Two damaging attacks have been launched at Newt Gingrich this morning from other Republicans, which both paint him as out of step with the conservative movement. The first is a Romney campaign ad that blasts Gingrich for his criticism of Paul Ryan’s entitlement reform plan last spring:
The ad is apparently being run in Iowa, and will no doubt be effective with voters there who see Gingrich as the “true conservative” in the race. Does it matter that Romney was never adamantly on board with the Ryan plan? In theory, yes, but from a practical standpoint, not really. He’s not making the case here that he’s more conservative than Gingrich, and he doesn’t necessarily have to. The purpose of the ad is simply to undercut Gingrich’s support.
Something that may resonate with Iowa Tea Partiers even more than the Romney ad is this devastating Rand Paul column in the Des Moines Register attacking Gingrich as a phony conservative “establishment” figure. Paul gets in some good shots at Romney as well, but lets him off the hook in the end. He saves his real ammo for Gingrich:
Moving past both those issues, however, I believe Romney’s candidacy is well-established. He’s a moderate, northeastern, don’t-rock-the-boat Republican, and I think everyone in the party clearly understands that.
But what worries me is that the voters are being sold a bill of goods in Gingrich.
So I will conclude by saying two things: Gingrich is not from the Tea Party. He is not even a conservative.
He is part of the Washington establishment I was sent to fight. He has been wrong on many of the major issues of the day, and he has taken money from those who helped cause the housing crisis and create millions of foreclosures.
Again, Tea Party voters aren’t going to come away from this column with a desire to vote for Romney. But it may be enough to chisel away at Gingrich’s lead.
Could it be that we conservatives are falling victim to the very mentality that we criticize the Left for? n nConservatives rightly criticize the icon status that the Left habitually accords to its leaders– Obama, Clinton, Kennedy, Roosevelt et al… And the Left does this because they ascribe to a political philosophy that says the Strong Leader can lead society to paradise, rooted in the French Revolution and the power of the State. n nIt could be that conservatives are unconsciously buying into this fallacy by looking for a Conservative Leader who will single-handedly lead us to to Victory and roll back the Leftist State. But this is inherently not conservative thinking. We don't want a Leader with that kind of power. If anything, the presidency needs a good deal of shrinking in this regard. We're supposed to be the Party of Small Government, remember? If that's true, then we have no business pining for a Great Leader. Our candidate should be someone who re-focuses the nation on the rights of the states to have the prime authority over the lives of their residents and not the Federal Government. The Federal Government should only be about those things that only the Federal Government can do. That's a pretty limited set of tasks when you stop to think about it. And that's a much, more limited role for a president. n nOnce we discard this illusion about a Great Leader, we need only find the candidate that is (1) electable and (2) least likely to continue the insanity of Leviathan Government Control. Who is that candidate? Both Romney and Gingrich sound to me like Big Government advocates. Perry has talked about limited government but is he electable? n n(And don't suggest Ron Paul. The *one* power the Feds should have is foreign policy and Ron Paul is certifiable nut when it comes to foreign policy… examples too numerous to mention).
That seems to be a pretty good ad. We'll see how effective it is over the next week or two, but I imagine it will have an impact. Mitt, though, has to be careful that his attacks don't end up looking hypocritical or slimey. For instance, the Restoring America's Future PAC criticizes Newt for flipping on the individual mandate. All Newt has to say is, "Look, I was wrong. It was a mistake. Why won't Mitt admit it too." n nI'm also waiting for the Newt ad that compares Newts signature reforms while in office (welfare reform, capital gains tax cut, budget surplusses) to Mitt's signature reform (Romneycare with a individual mandate leading to budget short falls, higher taxes). It's a no-brainer for Newt. n nBut this is a good ad – from Mitt's perspective.