The self-immolation of Newt Gingrich is a cautionary tale about presidential candidates. Earlier this month Dick Morris wrote, “All agree that he would be the best opponent to Obama in a debate.” Gingrich was, according to Morris, “the brightest, best candidate” the GOP could field. Yet less than a week into his campaign Gingrich was asked a fairly straightforward question by NBC’s David Gregory, which Gingrich bollixed up so badly that he has probably done himself irreparable harm.
The truth is that candidates who look good on paper and make for interesting political analysts on cable news can turn out to be deeply flawed presidential candidates. The opposite is true as well; people who are generally thought to be weak candidates might acquit themselves very well and strike a chord with voters. The point is that it’s often difficult to know in advance. That’s what primaries are for—to test the candidates, to put them through their paces, to allow voters to see how they will react in different settings. A presidential campaign is unlike anything one can imagine; it’s grueling, intense, and the scrutiny can be unforgiving. Many impressive people simply melt in the spotlight.
It’s worth recalling that in 1980 the GOP candidate Jimmy Carter and his team were most eager to face was a fellow named Ronald Reagan, whom they considered to be a gaffe-prone, outside-the-mainstream, aging ex-actor. The candidate the Carter team most feared was Howard Baker, a smooth, accomplished, reasonable and reassuring senator from Tennessee.
Howard Baker ended up being the chief of staff in the second term of Ronald Reagan’s presidency.
[...] by robertborkjr on May 18, 2011 Pete Wehner writing this post at Commentarymagazine.com today: The truth is that candidates who look good on paper and make for [...]
[...] News You Can Use [...]
[...] Journalism ReviewThe Right Word: On liberal media biasThe GuardianHuffington Post (blog) -Commentaryall 52 news [...]