Jonathan Chait of New York magazine writes:
It is not that Republicans won’t vote for Romney. It’s that Romney does not capture their fundamental attitude toward Obama. He can adopt the positions of the base, but he can’t seem to ape their feeling of fear and outrage toward the current president. Gingrich may lack money and organization, but he has a real opportunity, and Romney surely knows it.
There’s something to this analysis, both in terms of Gingrich’s chances to win the nomination (which are quite real) and what his appeal is (and what Romney’s appeal is not).
A slice of the conservative movement — the number is impossible to quantify– associates conservatism with a certain style almost as much as they associate it with a certain governing philosophy. That may be why some prominent conservative voices were critical of Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels when he was considering a run for the presidency. Based on his history and governing achievements, one would think that Daniels would have been widely admired and even beloved. But in some circles he was suspect because (it was said) he wouldn’t take the fight to the other side with enough passion. He warned conservatives not to consider political opponents as enemies. And he spoke about appealing to moderates and independents, which for some placed him in a suspect category. One gets the impression that for some on the right, rhetorical zeal can cover a multitude of other sins — and rhetorical restraint is a sign of weakness and the lack of core convictions. Which brings us to Newt Gingrich.
The one thing we know is that Gingrich is capable of rhetorical zeal. In fact, his language can easily drift into territory that is extreme and incendiary. For example, he implicitly blamed liberalism for the slaughter of children at Columbine and the actions of Susan Smith, a South Carolina mother who drowned her children. He asked, “What if [Obama] is so outside our comprehension, that only if you understand Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior, can you begin to piece together [his actions]?” He still defends his characterization of Paul Ryan’s Medicare proposal as an example of “right-wing social engineering” even as he describes the Congressional Budget Office as a “reactionary socialist institution.” And of course Gingrich’s comments are often laced with the word “corrupt” and “corruption.”
My hunch is that in the next few weeks Gingrich will dial up, not dial down, his rhetoric, as a means to shield him against charges he has embraced positions considered too liberal for the Republican Party. He will go places Mitt Romney simply won’t.
Gingrich is a man who possesses undeniable political talents. In my judgment, he’s a much more impressive figure without the apocalyptic rhetoric. But it tells you something about Gingrich that it’s hard to imagine him without it.
Didn't William F. Buckley say to vote for the most conservative candidate who can win, or words to that effect? If so, let's ask: Can Mr. Gingrich win? n nThe Nomination: Yes, it's clear that Mr. Gingrich could win the nomination. He's a true republican, a conservative, and he has experience in politics. Any reader of Contentions knows this. n nThe election: I would wager that readers are not so certain Mr. Gingrich can win the election. As Peter so well notes, Mr. Gingrich's rhetoric can be explosive at times. This plays well with the conservative base but it's doubtful that independents will be drawn to a such a man. Who, after all, wants a hot head to lead the country? It reminds me of Senator McCain's outburst that we (the candidates) should cease the campaign to focus on the economy. A noble thought but one given with such enthusiasm (perhaps an understatement) that it scared voters. At the time, Senator McCain looked and sounded unhinged. If there was an inflection point in 2008, this would be it. n nPerhaps Mr. Gingrich will use his fiery words to get the nomination and then show that he's calmer and more reasonable during the campaign. Maybe. n nBut it is more likely that Mr. Gingrich's personality is more explosive than the public wants in its president. If so, Mr. Gingrich is not the William F. Buckley candidate of choice. n nWho then is the Buckley candidate? Hold your nose if you like, but it's Mr. Romney. No question about it.
Let me understand this better. A president who calls Republicans " unpatriotic" The Republican plan is "dirty water, dirty air and denying kids healthcare". You see, Obama rhetoric plays well to independents, Gingrich's fiery rhetoric, not so much.
Republicans will support the candidate whom they believe will make the election about Obama, despite the impressive Obama attack machine, which will try to make it about the Republican nominee. Republicans know what is going to be unleashed on them by Obama and the media. If the election is about Obama, Republicans win. If the election is about Romney or Gingrich, both of whom are fairly unimpressive candidates, it's likely Obama wins. n nTo date, Romney has shown no skill in making the election about Obama. If he does, he wins the nomination running away.
It doesn't matter who the Republicans nominate, the media is going to work hard to get Obama reelected by bashing that person. Now that Obama is a known quantity, at least since gaining the White House, they can't focus primarily on making him out to be God-on-Earth, building him up to be the superhero capable of solving all the world's problems. So, they will concentrate on making whoever wins the Republican nomination into a supervillain. n nGingrich is the better candidate, because he has faced this before and has the intellectual and communicative tools to fight back. (And that is why the left, and perhaps the author of this post, dislike him so much more than the average conservative politician.) n nThere is no way any Republican can win the battle in the press. But, once it gets to the debates, Gingrich is the person out there right now who can mop the floor with Obama. n nIf the Republicans nominate someone who dive toward respectability, as defined by the media and critics of conservatives in the Republican party, they have no chance of winning the election, because that approach will do nothing to work against what the media and Democrats will do to the nominee.
So, to recap, Gingrich is just hot hair masking a crappy candidate… n nGingrich has come on thanks to the debates because he is more than just hot air. He articulates his position well and demonstrates his knowledge and capability concerning a range of key issues. He also isn't afraid to cut through the BS, and with so much of that infecting our public political discourse, some of us shout, "Thank you!!" n nI can't remember specifics, but maybe some others can think back to the Bush-Clinton debates in the early 1990s. Man, were they painful to watch. It was perhaps the height of the political correctness craze – at least in the public sphere – and it turned the debates into ignorance. There was no meat to them. They gave you nothing of substance to decide which candidate might carry the government in a direction. n nOne reason Gingrich rose to the fore of the Republican party in that period was his ability to focus the discussion on substantive issues and explain in his positions in a way that was both clear and intelligent. People liked that, and Gingrich was effective in pushing forward policy. n n And the press despised him for it. They hated his conservatism, but more than that, they loathed his ability to get things done – with a large part of that being his ability to articulate himself. n nSo what did they do? Things like the article quoted above and this blog post: attacked him as being a beast. As being uncouth. As being evil. As being a hate-monger. Gingrich shocked the establishment by retaking the House and had to be destroyed, and demonizing him was the tactic of choice. And it worked. n nChait and Wehner are warming the engine back up… n nAttacking the man's character proves more effective than debating his policies with a man like Gingrich who has proven able to argue his position well. n n
More rhetorical zealotry than Obama has demonstrated over the past six months and will continue through the election? Why does our side always worry about these things? Be nice like John McCain and get beaten. n nIn paraphrasing US Grant at the Battle of the Wilderness, when his subordinates one by one were telling him what General Lee was going to do next. Exasperated, Grant said "you think he was going to do a double back flip and land in you rear, stop worrying about what he going to do you and start thinking what you are going to do to him" Nothing better describes many in the conservative pundit class. n nThe conservative base wants a fighter, who will take it to Obama and not be cowed by the media. Baggage be damned.
""Moderates abandoned Newt early in 1995."" n nDoes anybody else remember what it took to turn the moderates against Gingrich back then? n nWas it because he shocked them with his policies and style? n nOr – was it because of the protracted, vile war the media waged against him – after he proved to be the best person capable of pushing through Republican policy since Reagan? n nI'm sure there are people who can reasonably argue for both answers, but what I remember is how incessant the media went after him year after year once he became speaker. And to me, talk like in this post and in the comments makes me feel like people are defaulting to a position where the media gets to define who is and isn't acceptable as a candidate from the Republican party.
This is laughable. The GOP is committing suicide and the tea party is the gun.
This is interesting. From a recent post by Wehner: n n"We’re now entering a different phase. The heat is about to be turned up, way up, on Gingrich" and "Romney’s task is obvious: to skillfully apply pressure to Gingrich’s fault lines even as Romney finds a way to inspire Republican voters (especially working class voters)." n nSo, Romney is advised to do exactly what this current post says should lead people to question Gingrich's fitness as a candidate… n nDoes it bother anybody at Commentary that there is a unified voice in support of 1 single candidate? The lack of diversity of opinion? Coupled with the fact the candidate of unified choice has failed to gain anything remotely close to unified support within the Republican party – despite the amount of time he's been the front runner? n nI am not saying this as a conclusion, but perhaps the disparity between support for Romney in the pages of Commentary and the Republican party explains why so much is being written here about the electability of his Republican opponents. n nThis is exactly one of the media's favorite ways to bury conservatives they are afraid of.