By all accounts, Mitt Romney is on the cusp of wrapping up the Republican nomination for president. No doubt, there is substantial resistance to this from within the Republican base. Last Saturday, 114 evangelical leaders met in Texas in an effort to unite behind some alternative to Romney. They didn’t exactly succeed, but they managed to endorse Rick Santorum over Newt Gingrich. This was probably a result less of Santorum’s electoral prospects than of Gingrich’s serial adultery. Yet, buoyed by a strong, if shameful, debate performance in South Carolina, it is Newt Gingrich who is surging in the polls and threatening to postpone Romney’s coronation. Enter one ex-Mrs. Gingrich, whose interview with ABC News will air tonight. The country will hear about how Romney’s strongest opponent requested an open marriage arrangement, and was denied.
In some ways, the timing of the airing of this interview looks like the fix is in for Romney. Why, then, did Rick Perry drop out today an endorse Gingrich? It’s highly unusual behavior, but I think it can be explained.
Republican office-holders have two competing interests. It looks like Mitt Romney will soon be the leader of the party. He’ll take over the RNC. And his performance in the presidential election will impact all other Republicans on the ballot. If he does very poorly, some Republicans will lose their jobs. And, if he wins, he’ll have a lot of jobs to hand out. He’ll also have scores to settle and favors to reciprocate. These are all powerful reasons to jump on the Romney bandwagon while they still might get some lasting gratitude for doing so.
But the other side of the coin is maintaining conservative credibility with the base. This is more important for commentators and entertainers like Bill O’Reilly or Rush Limbaugh than it is for elected officials, but it’s just very hard for a Republican to come out for Romney when there are still more conservative alternatives available. This is why Sarah Palin is playing footsie with Newt Gingrich rather than rallying her groupies toward the inevitable nominee. It’s also probably why Rick Perry endorsed Gingrich.
Another way of putting this is that conservatives, who totally dominate the GOP, still cannot stomach the idea of a Romney presidency. They can’t make the case for Romney with a straight face. It’s not so much that they seriously think Santorum or Gingrich can win either the nomination or the presidency as it is that they want to postpone having to make the case for Romney.
We kind of saw the same thing happen with McCain in 2008, and to a degree with Bob Dole in 1996, but not to this degree. It shows that a gaping chasm has opened up between the Republican Establishment in Washington and the party’s base. It’s even more severe than that because the Mighty Right-Wing Wurlitzer made up of Fox News, talk radio, the National Review, the Weekly Standard, and the conservative blogosphere, are more aligned with the base than with the Establishment. The explanation is that they all have more of an interest in maintaining their credibility with their audiences than they do with helping Mitt Romney.
I believe this split would be more obvious if any of Romney’s opponents were credible opponents for the president. As it stands, anyone with half a brain in their head knows that the GOP cannot send Gingrich or Santorum into the arena against Obama. But they’re not allowed to say so. If they say so, they will incur a significant cost.
Imagine if the Democrats were running against a fairly popular Republican incumbent with the following list of candidates: Dennis Kucinich, James Trafficant, Maxine Waters, and Evan Bayh. Imagine how progressive opinion leaders would feel about having to argue to their progressive audiences that Evan Bayh was the only one with half a chance. That’s roughly analogous to what we have here, except that Newt Gingrich has never been to jail and Maxine Waters is a lot less abrasive than Rick Santorum. In this hypothetical scenario, a lot of progressive pundits would just refuse to get behind Bayh because doing so would require them to go back on everything they’d been saying about the Democratic Party for years. No one wants to be accused of selling-out, even if what you’re really doing is giving your honest assessment about the prospects for keeping the White House out of Republican hands.
So, on we go, with Republican groups throwing in with Santorum or Gingrich, with ABC News trying to wrap it up for Romney, and with the Establishment praying that it all ends soon before Romney is cut into ribbons and enters the general campaign as a political quadriplegic.
May the Democratic Party never become this dysfunctional.
There is one big difference between Mittens and Evan Bayh. There is more of a chance that Romney will pander. Meaning he’ll do whatever is popular if that helps him. In that way, he was really no different than The Quittah was as Governor of Alaska. When has Bayh ever pondered to the Democratic base? Never!!
Bayh never really had to pander to progressives because of (what I presume to be) the fairly conservative nature of the Indiana Democratic party, and Indiana generally. But if he was running for the Democratic presidential nomination across the country, base-pandering would be necessary.
Bayh belongs to the DLC(or whatever it turned into). He’d tell the base to go Cheney themselves. And if Indiana is so conservative, how did Bayh’s father ever get elected in the first place?
I dunno. It was a long time ago, and Birch Bayh did lose his seat in the Reagan Revolution of 1980. But if Evan Bayh was the front runner in a Democratic prez primary against the people BooMan mentioned, he really would have to pander to the Dem base somewhat. Just as Romney is pandering to the GOP base. Otherwise Bayh would literally lose to someone like Maxine Waters, just as Romney would lose to Gingrich or Santorum.
Bayh would have to wait until he got the nom to tell the base to go Cheney themselves.
If that is the case, why didn’t the Democratic base ever rally around Dennis K.?
Because he’s a buffoon. For a lot of people, DK is right message, wrong messenger.
DK meaning Dennis Kucinich. Not, well, you know.
OT:
I haven’t seen this asked yet, but W-T-F did Romney think he was gonna do in 2008, if he had won the GOP Nomination? did his arrogant ass really think he wasn’t gonna have to release his tax returns?
and, he’s been running since 2007…this mofo is actually arrogant enough not to have been planning for this situation with his tax returns.
Well, we don’t know that. Could be he has been planning accordingly, knowing that he could refuse to release them, then when he inevitably did, use his squeaky cleanness as a “see, I play by the rules. The rich are moral, too. And overtaxed!” moment.
Nah. You’re right. He’s too arrogant to think like that.
I’m sure I can hear teeth being shattered from clenched jaws amongst the forgiveness crowd these days. There comes a time when the question they must ask is if forgiveness is perhaps empowerment to one who knows how to work the system.
And hey, isn’t it a bit ironic to watch the Iowa Rep caucus powers fail to follow the rules and hold a well counted vote? And then there’s the murmurs of the Santorum vote fixing at the great evangelical meetup.
All this and evil Obama is hosting a tourism promo at Disney World to enhance America’s goodwill through tourism. Oh and look at the jobs tourism brings!
HE’S INDOCTRINATING OUR KIDS WITH SOCIALISM. AT DISNEY WORLD. IS NOTHINGSACRED???!!!!!!11!!
I Just don’t think that Newts ex-wife’s interview will hurt newt much in the primary. It’s too convient that she interviews now. Plus how much moral high ground does this woman really have when she the woman he was working on when his first wife was dying.
Also, I can so see the scenario where this just really pisses newt off even more and cause newt to jus blow the whole process up.
The Guardian has a couple of relevant laughable quotes:
On Perry
Missing Iowa votes – “Hey Ma, didja check under the dirty socks?”
Will Romney still be inevitable when Newt wins South Carolina?
Yes, but weaker because the primary will drag on longer.
I wouldn’t bet on it. It all depends on how much more money creeps like Adelson will spend to support The Newtster.
The more I think about it, the more I think Newt can actually win this thing, meaning the GOP nomination. He really is the perfect, post-Nixon GOP candidate.
I absolutely think he can win it. It’s more likely Romney will, but the constant talk about how it’s all over and Romney has it locked up is annoying.
Now, Fox can’t even present a genuine “fair and balanced” report on Romney without the Wingnuts accusing them of “being in the tank” for Romney. Their audience wants lies.
“May the Democratic Party never become this dysfunctional. “
It already is here in Pennsylvania: see, “Specter v Toomey, 2010”.
Romney has reputedly given many millions to the Mormon church.
That will undermine his support from the Christian right and no GOP nominee can possibly win the general without the enthusiastic support of the Christian right.
For Democrats thinking of Obama vs Romney, that’s a cheerful note.