Romney, the non-Newt
Is Newt’s star of the mere shooting variety, like the short-lived ascendancies of Bachmann and Perry and Cain before him? One would think so, from today’s editorials in the Washington Examiner and the National Review. The first comes right out and endorses Romney, the second stops just short of that officially, but effectively does it just the same.
Ah, who cares about editorials? That’s just the Washington establishment, right? They hate Newt and have been in Romney’s pocket from the start.
Actually, I don’t care about editorials. Arguments from authority mean nothing to me—except when what they make sense, and to me these do. I’ll tell you why—and it’s certainly not because I’m a Washington insider.
I long ago faced the fact that while I’m not enthusiastic about any of the Republican candidates, I like candidate Obama a great deal less. So this was always going to be an election in which my usual nose-holding was going to have to be performed in a firmer fashion than ever. So be it.
I am a pragmatist, and my humble evaluation of Newt Gingrich’s chances for election is that they are non-existent—for two reasons, neither of them being his conservatism, which is not the problem.
Newt’s first flaw is character, and the second is personality. These may sound alike, but they are not. Clinton, for example, was a good example of a candidate who lacked the first but had the second in spades. Obama is an example of a person who might lack both but was very very good at pretending to have both, enough to fool enough of the people enough of the time. Romney is an example of a candidate who has the first (at least, in the personal sense if not the political, if you think political character involves steadfastness) but lacks the second.
Unfortunately, Gingrich has neither. And he has neither in a rather spectacular way. He has a history of ethics violations, trumped up and exaggerated or no. More troubling (at least to me) is the enormous amount of money he received from Fannie and Freddie. Think that won’t be a huge problem for voters when Democrats sink their teeth into it? And that’s just his political character; I don’t think I need to reiterate the problems with his personal character vis a vis wives and other women.
Then there’s personality. If Romney is slick and robotic, Newt is downright unpleasant. Republicans and conservatives may see him as feisty and combative enough to handle Obama, but the visuals of a scowling Newt vs. Obama will not win over many independents, and whether you like it or not (or admit it or not) that’s a good part of the general election game.
Romney’s a flip-flopper? Newt, likewise. Romney’s a career politician? He spent far more time in the private sector than Newt, and knows a great deal more about business. And they both have a history of supporting individual mandates for health care, if that’s what upsets you most about Romney.
At this point there is no viable Republican candidate who is conservative and who has both character and personality. I wish it were otherwise, but it’s not. So at the moment and until further notice—these things are always subject to change right up until the moment of nomination—I reluctantly support Romney as the Republican candidate for president.
This non-earth-shattering news will affect far fewer people than the Examiner and NR endorsements, and those affect precious few already. But hey, this is a blog, and I’ve got opinions—opinions with which many, many, many of you will no doubt disagree.
As a well-known Republican figure once said, bring it on.
Well said, Neo. I share similar concerns in terms of electability and whether Newt will create significant turn-offs for those highly valued (?) independents. I’m also considering what each what be like if elected to office.
My Romney-concern is that he is, in fact, very pragmatic in how he appears to the most viable voting blocks and, thus, shapes his message accordingly. Would this change if elected? I fear Romney getting constantly drilled by the media and the remaining Democrats in the House and Senate and governing accordingly. Now is not the time to take a balanced approach on every issue just because the Media and Dems frame it as he must. We just can’t have a Republican in the White House who continues to dilute the conservative message and leaves Republican finger prints on weak, middle-of the road, compromised solutions.
On the other hand, Newt, with all of his constant “ideas” would fall prey to similar traps and have his once direct and confident message turned against conservatives because he thinks it gets him some currency with the Media and the Democrats — as if he is smarter then everyone and he knows when he needs to partner up with Pelosi and the like. The Tea Party and Co. would not stand for that and we just can’t risk having a Republican in office with a huge faction of the conservative arm publically against President Newt and Newt taking shots back at them.
I know we need one of them in the White House before we worry about this, but we also need to think about how their candidacy-based weaknesses would translate into even worse office-holding weaknesses. I just hope the tidal wave that sweeps either into the Oval Office is enough to scare them into governing accordingly.
Trenchant analysis, neo, and one to which I subscribe.
One has to wonder to what extent the vituperation to which any Republican candidate will be subjected by the MSM puts off otherwise superb candidates. Spending somewhere between one and nine years being compared unfavorably with Judas Iscariot must be a daunting prospect.
“Romney’s a career politician? He spent far more time in the public sector than Newt…”
Should that be private sector?
Ann: thanks, will fix.
Excellent analysis and well said. You’ll get no arguments from me. However, if the nominee happens to be Newt or Huntsman or somebody else, I will work for, support with donations, and vote for that person. ABO!
As the long, drawn out prancing of the campaign comes to the starting gate I have seen my favored candidates drop out or become marginalized. So it goes and nose holding time is here in Iowa. I will futilely vote for Perry because I think neither Mitt or Newt would be the kind of president we need at this critical time. Are the both preferable to BHO? Of course. But both as president will keep kicking the can down the road. I’m willing to bet Mitt $10,000 on that.
Plus, I don’t buy into the narrative that Romney somehow has an advantage over Newt (or others) in the general election. What about Mitt will inspire independent voters to come to the polls 11/6/12? He has the personal charm of a talking robot, his record in MA is far from lustrous and shows him to be BHO lite, and he will not stand up well in a debate with the teleprompter in chief.
