I am amazed at the furor out there this year; write that Newt’s shameful infidelity nevertheless probably does not ipso facto disqualify him, given what we’ve known in the past about some other presidents, and you get a flurry of pro-Romney invective; write that Newt blew the debate with his nonchalant arrogance, and you get a flurry of pro-Gingrich invective.
Leaving Santorum and Paul aside for a moment, this Newt–Mitt divide, I think, has trumped in its first few weeks the months-long Obama–Clinton fight. Conventional wisdom says this is the norm and that by June the winner will be endorsed by the loser, the party will unite, and Republicans will turn their attention to defeating the president.
But something about this particular spat seems nastier than, say, Romney–McCain or McCain–Bush (and remember, neither of those eventual nominees won the popular vote in the fall), or even Ford–Reagan and Reagan–Bush. Romney supporters are not just for Mitt, but furiously seem to loathe Gingrich; Gingrich’s team equally seems to hate Romney. This is especially odd given that on the issues, there is very little actual difference between the two candidates at all (which might, counterintuitively, explain the animus: personal characteristics, style, comportment, class, and background instead are the main differences between the candidates, hence the clumsily dubbed “Tea Party vs. Country Club” rivalry).
The question then arises whether, in the event Romney wins, Gingrich supporters will get out and support him, or, should Newt get the nomination, Romney people will fall into line. So many op-eds and TV ads are popping up so quickly that it almost seems impossible that any of these critics could ever endorse someone whom they have so thoroughly trashed in print or video — and whose line of argumentation will be drawn upon by Team Obama. At their worst, is not either Romney or Gingrich vastly preferable to Obama? I would think so.
Meanwhile, we are only vaguely aware that 2011 GDP growth did not even crack 2 percent, another puffed-up subsidized green company hit the dirt, and Obama climbs in the polls even as he should be having his worse quarter ever, given the debt, Keystone, recess appointments, and defense cuts. In military terms, strategy would be almost surreal: first, defeat and utterly humiliate a friendly rival, then expect to enlist what survives to form a new unified and harmonious army to defeat the heretofore untouched common enemy.
Yes, we CAN all get along!
SANTORUM FOR PRESIDENT!
Leave aside this Mitt-Newt extravaganza.
Support Rick, the most consistent conservative.
And we can all unite behind him.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSantorum may be a decent social-con, but there is nothing fiscally conservative about him. His career in PA- a Northeastern, blue-ish state- would be a huge liability if he weren't compared to Mitt.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat is who he'd be compared to.
I don't use the ideal as my comparison, at least not at this point.
We have four candidates left, right? So, yeah, Rick gets compared to Romney, that's how it goes in January.
I'd like to vote in November, if the GOP would want my vote.
But the moderates in the GOP seem hell-bent on kicking out the conservatives, the only reason they've won an election since 1968.
Suicide is pleasant for them, I guess.
2008 and 2010 taught them nothing?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"But the moderates in the GOP seem hell-bent on kicking out the conservatives, the only reason they've won an election since 1968."
And what election have Conservatives won without moderates pay tell?
The coalition can win elections, neither faction can win them by themselves.
They can BOTH lose elections however.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"And what election have Conservatives won without moderates pay tell?"
Reagan in 1980. You RINOs ran "moderate"---read "liberal"---John Anderson on a third party ticket to prevent a conservative from becoming President. Reagan whipped both Anderson and Carter with help from conservative Democrats---who thenceforth would be known as Reagan Democrats. This was the beginning of the "solid South".
Now kindly tell us which "moderate" GOP presidential candidates have won, much less won two term landslides, while running as moderates.
We'll wait.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Reagan in 1980."
Horse feathers.
Reagan Democrats were moderate Democrats; Reagan took 27% of the Democrat vote that year, and if your argument is that the 8% of the vote that Anderson got accounts for the sum total of what may constitute the moderate faction of the GOP, you are simply out of your mind.
If Conservatives, or rather, if what constitutes a Conservative according to you, were so prevalent in the GOP's rank and file, they'd be just as prevalent in the GOP itself, and we'd be nominating them one after another, cycle after cycle, instead of complaining how the GOP is populated with "RINOS".
To wit.
