As I’m in New Orleans now for meetings, I won’t have as much time to blog as I would like. I would very much like to write a more thoughtful piece on my former boss, but did hit the big points in my prior post.
Look, given questions about Mitt Romney’s commitment to conservatism, I totally get Newt’s appeal, but am concerned about his baggage. Newt is, in many ways, a true visionary, but he’s also an undisciplined candidate with a self-image similar to that of the man he seeks (and we need) to replace.
As the POH diaries put it,
. . . now, for all intents and purposes, we’re left with the establishment candidate Romney vs. the guy who isn’t the establishment candidate Gingrich. And let’s face it fellow grassroots, common sense conservative, that’s the only reason that Gingrich is garnering so much support. Because he’s not Romney. That’s the best I can figure.
The line in the sand has clearly been drawn. You’re either supporting the establishment’s moderate choice or you’re hell bent against him and supporting whomever pisses them off the most. That happens to be Gingrich, otherwise you’d support Rick Santorum. Ron Paul supporters, you’re an entity unto yourself.
Read like whole thing. Like that diarist, I have my issues with Mitt Romney and have yet to commit co his campaign — even as I am impressed with his executive ability. Said blogged spot on in the first sentence below:
Certainly it would have been nice to have a strong, conservative candidate with populist appeal to take the fight to Obama. But who the challenger in this race ends up being may mean less than perhaps it ever has in history for the simple reason that the incumbent will be Barack Obama.
Conservatives are all debating the truth of the second sentence now. Read the whole thing. (H/t Instapundit.)
Should Romney secure the Republican nomination, he’ll have a lot of coalition maintenance to do (read that term or something similar in the Wall Street Journal’s Political Diary). And to allow Romney to do that, Newt should reconsider his recent statement about staying in the race until the convention.
That is, should Romney win big in Florida. Should the former Bay State governor falter in the Sunshine State, perhaps the GOP would do well to look outside the current field for a candidate.
UPDATE: Just caught this:
These sturdy people, these conservative yeomen, are now voting for Newt Gingrich. Well, to be more precise, they are voting for the idea of Newt Gingrich: They are voting not for a specific candidate, as such, but for the process that produced him. They want to see that process attenuated. They want to hear the arguments refined and developed. They want to match up their man with this historical moment.
Read the whole thing.
It is way, way too late to be drafting another candidate at this late stage in the game, and if the GOP actually ends up that desperate, I think we should all congratulate Barack Obama on winning a second term in office.
The Mayo Clinic says this:
What the world does not need is another amateur psychiatrist.
That said, Newt has a propensity for making clear, bold statements that have to be reworked because people didn’t (….fill in the blank…). The point is that Newt too often gets out ahead of himself and then compounds the problem by attempting to logically explain how he miscalculated the ability of others to get his point.
Of course, Obama has the characteristics of Narcissism writ large. But, luckily, we do not often see politicians on the national stage with such tell tale signs.
And in a Narcissism count-down Obama takes first place well ahead of Newt. But Newt is unquestionably the center of his own universe.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AygItmUTGFo&feature=related
Exactly. Count me out.
I think the rule should be to support 1. the most conservative candidate 2. who can beat Obama. #1 without #2 is useless.
But as my Mom said, “I’d vote for Howdy Doody to get that man out of the White House.”
OK, this is bugging me so I’ll get it out here. I’ve heard this rule stated many times in many forms before, but here’s my question:
How do you know who can beat Obama?
Just about every political pundit I’ve heard from has given chances of an Obama victory in 2012 at 40-60% at the moment, indicating very large uncertainties. The main driving factor in this really seems to be the economy. A tanking economy in November means Obama is toast, so you can nominate whoever the hell you want. But a recovering economy in November means Obama has a strong hand, so caution is warranted in choosing a strongly electable candidate.
But therein lies the problem. We don’t know how strong the economy will be in November, but the Republican primaries are happening right now, so the choice needs to be made without knowing.
In the end, the only conclusion that I can draw is that “The most conservative candidate that can win” is a pretty meaningless statement. Some will think Obama is bound to drive the economy south before November comes, so a highly conservative candidate should be nominated to take advantage of this. Others think that the current tentative recovery is likely to continue though, and a more nationally popular candidate should be chosen. Still more (as I’ve seen here) seem to think that a ‘compromise candidate’ as the second camp would choose only weaken their election prospects anyway, so a highly conservative candidate should be chosen regardless of the economy.
I don’t know who’s right and who’s wrong, but this is continuing to prove entertaining anyway. Either way, Daniel may be able to breathe a little easier with news that Romney now looks very strong in Florida, though the rest of the primaries and caucuses in February look to be more of a mixed bag and Gingrich (who has now been endorsed by Herman Cain, for whatever that’s worth now) has proven to be the type to not go down without putting up a serious fight.
O/T – Dan, make sure you go by Bourbon Street Parade & Oz and say hi to the boyz there! 😉
Regards,
Peter H.
I either like a candidate or I don’t. In Newt’s case, both are true.
There are times when he states the conservative case more clearly than anyone else in the field and I admire his willingness to mix it up.
And there are other times, as when he’s pandering to the “space coast” or the open-borders bunch when I just want to yell. And then there was the Michael Moore-like series of ads against Mitt.
Yes, Newt engineered the ’94 takeover of the House but lost it within a few years.
I admire Tom Coburn (R-OK) a lot and he’s written enough on Newt, long before now, to make me worry.
It’s a scary thing that, as awful as Obama is, that we can’t come up with a slam-dunk candidate. I don’t if that speaks badly on conservatives or the public at-large.
The problem is believing the establishment’s claim that Romney is the electable one. I don’t believe that for a second. I think the whole Occupy Wall Street movement was astroturfed for the purpose of taking Romney down, to make him a heartless Wall Street rich guy in the general. There is also the big problem of taking Obamacare off the table by nominating Romney. He refuses to repudiate Romneycare and that takes a very big issue away in the general. Romney’s whole past is moderate and squishy and very similar to Obama.
I really don’t believe he is electable or could beat Obama. Newt definitely isn’t perfect, but he has a much clearer plan for getting the country back on track and he can articulate it in a way that is inspiring to audiences. Five years ago I was a Democrat and I wouldn’t have any problem pulling the lever for Newt.
I think any Republican would have a huge problem defeating Obama. He is still the MFM”s boyfriend (look how they went apesh-t when Gov. Brewer had the audacity to stand up to him on that airport tarmac in Arizona) and they will support the scorched Earth strategy he is preparing to run in the fall campaign. Between that and the flaws of both Newt and the Mittbot, I think the electability question is pretty much a wash.
But who the challenger in this race ends up being may mean less than perhaps it ever has in history for the simple reason that the incumbent will be Barack Obama.
John Howard, the second longest serving Prime Minister in Australian history, was a three-time winner once in office because his opponents thought he was a sure loser and took their eye off the ball. So while I’d like to think that Obama is so hopeless that he is doomed to fail, I have to bear Howard’s example in mind.
I am also thinking of the current Australian Prime Minister, who showed a talent for saying one thing merely days before an election and doing another not that long after it, thus getting her across a finish line she should in any reasonable circumstances not have been able to cross, given the complete disaster she and the immediate predecessor she deposed had been.
Sad to say, a record of incompetence does not absolutely guarantee your defeat.
Can someone please explain to me how Newt Gingrich isn’t an establishment candidate and a RINO? He might sound conservative, but his actions demonstrate otherwise.
Mitt Romney is Gerald Ford or Richard Nixon; we cannot have Romney at this point. Otherwise, ObamaCare is here to stay. It’s that simple. He’s a Big Government liberal Republican. I will not vote for Mitt Romney under any circumstances while in the Republican primary for these reasons.
Isn’t that because he stood up to the establishment and fought against spending and earmarks? Isn’t that what we want or a little bitch (Mittsy?) who’ll do as they’re told?
Newsmax reports that GEORGE SOROS has informed euopean leaders not to worry about Mitt Romney. He assured them that there is VERY LITTLE DIFFERENCE! That said I could vote for him only by default.
As for Newt, he was pushed out as punishment for having lost five seats in the 1998 election. I thought John Boehner should have taken down from his leadership position in 2006, 30 some seats lost to the Dems.
On second thought; as long as George Soros is telling european leaders that there is very little difference between Mitt Romney and Barak Obama, maybe Newt should stop calling Mitt a Massachusetts moderate and start calling him Obama Light!
Rattlesnake, have you read Newt´s book To Renew America? Pure conservative principles. Even the so called best conservatives have had their deviations. Look at Santorum, earmarks up the ying yang and voted to keep Pennsylvania a union shop state.
A pox on all their houses, I’m going to cast my vote for Dr. Paul…despite my misgivings about his past…and let the chips hit the fan at the GOP Convention.
#17 So what would be the point in going to the polling place?
As a citizen, I have the Right and the responsibility to vote. That Right and that responsibility are separate from the viability of my choice of candidate.
And it angers me that in the last NJ primary this last June 2011, which selected candidates for many state and local-level offices such as State Assembly and Senate, County Sheriff, county-freeholders and municipal commissioners, only 18 out of over-800 registered voters in my voting-district bothered to vote last year. And half of that 18 were the various poll-watchers, election officials and registrars supervising the election. Eighteen voters for polls open for 14-hours in an Accessible, centrally-located public-building with plenty of parking. And only a handful-more voted by absentee-ballot out of a voting-eligible population of nearly 950.