The real questions is once independents take a closer look at Mitt in the fall of 2012, will they be inspired to go to the polls to vote for him simply because he’s not BHO?
Parker: absolutely nothing about Mitt would inspire Independents to go to the polls and vote for him. But inspiration is unnecessary. The point is that nothing will especially turn them off about Romney, and those already quite disaffected by Obama (even though they may still “like” him, whatever that means) will not be distressed at the notion of voting for Mitt. They will vote for him if they are dissatisfied enough with Obama, and I believe many are.
On the other hand, IMHO, most of them will be turned off by Gingrich, and strongly. They will hold their noses and vote for Obama if Gingrich is the candidate. His ideology won’t mean much to them, and his personal characteristics will probably “inspire” not confidence but revulsion.
They’re both flawed.
Axelrod is going to turn Romney into Gordon Gecko. They’re going to have ads showing some disgruntled former workers laid off from companies acquired by Bain Capital under Romney’s leadership, juxtaposed against images of the many Romney mansions. Bain created far more jobs than they eliminated, but how does Romney respond to that? And how does he respond when they run ads showing Obamacare is modelled after Romney’s single most important legislative achievement? It looks like a disaster in the making to me.
Is it going to resonate with the moderates and independents who are too busy watching “American Idol” and “Dancing with the Stars” to be bothered with paying attention to the campaigns until about two weeks before the general election? I don’t see it.
At least Newt has actual legislative accomplishments he can defend. Under his Speakership they balanced the budget for four years; welfare reform; and other stuff I’m blanking on at the moment. He’s got tons of negative stuff, too, for sure. But he did get some good stuff done also.
I’m voting for whoever the Republican nominee is, but I’m afraid both Newt and Romney will have a hard time connecting with independents.
Well, Jesus isn’t running, nor is Lao-Tzu, Washington, Lincoln, or Reagan, so we have to go with who we’ve got, however imperfect.
At this minute it looks like that will either be Mitt or Newt–flaws and all.
First, let me say that the main objective here is to vote Obama & Co. out of office, and then to attain large conservative majorities in both the House and Senate–everything else is subordinate to those goals, because, if we don’t kick Obama & Co. out of office, I don’t really think that our country–as we know it –will survive another four years of Obama & Co, the “fundamental change” the ywill have put into place during two presidential terms will just be too pervasive and entrenched tobe able to root enough of it out to matter.
That being so, if I had my druthers I’d want Newt to be President because, flaws and all, he loves America very passionately, Newt has the intelligence, deep background, practical experience, the guts, and the “vision” to lead this country in the right direction–his sights are set high. Mitt, not so muc. Mitt is basically a plastic, central casting, largely soulless businessman/ technocrat. Mitt is “safe,” he has all the excitement of giving your sister a peck on the cheek. He won’t rock the boat, he will “go along to get along,” and he will aim for stability rather than try for real accomplishment and excellence.
I happen to think that we are in such deep shit right now that very decisive and very radical measures–even some Hail Mary plays–are necessary. Mittt doesn’t have the guts nor the vision to try such bold plays.
Wolla Dalbo: but my concern is that even if Newt would make a better president, it might be moot (hmmm, that rhymes) because I believe he never will be elected. And this isn’t a case of my saying “vote for the more electable candidate.” I just don’t think Newt is electable at all.
It comes off at first as jocular, but there’s a bery serious message in here (as a bonus, it agrees with neo):
http://youtu.be/laU6PfdgW44
WARNING — language.
“very”
“They will vote for him if they are dissatisfied enough with Obama, and I believe many are.”
I hope you’re right that enough independents will be dissatisfied enough to go to the polls and vote for the anti-messiah.
As I’ve repeated several times here: in my family the moderates have stated they will vote for Obama over Newt even though they do not like Obama.
I’ve been slowly moving towards Neo’s position. I just wish someone in the Romney campaign would be able to light a bit of a fire in the belly of Mitt. If I could somehow transplant 10% of Newt’s passion into Romney, then I would expect he would do quite well against Obama in debates next fall.
I’ll watch tonight and hope Romney shows me something besides CEO slickness and sool demeanor.
I have commented here that Gingrich combines the flaws of all the other candidates in one bloviating package.
And I have continued beating my drum that electability is given far too much weight.
Third, if it is Romney, I am voting Obama. Let’s get it over with. I will enjoy poking good-natured fun at all y’all as Romney does all the compromising statist garbage we all expect. At least until the riots start and I need to lower my public profile.
Tangentially on Romney, I have decided that Perry is a little better looking. Both are handsome men, but Perry has a masculinity that Romney has only seen on TV.
Scott,
Romney is not Gordon Gekko, he is Goldman Sachs. We already know the lefties will not vote for him, so the Gekko stuff doesn’t matter as much. That Romney is a finance guy, born 1%er, is what will moderate down-ballot enthusiasm and cut his coattails.
In the area where TEA and OWS overlap, Romney is the antithesis. That subset is where the ground-game energy comes from.
The problem with pandering to independants is in the running of a defensive race. Trying not to lose isn’t the same thing as trying to win. Just ask any football fan who’s thrown popcorn at the tv when his team goes into the damnable prevent defense and witness them losing mojo in spades right before the world’s eyes.
I hate to say it and i’ll take arrows for it if need be, but i think this aversion to risk is mostly a feminine trait that didn’t dominate in America just a couple generations ago.