If you can, by the sheer weight of your numbers, elect, then the GOP would be filled with the Conservatives you elected.
Is it?
In 1980, 46% of voters described their political views as moderate, and Reagan carried that vote, with Anderson getting only 8% of the self-described "moderate" vote. In that election, Reagan got 85% of the Republican vote, and Anderson got 4%, so the claim that the 1980 Reagan victory was brought about solely by Conservatives, without aid from the moderate wing of the GOP is demonstrably wrong.
Reagan won on his ability to cut across Party and ideological lines.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAside from Medicare Part D (which Newt also supported) how is Santorum not a fiscal conservative?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf only. Santorum's been my personal fave all along. But he's just stuck. Don't know why, but I don't know what can help him either.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is red-team/blue-team nonsense at its "finest".
In truth, neither Gingrich nor Romney are substantially different from Obama, either. They're all part of the Bank Party, or "bi-factional ruling party", whichever you prefer.
For anyone who thinks differently, which of them is advocating a balanced budget?
Holding Bernanke to his rule of "stable prices"? (2% inflation is not "stable". At least, not in the English language...)
Getting rid of SS? (Seeing as how it's just a simple tax, and mathematically impossible anyway, this is akin to "telling the truth", however unpopular that might be).
Throwing the bankers in jail for the many and varied felonies they've committed? (Fraudulent mortgage paperwork, etc)
Right.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI am pro-Santorum and pro-Romney and for myriad reasons think Gingrich would be a poor nominee and spell electoral disaster come November. That said, I certainly would not hesitate to support Newt against Obama. I would venture to say that most people on each side of the divide are of like mind, so I think the concerns about unity in the general election are vastly overblown.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHer's one pro Romney, pro Santorum Republican who wouldn't vote for the pathetic, odious Gingrich to clean up after my dog. Cordially, Bill
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseEXACTLY.
Everyone wanting to take their toys and go home if their first choice doesn't get the nomination really needs to look at the big picture. Economically, four more years of Obama WILL make a return to conservatism virtually impossible. With ANY of the four candidates, we at least have a chance.
Also, I work at a liberal college. Many independents I work with usually vote Democrat, and supported Obama. Most of those do NOT want to vote for him again; but will NOT vote for Gingrich. Santorum makes them squirm; they will hold their nose and vote for Romney IF he's the nominee.
Strictly anecdotal, but then, so are most polls.
Please. Let's all calm down and see how the next 2-3 months play out before having temper tantrums about not voting.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYes "all" the social conservatives can.
Meanwhile, the libertarian wing -- we exist, you know -- is probably not going to be too amped about a man who is unapologetic in his defense of protectionist trade policy and big government. And then there's the "you know, it's not man on dog, or whatever" thing -- leaving aside the merits of the comment, nominating the man is equivalent to shooting the Republican party in the forehead in 2012.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse* (this was supposed to be a reply to Madisonian)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePersonally, I don't think there would be a dime's worth of difference between the way Santorum, Gingrich or Romney would govern. Each knows how to pluck the strings of their natural constituency, but as a practical matter they'd be identical in almost every way. Foreign policy particularly as it relates to the application of force would be the same. Despite all their respective bravado, their immigration plans are indistinguishable. And finally, each man has supported in their recent past, big-government solutions to one problem or another. None of this matters because as Reagan proved without qualification, it's beyond the power of the president to shrink government. Shrinking government takes multi-year popular support and that support only manifests in any meaningful way in the Congress, particularly in the House.
I just happen to think given all the other variables and personality characteristics, Romney gives the GOP the best chance of success in the fall, if for no other reason than he'll turn off the fewest number of voters. Still, defeating Obama will require a Herculean effort that frankly no one this side of Reagan can probably pull off. If defeating elected incumbent presidents were easy, it would have been done more than four times in the last 110-years. It hasn't.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI don't understand your assertion that " he'll turn off the fewest number of voters." That's your speculation at best but even as that, what case can you make? Romney seems the least able among all of them to forge some kind of personal connection. Newt fires people up. Santorum comes across as the most passionate and sincere. His background is one that more of the populous can relate to and identify with...especially among blue collar voters in swing state. Romney inspires identification in no one. He is widely percieved as robotic.
