Democrats enjoying the Republican fray
It’s often noted that incumbents have an advantage over their opponents. It’s usually assumed that’s because incumbents have an inherent gravitas, familiarity, and seeming inevitability. But it’s also because incumbents ordinarily don’t have to duke it out anymore with anyone to gain the nomination, while the opposition—unless there’s a clear frontrunner—spends months and/or years tearing into each other and spotlighting each other’s weaknesses.
That’s been happening on the Republican side, and the Democrats are understandably enjoying both watching the fun and entering into it. The emergence of Newt Gingrich as a surprise leader has momentarily left the Democrats a bit unprepared, but never fear, they are catching up quickly while making sure they don’t ignore Romney in the process.
After all, it’s not as though Gingrich is an unfamiliar figure. It doesn’t take much work to recycle the old arguments and the old attacks, and no doubt Gingrich will oblige by tossing them some new grist for the mill.
But this NY Times article cites two ways in which Gingrich gives the Democrats more cause to worry than Romney does. The first is that it’s harder to paint him as warring on the middle class, which they feel they can do more easily with Romney because of his history with Bain. The second is that Gingrich has more appeal to Hispanics.
I would imagine there’s a third, although they’re not owning up to it. Both Gingrich and Romney are quick on their feet and fast with the comebacks in debate, but Gingrich is more aggressive and will be far less polite to Obama. In 2008 that might have been a drawback, since voters were inclined to like Obama and dislike those who critiqued him, as well as to be receptive to the idea that the latter were racists, a charge the Obama camp was quick to make. But now that the public has seen a great deal more of Obama, they are less inclined to defend him and more inclined to nod their heads when he is attacked.
And when did you last hear the old “criticism of Obama is racism” charge? Now that it’s Democrats who’ve been criticizing him as well, funny how that approach has fallen by the wayside.
re “criticism of Obama is racism”
From the beginning, one of the few good things about an Obama Presidency was that it would open up America society for criticism of persons with darker skin. Wide open criticism of black persons is a GREAT thing — and especially so for black persons.
From the beginning, I understood that a Barack election truly would be a racial breakthrough; except it would not be a breakthrough in exactly the way in which politically correct America imagined. It would be a better breakthrough: a breakthrough in which equality – including equality in being eligible for criticism – truly would occur. A great thing. Completely invisible, of course, to media pooh bahs, yet still a great thing.
Herman Cain, also, deserves some credit for opening darker skinned persons to widespread, uninhibited criticism.
I thought, as recently as Condoleeza Rice’s tenure as Sec. of State, that Ms. Rice deserved far more criticism than she received. I wondered if her skin tone had any effect on dampening criticism of her.
In a similar pc vein: I wondered if Justice O’Connor’s gender sheilded her from some criticism. I thought Justice O’Connor was a flighty airhead who delivered illogical opinions. For instance: her UMichigan Affirmative Action commentary was asinine. I thought Justice O’Connor deserved far more criticism than she received.
In future, I suspect political correctness will significantly recede: Americans will not hesitate to criticize public figures of any race, or of either gender. This might especially be true b/c of the several Repubs, of various racial backgrounds (Jindal, Nikki Haley, Rubio, Ted Cruz of Texas), who are extremely talented, and who are breaking into national politics in a big way.
While I wouldn’t go so far as to say I’m “enjoying” it, I think it’s one of the funniest things I’ve seen in a long while. The punditocracy (is that a word?) and the Republican “establishment” systematically went about destroying any candidate that they felt might present a credible challenge to their little Mittens, until a whole bunch of people like myself finally decided, ok, well since they all suck, and Romney sucks worse, we’ll choose Newt because he’s the smartest and toughest of the bunch. Now they’re pooping their panties because Newt scares the poo out of them on so many levels. The whole thing cracks me up.
I’ve thought a lot about your question the other day about the willingness to forgive Newt for his marital transgressions, and his philosophical meanderings. I think that part of the reason is that for most of us, we don’t care about philandering or divorce. Most of us have had at least one divorce, and understand that cheating is something that happens. It’s personal issues that we don’t care about, whether it involves a Democrat or a Republican. I didn’t give a crap about the “Weiner” scandal. As far as his philosphical meanderings are concerned, I remember Newt as the fiery hard charging speaker of the house who fought Bill Clinton and actually got a budget that decreased the size of the national debt. He engineered the Contract With America, and brought each item up for a vote. He insisted that congresscritters carry a copy of the US Constitution on them at all times. He, more than Reagan (I really never cared for Reagan) helped to define my political views on limited government. I see his ethics violations as an attempt by the left to discredit him, and as the first volley in “The Politics of Personal Destruction”. I was sad to see Gingrich go, and felt he didn’t get a fair shake. (For example it was Reagans fault when the government shut down while he was president, but it was Gingrich’s fault under Clinton.) I’ve basically always loved the guy, and that really hasn’t changed. I didn’t back him at first, because I felt that he wasn’t electable. Rightly or wrongly, he had too much baggage, and was too damaged. But I’ve been left with no other viable options, so, here I am. Now that I’m here, I’m HERE!