I actually enjoy Newt’s personality, though more for entertainment value than anything else. He has such character issues that I too feel Obummer could beat him. And, if Newt somehow got elected, I would not be surprised if he were later impeached for some future self-serving money-making scheme from the Oval Office. (Think Monica, only for millions in Newt’s bank account instead of juvenile sexual triumphs.)
Romney will have a difficult time winning, because he is really just another McCain–he may not even carry his own State–think Al Gore/Tennessee.
Unless someone can come from behind, such as Bachman, or someone as yet unannounced, I fear we can only hope to win both the Senate and the House. (Okay, I’m dreaming….)
It might just be a “stop-Obama” vote, versus someone that can turn the country around.
Here’s hoping I’m wrong, but it doesn’t look good at this time.
One of the things I can’t help wondering in all of this handwringing about whether or not Romney or Newt could beat Obama (I think they both can and handily, because both of them are simply more competent and better people, regardless of their flaws.) is this: this website, like a number of others, such as Frontpagemag, was founded by conservatives who used to be liberal leftists until the adolescent nature of the Left finally repulsed them enough to inspire a jump to the other side. I wonder how many new conservatives and libertarians Obama has made in the last 3 years. I would not assume that number is negligible. All the anecdotal evidence I have seen tells me that the ranks of the Conservative and Libertarian Right are overflowing with people who were once very staunchly of the Left. And Obama strikes me as a veritable manufacturer of conservatives.
Back in the 1990s I was a Clinton Democrat and did not like Newt Gingrich. I have lost all of that hostility to him, because even though I acknowledge his flaws, not only do I consider those flaws to be minor in comparison with Obama’s, but also because I have come to recognize that my erstwhile hostility toward him and other prominent conservatives (like Rush Limbaugh) was less a result of their purported nastiness than of my own indisputably ignorant self-righteousness as a liberal.
I believe there may be quite a few fence-sitting liberals right now, people who see Obama for the bad news that he is, and who may be willing to at least give Newt or Romney a fair hearing. In other words, I don’t just think the Independents will go for the Republican nominee; I think Obama is so awful a president and so insufferable a man that he just might persuade some liberals to hold off on their usual knee-jerk bashing of Republicans and hear what they have say first, and to do so in a non-judgmental way for the first time in their lives. For me that moment came in the 2000 election when I cast a vote for Bush but had not yet hardened into a committed conservative. For others it may come in 2012.
Abdul7591 i agree. When was the last verifiable poll taken? November of 2010. And it was a thrashing of democrats all the way down to dog catchers. Has Obama gained or lost in real people’s minds since then? He’s lost. And big.
Here’s my concern: Romney has lost 17 out of the 22 elections he’s been in. That doesn’t sound like a winner to me. I’d be more confident if he ever bothered to attack Obama but he seems to busy attacking his Republican opponents for that. I’m not happy with being told that I have to put up with Romney because he’s supposedly electable. I’m not buying it.
When Newt starts wumpin on Obama, they’ll be sumpin more to talk about.
Well said Terri Pittman. Romney lost 17/22 elections. We have to stop the Marxist doctrine Obama is imposing on us. If elected, Romney does not have what it will take to “face the music “(OWS) if elected. We need a monster to beat a monster, not an apeaser.
The establishment, ruling class, pundits are telling me whom to vote for, bashing Newt big time but omitting to remind us that under his watch Newt balanced the budget. Good enough for me. Romney will cave. Additionnally, Romneycare, global warming acknowledgement disqualify him …
The establishment, elites, pundits are just afraid of real conservatives as Bachmann, Santurum, Perry. Consequence: Ron Paul is rising and Romney will lose (again).
Newt, Bachmann, Cain, Perry, Santorum. Fine with me.
I share the concerns of rickl expressed here about the way in which this “interminable series of debates has served to winnow the field” even before the first primary. I also agree with the point of this post about the electability problems that are likely to be faced by Gingrich if he’s the nominee.
Although it might be unpleasant to acknowledge it, the importance of thinking about what might be called the media optics of the different candidates probably can’t be neglected. In most elections since 1960 it seems like the candidate with the better combination of looks, voice and presence usually wins. This might be what you mean by personality above, as it is similar to charisma, but not completely the same. When he’s on script, Obama can play pretty well in terms of those qualities, but people have started to catch on to the fact that it’s all an act and so it rings increasingly hollow with many people. Newt Gingrich, on the other hand, might appeal to some conservatives as being pugnacious, but that’s not an endearing quality to most people, and in terms of the presidents of the last 50 years, in terms of personal image, Gingrich comes across as being about as appealing as either Nixon or Johnson, neither of which bodes well for his success in office or with the electorate. Romney, on the other hand, looks the part of a president from central casting. He won’t inspire much enthusiasm but he won’t scare people off, either. Whether or not that blandness is enough to win over phony Obama remains to be seen.
A thought crossed my mind: about 4 years ago, most people thought Juan McCain’s campaign was dead and buried.
It’s a long road to the convention…and not a single vote has been cast, or caucus held.
From all of the above comments it seems clear to me that we’re all disappointed with the available choices and as SteveH notes we’re accepting that we need to play a defensive game. Yet who has the DNC/MSM been busy trying to destroy? Palin, check. Bachmann, check. Cain, check. Perry, check. Newt, check. Romney, unchecked. Could it be that the DNC/MSM wants to run against Romney? Is Romney the new McCain, the republican they pretend to admire until he is the candidate?
Perhaps the moment when I found the key to Mitt’s thinking, his outlook and approach came in the last debate, when Romney–in reply to the moderator’s question of something like, “what things that Newt is proposing do you disagree with”–listed one of them as Newt’s proposal to mine the Moon, and saying this in a way that conveyed Mitt’s view that his was a totally impractical, a crazy, hare-brained Idea. To which Newt replied, that we should be on the Moon by now, and that mining was a very reasonable project, and Newt then went on to ask something like ”who would have thought that we would find ourselves, at the end of NASA’s [grand eloquent] “Space Program”–and after spending hundreds of billions of dollars, several lives, and several decades of work on the effort–being left with no real “Space Program,” and without even one vehicle to get us into space? An eminently reasonable question.
Well, in view of all the evidence that has accumulated about how often in the past a large meteor has slammed into the Earth, extinguishing almost all life on our planet, of how many species have gone extinct, and in view of how many new ways we have devised–from nuclear and biological weapons to the up and coming nanotechnology– to possibly kill ourselves off as a species– I happen to think that the idea of some of us getting off of our fragile planet, of “spreading out” and taking some of our eggs (i.e. a genetically viable breeding population) and putting them in several other baskets in our Solar System, of getting out into space on a reliable and permanent basis, of exploring our Solar System, and having access to and utilizing the power sources, metals, and materials to be found there makes eminent good sense and, in fact, is imperative, especially given our increasing needs for energy and raw materials.
The fact that Romney found this idea laughable showed me just how pinched, how narrow, how conventional and pedestrian his thinking was; an utterly conventional man who could only think “ inside the box.” It told me that if any “new idea” or situation, or challenge that was the least bit unconventional or unusual came up during a Romney administration , Romney would likely be at a loss as to how deal with it.
Months ago I thought Gingrich would be an excellent Chief of Staff for a genuine conservative. After the debates, where he established his persona as “Mr. Big Picture”, he would be a fantastic Vice President.
If he could get around his own ego, and sincerely do what would serve both the GOP and the country, he would follow Cheney’s model.
Perry-Gingrich
if you think the attracting the squishies is important, or
Bachmann-Gingrich
if you really want to show how conservatism is the path to our best future.
People want to see Newt take down Obama in a debate. I’m not sure that would work so well. But how much would you pay for a ticket to a Gingrich v. Biden slugfest?
It has occurred to me in times of thinking about what it will take to defeat Obama that it will take someone who:
1. Looks the part.
2. Exudes confidence in his abilities to turn the economy around.
3. Laughs at any ad hominem attacks. (Reagan did this quite effectively and became known as the teflon man.
4. Keeps bringing the issue back to Obama’s failure to turn the economy around. (It’s the economy stupid!)
5. Keeps telling the voters what a nice, but inept fellow Obama is so independents don’t see him as “mean.”
Obama has been bad enough that if he cannot force the Republican onto the defensive through ad hominem, he will lose big. In 2012 the Republicans are all fired up to vote and get someone new. On the other hand, Obama’s following of young people, union members, and latinos are not fired up and rearing to go. Turnout and enthusiasm made a big difference for Obama in 2008. It won’t be there next year unless the Republican can be made to appear very scary. (As happened with Goldwater.)
All-in-all I think Romney fills the bill pretty well. Newt, not as much.
Does anyone believe a president Romney would not get government out of the way of business? Does anyone believe he is not for a more rational energy policy? Does anyone believe he doesn’t mean what he says about Obamacare being the wrong way to go? Does anyone believe Romney will use class warfare and want to raise taxes rather than cut spending? Does anyone believe Romney doesn’t support Paul Ryan’s budget cutting and entitlement reform plans? All of these things would be huge improvements over what we have now even if not the huge changes desired by many conservatives.
Perry talks a good anti-big-government line. I agree with most of what he says. But how many think he could actually carry out many of his plans? Until a majority of citizens begin to connect the dots between big, intrusive government, crony capitalism, over promised entitlements/pensions, and environmental extremism leading to deteriorating economic conditions, draconian changes like he proposes will not be possible.
I hope for the sake of conservatism in America that the establishment is right about Romney’s electability.
If he loses, all hell will be unleashed.
Can’t say I’d disagree with the anger either. Romney himself isn’t the problem – it’s the elites who have used every underhanded method possible to shove him down our throats, claiming certainty on behalf of propositions they cannot possibly know, shilling for their darling without admitting it (which is the real travesty of that NRO article), and looking down their nose at anyone who would beg to differ.
I’ve already cancelled my subscription to Commentary, and I just cancelled my NR subscription. Because I don’t have to pay money to have people to tell me I’m stupid and retrograde. The MSM does that just fine for free.
If these iconic establishments and paragons what conservatism is today then it’s not worth saving. If these are its representatives, then it has no representatives. The sooner the whole house burns down, the better.
They’re going to get their man. And they better pray they can destroy his opponents in the MSM as well as they’ve destroyed them in the conservative ranks. More than likely, they will fail, and Romney will lose, and then – turn out the lights, the party’s over.
They’re not ready to deal with this unpleasant possibility, yet. But the whirlwind is coming.
Good luck, Mitt. Even if you and your shills don’t know or refuse to admit it, you’re going to need it.
(NB: I do not consider neo a shill, and I think her defense of Romney and opposition to Newt has been fairly argued and responsibly articulated. My beef is not here – though I think her approval of the NRO piece is unfortunate. It’s rare to witness such a weaselly piece of lilly-livered condescending crap as that article was; and to make matters worse, they’re doubling-down on it by firebombing Newt in their new issue.
F___ me, NRO? F___ you.)
“(1) Does anyone believe a president Romney would not get government out of the way of business? (2) Does anyone believe he is not for a more rational energy policy? (3) Does anyone believe he doesn’t mean what he says about Obamacare being the wrong way to go? (4) Does anyone believe Romney will use class warfare and want to raise taxes rather than cut spending? (5) Does anyone believe Romney doesn’t support Paul Ryan’s budget cutting and entitlement reform plans?”
1) No, just a different set of cronies.
2) Yes, but have no trust that he will not sellout to the enviros anyway.
3) No, not in a meaningful way. I don’t buy his recent discovery of the 10th Amendment.
4) Yes, he will “be forced” to raise taxes because his idea of spending cuts is catastrophically inadequate
5) Maybe, depends on which day it is.
Does anyone believe Romney is anything more than stopgap and placeholder?
kolnai: I read both articles very quickly and agreed with their main premise, which is that Romney might win and Newt will not. I’m reasonably sure I wouldn’t agree with everything they said if I’d gone over the articles with a fine-tooth comb, which I did not.
I agree with you, though, that the main “establishment” conservative media/pundits have been behind Romney from the start—and eager to tear apart his opponents on the Republican side. I understand you’re not placing me in a category with them (for which I’m grateful!), but I do agree with their conclusions if not their reasoning.
But do you really think they think it such a foregone conclusion that, if nominated, Romney will win? I must say I don’t read all that much of what they write, so I’m probably not as familiar as you are with what they’ve been saying about it all from the start. And I’m also curious to know whether you think that, in a general election vs. Obama, Newt would have a better, worse, or the same chance of winning as Mitt.
What we really need is a better electorate. Once we have a better electorate the better candidate part of the equation will resolve itself.
In this day of images and optics an old (almost 70), pasty, pudgy, white guy is going to struggle with young, minority, and yuppy voters. Plus, Newt appears to have no supporters among those he has worked with. Throw in a 45 year old third wife, and he is unelectable.
The best outcome is a brokered convention cause by no candidate getting enough delegates in the primaries. Then the convention can pick someone who can win.
Terri Pittman and gellieba: no, not well said.
That statistic is hugely misleading. Almost all of those “elections” were in the 2008 Republican primaries, state by state.
His actual electoral record is the following: he was defeated by Ted Kennedy in 1994 for the Massachusetts Senate. Surprise surprise!—Kennedy, who’d been senator from Massachusetts just about forever, won. But Romney did better against him than Kennedy’s opponents did in any of 8 challenges against his Senate seat when he was up for re-election.
That was the first time Romney ran for office, and that’s a good showing considering the circumstances. The second time was his successful bid for governor of Massachusetts in 2002. He did not run for re-election to that office. The next time he ran was the aforementioned 2008 campaign for the Republican presidential nomination—where he amassed all those other “losses” in “elections.”
I’m a bit late to be commenting, but I have to pipe in with a “me too.” I cannot support Gingrich, and while I would definitely prefer other people over him, none of the people I’d rather have are actually running. So with a look at the field, I see him as the best choice.
I’m with you, Neo, on the “until further notice” thing as well. I just don’t see any 11th hour, surprise candidates throwing their hats in.
Unless it’s of the stupid, Trumpian variety.
I really should read what I write before I submit my comments, but I meant to write “So with a look at the field, I see Romney as the best choice.” Not that that wasn’t clear, what with the “me too” and all. But I hate having un-specified pronouns dangling out there.
//grammar snob
J.J. formerly Jimmy J. Says:
December 15th, 2011 at 5:59 pm
You can trust that the media will do their part, as usual.
As always, Subotai Bahadur says it much more eloquently than I can:
neo –
Thanks for the reply, and I assure you I do not place you in their category – you’ve been clear about who you support and why, and you haven’t been insulting people who have a different opinion. What was so insulting about the NRO column was that it was intemperate – mudslinging – in places and they refused to say what they meant: they were endorsing Romney without having the courage to do it. I.e., they think we’re stupid, and they were unwilling to acknowledge what everyone who reads the rag already knows: they are, and have long been, in the tank for Romney. Lacking the courage of their convictions seems, to many conservatives, to be perfectly in line with the kind of conservatism NR has descended into plumping for.
Point being, endorsing Romney and expressing grave concern about Newt is perfectly fine – but doing it in such a way that one pretends to be objective while magnifying everyone else’s faults and shielding their gentle flower from hostile scrutiny, is disgusting, MSM-type behavior.
You personally don’t do that, and if the establishment crew had followed your lead, there would be far less acrimony at this point. Right now, the GOP is a powderkeg, and if Romney loses – ka-boom. All I can do is play Cassandra about it. I’m not angry at Romney. I’m angry at the establishment who refused to let him endure the blazes of an honest campaign, largely by refusing to scrutinize him savagely (as they’ve done to everyone else) themselves.
With respect to your other question, yes, they don’t guarantee outright that Romney will win – they’re not THAT stupid. But what they say amounts to claiming that Romney’s chances are very, very good. At least, I have never once seen any of the big whigs at Commentary or NRO express any concern at all that Romney might have trouble against Obama. You can comb through months of scribbling at Commentary, the Weekly Standard, and NR (I used to subscribe to all of them and I read their blogs every day), and not find more than a few worries by the odd Michael Walsh or Jonathan Last – and God bless their souls. I would say there’s been a total of four or five short blog posts wondering if Romney’s chances are actually very good. Basically, they never bring it up.
