And it Starts ...
Some very interesting observations in the DC Examiner today from FOR (that's Friend of Ricochet, for the uninitiated) Byron York:
For days, there's been talk of a Newt Gingrich boomlet in the Republican presidential race here in Iowa. After Friday night's Reagan Dinner at Hy-Vee Hall in downtown Des Moines, that Gingrich boomlet talk might turn into talk of a Gingrich boom.
Five candidates -- Gingrich, Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, and Ron Paul -- addressed a crowd of about 1,000 GOP faithful at the state Republican party's biggest fundraiser of the year. In brief interviews after the dinner -- the only question was which speaker did the best job -- audience members were unanimous: Gingrich, Gingrich, Gingrich.
... In a dozen interviews, the score was Gingrich 12, the rest of the field 0.
... [Newt] appears to be on the move; in other Iowa surveys, Gingrich has broken into double digits after being in the low- to mid-single digits as late as August. And in conversations with a lot of Iowa voters in Des Moines and around the state in the last several days, it's remarkable how many voters named Gingrich as their first or second choice. If any frontrunners fade -- and given recent experience, that seems likely to happen -- Gingrich seems poised to make real progress toward a place in the top tier.
I suspect this is our trajectory for the remainder of the race. With Bachmann and Perry marginalized, and Herman Cain regularly demonstrating that he has a hard time bearing the scrutiny that accompanies being a front-runner, Newt slowly but steadily becomes the conservative alternative.
Don't get too comfortable if you're in the fervently anti-Romney camp, however. The reality is that Newt has never had to endure the spotlight that comes with being at the front of the pack either. And the second that he does, the allegations about his personal life --- ignored when he was seen as little more than an eccentricity on the trail -- will come back with a vengeance. This is still Mitt Romney's race to lose -- and given that caution seems to be the cardinal value of his campaign, knocking him off his pedestal is going to be a very difficult proposition.
- Comment (101)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
Comments:
Dec '10
Re: And it Starts ...
Publius
Freeven
But I don't see how it follows that, because he cheated on his wife, we can't trust him to pursue the public policies he advocates. Apples and oranges, to my mind.
Not to mine. If he took an oath before God to be faithful to his wife and broke it, how can we trust him when he swears on a Bible to protect and defend the Constitution so help him God?
Because there is a strong innate drive that causes humans to lust. There is no corresponding innate drive that compels humans to perform unconstitutional acts. I believe Gingrich was weak, unable to resist temptation despite a desire to keep his marital vows. When it comes to public policy, he believes his ideas to be superior, and since there is little temptation to "cheat on them," his weakness of will won't be put to the test in either the same way or to the same degree.
Dec '10
Re: And it Starts ...
Leigh
Freeven
What has Gingrich done to cause you to doubt his policy proposals? · Nov 5 at 3:32pm
Well, there was the global warming ad, he's been at best iffy on the individual mandate in the past, and the way he dealt with the Ryan budget in May was... not reassuring.
My question was worded poorly. I understand your concerns over the policies you mention above. I share them. But the concern, as I see it, is whether Gingrich is sufficiently conservative, rather than whether he can be trusted. I'm not sure Gingrich is the conservative candidate I'm looking for, but I generally trust that he will try to do what he says he will.
May '10
Re: And it Starts ...
Romney has a clear and committed base from business, particularly big business,Republicans and Mormons. These voters were on his bandwagon early on and don't seem inclined to budge, which accounts for his pretty consistent 20-25%. No other candidate has such a fixed support base, except Ron Paul. Whether Romney can make any significant number of Republicans of other stripes trust him will ultimately determine his fate. Unless, that is, the 'not Romney' vote remains divided long enough to allow him to sneak in anyway. If the 'not Romney' vote can decide on a candidate to consolidate around--which doesn't yet appear certain--Romney is done.
Edited on November 6, 2011 at 1:04amDec '10
Re: And it Starts ...
Leigh
But I'm asking why [Gingrich] should d be considered reliable more than arguing otherwise. I'm open to being convinced, I simply haven't found anything convincing so far.
A fair question, although I tend to ask it in the other direction: Why shouldn't he be considered reliable? I count his infidelity against him. And your charge of hypocrisy has substance as well. But neither of these things causes me to conclude that he wouldn't pursue vigorously the policies he has outlined. I too am open to being convinced that he is unreliable in this respect. In the meantime, I am trying to decide whether he is sufficiently conservative and whether the flaws you noted are more substantial than those of other candidates. It seems a close call to me at this point.
May '10
Re: And it Starts ...
I haven't ruled out Gingrich, but he feels like a huge gamble to me. He has more upside than Romney, but also a much deeper downside.
I also don't really trust him. What about his past can I look to in order to alleviate my concern that he'd immediately fall into the trappings of DC? He's a quintessential Washington insider. He certainly knows how to 'get things done' in DC, but will I actually like whatever those things are? Maybe.
Edited on November 6, 2011 at 1:16amDec '10
Re: And it Starts ...
Scott Reusser: How does a President Gingrich escape the box he created for himself (and for us)with his description of the Ryan Plan as "right-wing social engineering"? Seems to me the Republican House would now have an easier time pushing its agenda with a President Romney -- who's essentially endorsed the Ryan reforms -- than with Newt.
And if this is so, the "conservative alternative" isn't really an accurate label for him.
Gingrich's remarks about the Ryan Plan are indeed troubling. He did say, however, both before and after those remarks, that he would have voted for the plan. I don't see President Gingrich putting the Ryan Plan in jeopardy any more than I see President Romney, with his continued defense of Romneycare, putting the repeal of Obamacare in jeopardy. These things will work themselves out.
Gingrich isn't as conservative as I would like, but he's more conservative, and reliably conservative than Romney. Between the two, I'd pull the lever for Gingrich in a heartbeat.
Dec '10
Re: And it Starts ...
I'd say Romney comes in second on both those counts.
Nov '11
Re: And it Starts ...
Freeven
In the meantime, I am trying to decide whether he is sufficiently conservative and whether the flaws you noted are more substantial than those of other candidates. It seems a close call to me at this point. · Nov 5 at 5:06pm
I agree that a person can be a strong defender of good policies and deeply flawed morally, humans being what they are. Gingrich went beyond a failure of private morality, I think -- it was a betrayal of principle which could have done far more damage than it did. (Has anyone who was in Congress at the time endorsed him?) Do we want to make President a man who has conducted himself poorly in office in the past?
I think we're on the same page as to what the real question is: Are President Gingrich's likely policies so much better than President Romney's likely policies that we should overlook Gingrich's past conduct, which is much more problematic than Romney's?
May '10
Re: And it Starts ...
It bugs me that Newt has not held elective office since 1999. Because of that, I have a hard time taking him seriously. If he wanted to be a serious presidential candidate in 2012, why did he not run for governor (or for the Senate at the very least) at any point during the last 12 years?
It's great that he's been a force for conservatism as a TV pundit and policy wonk, but in my opinion that is not the kind of leadership that prepares one for the presidency.
Oct '10
Re: And it Starts ...
Freeven
When it comes to public policy, he believes his ideas to be superior, and since there is little temptation to "cheat on them," his weakness of will won't be put to the test in either the same way or to the same degree.
I'm unwilling to bet the future of the nation or Western Civilization on the trustworthiness of Newt Gingrich.
May '10
Re: And it Starts ...
Freeven
Because there is a strong innate drive that causes humans to lust. There is no corresponding innate drive that compels humans to perform unconstitutional acts.
"Lust for power," anyone?
Dec '10
Re: And it Starts ...
When listening to Newt speak last week he sounded great, as usual, until ....... he eagerly expressed his unqualified support for federal subsidies for ethanol fuels, wind, and solar energy. Like a bucket of cold water. Blam. One more sudden reminder that the greater the brilliance, the greater the vulnerability to even GREATER error. Remember Socozafava in NY 23, global warming, and all the rest.
They grow lots of corn in Iowa for ethanol. Pandering opportunism? Never mind the personal baggage. WRONG, WRONG, and WRONG time and again. He has scads of great sounding ideas and a fine grasp of history but how in the world can you trust his judgement? Can you imagine him in charge? A disaster in waiting. Pundit or professor, yes, President, NO.
Jun '11
Re: And it Starts ...
His tenure as Speaker provides plenty of evidence that he's no executive. Smart guy, but he's been profoundly undisciplined in both his public and private life.
Freeven
Leigh
But I'm asking why [Gingrich] should d be considered reliable more than arguing otherwise. I'm open to being convinced, I simply haven't found anything convincing so far.
A fair question, although I tend to ask it in the other direction: Why shouldn't he be considered reliable? I count his infidelity against him. And your charge of hypocrisy has substance as well.
