "Super Highways"?
Or perhaps Rockefeller progressive Newt--30 years promoting his "very strong central government"--i.e., regulatory government departments galore, amnesty for illegals/1986, gun control bans/1994, embryonic stem cell research, Cap & Trade, mandated healthcare, Obama's education programs, partial birth abortion candidate Scozzafava, "Council Boards" to legalize illegals, corporate welfare for lobbyist drug/energy industries, disaster Freddie Mac government programs while lining his pockets & trashing "right-wing social engineering"-- ALL at the fed level with $300,000 ethics sanctions & serial adulteries/divorces in tow?
VERY conservative.
"One actually has to do a few conservative things in order to bear that mantle."
Right. You mean "a few" conservative things like turning private & public sector entities around, creating businesses/jobs, producing mega profits & balancing budgets at Bain & company, Bain Capital (65 billion in assets), the Olympics, & in far left state Massachusetts--with over 800 VERY conservative vetoes under his belt in just 4 years.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm gonna vote for the guy who made socialized medicine and carbon emissions caps law--he's the Real conservative--Obam---I mean, Mitt Romney. A stalwart 'conservative' >wink<. Eager to 'defeat' Obama>snicker<
Gods above, do none of you have the ability to see?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhy is it that the only way a Romney supporter can make a case for their guy is to attack the rest of the field? Very telling.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIsn't selective editing wonderful, Ardis? Shoot, if I showed 10 clips of Babe Ruth striking out and 10 clips of some of the few home runs Manny Trillo ever hit, I could create the impression that Trillo was a stud and Ruth, a dud. It would be a lie, but done completely with facts, selectively edited.
That is what the Romney advocates hve done with each of the credible conservative challengers - take those challengers' outliers and present them as their norms. Gingrich loves to flirt with progressive ideas, but he governed as a conservative when he had the chance. Santorum is so conservative he had to take some outlier positions to appease the establishment wing, positions that same wing is now using to try to discredit him.
Santorum was not just a pro-life vote in the Senate; he was the pro-life leader. It was largely through his efforts that people came to know what a grisly, barbaric practice partial-birth abortion is. On welfare reform, social security, a steady and bold foreign policy - real peace through strength - Santorum was a leader.
In 2006 I was running two Congressional campaigns. As the Foley scandal crystalized the disgust people had had with what we had become, I watched Republican candidates across the board run like scalded dogs trying to prove how moderate they were. Not Santorum. He spoke honestly about the challenges we faced from the jihadists and kept true to his conservative principles even when he knew it would cost him the election. He was a profile in courage.
Before the Foley scandal I had been hollering in Washington and in a state capitol that our message was deeply flawed: our message was that our crooks were not as bad as the Democrats' crooks. Lousy message for Republicans. If voters have to go with crooks, they'll go with the Democrats every time. Operatives like me had convinced themselves that it was our brilliance that gave us a majority, what with 72-hour programs, micro-targeting and other techniques. It was self-absorbed nonsense. Credible messaging moves elections. In '94 we had no micro-targeting or 72 hour programs. What we did have was a powerful message that people believed we might actually mean. It gave us the first majority in several generations. By 2006 we looked like the pigs in Orwell's 'Animal Farm.'
Watching wimpy Republicans run for the tall grass and try to prove how liberal they really were in order to save their hides in 2006 radicalized me. We were in the position because of them in the first place - and their prime defense mode only served to confirm to the electorate that their worst fears about the Republican establishment were true.
You want to know who is conservative, take a look at their batting average when they actually had an opportunity to govern. Gingrich had the equivalent of a robust .300 average. Santorum was probably our last .400 hitter. I don't think Romney ever broke .100.
Then, take a look at who is on their staff in each of the state organizations. Not volunteers, just staff Romney's campaign gravitates to the pretty boys - the guys who believe in nothing except that they ought to be powerful. Go ahead, try it in your own state and you will see I am right. I am sick to death of politics as a self-actualization seminar.
The problem with big government is NOT inefficient management. It is that it is incompatible with freedom. If you want our message to be that our guy can manage the train wreck better than their guy, good luck with that. But you will lose people like me who are convinced we need a fundamental change of course. If the choice is just between flavors of statist, I will continue to help conservatives who remain in the enfeebled Republican Party, but will finally be open to a genuinely, consistently conservative third party. And I will not vote for a statist, no matter how good a manager he is.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf Mr. Lowry loathes Grindgrinch, it is perfectly understandable considering Newt's appalling personal conduct. It speaks well of Mr. Lowry's judgement, and standards, as a matter of fact. Cordially, Bill
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJeremiah -- great comment and thanks for saying what you did.
Take anyone's rebukes as wonderful compliments.
And yes -- Lowry and the vast majority of the editors here savaged Gingrich in a way that was grotesque. I will never ever forget what they did to a man who wasn't even my third choice, but fourth down on my list.
It has been a disgusting display, one fortunately that many have seen and recognized for what it was and is. My only pleasure from all of this will be in observing the long-term consequences that will occur from such behavior.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"you have long ago made an emotional decision that you loathe Newt Gingrich"
How could anyone in his right mind not loathe Newt Gingrich?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMr. Lowry, you continue to ignore the basis of Mr. Gingrich's offering.
Newt is simply struggling now, in the same manner in which he began, because he is a terrible Candidate for the Nomination.
Nothing Newt could do, was going to hide his Beltway Insider status. His influence peddling is ugly. Gingrich was never going to be a credible challenge to "change" Washington with his poor record. Again, he lacks executive ability, serious economic credentials, essential private sector accomplishment, is a celebrity Washington Politician who made a fortune exploiting the Public Sector. It would be even more foolish to run Gingirch, than it was to McCain in 2008.
The reasons why the Ron Paul, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney, etc., challenges had an impact, was the serious substance within the criticism. The more Gingrich sat in the spotlight (encouraged by those mistakenly following a very fashionable push amongst us), the uglier it became. The reality of the poor offering was just magnified with the attention.
You are trying to sell Mr. Santorum a little too much, now suggesting emotive hype can survive on the National Stage in the Primary. As if another emotive fan fare can turn into something to build upon - if Rick doesn't make mistakes. This is silly. You cannot ignore the substance of the offering. You simply can't hide the reality Rick has the same weaknesses of Gingrich (even if he is a more pleasant-consistent of an image offering). Santorum also made his name in Washington, has no executive ability, no private sector credentials, no economic clout, and is even dramatically weak in his own home State.
Even if he runs a perfect Primary from now on, his potential Nomination is only doomed to eventually reelect Obama. He too, simply is not the ideal fantasy of a conservative some are desperately dreaming about either. His selection of Specter, the massive earmarks, etc., are a prime example of another vivid contradiction.
It all seems rather silly. For the very best amongst us, seem to want to ignore the most obvious reality. Also, it still seems inspired by a few, who remain desperate to block Romney. If they (like Gingrich is now vividly displaying) are more obsessed with Romney, than they are with winning - removing Obama in 2012, than they are lost.
It all just becomes more self destructive fantasy.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse