There was a telling quote in yesterday’s Politico article about the way many conservatives are backing off on criticism of Newt Gingrich. Rep. Tom Cole (R-Oklahoma) said the former House Speaker’s comeback reminded him of Napoleon’s return from Elba. “Now it’s like Napoleon showing up for the 100 days. We all may follow him into battle again — and you just hope it’s not Waterloo.” Judging by virtually every poll of Republican voters taken in the last couple of weeks, the GOP had better hope not. But Cole may have a point. In March 1815, the French remembered only what was good about the Corsican when he returned from exile. But they chose not to think about his subsequent defeats that had nearly destroyed their country. The same may be said about the manner in which many Republicans have suddenly remembered the glory Gingrich earned in the early 1990s during his tenure as one of the most successful House minority leaders in congressional history while forgetting the fact that he was among the most disastrous Speakers.
Politico is probably wrong to read too much in the absence of a burgeoning “stop Gingrich” movement at the moment. Rest assured if he wins Iowa and appears to be heading to the nomination by mid-January, many in the GOP — especially office-holders who will have to run underneath him on the ballot next fall — will be seeking to do just that. Considering no votes have yet been cast, the idea of a “stop Gingrich” movement is clearly premature. He may well parlay his current momentum into a stranglehold on the nomination next month if the polls hold. But a lot of the people quoted in the Politico story know Gingrich well enough to realize that gives him plenty of time to implode.
The Gingrich bubble is stronger and has lasted longer than most observers (including this one) thought possible. It seemed preposterous that conservatives could have forgotten or forgiven the disgraceful end to Gingrich’s tenure as Speaker or his decade as a Washington influence peddler after he left office. His inconsistencies make Mitt Romney’s flip-flopping on the issues look like a model of stability. Yet all conservatives seems to care about Gingrich is the fact that a) He is not Mitt Romney; b) He has done well in the debates, and they believe he’ll demolish President Obama in this format next fall; and c) Once upon a time, he was the inspirational fire-breathing leader of the conservative moment in this country.
To listen to many of his supporters these days, Gingrich’s conservative bona fides seem to have a lot more to do with the past than the present, which makes sense as many of his positions on issues like Medicare reform, immigration or foreign policy are clearly to the left of Romney and much of the GOP field. While the candidate would have us believe there is a new Newt who has learned from his mistakes, that appears to be limited to concerns about his personal life. The rest of his persona — the ideas maven and would-be visionary — is very much the same as the old Newt. And the increasing talk about the glory of 1994 seems predicated on a strategy of positioning him as the man who will take down Obama the same way he toppled the Democratic congressional majority 17 years ago.
That historic achievement was a singular moment in our political history, and Gingrich will always be able to bask in the glow of its memory. But recalling that victory while ignoring much of what followed is pretty much the same thing as assessing Napoleon’s career as if it ended after Austerlitz, while sweeping his calamitous campaigns in Spain and Russia under the historical rug.
Time will tell whether Republicans are sufficiently sold on the new Newt to carry him to the nomination. But given his track record, it’s fair to say the only question about when his Waterloo will arrive will be whatever happens before or after the Republican convention next September in Tampa.
Well, then the party elites need to look at a nominating process that serves up such weak sauce as John McCain and Mitt Romney, neither of whom seem able to play in the same league as Obama, and so the rational choice has always been to look somewhere else.
Conservatives should not be criticizing any of the Republican candidates, Mr. Tobin. We need to confine our bad-mouthing to Obama and his band of left-wing extremists. If I had my "druthers," I would choose none of the remaining Republican candiates, but acceding to the obvious that I have to choose among the remaining candidates, Gingrich has name recognition and most of the voters of today were not very interested in what went on in politics twenty years ago. I have changed since then, have you?
Next November, about 130-135 million Americans will vote with 65 million or so ballots and 270 electoral votes needed to win. n nNext month, 100,000 to 150,000 Republicans will caucus in a state that will cast only 6 of those electoral votes and their decision will define the GOP race. n nWhy is it that every four years, we allow this to happen. Tradition? Only if you think a tradition that began with Jimmy Carter in 1976, two centuries after the nation was founded, deserves to be respected as if it were in the Constitution. n nFor that matter, all the electoral votes at stake in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada combined don't add up to one big state. n nWhy aren't the first wave of GOP primaries in Florida, Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania? The shape of the nomination race would be very, very different — and better IMO.
I would honestly like to read your outline of what Gingrich did to make a disaster of his time as Speaker. I don't remember the actuall policy fights that much. n nMy memory is dominated by how massive, unrelenting, and long term the media's assault on him was once they realized the Dems had lost the House which "rightfully belonged to them" after 40 years of their rule. n nI wasn't alive to witness the media's treatment of Nixon. I did notice how much they hated Reagan. But, I didn't get turned off completely to the media until the Republicans too the House and watched how they went after Gingrich until Gingrich bowed out. n nAnd I didn't see anything else like it until the day Palin was named VP candidate. n nWhat did Gingrich do to destroy his Speakership?
Make no mistake, gad_fly, the Commentary crew – or at least Tobin, along with former Commentary legend Jen Rubin – are far more about getting Romney nominated than they are about beating Obama. Their priorities are a little – sorry, a lot – distorted, and I think this is what happened: n n1) They genuinely wanted to beat Obama n2) They convinced themselves that in this field, the only person who can beat Obama is Romney. n3) Scorched earth against Romney's opponents was therefore performing a favor for would-be suicidal conservatives. n nBut then: n n4) "WHAT?… They're not listening to me? They're STILL trying to find a Not Romney!? !!!11eleventy!!1!!! They must be STUPID! And DUMB!" n5) "You know, conservatives are so stupid that they'll nominate a candidate other than Romney, and given the field, that candidate might even be worse than Obama!!!!" (cf. Jen Rubin saying last week that Newt would be a "worse chief executive than Obama"). n6) "It matters more that we help Romney on his Grail quest than that we do anything else. Obama is secondary." n nThey love to psychologize people like us who have chosen not to support to Romney, so psychologizing them is fair game. They've become like Obama supporters: to them, Romney began as a compromise and ended as The One. n nIn the meantime, they – especially Mr. Tobin – have completely misunderstood why Gingrich is getting the support he is. They think it's because we who currently support him think he is a rock-ribbed conservative, and consequently they spend all their time tilting at windmills excoriating us for Not Remembering the bad times with Newt, the heresies, the betrayals, the disgraces. n nBut we're well aware of all that. On conservatism, there isn't much to choose between Romney and Newt. We're well aware of that too. But Newt has shown that he is willing to a) earn our votes instead of waiting to get them by default and bullying by surrogates; and b) fight Obama instead of passively waiting for him to lay down and expire. With all else judged as basically a wash, THOSE are the deciding factors, not some delusion of Gingrichian conservative purity. n nSo, Mr. Tobin, what's it going to be? We of the Not Romney crowd are prepared to vote for the man if he gets the nomination, because Obama must be defeated. Are you prepared to vote for Newt, to support him, to help him in battle against Obama? n nTelling that we have to ask for clarification on this point.