This kind of studied omission cannot be an accident. My view is that they have gone into propaganda territory, not by design, but because they can’t help themselves – power corrupts, at rags no less than in government. Either way, it’s vile, and they have lost my respect.
On the question of whether Newt has a better chance than Romney, recall the comment I wrote last week on one of your posts – I put Romney’s chances at 45% and Gingrich’s at 40%. If unemployment continues to go down into low 8% territory, those percentages both go into the 30’s (i.e., I’d bet on Obama’s re-election). So, I think our main difference on the electability question is that I actually believe Gingrich can be elected. His chances aren’t great, but I don’t think they’re as low as you do. Likewise, I’d guess I don’t put Romney’s chances as high as you do.
In sum: Romney has a decent edge over Gingrich in electability, but both are more likely to lose than to win. And as I said before, given that that’s my view, I’m willing to take more of a risk for what I perceive to be a higher reward in going for Newt.
But let me be clear: I will vote for Romney if he wins. I will not, however, find any residual respect for most of those who pushed him.
Severe? I guess so. The upshot I’m trying to clarify is that I am very, very far from the only person who feels this way. And if things go south for Romney, these sour feelings are going to turn toxic. There is no telling where it might end for the GOP.
Just saying.
I’m going to p*ss a lot of you off, but I think the majority of the comments could’ve been made by high school sorority sisters about newbies. “I don’t like him because he looks unpleasant”, “I don’t think he can win”, or words to that effect. This cattiness does not show us in our best light.
How about ideas? Or are we going to write in George Clooney? I do not get the idea that W. Churchill could’ve won the majority here. Remember the Karch portait?
“We are in a situation where the Institutional Republican Party is actively making war on its own base in the name of preserving its power within the party, at the expense of the general election.”
IMO the GOP establishment has been directing a continuos production of Macbeth since 1988. I may be chastised for not being pragmatic, but without adherence to first principals one is at best only slightly less foul than the opposition for pragmatism is fine until it reaches a place where one’s values have become thoroughly tainted.
Mitt and Newt are maggots seeking to squirm on the carcass inside the Beltway that taints society. So I will clamp my nose tight and vote GOP if it looks like the contest for Iowa’s electoral votes will be close. If the election in Iowa is not close I will definitely vote libertarian. I’m tired of the beating around the George Herbert Walker Bush supporting a GOP candidate who is only slightly less onerous than the democrat.
Don’t let the national election be the only light in the room. Yes, it’s the most important election by itself, but compared to all the other elections, it is a very small slice. Further, this election bears the GOP ugly more, much much more, than any other election.
Perhaps, and think this one through, perhaps the worst thing that could happen is a huge Republican landslide including the Presidency. Remember the euphoria of the Left when Osama was elected?
Churchill’s words are effective here: We will never give up.
And of course, remember the 10 to 1 rule. One good Conservative is worth 10 progressives.
Something I have noticed in comments at various blogs is an inability or unwillingness of some to remember the circumstances of previous elections. Some people mention Bush without recalling that the biggest issue at his re-election was still the war. The same is true of McCain’s selection as candidate. And white guilt was also a big factor in 2000. Conservatives battled them on SCOTUS and amnesty and won. We can do the same with any new Rep president.
The most important thing we can do is work on our congressional reps and senators to make it less necessary to forge terrible compromises. That said, it still doesn’t hurt to try to work with Dems to pass legislation. They will have to go home to their constituencies and sell our point of view to justify their votes. We also need to make our support for candidates a bit more costly. We need to say I like what you are saying but I want more depth or you have some good ideas but you haven’t done your homework on these issues. By jumping too quickly onto someone’s bandwagon, we create an impression among the general public that we aren’t thoughtful, that we can be dismissed as fruitcakes. Sometimes our side becomes too shrill and a little too eager to draw blood rather than consider smart tactics.
I agree with Neo on Romney vs Newt.
rickl @ December 15th, 2011 at 10:02 pm
That’s a great comment. I said this morning that we may be heading for 1975 again. Back then, grass roots conservatives were in open revolt against the east coast liberal Republicans who effectively ran the party. They were on the verge of going third party. Reagan held the party together with a speech he gave at CPAC that year. I don’t see anybody with Reagan’s stature who can do that today.
My feeling is that the conservative base of the party is going to be hugely disappointed with a Romney nominee that they don’t want. If he is the nominee and wins against Obama, then they’ll probably be ok. But if Romney is the nominee and he loses by a big margin, which I think is very possible, then it will not surprise me to see a third party movement start to get traction. But by then it will be too late. The damage will be done.
“Sometimes our side becomes too shrill and a little too eager to draw blood rather than consider smart tactics.”
If the ‘people’ are not ready for the truth we are doomed. Nonetheless, we are obliged to tell the truth. What is the truth? The truth is we can not afford another 4 to 10 years of business as usual in DC with minor tweaking to place a bandage over the gapping wound of annual deficits.
“Ryan’s Medicare reform proposal” is a perfect example. Cauterizing the hemorrhaging wound of trillion plus annual deficits (Obama baseline budgets hence forth) requires drastic measures or we become Greece when debt reaches 150+% of GDP. This will happen within 3 or 4 years, not within the 10+ years Ryan envisions as he puts forth a program to reform medicare by 2022. We have but a few years (at most) before the market writes the obituary.
We are not too big to fail and failure is staring us in the face. Uncle Ben can not save us. We have to save ourselves and take the pain.
Don Carlos: the point isn’t that people are saying “I don’t like him because he looks unpleasant.” It’s that voters don’t like him because he looks—and is—unpleasant, and lacks character. Newt’s unpleasantness is petty and mean-spirited and small, and that’s in the past as well as the present.
Churchill never looked or seemed unpleasant in that way—he looked and acted tough, but he was a man of great wit and geniality as well as gravitas, and that all came across as well. He was also a genius, unbelievably eloquent with language, and of incredible courage. A giant in almost every way. That’s what was expressed in the Karsh portrait—not petty malice, as with Newt.
Gingrich.
Churchill by Karsh.
As Mark Levin says:
I don’t like any of the Republican candidates, but on the bright side, at least Romney does have executive experience.
I hope conservatives can win the Congress and can dominate the Supreme Court. Regarding economic issues, from what I understand, things are about to go kablooie fairly soon. Could Romney deal with an economic catastrophe? Could any of the other candidates?
There is no messiah coming in this next election.
Churchill is greater than Gingrich as the people of his nation and time are greater than us. We, basically, don’t deserve and could not create a Churchill. So, don’t knock, too much, what you get. Rather, love the one you’re with.
“Churchill never looked or seemed unpleasant in THAT way…”
Well, neo, here I must register a dissent. Churchill is a hero of mine as well, but that just isn’t true. Churchill was one of the most reviled men in Britain, left and right, for quite a time there until WWII. You know that, so I’m guessing you were just offended by seeing him and Newt show up in the same thought.
But come on.
Just because Newt is not Churchill (true), doesn’t mean that Churchill wasn’t often petty, vain, inconsistent and pigheaded in the worst way, not to say someone who made disastrous mistakes – indeed, Churchill made mistakes (e.g., Gallipoli, return to the gold standard) that make Newt’s seem trivial in comparison. Obviously, he also had triumphs that dwarf Newt’s. The latter point does not negate the former.
That whenever Churchill was an arrogant, wrongheaded prick he was an eloquent one is probably true, though. Don’t know what difference it makes.
You know very well there is post-WWII hindsight Churchill, and pre-WWII raving loon Churchill. I doubt you would have been saying he was “a giant in almost every way” in 1926. You, along with most people, would probably have said of him what others are saying of Newt. Again, that doesn’t mean they’re comparable in other ways, but that wasn’t Don Carlos’s point.
As to Newt, he has not been “petty and mean-spirited and small” in the present, not relative to the other candidates anyway. More accurately, he has been subject to attacks that are often petty and mean-spirited and small. Do the objective analysis however you wish (speeches, debates, commercials) – he has consistently been the most positive and Rodney King-ish of the candidates. You can call it a mere strategy, but you can’t call it petty, small, or mean-spirited.
In sum: Churchill did come across as unpleasant in “THAT” way for a long time, and pretty much every politician and pundit in Britain let it be known. And Newt is not being petty, mean-spirited, or small right now, and hasn’t been for a good while.
No need to puff up Churchill’s virtues to mark his disanalogies with Newt. Don Carlos was just saying that we focus too much on things other than ideas. And given Churchill circa 1926, with all of his eloquence and genius, Don is probably right he could not be elected here right now, given his copious “baggage.”
He’s right about that. The Karch portrait says something different in 1926 than in 1946.
The problem with focus group think and similar formulaic approaches to electability is how it can’t account for the Winston Churchills of the world.
The fact is the best person for the job of leading the free world in 2012 is probably about average looking, not overly articulate and has enough skeletons in his closet to make the women on The View gasp in horror at the unscripted life daring to enter politics.
kolnai,
We also have to remember that Churchill became PM to fight a war. His priorities and those of the country were the same. We, on the other hand, can’t yet identify or concentrate on one big thing. In general we want more fiscal sanity, but we get distracted by the variety of our wish # 2s. It’s hard to imagine what Churchill would have done with gay marriage advocates, delta smelts, and diversity administrators, all of whom have their day in court.
kolnai: note that I wrote “looked” or “seemed” unpleasant in that way. I am talking about general perceptions on the part of the public, and a particular type of unpleasantness.
I’m well aware that Churchill was disliked for many years and thought to be somewhat of a lunatic and a failure. He certainly could be unpleasant in other ways than Newt. But from what I’ve read (and I’ve read quite a bit about Churchill’s life) there was a very different tone to it, even when Churchill was heartily disliked. His triumphs and his mistakes—and he had plenty of the latter—were on a more heroic scale (that’s what I meant when I called him a giant in every way).
Another way to say it is that Churchill came across as large; Newt comes across as small. Of course, some of this was the times. More people in public life seemed larger then; there are very few if any now that can be described that way. But even among the present-day small and petty, Newt seems especially small and petty—and I’m not talking about any particular quotes of his, I’m talking about style and perceptions. It has nothing to do with words, although every now and then words express it.
We all receive impressions of people through nonverbal cues that we can hardly describe most of the time, but they are powerful nonetheless. It is my impression that many many people on the right, left, and in-between do not like or especially trust Gingrich for just these reasons and because of just these cues, and that it will hurt him very much in an election.
