Couple of months ago, Newt Gingrich was saying confidently that he would be the nominee. Then he “imploded,” as everyone said. Then he rocketed back up. Now he looks confident again — like a front-runner. I say this in my debate Impromptus today. I disagree with what I think is the consensus of the conservative blogosphere: I thought Mitt was weak, unnatural, last night; I thought Newt was fluid and convincing (so help me). He looked mature and statesmanlike (again, so help me).
South Carolina, it is true, liked the Newt who was rockin’ and rollin’ and fumin’.
I have begun — just begun — to accept the possibility that he will be the nominee. Before, I thought there was no chance. I thought his candidacy was almost lark-like, just an ego bath. But now I think: Uh-oh. I also think that, if Newt is the nominee, it will confirm that Barack Obama is pretty much the luckiest politician in all history.
Remember how he got to the Senate? We Republicans had this hotshot candidate, Jack Ryan, who had been a Goldman Sachs partner and then gone into the inner city to teach. A golden boy, Ryan was. He was going to be one of our stars in the Senate, and then quite possibly president.
But then: a sex scandal. The Illinois GOP imported a man from another state, Alan Keyes. We essentially had no nominee that year. We essentially forfeited the election. Obama didn’t have to break a sweat.
Then, for the first half of the 2008 Democratic primaries, Hillary Clinton ran one of the most wrongheaded, wrong-footed campaigns in memory. By the time she righted herself, it was too late: Obama was the nominee. And then he had the gift of McCain and Palin in the fall. (Perhaps that is too hard on the Republican ticket. Put it this way: We could have run a better campaign.)
And now, after a disastrous first term, Obama will get Newt Gingrich, of all the Republicans under the sun, as his opponent? Newt Gingrich, who hasn’t even held office since leaving the House under a cloud almost 15 years ago? If Obama is that lucky, all I can say is, may his luck rub off on the United States in general.
I believe that Mitt Romney would make our best nominee: I think he’d be a strong general-election candidate and an excellent president. I think his experience, knowledge, and skills are especially suited to these (awful) times. I think the nomination of Gingrich would guarantee an Obama second term.
But I will now say what I always say, when I pop off in this fashion: I’ve been wrong before, so take these opinions with salt. I told everyone who would listen, from 1992 to 1996, that Clinton would be a one-term president, that his election in ’92 was merely an accident of the Perot candidacy (which garnered almost a fifth of the nation’s votes).
Oops, as our friend Rick Perry would say.
P.S. If Gingrich wins the nomination, will the liberals congratulate us on abandoning our uptightness and unhipness and choosing someone who has long gotten his freak on? Or will we simply be the hypocritical party, as well as the stupid party? (Then again, Newt may have truly reformed, been born again, if you’ll pardon the expression. I addressed this ticklish issue here.)
If Gingrich wins the nomination, will the liberals congratulate us on abandoning our uptightness and unhipness and choosing someone who has long gotten his freak on? Or will we simply be the hypocritical party, as well as the stupid party?
There can't be much doubt about the answer to that, now can there?
And, mirabile dictu, the liberals will be quite right.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDear jay:
Please stop wondering what the regressive leftists will think of you or any of your fellow travelers in response to what you do and say.
Until further notice, you may safely assume that, no matter what you do or say, regressive leftists will find it proof of your insanity or your stupidity or both.
Your opponents have nothing positive in mind when they contemplate your politics.
And, well, since it's been that way as long as you can remember, and since it likely will not change anytime in the next millennium, you may as well not preoccupy yourself conjuring their opinion of you.
In one respect, they are like terrorists -- strength is the only thing they respect. Just worry about their ultimate destruction, and plug away, and the rest will take care of itself.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAmen. This is why it annoys me whenever conservatives try to "laugh along with the joke."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseStrength? Reagan won his two Presidential elections by landslides, and GWB Bush followed on his coattails with another landslide.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDid either of them get any respect from the liberals? Only when they foolishly (and unnecessarily) compromised with the liberals in Congress.
When Newt is good, he's as good as the best of them. Problem is, there is so much not-good in the package. I agree with Jay that he is extremely unlikely to beat Obama if he is the nominee.
God have mercy on all.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFor the life of me, I can't understand why so many conservatives, having seen what they've seen with Mitt and Newt, decline to give their support to Santorum. I guess it's just that old frontrunning desire taking hold.