Dec '10
Re: And it Starts ...
katievs
Freeven
Because there is a strong innate drive that causes humans to lust. There is no corresponding innate drive that compels humans to perform unconstitutional acts.
"Lust for power," anyone?
That's a blurry comparison. Giving in to lust of the flesh is, by definition, a betrayal of marital vows. Giving in to lust for power is not, by definition, unconstitutional. Let's face it, all these folks lust for power to some degree. This is usually expressed by pandering and making promises one doesn't intend to keep. I find Gingrich more reliable than most in this regard, if only because he believes he's so brilliant. He believes his ideas are superior and that his communication skills are superior enough to sell them. His lust for power would incline him toward presenting and selling them honestly and, once elected, he'd have every reason to pursue them.
I have concerns about Gingrich, but I don't doubt that he is advocating policies he believes in and that he would try to enact those policies if elected.
Dec '10
Re: And it Starts ...
Publius
Freeven
When it comes to public policy, he believes his ideas to be superior, and since there is little temptation to "cheat on them," his weakness of will won't be put to the test in either the same way or to the same degree.
I'm unwilling to bet the future of the nation or Western Civilization on the trustworthiness of Newt Gingrich.
I make a distinction between trusting Gingrich's judgment, that is whether his ideas and proposals are sound and conservative, and trusting whether he is sincere in advocating them as a candidate and pursuing them if elected. On the first point, I have concerns, which I am balancing against my concerns about Cain and Perry. On the second point, I find him more trustworthy than most, certainly more so than Romney, and likely more so than Perry.
Dec '10
Re: And it Starts ...
Gingrich makes a reasonable argument for supporting alternative energy sources, coming at it from an energy independence/national security basis rather than the typical green nonsense. I disagree with him for a variety of reasons, but I think the argument is well intentioned and has merit. This is an example of the distinction I made in an earlier post about having concerns about his judgment while still finding him trustworthy. I don't like the policy, but I believe he is sincere in advocating it and that he would reliably try to enact it if elected.
Apr '11
Re: And it Starts ...
Freeven
katievs
Freeven
Because there is a strong innate drive that causes humans to lust. There is no corresponding innate drive that compels humans to perform unconstitutional acts.
"Lust for power," anyone?
That's a blurry comparison. Giving in to lust of the flesh is, by definition, a betrayal of marital vows. Giving in to lust for power is not, by definition, unconstitutional...... His lust for power would incline him toward presenting and selling them honestly and, once elected, he'd have every reason to pursue them.
I have concerns about Gingrich, but I don't doubt that he is advocating policies he believes in and that he would try to enact those policies if elected. ·
FDR, Wilson, and Jackson advocated policies they believed in. There is a strong innate drive to overcome limits on our power.
Lust for flesh is not always a breach of one's marital vows; it can help in fulfilling them. A lust for flesh that contravenes one's oath, rather than supporting it, is the problem. They're not that different.
Apr '11
Re: And it Starts ...
In case it sounds like my concern there is stronger than it is, I think that Gingrich is way better than Perry, while being less good than Cain or Romney. My point about the drive to break down constraints is a philosophical one rather than my view of Gingrich's chief ideological problem.
May '10
Re: And it Starts ...
Freeven
Giving in to lust for power is not, by definition, unconstitutional. Let's face it, all these folks lust for power to some degree.
I don't agree with that. Desire, however intense, is not the same as lust. Lust breaks rules and disregards limits.
And (I'm sorry to bring it up, but I think it matters a lot in the context) Gingrich didn't "just" cheat on his wife, he was carrying on an affair with an intern, and doing it at a moment and in a way that drastically undermined the Republican effort to impeach Clinton.
How can we now make him President and his new wife (his third wife) First Lady?
His lust for power means that he uses his ideas and communication skills to promote himself. And that leads to bad ideas and dishonesty.
I notice when he doesn't want to take a stand that might damage him, like on Yucca Mountain or the Ryan budge plan, he calls for a "national conversation."
May '10
Re: And it Starts ...
For me that Yucca Mountain moment at the debate was huge. I hadn't ever given the issue much thought, but Ron Paul's answer totally convinced me that there is a very serious state's rights issue at hand.
Gingrich called for a "national conversation" based on the science, and only under pressing by the moderator acknowledged that he'd favored it as speaker.
My beef with him wasn't so much that I didn't like his position, it's that he pretended not to have a position and implied that we should be guided by the science.
Up went a red flag emblazoned with the word "UNPRINCIPLED".