Media: You spent a lot of money on your divorces.
Newt: Not as much as Obama did hiding his BC’s.
Media: You’re pro-Israel.
Newt: Yes. Unlike the present administration.
Media: You’ve been charged with finance wrongs.
Newt: I write my own books.
Media: People say you’re more ego than smarts.
Newt: The person fitting that is in the WH.
In other words, almost every charge accusation can be answered by referring to Obama in one way or the other.
Trouble is, Newt wouldn’t be running against the media. The people who would need to be persuaded have already made up their minds about Gingrich. Newt’s retorts would be lost, while the media questions would reinforce the frame that favors Obama.
I find it bizarre that so many voices that talked of electability a month ago are now trying to find rays of sunshine in the Gingrich cloud. Show me the electoral strategy that makes Newt a viable national candidate. He combines nearly every flaw of all the other candidates in one tiresome, bloviating package. He is much more nominatable than he is electable.
Although, I do still maintain that they will elect whoever we send them. I wish we would send them someone better. It‘s a lost opportunity.
Prog radio hasn’t forgotten anti-Obama racism. We haven’t heard about it much in Big Media because there’s no pale-skinned establishment face at the top of the GOP ticket top wear the label. When we get to a head-to-head matchup, the righty will again be the evil, racist white dude. You must remember that being Republican is proof of racism, while lefty criticism of Obama comes from a sincere desire for more compassionate policy.
Probably about the last time I saw Jeanine Garofolo who led the charge (literally and figuratively) of Obama-defenders (most notably the Hollywood kind) with her accusations of racism.
Funny how she has reduced her visibility in the last year. I wondered where she was while Herman Cain was being served up to the wolves. After all, Herman Cain is a whole lot more black than Barak Obama whose mother is white.
(I still think that to this day, at least half of the 95% of black population who voted for Obama had/have no clue that he is 1/2 white. Think one would be excoriated by all those Obama worshippers if we referred to him as a white man, being that he is as much white as he is black?
” I think that part of the reason is that for most of us, we don’t care about philandering or divorce. Most of us have had at least one divorce, and understand that cheating is something that happens. ” -Tom
Tell that to Tiger Woods.
That philosophy of “not caring” if people cheat (cheating having a completely different stigma than divorce — at least in our society) is reserved for “revered heroes” like Bill Clinton — and many of his Hollywood pals whose cheating often comports with their work schedule and co-stars. (Unlike Clinton’s — I don’t think he was as nearly so choose-y. Proximity and willingness seem to better fit his requirements).
I do hope the National Socialist Democrats continue to “enjoy” the Republican primaries just as they “enjoyed” the “foolish” idea of the Republican re-taking the House of Representatives in 2010.
Am looking forward to the Demoncrat symbol for 2012 – a picture of one of the deranged “Occupiers” defecating on a police car, an apt symbol of what liberal are doing to our country.
As to the Kenyan Communist and the “darker skin” break-through nonsense – a communist is a communist, no matter the skin color.
Tom,
How do you know that the media/establishment didn’t support the other candidates because they were in the tank for Romney. I criticized Cain for his lack of interest in foreign policy. I never liked Bachmann because she didn’t accomplish anything in office and she seemed to equate having strong principles with implementing policies based on them. I was open to Perry. Now if I felt that way without being in the tank for Romney and without trying to defend some sort of establishment status quo, how could I possibly accuse others of wrongdoing for having the ame reservations.
WRT Gingrich: I can’t help wondering whether he couldn’t have helped raise awareness about the Freddie Mac problems. Did he not see what Bush and others saw, or was he more interested in showing off his GSE theory, or was he just interested in the money? Whichever, he was sure proved wrong by history. He has not yet repudiated his preference for GSEs making the profit while taxpayers take the risk. He has work to do to win me over, even though I recognize certain strengths.
Talk about racism charge, where was Jeanine Garofolo when Herman Cain was being thrown to the wolves? The Dems and MSM were the ones “reporting” (I use that term loosely) & churning up the rumor mill, celebrating each accuser who came forth.
(For that matter, where was Jeanine and her-quick-to-charge-racism pals when Tiger Woods was being served up? Last I looked both Cain & Woods are black. In fact, Cain is twice as black as Obama — i.e. 100% black as compared to the 1/2 black Obama. (And Tiger is of mixed heritage: Asian, Caucasion, Black, and other — what’s that word he made up to answer those questions? Cablanasian?
When Palin decided to keep her hat on her head I shifted my support to Cain. Now Cain has surrended to the MSM assault and there is no one left I can wholeheartedly support because Chrstie & Rubio are on the outside looking in. So I believe the opportunity to attract large numbers of the ‘independents’ has passed and this gives BHO a slim lead.
My focus has shifted to holding the house and gaining significant ground in the senate. My dreams of victory have changed to wishing for obstruction of BHO’s desire to turn the USA into a 3rd world hellhole.
“… funny how that approach has fallen by the wayside.
It will be back 24/7 once the primaries are over.
“where was Jeanine Garofolo when Herman Cain was being thrown to the wolves?”
I sympathize, Cindy, but in this case let sleeping, uh, dogs lie. If Garofalo just keeps her trap shut from now on thati in itself is a tremendous improvement in the quality of life on this planet.
For a taste of how the mediots are going to cover this election, just check out tonight’s Nightline. ABC did a poisonous, nasty little hit piece on Republicans for “subliminally negative” campaigning. Without, of course, mentioning the Vicious Party’s (and their own) relentless slandering of any and all conservatives.
You can stream it online: the Thursday, Dec. 8th episode. Note especially the ugly tone McFadden gives to her reading of the intro, as well as the assumption that mainstream Protestant Christians are the equivalent of Torquemada.
I have a feeling that Newt will be and has been given another chance. Frankly, Hillary has been given another chance even to the extent that there have been rumors about replacing Obama with Clinton. Her negative ratings were at least as high as his. I think people would like to go back the 1990’s. I think he would struggle against a conservative Southern democtrat, but he will be facing a very liberal Northern democtrat. He has ego issues where he does seem like the Grinch. I know it will be a different role because he was an attack dog in the ’90s so can he become the charming stateman in the campaign. That will be the biggest issue. His divorces are an issue in whether or not he is a jerk because who wants the country run by a jerk. The media will go after him, but they go after all Republicans and he has experience dealing with it so hopefully he will be better at it then in the ’90s.
As far as Mitt, I do not have a problem with Mitt. I think he is severly happered by the fact that he was the govenor of Mass. I don’t think it is all that bad that he is responsive to the people who hired him, which was a plus for Clinton and a major negative for Obama. I’m very confident that he is more conservative than his record in Mass.
It will definitely be an interesting race, and I hope America wins.
W/ regard ot the Republican fray, with Romney releasing a barrage against Newt, doesn’t he seem like a Democrat? I’ve instantly lost much respect for him and Bachmann et. al., not because they criticize Newt, but because they do it in such a way that it seems personally vindictive–i.e., just like the Democrats.
To this point, it seems that Newt alone has had the single-minded vision to realize that the battle is with Obama and the Dems and the damage they have foisted upon this country. IMO, regardless of what one does not like about Newt this presence of mind makes him stand head and shoulders above any other Republican candidate running in this roller derby of a primary.
It is certainly interesting to list to comments from riders while taking the CTA to and from work. Not many in the 1% choose to ride with hoi poloi.
Back in 2008 what I heard was almost 100% positive for the Democrat nominee. Not surprising as we are in Illinois.
Now, however, not so much. In fact one lady today insisted that the President had committed impeachable offenses and should be kicked out of office.
My goodness, if he has lost the El riders he truly is in a world of hurt. Granted this is totally anecdotal … but stilll … it hast to be less than encouraging to the kool-aid drinkers such as Tom.
anonChicagoan,
Don’t demean anecdotal evidence. Many people dismiss it, but I find that it has a tendency to reveal the pulse of the nation that the punditocracy tends to ignore.
Another example— I read several weeks ago an essay from a business consultant who gave presentations. He noted that the most interesting comments came at the bar in the post-presentation where one attendee said emphatically that his bsuiness had no intention of hiring while Obama was in the White House because he would not contribute in any way to reducing unemployment and to Obama’s reelection. This was met with silent nods from many of the other businessmen/women in attendance.
What does THAT tell us?
T asks, “What does THAT tell us?”
That many in the business world are going Galt?
And when did you last hear the old “criticism of Obama is racism” charge? Now that it’s Democrats who’ve been criticizing him as well, funny how that approach has fallen by the wayside.
Well, no. Not exactly. Those of us who criticize Obama from the left get plenty of this toxic, race-baiting intellectual dishonesty from Obama idolators within our own tribe. But I bet you knew that, neo, as a recovering Democrat!
Cleaver: good point. However, I wasn’t really thinking of individuals such as yourself. I was thinking of pundits and journalists on the left, who have been criticizing Obama for a while from the left and I don’t see them being accused of racism for it—or accusing themselves of racism, either, now that the shoe is on the other foot.