Here’s a quote about Churchill from Philip Snowden, someone who often disagreed with him politically, that captures a little bit of what I’m trying to say about Churchill. Can you for a moment imagine anyone opposed to Gingrich saying this about him?:
Brickbats aimed at Newt are raining down on him from all sides, which tells me that a lot of people are very, very scared of him becoming the nominee. and fear that, if this happens, their seats on the gravy train and their position in and access to the counsels of power are threatened.
I also note all sorts of endorsements flying around, from Governor Haley all the way down to Gary Bussey–which I guess will guide the crack and alcohol addled, out of control and crazy crowd.
Finally, we have the MSM and the chattering classes, who betrayed every citizen in this country during the last election when they refused to perform on Obama the kind of body cavity search they are currently performing on all of the Republican candidates and, as well, when they wholesaled the total pack of lies that was Obama’s fictitious background, life story, supposed political beliefs and political philosophy, and supposed qualifications.
Thus, I plan to listen to none of them, and to go with what I, myself, can observe and think, and not what someone tells me I should be seeing, and not what someone else says I should be thinking and concluding. and my own perceptions and analysis lead me to conclude that Newt is the best choice.
After watching the debate last night, I can say I was impressed by Newt’s ability to roll with the punches and keep his cool. He does seem to have changed in that he did not come across with that old meanness, which he was known for when he was in Congress.
What gives me pause is the number of people who worked with him in Congress who are saying he doesn’t have the steadiness and focus required to be president. Senator Tom Coburn has said that and he is someone I admire as being pretty anti- big government and not a member of the Beltway elite or the GOP establishment.
Michelle Bachmann’s attacks on Newt last night were certainly an example of the kind of thing that Obama and the MSM will use against him. The only way he may be able to defuse the charge of lobbying woulld be to give the money he was paid back to Freddy Mac. It will be used relentlessly and will register on independents and many conservatives.
Newt’s plan to follow Obama around on the campaign trail and fisk each of Obama’s speeches until Obama agrees to a series of Lincoln-Douglas style debates seems like a great idea to me. However, I’m sure the MSM would claim he was “stalking ” poor Barry, and being “mean.”
Speaking of last night’s debate, the Rick Perry that I was hoping for showed up. He has improved his debating skills and delivered some excellent points. Unfortunately, I’m afraid his good performance won’t help him much at this point.
On to the voting. I’m stilll all in for whoever actually gets the nominnation.
“people are very, very scared of him becoming the nominee. and fear that, if this happens, their seats on the gravy train and their position in and access to the counsels of power are threatened”
People may be afraid for other reasons. His dictatorial ego, his lust for grand transformational government, his obvious weaknesses in a general election. The establishment factions will have their power preserved just fine under President Romney.
Given the hideous state of the country, you might think it’d take a miracle to find somebody who could not beat Obama. But last night on TV I saw a half dozen such miracles. So granting that we’re going to lose no matter who we put up, who would we most want to lose with?
To continue the Churchilliana, 2012 will be our 1940. Who of those up there on the last stage would be the one to pull a Dunkirk out of the rout, stiffen our will, rally us with a “we shall fight on the beaches…” ? Who would make us pissier and more defiant than ever in spite of everything?
Ron Paul. I’d never vote for him because his foreign policy is a throw back to the century before last, when we had 3,000 miles of ocean between us and rest of the world. But for reminding us in defeat of what kind of America we want, and must recover cost what it may, the man is Ron. The others are to a greater or lesser degree part of the system that has created this mess.
armchair, I am no longer afraid of Paul’s foreign policy. Listening to the righties mock him after last night’s debate, I heard a lot of ad hominem and no refutation of the points he made.
I have come to understand Paul is wrongly characterized as isolationist. He is non-interventionist. Paul would attack terror bases (with proper evidence), but not engage in multi-year deployments without a Declaration of War.
He is purely Constitutional. I am in the midst of a political change. “We all swear the same Oath.”
J.J. wrote about Newt. “What gives me pause is the number of people who worked with him in Congress who are saying he doesn’t have the steadiness and focus required to be president. Senator Tom Coburn has said that….”
What gives ME pause is the taking of the word of others about Newt some 15 years ago. We mature, at different rates to be sure, but we mature; and it is reasonable to think Newt has done some maturing too. I also am not comfortable taking the word of others with whose steadiness and focus, thoughts and values I am utterly unacquainted. Coburn is not above criticism himself.
Newt is, in general, more of a big picture kind of guy. That is important to me. Ideas matter, details much less so. That he has sometimes been wrong, as have we all, troubles me not, as long as wrongs are admitted to: logic that also applies to Mitt, and to all the rest. Like Travis at the Alamo, Newt as Speaker drew a line in the sand in 1994. Both were defeated, but that does not negate the value of their efforts.
So, as I often seem to be, I’m with Wolla, on Newt.
Dr. Paul is a mass of equivocation. When pressed about what he would do if we knew without doubt that Iran had the bomb and was planning to use it, he still could not bring himself to say he would take action. IMO, he is like Obama in that way. He believes that talking and diplomacy will take care of all the nasties. I doubt that he has spent ten minutes informing himself about the tenets of Islam. The way blames us for their actions is right out of the left’s book of truths. He seems to believe that the USSR would have just fallen apart if we had not had a policy of containment and, after Reagan was elected, confrontation. I would like to think the world was a rational, esentially nice place where diplomacy will work at all times. However, just a few hours listening to speeches at the UN or a cursory glance at the policies of North Korea, Iran, and Myanmar (to mention a few) would convince most people that such is not the case. I agree with Reagan – Peace through military strength.