Like it or not, much of the moderate/independent vote in general elections hinges on gut feelings and likability. I think such voters are more persuaded by those factors than whether the candidate is moderate or conservative on issues. If the style and presentation appeals to them, they'll choose that.
How many moderates can there be out there who are staunchly right-down-the-middle on all issues? That prioritizing of issues is not what makes them moderate or independent. Evaluating candidates for their own reasons is what places them there.
For this reason a successful candidate needs to forge the kind of connection that persuades voters that "he's the best guy". Do you really see Romney being the obvious choice there? Newt is more persuasive and fiery. A lot of people like that. Santorum is more sincere and more like the "common man". A lot of people like that too. Romney is decent and competent but robotic and super rich. Fair or not, a lot of people are turned off by that combination. Especially given the times.
Hardly sounds "most electable" to me.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseShouldn't the search for the right analogy go all the way back to Goldwater-Rockefeller?
Before anyone says that there were huge ideological differences in 1964 that aren't present today, remember that Mitt Romney took positions over the years that put him far to the left of the Republican mainstream and that Republican conservatives greatly distrusted Rockefeller, even when he said conservative things, on the theory that he would say anything to get the nomination but would govern as a centrist (or worse). Rockefeller and Romney are both campaigning on electability, while Gingrich and Goldwater are both arguing for "A Choice Not an Echo."
The harder analogy to sustain is actually Newt Gingrich (a fox) to Barry Goldwater (a hedgehog). Also, the divorced-and-remarried candidate now is on the right, not on the left, but the level of animosity towards him seems about the same.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think a significant number of conservatives will sit on their hands in November if Romney becomes the nominee, just as they did for McCain. I think the number of Mitt supporters who would not support Gingrich if he is the nominee is much smaller.
Also, I am not the least surprised at the dirtiness of Team Mitt. This is who we're dealing with here. It is going to get far, far uglier if Gingrich continues to do well and will go completely unhinged if the nomination is seen as slipping from Mitt's grip.
This is unavoidable. We all need to just strap the dog to the roof of the car, grit our teeth, step on the gas, and get this vacation over with. We can wipe the muck off the rear window once we get to the convention.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThank you Dr. Hanson for being one of the few members of this blog to report evenly on both of the candidates. The anti-Newt vitriol and disgust for those who don't like Romney that this site and others suddenly decided to embrace is astounding to me.
Guess what National Review. We are not idiots out here. We ditched the regular media because we know they spin or lie about facts that don't meet their world view. It is beyond disheartening when the alternative media starts doing the same thing. Yes, I will vote for Anybody but Obama, but I have lost my trust in National Review and many other members of the conservative establishment. I thought I could trust you to at least make an attempt to tell both sides. I wonder if the undecideds and independents you court so anxiously while sneering at former supporters like myself will come through for you.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think that 9 months from now, this will all be forgotten. Don't forget that during the Obama Clinton bash, it got extremely vitriolic between those two. You can team Obama accusing PRESIDENT Clinton of racism. You had Clinton saying remarks that were very back handed toward Obama that could have been construed as racist. In the Democrat party, that's about as heretical as can be.
I think people are making FAR too much out of this debate. I think it's been good. I think it has really helped to vet Romney out and make him a much better candidate. See his performance last night for proof. He knows how to answer these charges about him being a rich wall street dude now. We're going to have about 2 or 3 debates with Obama. If Romney had blown it, like he did in South Carolina, it could have been disastrous. So that he went through that now, will make him a much better candidate in the general election. Plus when they go after him for it now, it will be old news to a lot of people.
I think these debates have been great. I think this race has been exciting. I wish we had a candidate that made everyone happy, but we don't. So we have to decide if we want to go on a suicide mission with Newt, and potentially lose the house and senate, AND the presidency, and give Obama 2 more years of unfettered control of government, or do we live with Romney, and win the Senate, the House, and most likely the presidency.
I think this one is a no brainer at this point. Again, see my post history. I have not been a Romney fan. Nobody of quality came through the fight, and it's clear that Newt is just too radioactive. Look at his poll numbers in Florida Vs. Obama. It's a slaughter. We can't lose Florida and hope to win the presidency.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse