At this point it is no surprise that David Frum is bad-mouthing Newt Gingrich. Frum has gone over to the professionally disgruntled and alienated. But Michael Gerson is also talking in awfully harsh tones. This is the kind of stuff you can’t take back later if Gingrich actually winds up being the nominee.
Gingrich’s language is often intemperate. He is seized by temporary enthusiasms. He combines absolute certainty in any given moment with continual reinvention over time.
These traits are suited to a provocateur, an author, a commentator, a consultant. They are not the normal makings of a chief executive.
Everyone deserves forgiveness for the failures of their past. But the grant of absolution does not require the suspension of critical judgment. Gingrich’s problem is not the weakness of a moment, it is the pattern of lifetime.
It’s understandable that all the people who both dislike Gingrich and have a big megaphone are going to speak up over the next four weeks and try to help some other candidate. But there are different ways to go about that. You can explain why Romney or Paul or Perry or Bachmann are more conservative or more electable or have better temperaments. But you don’t have to say Gingrich is totally unfit to be president. You don’t have to provide ammunition for the Democrats. Yet, Frum is probably right:
That weakness in Gingrich will not now abruptly change. The chaos that surrounded him as Speaker, the chaos that engulfed his presidential campaign earlier this year – that chaos will replicate itself again. But when? It’s less than 5 weeks to the New Hampshire primary. Perhaps Gingrich can behave himself till then, in which case Mitt Romney has a big problem on his hands. But it’s more than 8 full months to the Republican convention in Tampa.
Prediction: if Gingrich has emerged as the nominee by then, the mood of that convention will be full unconcealed panic.
So, in other words, knowledgable Republican commentators should panic now.
Good fun. Although there’s an alternative view that with the new primary schedule next year, there’s still time for a late entry:
So there’s that. I wonder who’s left that they could come up with. If Mitt collapses, it’ll be a scramble to field a candidate with no higher aim than simply to save what face the GOP still has. Someone who doesn’t have ambitions to run in 2016 who would be damaged by a failed run in 2012, but who still is plausible enough to put an acceptable face on the GOP challenge.
Who would do that?
Who is going to save them? Jeb Bush? Chris Christie can’t. He’ll get smoked, lose re-election which would ruin his ’16 chances. Huckabee? The fundies love him, but the big money boyz hate his guts.
Good catch, hz. However, if I’m understanding Cook’s column correctly, the “late entry” scenario is a very long shot.
1 – The nominee needs 1,142 or so votes from delegates at the party convention. If Candidate X declares on Feb. 1, he/she would only be able to compete directly for about 1,200 remaining delegates. (Filing deadlines for the first states with the first 1,000 or so delegates will have already passed by Feb. 1.)
2 – Nevada, Maine, Colorado and Minnesota have caucuses that will be held by Feb. 12. Kinda tough to organize field operations in those states if you’re starting Feb. 1.
3 – Alaska, Idaho, North Dakota, Wyoming and the Virgin Islands have caucuses on “Super Tuesday”, March 6. Assuming Candidate X organizes well in those states, any delegates won will be overshadowed by the results of the Georgia, Massachusetts, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont and Virginia primaries that day.
4 – After Super Tuesday, Candidate X can compete in the Kansas, Hawaii, American Samoa, Missouri and Puerto Rico caucuses (March 10-18), but then is sidelined until the April 24 primaries. (Even so, Candidate X has already missed the filing deadlines for Rhode Island and Kentucky among the remaining primaries.)
Cook uses Robert Kennedy in 1968 as an example of a late-starting candidate who had the charisma, message, money and personal networks to make such a candidacy viable. (Even at that, it’s questionable—at best—whether Kennedy could have won the nomination that year.)
Of the possible candidates Cook lists, Jeb Bush is the only one who fits that category. If word leaks out that Bush is doing some polling and “consulting with his family”, then this scenario is worth considering. Otherwise, Republicans will got to the general election with the candidates they have, not the candidates they might wish they had.
No arguments here. My main point was that, even if this scenario plays out, the only candidate coming forward at that point would most likely be a team player in the truest sense of the word, willing to fall on her/his own sword in order to preserve some sense of GOP party image or whatever.
Jeb has real ambitions, and he’ll still be young enough to run in ‘016–I fully expect he’ll take a shot at it. But as a last-minute wtf candidate to shore up the GOP image in the face of a full-scale meltdown, no, I don’t think he’s going to be that guy. There’s almost no way a late entry in the GOP field can hope to best Obama, and Jeb is not going to enter an unwinnable contest in ‘012 when he can save his powder and hope for a weak non-incumbent opponent in ‘016.
What other plausible candidates could the GOP field that they haven’t to date? Christie has the same problem as Jeb, he can’t taint his chances in ‘016 with a failed bid this time around, Bobby Jindal may some day be the next Michele Bachmann but he doesn’t realize that’s where he’s headed just yet, and in any case he doesn’t have a solid status nationally as a known quantity. Paul Ryan, pee-shaw, might as well run Darrell Issa while you’re at it. After that you get into more clown-car territory with Palin and Trump, neither of which are going to be stepping forward at this juncture, especially considering, as you’ve pointed out, how hard it would be to get on the ballots in the non-caucus states.
It’s really woolgathering on my part to even be thinking about all this, but I can’t shake the nagging feeling that I’m forgetting about someone fairly obvious.
So who will be the Bob Dole of 2012? Someone the teabaggers consider a RINO, I’m guessing.
So who will be the Bob Dole of 2012? Someone the teabaggers consider a RINO, I’m guessing.
Mittens!!! But I don’t know if Dole will win the nomination this time.
The GOP has become so worthless, nobody of any stature wants to be their candidate.
They’ve been panicking for a while now. The desperate pleas for Chris Christie to swoop down from the heavens to save them over the summer were a sign of this. Newt is an elaborate joke as a candidate, and would make a truly terrifying President, but Romney is a really lousy campaigner. His whole strategy was to wait for all the other fools up there to implode, but as soon as he actually has to campaign against someone (here, Gingrich) he starts flailing wildly and looks desperate and disorganized.
As hard as it may be to swallow, I think GOP voters may know something we don’t: Mitt Rimney would get smoked by Barack Obama.
Yes indeed. That’s a lock. Unless…unless the insider’s ticket includes Chris Christie, an idea that appears to have been under serious consideration at least since Christie:
1-Said that he absolutely, positively was not going to run for president this time.
and then
2-Immediately endorsed Romney. In person. With photo ops.
Duh.
Now…a Romney/Christie ticket offers added heat to the robotic chill of Mr. Mitt and is the only Romney-headed ticket that I can imagine actually offering any challenge to Obama. Gingrich? They won’t let him win the nomination. Levers will be pulled and the fix will be enforced.
But there is someone in the Republican race who could indeed mount a serious challenge to Obama, and that’s Ron Paul. All of the other RatPub candidates essentially have to make up arguments to prove that they are in serious disagreement with the main thrusts of Obama’s policies as they have appeared in real time. (I am speaking here of real time as opposed to rhetorical time, someplace where any fairytale can be put forward if you have a good rap. Which he does. Did, anyway…have you noticed? it’s getting a tired, his rap. A little stale. A little…static. The same licks, over and over and over again. So it goes with rhetoric that is not well backed up by action. So it goes.)
But Paul actually does disagree with everything that both parties support. A permanent war system based on economic imperialism, a federally supported corporate economy…or is it the other way around, a federal government that is owned and operated by corporate interests. Either way, it is incipient fascism as defined by Benito Mussolini.
There is a rapidly growing “Throw the bastards out!!!” movement, worldwide. From the Arab spring right on through what you can see happening in Europe and in Russia as well. It is here in the form of the OWS thing and the Tea Party, and Ron Paul…no dummy, he…is tapping into it. Big time. Watch. Gingrich will be finished before January is over, and it will be Mitt Romney and Ron Paul. The fixers cannot fix Ron Paul because his supporters are too far outside of the machine to be fixable, so it will be a battle of organizations, money and personality. Paul’s organization is at least the equal of Romney’s and his media team is much, much better. Romney will hold the money edge, because…well, because he represents the people who hold (and print, if necessary) the money…but Paul is by no means broke. He has solid grassroots support and it is growing stronger by the day. It looks like a wash to me, these two money and organization parts of the equation.
That leaves…Tah Dah!!!…personality.
Of which Romney has none and Paul has lots.
UH oh!!!
Watch.
Like I said way back in mid-August…Valdez Is Coming. (Only He’s Looking A Lot Like Ron Paul)
Obama’s reaction if Paul actually pulls off the upset that presently appears to be in the making?
Watch.
AG
Dude, I know that you think Ron Paul is the bee’s knees, but in the unlikely-but-not-technically-impossible event that he wins the Republican nomination, the general election is gonna look like Clinton-Dole, with Obama playing the part of Bill Clinton, Paul playing the part of H. Ross Perot, and nobody playing the part of Bob Dole. Voters will stay home like they’ve never stayed home before, and the electoral map will be so blue it’ll look like Barack Obama was just re-elected as President of Smurfville.
Not Clinton-Dole – more like Nixon-McGovern. If a Paul-XXX ticket took even one state, I would be shocked.
You are living in the past. Look at his path so far this year. From an afterthought who was mocked and derided by the media at every turn to a good shot at winning against Romney once Gingrich’s little day or two out from under his rock is over.
Why? How?
1-Because he is correct about the current state of this country and no one else is even close…t least no one who has any chance of actually making a difference. I include Obama in that pack and it is becoming increasingly obvious to me that many, many Americans are beginning to feel the same way. This is not the plush 1990s, it is post-9/11, post-economic disaster, hardtack 2011/2012. Obama is a gradualist at best, a weak leader politically and possibly…at worst…just another frontman/tool of the PermaGov.
2-Unlike Perot, Ron Paul is a professional politician. That means that he knows the game. He has waged a very intelligent outsider’s campaign and it is working according to plan. He has money; he has organization and he has a great media team. Look at his ads. Technically and in terms of concept they are perhaps the best political ads that I have ever seen. Masterful in detail and finish and imaginative in every way. And most importantly…he has a loyal, hard-working base. Not only that…it is a relatively young base.
At the current rate of gain, he has a very good shot at the RatPub nomination, and if the mainstream so-called moderate Rats won’t vote for him in November…who will they vote for? Obama? Please. Some of them will sit out and their places will be taken by unaffiliated truth seekers and dissatisfied Dems.
He has a shot and so far that shot, is looking beter and better with each passing day.
Watch.
AG
Geezus, you have drunk the koolaid, and are fully wacked out.
Ron Paul is a 76 YO lunatic who is the favorite of libertarians who hate the FDA, the FED and regulation. True, he opposes the Patriot Act. SO FUCKING WHAT!
WAKE UP, AG, you TOTAL BOZO.
WAKE UP.
RON PAUL IS A RAW MILK SUPPORTER. He is supported by IDIOTS.
That would be you, AG.
Saaaay…did you come over from the Daily Kos? ‘Cuz that’s the level of argument I used to see over there.
Go away.
Y’bother me.
AG
AG, what’s your evidence that Paul enjoys the support of, say, 1/3 or more of the likely Republican caucus/primary electorate? (Either nationwide, or in a give state, e.g., Iowa.)
The GOP primary process, which by the way doesn’t begin until after the first of the year, will determine whether the convention is brokered. And no one to my knowledge has really looked at state-level polls one-by-one and shown in any convincing manner – given the political culture at the moment – how Ron Paul can win the Republican nomination.
Therefore, his candidacy in the general becomes a matter of creating or using a third party that is listed on every ballot in the country. He has the problem of not being able to run in two established primaries unless the parties are generally aligned, which the Republican won’t want to be for a “sore loser”.
But if he could, in the present political environment, he succeeds in drawing votes from the Republican libetarians (which is not the same as Tea Party) and lefty end-the-Fed and anti-war folks who vote on those issues alone. What that does is decimates Republicans down-ticket. Because there are more libertarian Republican Paulistas around 9% tops than there are end-the-Fed and anti-war lefty Paulistas.
He is not going to be the George Wallace or John Anderson of 2012.
You’re betting on a different political environment and if it’s different it’s not yet visible in anyone’s strategies and analyses yet.
a disgusted republican friend of mine (that is, a pre-tea party republican from RI who sat it out last election) believes Newt will stomp all over Obama in the debates.
I find that very very funny, not only because Newt’s “ideas” are so abysmal, but because his delivery is even worse than his thoughts. That voice is like nails on a chalkboard.
Also, seriously, Newt Gingrich is really smart by the standards of Republicans who’ve served in the House, but the House Republican Caucus is the Low IQ Society. He’s not smarter than Obama, and trying to pull his, “I’m the most brilliant guy in the Universe act,” may work when he’s on stage with the collection of frauds, fools, lunatics and complete non-entities that make up the current Republican field, but it’s not going to work when he’s standing next to Barack Obama.
If there is any reason to keep Gingrich out of the White House, it is this: a return of the Neocons.
Gingrich says he’d name John Bolton as secretary of state
If there’s a reason to keep Newt Gingrich out of the Oval Office, it’s that he’d nuke Canada over softwood lumber tariffs. The dude is like Richard Nixon without the impulse control or magnanimous, forgiving nature.
Come on, pillsy. That’s not fair to Richard Nixon. Who had more political skill in his crooked little finger than Gingrich has in his entire overly large head.
I don’t remember who said this: “Gingrich is what dumb people think smart sounds like.”
I think Paul Krugman wrote it.
Gerson, the blind squirrel, finds a nut:
Evangelicals are not the folks who are going to vote against Gingrich. This is true, but for Gerson it’s just a cover for not pointing out that for evangelicals being a Mormon is worse than being a philanderer.
“And many have found Gingrich’s repentance to be durable and sincere.”
Thanks for the chuckle;-)
Newt’s repentance needs to be durable enough for repeated use.
The blind squirrel! Well-played.
Glad you like my use of cliches.
The cliche would have been the line about a broken clock. This is less widely used and more apropos in its implications.
WILLARD probably will pull this off, but I have to say, I’m LMAO at the thought of him being pushed to this by the likes of Newt Gingrich.
Why yes, I’d love some more popcorn. Thanks for asking.