Republican presidential campaign notes: The era of Newt Gingrich
It’s an interesting juncture in the contest for the Republican nomination for president. With a pause in the quite rigorous schedule of debates we’ve seen thus far (the next one isn’t until December 10th) and with the spirit of Thanksgiving and Christmas taking the focus off of profane political doings, there’s a sense out there that things won’t change much until the turn of the New Year. So, the supposition is that we have on the whole a contest between Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, where Newt Gingrich is the latest anti-Mitt incarnation, but the one blessed most when it comes to timing.
If things actually don’t change until the New Year that leaves us with the Iowa caucuses occurring on January 3rd. The New Hampshire primary is January 10th, followed by South Carolina on the 21st and Florida on the 31st. That might just do it, if one candidate is clearly ascendant.
However, I dispute the idea that we’re really down immutably to Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich. I think it’s far too early to conclude that. In particular, I think that if Newt stumbles badly, Rick Perry may well rise again as the anti-Romney. He has superior finances and organization as compared to Gingrich, and he is not accustomed to losing elections. While I believe it would be a big mistake for him to go after Newt with any negative advertising, I think he is well-positioned to give Romney a very difficult time, and all of that may rebound to his favor if Newt weakens for his own reasons.
Ron Paul is also likely, I think, to do well in Iowa. While I don’t think he has a chance of winning the nomination (in part because no one thinks he could win the general election) his success could affect the dynamics of the race in ways that are difficult to predict (although the most obvious guess is that it would help Romney).
I said some weeks ago that, as regards my own vote, this was now a race between Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich, and I’m sticking to that. And, contrary to the noise being heard among the chattering classes, I’m pretty happy with the choice being between those two. I think everyone should take a minute and give some kind of huge credit to Newt Gingrich. He was dismissed early on—I also explicitly dismissed him as being out of place in this election cycle—and he has earned his place in the top two by the sheer sweat of his brow, especially by his performance in the debates, and in particular even more by the positive approach he has taken to the campaign. This is worth reflecting upon. He has studiously avoided knocking any of his Republican competitors, keeping his focus on the flaws of the Obama adminstration and on his own positive ideas for turning things around (at the same time giving due regard to the ideas of the other Republican candidates). It is something to succeed in politics by acting this way. You may say: “Well, he hasn’t succeeded yet.” He hasn’t won any elections, it’s true, but he has come from nowhere, with no money, no staff (they all quit), the target of universal mockery, carrying baggage that everyone thought was fatal—to being one of two major contenders for the nomination. His achievement is a tribute to his intellectual brilliance (which most everyone acknowledges) but also to his restraint and self-control (virtues he hasn’t always practiced so well). If he can continue to show that this is the “real him” now and in 2012, then that counts for a lot, and will allay fears that he is predisposed towards spending too much time with his head in the clouds.
|
|
Newt has dealt well so far with the scrutiny of being the “frontrunner.” He seems to have finessed the illegal immigration question that caused Perry to crater, simply by explaining his position better. He’s being hit still with criticism of the fact that he took money from Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, but I think he’s largely succeeded in communicating the idea that he was simply being paid for work that was both legal and ethical. It’s rather rich to hear people in some liberal quarters condemn him for this, when, up until 2008, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were the good guys—the ones who were helping low income people buy houses. In any case, being paid a million or so bucks by them for consulting work over the course of about ten years doesn’t really amount to being bought and paid for; not in those circles. If anyone could demonstrate that he was taking that money in order to “fix” things for them on Capitol Hill, or that he was advising them to go further down the road to perdition in terms of their doomed policies, then that would be a potent line of attack. But as of now, his explanation is standing. A certain congressman who announced his retirement yesterday, formerly head of the House Financial Services committee, is a lot more demonstrably responsible for the bad policies of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac than someone who was simply recompensed for consulting work like Gingrich.
So. How will Romney pivot against Newt? Will Gingrich maintain his equanimity and perspective, or venture into a whining tone that does not serve him well? Will Perry invest his dollars and energy against Romney exclusively, or will he try to take on Newt (clearly a personal friend of his) in order to try to retake the status of the “anti-Mitt”?
On Herman Cain: It’s a pity how things are turning out. It really is. I don’t know what else there is to say at this point.
Will Michele Bachmann or Jon Huntsman or Rick Santorum come out of nowhere to gain some momentum? Well: no, I think.
While I’ve gone on the record favoring either Newt Gingrich or Rick Perry, the prized official endorsement of THE CINCH REVIEW has yet to be bestowed. I think it best to wait until just before the Iowa caucuses, when the news can have the greatest impact on the race. (Last time around, in 2008, should anyone recall, this writer endorsed Fred Thompson. If only the world had listened.) In many substantial respects, Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry are very similar. They both have fairly comprehensive and dramatic plans for reforming the tax code and Washington according to a conservative model. They have a similar tilt on foreign policy. They differ most in style rather than substance. Gingrich is an explainer, a persuader, and (sometimes) a lecturer, who might get carried away with his own ideas. Perry is a seat-of-the-pants, feel-it-in-the-gut kind of guy, who stumbles over his explanations, but is likely to stick to principles in office. Perry has a record of achievement as Governor of Texas, but Gingrich also has a real record of achievement in gaining the GOP majority in 1994 and in getting big things done during his Speakership.
One thing I’m not doing in making my own decision is paying attention to what Democrats are saying. You have Bill Clinton saying, “Oh yeah, Newt Gingrich is very impressive,” and then other Democratic operatives saying, “We really want to run against Gingrich. Romney is the one we’re scared of!”
Discount it all. If Democrats knew anything about conservatism, they would be conservatives. Their posturing, their psych-out games, their tactical maneuvering: it should all be utterly ignored. Conservatives need to pick their best candidate. And then proceed on all cylinders to defeat the Democrats. It’s as simple as that.
Anyone will look great against Obama, who—as I’ve been saying for some time—is the weakest incumbent in living memory. (This is not based upon passing poll numbers, but on the fundamentals of his record as president.) Anyone will look great compared to him, going down the stretch next summer into fall. Anyone can beat him. That anyone just must not be Mitt Romney. If he is the nominee, the Republican ticket will be far more vulnerable to an independent/third party interloper, and that is the one way that Obama can win next November.
Gingrich or Perry: that’s it. (And Gingrich/Perry 2012 ain’t such a bad idea either, if you ask me.)