Nordlinger, in his Impromtus debate notes, mentions Santorum sporadically, and usually to praise his remarks (those which Brian Williams allowed him to squeeze in). All the same, here in the Corner, Nordlinger has nary a work for Santorum, while fretting about being stuck with Newt
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFunny how you describe pervasive incompetence and scandal for Obama's opponents as Obama's luck. One could also say that Obama doesn't make these stupid mistakes like so many of his opponents do.
Consider the current crop of yahoos in the GOP field. Given the economy, a solid candidate would almost certainly win in November. Instead, Obama has a very good chance of winning.
You call it luck, I call it incompetence and a GOP gone wilder than girls in Cancun.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWas McCain considered the strongest GOPer in 2008? We will never know who is better as nominee or President, Romney or Gingrich, regardless who of them wins a nomination and regardless the outcome of the general election. Especially taking into account that Romney's unfavourables are the same as Gingrich's. I will vote for any of them. I will vote even for Paul if he runs against Obama.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI trust Thomas Sowell's opinion more than anybody else.
So let's hope that Obama will be one term President. Its a pity if this great country goes down a tube completely. Four more years of Obama will do that.
wow, is Jay Nordlinger on medication?
No question Romney won the debate, and Gingrich came across as unstable and erractic.
Glenn Beck has been hammering Gingrich's record this morning; which i appereciate especially after reading this sophmoric claptrap from Nordlinger.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOh yeah, here's an "Impartial Observer."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhy do you care what liberals think? This is what is mind-boggling about supposed conservatives like Mr. Nordlinger. Why do you care even a little about what the Left thinks about your nominee? Further, who ever he is they(the Obama campaign and the MSM) will potray him as a out-of-touch heartleess racist Neanderthal. Whether it's Romney or Gingrich makes no difference. Either way the Obama campaign and their allies in the MSM are going to attack said nominee and vicously. And if Romney is not prepared for that and to return fire, he shouldn't have run in the first place.
I may not agree with Gingirch, and his bombast and grandiosity will cause us some grief. But at least he will put up a fight. The GOP nominee won't be getting and electoral votes for being a pleasant loser.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYup, Gingrich would put up a fight and be good in the debates with Obama (just like Kerry was against Bush in 2004), but then Newt would lose, and badly.
The election would be all about Newt, rather than Obama's failed policies.
If Romney wins the nomination, he would be less bombastic in the debates, but would have a much better shot at winning the presidency.
And at least Romney wouldn't be peddling amnesty for illegal aliens and global warming like Newt would.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAlso worked for Presidents Dewey, Dole, McCain...uh.
Look neither is perfect. But if Romeny is too nice a man to call Obama a socialist, what;s the point? It has to be about Obama's record. it's been clear for a while Romney's well-paid consultants are telling him to call Obama over his head rather than an incompetent Alinskyite. And the latter is not going to cut it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTake a deep breath Jay and stop parroting the headlines you read in the MSM after Newt's S.C. victory.
Your article shuld say "Romney WILL make our best nominee" not "would make our best nominee."
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusequibble: "Will the liberals congratulate us...or will we be the stupid party?"
I've only heard the term "stupid party" applied to the GOP by Republicans. For example, to describe a party that, at this moment in history, could only come up with these selections.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI really have to disagree with this:
"Then, for the first half of the 2008 Democratic primaries, Hillary Clinton ran one of the most wrongheaded, wrong-footed campaigns in memory..."
Re: Jack Ryan, yes, of course, that was some good fortune. But to say he was lucky against Clinton simply ignores what was a long, tough primary. Yes, Clinton made mistakes, but so did Obama: "People clinging to guns and religion" - or whatever that line. Plus, the whole Rev. Wright and Ayers issues were nothing easy.
And, again, there's not much luck when it comes to a national election. It's a long, hard slog. It's a test of discipline and management. McCain/Palin - my how quickly they've been tossed on the horrible candidates pile (!) - were not the best, obviously, but they certainly didn't make things easy.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf he might actually become the nominee, we must consider the possibility that he might actually become the president. Both depressing and unlikely possibilities...but they should be considered.
And if he does become the nominee, the selection of a VP candidate will be of extraordinary import. I do not believe that Newt could last four years if he were elected. He couldn't handle the speakership. This man makes Richard Nixon look like a gentleman.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThanks for the rally, Jay.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell, at least you can be confident that - of all the candidates remaining - Newt is the best suited for a hostile media. Mittens can't punch back effectively, Rick does come off as whiny, and Paul shakes an angry fist at the clouds.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHow ironic that Newt's conversion from Baptist/Lutheran to Catholicism is described as being "born again" :)
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse